You are on page 1of 6


0 Introduction

Now, more than 50% of the population in the world are live in cities. Maybe Europe is
the most urbanized continent with an average figure around 75% and Romania is far behind
with a stagnating 55% for the last 20 years whose causes were insufficiently explored. Urban
underdevelopment and its connected to economic and specifically industrial development and
growth are an interesting domain of exploration, especially since prior to the Fall of the Iron
Curtain industrialization used to be one of the key strengths of the local development

At the time things used to be much simpler as under at state controlled economy,
geographical planning was substitute to economic localization, it is undoubtedly true that
socialist urbanization and industrialization. Therefore, it was much easier to apply,
territorially speaking, an evenly distributed policy of industrialization and have a tight
connection between policies of industrialization and urban development.

The change of current local economy is not only from the perspective of globalization
or Europeanization but it is from the result of the development of the service sector and the
growing importance of certain sectors previously considered as non-economic like
education and culture (tertiarization) and the decrease in industrial production and associated
industrial decay (de-industrialization). Besides that, from a territorial point of view it is
accepted that cities have acquired a new significance that transcends their territorial limits
and an intelligent management approach can transform them into local, regional or trans-
regional players.

This article have three main contents in the state of planning an urban policies in
Romania, are the socialist model, the post-socialist or transition model and the integrated
model and specific issues. So, in this article I will analyse the overall of the article.

2.0 Research problem review

Based on the article, the state of planning and urban policies in Romania by the
Socialist model, the Eastern European socialist urbanism has been based in two principles,
egalitarianism and planned urbanization. Egalitarianism referring to the equalization of living
conditions in different cities, including the housing supply. Meanwhile, planning urbanization
implied the centralization. In fact, the expression planned urbanization should include the
term centrally and become centrally planned urbanization as urban planning was
happening at the time in the Western states only based on different principles including
planning decentralization.

In the article also mention that the economic development model is encouraged by the
socialist state is called by Posea and Velcea, the industrial-agrarian economy. The
industrial-agrarian economy is a model which heavily relied on the development of industrial
capacity by channeling the greater part of public investment funds to this sector. They also
argue that the building of new industrial units in a number of towns and rural areas also
resulted in the increase of urbanization, estimated that by 1990, another 300-400 new urban
centres will appear at that time.

In addition, as a result the growth of urbanization of policies of industrialization and

emphasize a certain preoccupation regarding the balanced territorial distribution of industry
as a modality to cope with regional disparities. Still, as the result of a more dynamic
development in the seventies, according to Ronnas in the article, the industrial map of
Romania became much more homogenous. While some reservation as to the objectivity of
the Romanian scientific literature available at the time, it is clear that industrialization was
indeed a pillar of socialist development policy and was in fact addressing a (historical)
weakness related to late industrialization and urbanization.

Therefore, this entitles of the article said that to assert that we are dealing with a
forced policy of industrialization benefiting from the services of well-developed planning
apparatus, centralized and largely under political control. Beyond the questions regarding the
quality of the proposed plans and policies, the centralized decisions and political support
facilitated the policy implementation by consistent allocation of resources that sometimes
will require sacrifices in other areas of economy or life, and political endorsement at the
highest level or as called at the time orders from the centre. Industrialization policies

were firmly connected with urbanization so many heavy industries were located in urban
centres including manual case-studies of mono-industrial town built around a large
industrial platform hiring tens of thousands.

3.0 Critical findings and the result of the study review

Based on the article that I have read, according to the report that M. Mihaila and C.
Banica (2014) looked, in terms of implementation, all these cities had successfully used
mixing funding sources including European Union finding and grants, and applied
management approaches which relied on improving attractiveness by promoting a better
image, infrastructure, quality of life thus providing incentives for economic and social

Apart from that, I found about transformation of industrial activities to the outskirts or
to rural areas. According to M. Mihaila and C. Banica (2014), to these transformations we
might add the political changes like the modification of the public governance system and the
initiation of a process of decentralization and transfer of autonomy to regional/local levels. In
the case of Romania, this has not been a continuous process and, if referring to urban
planning, it has led to some rather undesirable effects.

Impact of urban planning is separating of economic development policies (left in

charge of central government) from the ones of urban development (largely transferred to
regional and local governments). The second impact is a significant loss in the intensity and
strength of centralized development policies of the former period and the transition to a
more diffuse system under which the local, regional, central interests are often
uncoordinated and contradictory.

Apart from that, based on the article also, it state that urbanization and
industrialization is the myth only when the strategies have to provide solutions by taking into
account a complex set of factors and realities both from within and outside the city as well as
wider considerations regarding the effects of globalization and the increasing pressure on
development generated by the inter-city competition.


Firstly, it so interesting to know when urban has develop with generated a kind of
bipolar cities with expose an urban life dominated by the work-rest cycle and subsequent
extensive development of corresponding areas like dormitory and industrial districts. Also,
the socialist urbanism obsession of economic growth subordinates urban development policy
is oriented towards production of housing, industrial manufacturing facilities, infrastructure
and ignored the non-economic that related with cultural heritage, the quality of the built
environment, and architecture in general, environment and pollution, the quality of public and
recreational spaces and so on. Remember that, the population in the city will increasing but
the social life of people will decrease.

Based on the article also, about the principal of decentralization has been proved
somewhat less profitable in the area. It is because the full transfer of decision regarding the
GUP (General Urban Plan) to the local government has moved away urban planning from
complementary approaches like the one focused on economy. This is strongly linked with the
managerial culture of the local government mentioned previously. For example, like the city
halls are more used to act as administrators and less as development managers. Conversely,
with the decentralization, the city halls can make their own decision making without follow
government centre.

In addition, within the urban economy realm, the industry can be seen in quite board
sense, like creative industries, education and research. In this context, the writers suspect a
Romanian historical tendency to regard industrialization as a narrow process, mostly
restricted by reference to classical industries (mining, heavy industry, energy, machinery
and equipment, manufacture) and to ignore specific industrial sub-sectors such as those that
related to migrant like construction and de-localized like software or areas that related to
knowledge economy, creative industries, cultural sector. From this we can see, Romanian less
emphasized about to develop the knowledge in community. Urban can more develop with
education to become more urbanization.

5.0 Conclusion

Urbanization in Romania has ceased for almost twenty years not only in demographic
terms of but also in terms of serving the needs for development cities that are the activators of
the economy and social life. Industrialization, urbanization and related policies are naturally
interlinked but this needs to be studied and reconsidering in light of modern trends in urban

design and planning, while aiming for a better idea of the role of the city in a developing and
modernizing economy and society. This article concludes that even if today industrialization
is no longer equivalent with urbanization, the industrialization strategies must include the
delate regarding integrated urban development.

6.0 Suggestion

First of all, Romanian cities has to face in one hand legacy of socialist and the results
deriving from intense urban industrialization. And on the other hand, the relative lack of
action and intervention than twenty years ago, marked by economic decline, urban
environmental degradation and a generally non-friendly city environment. So, the
government should emphasized quality of life in daily life of the community. For example,
the government should promote about the benefit of cleanliness in the city. So that, people
know clean is better than dirty that can make the city become unhealthy.

And, with the integration process, new opportunities and practical ways emerge to
help reconsider urban planning and development from modern, integrated perspective,
including the restructuring of the governance and vertical integration of development policies
(national, regional, local) at the same time taking into the account the wider role of the city in
the territory.

Besides, the writer should write about how to improve the community knowledge and
innovation for growth. Therefore, they can help the city to become more modern and take
urbanization at the city with their own. The government should aims for make a job creation
that will require a structural shift in the economy towards knowledge-based activities. So,
they can think how to increase and make a new products with their knowledge (innovative).

Last but not least, cities and regions ought to be supported in their endeavours by
means of decentralisation measures enabling them to mobilise their own forces for the
tackling of structural problems. This require organisational support during the initiation of
necessary restructuring processes in such cities and regions that do not as yet have their own
regional agencies or other similar institution. It is vital above all that adequate powers and
tool be transferred from national level to the cities and regions. So that, the city can makes
their own rules without following the regulations of the central government.

7.0 References

Bernhard, M., Maros, F. (2000). The future of industrialized cities and regions in central and
eastern Europe. Retrived 5 April 2017, from
CE. (2005). Cohesion policy in support of growth and jobs: community strategic guideline,
2017-2013. Retrieved 5 April 2017, from
Mihaila, M., Banica, C. (2014).The myth of urbanization through industrialization. Journal of
urbanism, architecture, constructii, 5, 29-36.