In 1990, the spatial distribution of the newcomers was marked by a sig-
nificant increase of the population from Timis, Constanta, Dolj, Galati, Brasov, Cluj, Arad, Arges, Iasi, Sibiu, Mures, Braila, Prahova. It was the mother cities which took the waves of newcomers. Also, Bucharest, as a
demographic,
economic, socio-cultural and political and administrative centre had a great increase of over 20 % in the first part of 1990, but afterwards, the decrease was easily to be noticed from July to December ( ≈ 10.0 – 0.01% ). On the other hand, a much smaller number of newcomers settled in middle devel- oped districts in terms of
social, economic and urban perspectives. Further-
more, we can mention districts like Giurgiu, Covasna, Harghita, Tulcea, Salaj, Bistrita-Nasaud, Calarasi, Ialomita, Vrancea, Vaslui, Ilfov. In the same year, the residence movements from Dolj, Iasi, Galati, Constanra, Botosani, Vaslui were the most numerous in the whole country. It is about the attraction of the big cities from these districts which was reduced
by the small towns like
Filiasi, Bailesti, Segarcea, Darabani, Calafat, Targu Frumos, Harlau, Targu Bujor, Beresti, Cernavoda, Harsova, Ovidiu, Saveni, Negresti. At the same time, in Covasna and Harghita districts, there was the smallest number of movements in comparison to the other districts, taking into account that the almost 10 000 Romanians chose to return in their native regions. But, it was Bucharest where only 5000 people left and it was followed by Bistrita and Satu Mare where more than 7000 people left and Salaj with 8000 people. Ac- cording to the specific conditions of the year 1990, the index of the demo- graphic attractiveness was characterized positively in 10 districts including Bucharest, too.
It is to be noticed that the highest degrees of the attractiveness that Bu-
charest reached in 1990 had as a basis the great number of residence settle- ments – there were about 164 758 people. Other
36.93), Arad ( ld= 26.12) and Sibiu ( ld=16.17) had similar numbers thanks to the high level of economic and social attractiveness. Also, districts like Galati, Arges, Dolj, Braila, Cluj had positive index of demographic attractiveness. On the other hand, the districts that had a low level of economic and social attractiveness, there
was a slightly negative migratory total. It was
compared to the number of permanent residents and an index of negative demographic attractiveness. Thus, the values of the migratory total were negative in Vaslui( - 23963), Teleorman (-19953), Ilfov (- 20728), Botosani (- 20 705), Calarasi ( 16 242), Giurgiu (- 15 502), Bacau( - 15 092), Ialomita (-13 778), Iasi( - 13 621), Olt ( - 13 389), Neamt (-12 009). Certainly, the negative index of the demographic attractiveness is more obvious in Ilfov district where there was the lowest level of urbanization( 7% of the population was part of the urban area, more exactly Buftea). Given the circumstances, there were also districts that had lower indices of demographic attractiveness, like Vaslui ( - 51.68), Giurgiu( -49.22), Calarasi ( - 47,54), Ialomita ( -45.40), Botosani( - 44.54) and Teleorman ( - 40.38 ) followed by Tulcea ( -31.50), Vrancea( - 27.23), Olt( - 25.24), Buzau ( - 22.39 ), Neamt ( - 20.59), Bacau ( -20.52).
112
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161