nia, Timis County is by far the first, where Italian and German firms formed a business environment more open and flexible to the West. The comparative analysis of the map with the distribution of the firms’ number/1000 inhabitants shows a very weak connection to the ethnic ho- mogenous character. For the ethnic structure I chose the weight of the Roma- nian population from the total population, which shows directly the ethnic ho- mogeneity degree (see fig.2). Visually, it seems to be a strong connection, because of the generalizing effect of population groups. Actually, the correla- tion coefficient (r) between the weight of the Romanian population and the number of firms/1000 inhabitants is completely insignificant (under 0.1). Ex- cluding Bucharest and Ilfov county, this one increases, but it is still inconclu- sive from a statistic point of view (r = -0.36). The strongest correlation is be- tween the distribution of the firms number/1000 inhabitants and the distribu- tion of German ethnic group (see fig.3), but without great statistic relevance (r = 0.5 without Bucharest). On a national scale, there is a pretty strong correlation between the
firms number and the amount of foreign capital invested, the coefficient val- ues being close to the maximum (r=0.97). Excluding Bucharest, the correla- tion coefficient decreases dramatically (r = 0.46), meaning that there is no di- rect relation between the number of firms and the amount invested. The influ- ence of the capital city is clear as well for the correlation between the total population of counties and the number of firms with foreign contribution to the social fund. Here, excluding Bucharest, the correlation coefficient drops from 0.84 to 0.46, thus not the number of inhabitants being important in attracting foreign investment, but other factors, including the territorial image. The analysis of the average investment value contradicts the first con-
clusions, showing that this is more significant in Central Muntenia and South- ern Moldavia (see fig. 4). Here, some counties with low firms number have very high values. As an example, Vaslui and Teleorman counties, which have 0.2 % from the total number of firms with foreign funds, have an average value per firm of over 100,000 Euro. The highest values are in Arges county (over 850,000 Euro) and Galati (over 750,000 Euro), followed by Ilfov (around 400,000 Euro), Dimbovita (265,000 Euro) and Olt (205,000 Euro). In a Top 10 there is only one county from Transilvania and Banat, respectively Caras- Severin (the last place). Timis County, by far the first one for the number of firms with foreign funds, has just a medium value of just 58,000 Euro. Be- cause of the great number of firms, Timis county is placed at number 5 (except for Bucharest), having one third of the invested foreign amount in Ilfov and about half of that from Arges. The conclusion is that in Transilvania and Banat there are many small
size foreign investments in the area of small business. These are focused on capitalizing local resources, such as wood, some light industry infrastructures (shoe making and clothing) or alimentary industry. Great investors, at least up to now, are located in the extensively industrialized areas during the totalitar
50
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