Peasant Strategies and Rural Development in Romania. Coping with Local Diversity in Development Policy

The approach to transition policy taken in the last few years can generally be characterized as top-down. After a period of almost exclusive preoccupation with mapping problems on a national scale, scholars and policy-makers have become more interested in regional differences and local problems. With the support of international organizations, such as the World Bank and PHARE programs, etc., community development projects (especially those devoted to rural areas) have become more frequent. A broader institutional framework was developed through local networks and agencies, such as the Rural Development Agency, and this process has included the mapping of eight economic regions and several under-developed zones. The present project aims to evaluate the strategic basis of these kinds of project and to determine whether or not they satisfy community needs. In order to answer these questions, we focused our investigation on two areas of evaluation: • an evaluation of rural community life, based on: interviews with key actors in 8 counties representative of the 8 “agro-regions” designated by the European Commission & World Bank farm survey (1996); a survey (using questionnaires) in 4 villages (Viscri, Pucheni, Cuza Voda and Cincu), which were chosen according to factors of variability, such as whether they were situated on plains or in hilly regions, or whether they were near or far from towns; household interviews and participant observation of about 10 families from each village; • an evaluation of past and on-going development projects, based on: institutional evaluation at national and county level with the aim of identifying the causes of success and failure in the field of community development. We interviewed 25 organizations (state agencies and NGOs), 4 in Bucharest and 21 in the 8 counties included in this research; a quantitative and qualitative analysis at the level of local communities, made in 16 communities from 8 different counties. We interviewed the local elite and community members, and gathered significant administrative data concerning the aforementioned programs and areas. All information was included and co-ordinated in an evaluation file. The ultimate aim of the project was to produce a set of strategy principles and recommendations to be used in the development of projects for rural areas, and of related policy. Research for this paper was made possible by the “Social Consequences of Economic Transformation in East-Central Europe” (SOCO) program (Institute for Human Sciences, Vienna), which is financed by the Austrian Federal Chancellery’s “Fund for Co-operation with Central and Eastern Europe,” and by the Ford Foundation, New York. Edited and revised by Mr. Nick Parsons. Managing Editor: Dr. Marianne Obi (SOCO). The views expressed in this paper are entirely the authors’ own, and do not necessarily represent those of SOCO/IWM. 3 Peasant Strategies and Rural Development in Romania 1. Community Life in Rural Settings 1.1 National Background The issue of rural development has to be approached in the context of broader trends affecting rural life. No discussion of this topic is complete without reference to the following issues: • The lack of a functioning agrarian model and the consequences of transferring initiative to the local level: “Thus, notwithstanding the declared political aim, the new legal structure fragments the agricultural means of production, without offering any orientation for its recomposition. It does not promote any model of exploitation, nor predicate any national productive system of agriculture. Such a legal structure confers on local farmers, who are suddenly plunged in at the deep end of this process, the responsibility for designing their own forms of agricultural organisation.” (von Hirschhausen 1997) Thus, rural development projects have to cope inter alia with a high degree of local diversity requiring considerable initiative, but must at the same time operate in the absence of a broader strategic frame of reference. • Formal poverty and the informal economy: According to the estimates reproduced in the general press coverage, based mainly on cash flows, Romania is one of the poorest countries in Europe, with 35-45% of the population living below the poverty level. On the other hand, politicians and economists are frequently evoking a very large informal, or black, economy in Romania. The 1998 PHARE project on rural development in Romania registered a total lack of correlation between stated income and household prosperity in the villages under review. According to the oft-repeated mantra of the peasants, “work costs nothing.” Work thus becomes a way of saving rather than producing money, an alternative currency that, at least partially, avoids monetary flow. In this respect, those involved in rural development projects have to be aware of the social networks and motivations linked to the informal economy, which exists in almost all Romanian villages, and indeed frequently constitutes a serious challenge to any development project. • Regional and local differences: On the basis of a cluster analysis of land use patterns of the 41 counties of the country, the European Commission & World Bank farm survey identified 8 different agro-regions in Romania. Significant differences can also be found at a more microcosmic level, sometimes even as between the different villages of a single administrative area. Preliminary assessment of these differences is thus a vital requirement for any development project. 1.2 Methodological Issues There are also some general methodological problems concerning the approach to rural development issues that have to be addressed before any further investigation is possible. The most puzzling one seems to be that of: • The normative approach: Lacking any substantive national agrarian policy, the general reference point for investigations into rural life is merely the general notion of transition, i.e. to a normal market economy. With this aim in view, most investigations demonstrate what people should do, but are not doing, according to market criteria. An important factor, therefore, in this kind of approach is that of the rural entrepreneur. According to Sandu (1999:123-142), their number is about 4% of the active rural population. Who they are and how they have managed to succeed are certainly relevant issues, but the crucial questions concern the other 96%. Simply to disregard or marginalize them as failures hardly seems to be an adequate approach. Neither is a satisfactory solution to the problem achieved by simply pinning on them the pejorative label of informal (or black) economy, at least while it remains a negative concept, implying something other than a “normal” market economy. This normative approach can be balanced by a comprehensive one that simply tries to understand what these people are actually doing, and not what they should do. Apart from this methodological question, the actual definition of the phrase “local development” must also be addressed: 4 Vintila Mihailescu • What is local? The administrative definition of local is sometimes of little help. Is it a commune or a village? Is it a single village or cluster of neighboring villages? Above all, is it constituted by the small-scale spatial boundary of a community or by the entire system of trans-local social networks of the local residents? In this respect, we think that it is essential for any local development project to start with an efficient definition of its terms of reference. • What is development? We will return to this issue when discussing on-going development projects, but it should be mentioned here that development should not be defined as any kind of assistance or relief given to a community, including that of social work, repairs to buildings, ecologically oriented improvements and interventions in the case of natural disasters. 1.3 General problems The survey of the problems raised by the eight counties under review suggested that some issues are shared by almost all the rural communities. Below we draw attention to some of the most important ones: • Lack of infrastructure and the need for assistance: The analysis of the data from the eight counties investigated shows that the majority of community development problems are problems of infrastructure. In most cases, what is missing is not machinery or catalysts for community development, but the basic condition or framework for development in general. In this sense, one can distinguish the following principal categories of inadequate infrastructure: • Problems of economic infrastructure that tend to isolate communities, such as lack of roads, poor or non-existent communications, and a lack of systems for distribution and exchange. To these may be added the major dysfunction of existing systems resulting from the lack of endowments for local hospitals, schools, cultural centers, etc. • Problems of social infrastructure, understood as unreliable or even non-existent public services, especially those in the fields of health and education. The situation in the field is often much worse in these respects than is indicated by statistics published by the ministries in charge; many schools and/or local hospitals cannot, in fact, function properly due to a lack of the requisite qualified personnel. • Problems of communications infrastructure, that are manifested, on the one hand, by inadequate communications generally, together with a preponderance of traditional communication channels of a paternalistic type; and on the other hand, by the fact that communication is generally limited to nothing more than access to information. * "Those employed in agriculture are more concentrated in administrative areas accessible to cities" (European Commission & World Bank 1997:8); * In a village situated on the bank of the Ialomiţa river, following the dismantling of the co-operative system, the villagers received a large portion of land on the opposite bank. The lack of a road bridge forced them to make a detour of 16 km with their tractors in order to get to their fields, wasting not only time, but almost the entire amount of diesel subsidized by the state; * In the village of Viscri, the only access road is almost unusable during the winter and there is no transportation linking the village to the administrative area, which is 8 km away. As a result, children as well as the sick, are reliant for transport to the administrative area on the goodwill of villagers with cars. • Lack of means for distribution and sale of products As a result of the dismantling of kolkhozes (collective farms) and the massive reduction of committed purchasers, products of households can be sold only in small quantities, which causes, both a decrease of production for which there is no incentive, and a reduction in the potential incomes from individual farms. 5 Peasant Strategies and Rural Development in Romania This is especially true in the case of dairy and fruit farmers. In the hills and on the plain, such products have become greatly devalued, while elsewhere cereals also pose unique problems. This critical situation has already engendered a vicious circle of diminishing supply and demand: lack of demand decreases dramatically the range of products offered by peasants, while their interest in crop diversification is almost non-existent, and their faith in the success of future production initiatives is reduced accordingly. The locals’ negative experiences with private or state firms that offer them their services quite often, unfortunately, only serves to strengthen their isolation within the village economy. Wherever local initiatives are successful at the local level, this also seems to have a major impact on the entire community. • Households without land The process of regaining property has created conflict at the family and community level almost everywhere. In some cases, the implications of this process are of long duration, especially because a significant number of households have, for different reasons, been unable to benefit from the share out of land. Inevitably it is these farms that typically represent village poverty, and constitute a permanent problem for the community. Young families and recently married couples are in an especially difficult position because they generally have little or no land of their own. Both the agricultural reform and inheritance have placed a large number of young people from villages in the position of not owning enough land to be able to raise and support a family. At the same time, the risk of not finding employment outside the village (i.e. in the larger cities) has prevented many young families from leaving their village. In this sense, they have become a part of a potential work force that is chronically under-utilized, poor, and also a potential cause of conflicts within the community. A special case in this category is that of the Gypsies. Almost all of the Gypsies that were given land immediately re-sold it. • The conflict between the “center” and the “periphery” A phenomenon which is rather frequent and requires special consideration is that of the conflict between the administrative center covering a large number of villages and the villages within its administration. This is a microcosmic and sui generis re-enactment of the macrocosmic center-periphery relationship. The inequitable distribution of resources amongst villages has in many cases generated a chronic state of conflict between villages and the administrative seat for their area. There is general mistrust among village inhabitants of decisions and initiatives from the center. This state of affairs makes it difficult, as far as community development is concerned, both to define problems accurately and to put in place solutions for all the villages within a given area. 1.4 Community and Household Strategies Included in the Annex are short profiles of four villages. In the following text we will present both our findings for all of the four localities investigated and the principal characteristics that distinguish one village from another. 1.4.1 General Characteristics a) A strong tendency to work the land individually • At the national level, approximately two-thirds of property is worked individually, and threefourths of land tenure is that of individual farms. • In Viscri and Pucheni there are at present no functioning co-operative associations. On the contrary, in the two villages on the plain, Ceacu and Vilcelele, land is leased or “given to associations” to be worked. This form of association was originally conceived as a form of income for the villagers. As long as the villagers are paid by the associations for the land that they have been given or leased, they are not concerned with how the land is worked or which crops are grown. The only crop that interests the villagers is corn, which is used in households for feeding animals and is grown and harvested individually by households as “nature’s currency.” 6 Vintila Mihailescu • The option for working the land individually or “in association” is not dependent upon the area/amount of land that is individually owned. Leasing land is as yet a negligible factor in tenure in all the localities investigated. b) Existence of an important, conservative category of “middle-class farmers” • A conclusion, which in this context can be formulated only as hypothesis, is the massive presence of a rural population that we generically call middle-class farmers, possessing approximately 4 hectares of land. This category of farmers creates a state of balance, and since they are relatively pleased with the present situation so they do not concern themselves with investment and development. This seems to be an everlasting category of farmers that has re-emerged during all the agricultural reforms from Cuza until the present. As a result, middle-class farmers are rapidly becoming poorer as they look forward to the return of a state of balance through the implementation of their demands or through agricultural reforms. From the point of view of community development strategies, this category of farmers has to be considered a powerful conservative force that is mostly uninterested in the politics of development. c) The revival of the conflict between small and large land owners • For historical and geographical reasons, especially in areas that have been forced into the cooperative system, there is a growing differentiation between small properties owned by the majority of peasants and large properties of associations, which are usually operated by ex-leaders of the Communist kolkhozes (and/or the current mayors). Although they own the land, the peasants are forced to join the association because of the lack of affordable farm equipment necessary for harvesting and growing the agricultural products of the region. In essence, joining the association is their only choice, and they are inclined to put most of their land into the association, expecting in exchange, without any other investment, a minimum income paid in the form of produce and ultimately some cash payments. In general, farmers do not know how much is harvested from their land or even what crops are grown. The only criterion for deciding which association to join is, which one will offer more income. In such circumstances, the chairmen of the associations act like landlords of the market economy, maintaining a certain balance between supply and demand in order to keep their clientele, the farmers, in serfdom. At the same time, the farmers have a certain degree of freedom in their so-called serfdom when choosing which association will be the new landlord of their land. d) Reluctance to do business with the State • 64% of the population researched did not intend to sell their agricultural products to the state. • Between 25 and 50% of them do not accept the acquisition prices offered by the state. • Only between 1% and 8% of the population questioned declared that they are satisfied with the state’s acquisition prices. • A separate problem is that of the vouchers given by the government to agricultural producers in order to subsidize the cost of buying diesel, seeds, fertilizers, etc., and which are not considered by most peasants as real pay (“supplying vouchers is not the same as paying!” they say). In consequence, vouchers are most often traded amongst association chairmen or other middlemen. e) Bartering or the exchange of agricultural goods still appears to be widespread. • On average, 15% of the researched population still practiced bartering or the exchange of agricultural goods. • On average, 20% of the researched population still exchanges other products with each other. f) Household assets do not depend on the fixed income of families. • There is no statistical correlation between the fixed income of each household member and the total assets of that household. • The amount declared by each household as production costs represents an average of 50% of their declared fixed income. g) The existence of a general state of contentment and relative indifference to the actual situation of the individual’s village or locality. • Between 75% and 95% (85% average) of the researched population declared that they are “happy” or “very happy” with the locality in which they reside. 7 Peasant Strategies and Rural Development in Romania • This state of relative satisfaction does not reflect the objective situation of the locality, but rather, the relative lack of significance locals give to such issues. Thus, for example, the locals from Pucheni have a higher degree of satisfaction, not because their living conditions are notably better or because they have fewer aspirations, but because they do not value exactly the same elements used to measure happiness or satisfaction as others might do in other villages. They are content with their mayor, with the community’s assets, and the community’s infrastructure not because they are excellent, but because of the relatively little importance villagers give to such variables in their Weltanschauung. • Between a quarter and a half of the researched population did not know what they would do if they were mayor, or simply refused to respond to this question. 1.4.2 Distinctive Characteristics Despite the fact that each locality has some more or less similar characteristics, each one also has its own peculiarities. Thus, the two villages on the plain, Pucheni and Viscri, are characterized by their dependence on agricultural associations. In the case of the Ceacu village (the Cuza-Voda commune) there are 10 agricultural associations (two of which are significantly larger and more powerful than the others) in the entire administrative area. The majority of associations have their roots in the farms of the exkolkhoz and are more or less run by the same people from their headquarters in the same ex-kolkhozes buildings. The way the associations function is also similar to the Communist period: people put their land together in an association which, after allowing for costs and salaries, gives farmers 4-8 liters of oil per/hectare and 300-600 kg of wheat per/hectare. However the corn that is grown and harvested by each household is distributed within that household. Considering the fact that the majority of associations from Ceacu do not have all the necessary agricultural equipment (for example, only one association has a combine harvester), they are forced to collaborate with private entrepreneurs, or with companies, or with the two largest associations in Cuza-Voda. As a result, costs are higher and each household receives less. For this reason there has been widespread discontent among the smaller associations for several years, which is indicated by the number of requests for transfer to the two larger associations. Yet the situation has also been regarded by many as “positive.” It is considered that “it doesn’t cost you anything” if your land is in an association; all it will actually cost you are some vouchers. Furthermore the relationship between the association and the villagers is seen as providing a helping hand for the latter. For example, when someone cannot pay their ploughing dues on time, the association chairmen may well delay the dues because the offender has been known to him personally for many years. In the village of Vâlcelele, the situation is slightly different. There is only one large agricultural association run by the mayor that has a large pool of agricultural equipment. This is the reason almost everyone is satisfied with the mayor, the percentage of people that are unhappy with him being only 2.5%. Even if the benefits of being a part of this association are greater, many villagers prefer to work their land individually (40% of the village’s households no longer have land in an association). This is not necessarily because their individual profits may be greater, but because they are dissatisfied with the distribution of profits within the association and they want to try working for themselves, which is not possible or practical in Ceacu. In this respect it is notable that the people in Vâlcelele have comparatively the largest production costs (15% had invested more than 10 million lei, approximately about US $400) and sell proportionately more products to the state. Apart from these differences between the two localities on the plain, it was remarkable in both cases that people kept complaining that “there is nothing to do here in the countryside.” Also, even if the transfers between associations within each village are in certain ways different in each locality, the associations still have a central role in both cases. It seemed that the ideal for the majority of farmers was that of an association which “gives them enough to make a living.” This attitude is more often encountered in Ceacu, where they frequently mention the case of the neighboring commune of Independenţa, where the ex-kolkhoz has been transformed into a new association run by the same chairman. To quote one inhabitant: “Those people in Independenţa are different from us. They have a mayor who supports them and always delivers what he promises.” 8 Vintila Mihailescu Pucheni, a village in the hills, has a totally different profile. There was no kolkhoz there and now there is no association at all. The exchange of agricultural products has reached a frequency of 41%, the main items of exchange being fruits, fruit-based alcoholic products, and, to a lesser extent, hay. Declaring themselves satisfied with the administrative area they live in, the people from Pucheni managed mostly by exchanging products and services in trans-local social networks, by sharing resources and by exploiting their relationship with the two industrial centers in the area. Finally, Viscri, an ancient Saxon village, which has now been deserted, has a totally different ambience. Although it is the most isolated of all (the only dirt road that links the village to an asphalt road and to the center of the administrative area is often impassable and lacks any public transport), Viscri is, in a way, the most “open” of the villages. This is due in large part to an individual whose strong entrepreneurial skills marked him out as a leader and enabled him to use the symbolic capital of the Saxon patrimony, an ancient, fortified church. He has attracted to the village a lot of institutional finance and foreign investment, transforming this remote place into a locality with a high profile. A global indicator of development in this locality is the recent increase in real estate prices, mainly of houses which remained empty after the Saxons left the village. The social conflict within the community comes from the real or perceived mode of distribution of the new resources available. From these strictly descriptive differences, we can progress to designating some social types that were redistributed in the various social spaces which were researched and investigated. A fundamental typology, significant in the context of our discussion, is that defined by the degree of trust in the future, an optimistic attitude being an essential prerequisite for any successful social change. From this point of view we can differentiate between optimistic, pessimistic, and conservative typologies. These three typologies have been defined in the following manner: • Optimists considered that their lives were better this year than the year before and that next year will be better than this year. • Pessimists considered their lives to be worse this year than last year and expect the next year will be even worse. • Conservatives considered their lives have remained, and will remain, the same. The optimistic or pessimistic attitude of the subjects depends, first of all, on the level of training, salary, and amount of land they own, the level of optimism increasing in relation to the presence of these factors in their lives. From this point of view, age and sex are practically irrelevant. On the other hand, pessimists are less socially mobile, invest substantially less than the other two types and sell significantly less to the state than the optimists. Optimists were more frequently encountered in Pucheni (26%), and least frequently in Ceacu (6%). The case of the conservatives is less predictable, suggesting a distinct social choice that lies beyond the optimist-pessimist paradigm. Conservatives have approximately the same amount of land as the optimists and have the largest incomes comparatively to both optimists and pessimists. They are also the least mobile of all and they make the least amount of sales to the state. In representing approximately a third of the researched rural population, the conservatives constitute a social category with their own logic, which must be taken into account in planning any rural development project. Using the data from our questionnaire, we have also constructed two distinct and antagonistic typologies, that of the “survivors” and that of the “entrepreneurs.” The survivor was defined as the following: • A fixed income below the national average. • He may have minimal or no expenses for agricultural production. • He does not intend to sell to the state. • He has not invested at all since 1990. The percentage of survivors in the entire researched population is between 10% and 25% (10% in Vilcelele, 12.5% in Pucheni, 20% in Ceacu, and 24.4% in Viscri, because of the high percentage of Roma). As expected, these are individuals who in most cases have only finished elementary school and 9 Peasant Strategies and Rural Development in Romania have very little or no land. The fact that the average age of this category is lower than the average age of the sample population is somewhat surprising and suggests that survivors are not only to be found in the category of elderly individuals. From the point of view of the desire for social mobility, the behavior of the survivors oscillates between extremes. That is, between total immobility, a lack of any desire to change anything in their social position (people who have resigned themselves to their current social status), and above average social mobility. The entrepreneur was defined as someone who: • Has made at least one type of investment since 1990. • He has at least one type of production expense. • He sells agricultural products. The distribution of this type is the following: 22.5% in Vilcelele, 21.4% in Pucheni, 17% in Viscri, and only 10% in Ceacu. The most surprising observation concerning this social type is that, statistically, the aforementioned entrepreneurial behavior does not depend upon any of the principal resources we took into consideration. Therefore, being entrepreneurial does not mean being younger, better educated, owning more land, or even having a higher income. Also, there is no correlation between this type of economic behavior and social mobility. All these factors contradict the current definition of the entrepreneur, as someone who has his own business. The statistical profile of the entrepreneur is closer in this case to what one would expect: compared to a non-entrepreneur, he is younger, more likely to be male, better educated, possesses more durable goods, and owns somewhat more land and livestock (Sandu 1999:128). Applying this analysis at the level of the locality, we find that in some cases entrepreneurial behavior is dependent upon resources, as would seem logical, but this is only occasionally true. It seems that global statistical analysis masks the existence of at least two distinct economic strategies, one linked to resources and the other based apparently on symbolic capital and interpersonal skills, rather than on materialistic and educational capital, as clearly seems to be the case in Pucheni. Here, we were surprised by the correlation between entrepreneurial behavior, the exchange of agricultural goods and the number of rooms in a household. Following this line of thought, we tried to define this type of strategy, our conclusions being based on interviews and observation data. The following incident is an appropriate example of our findings: Several years ago, as part of the 1998 PHARE program on rural development in Romania, a project for local development was carried out in co-operation with several state representatives to set up a production line processing milk as raw material for a local speciality of cheese. The project was a failure because it proved impossible to organize an association to implement and run the production line, despite efforts to do so lasting a whole year. When the issue was discussed with a member of the Village Council, the reason for this failure was explained as follows: “even though we cheat each other, we’ll still pull it off.” This phrase perfectly captures a current strategy that raises the questions: Who are these “we” mentioned? How can the relationship function “even if we cheat each other?” And how do they end up “pulling it off?” The first question raises the issue of social networks, it being obvious that “we” refers neither to an institution, nor to the entire community seen as a social entity, nor to the relatives of a given family. The answer seems to lie in the notion of a diffuse household (Mihăilescu and Nicolau 1995:77-84). The paradigm of a diffuse household evolved from the traditional peasant household at the same time as modernization and industrialization, which was accompanied by massive migration of the younger generations of rural households to the urban-industrial zones of the country. Though spread out among smaller or larger areas, this type of household has continued to function, mainly as a distribution network of resources in conditions of general scarcity under Communism. In time, these networks have expanded to include close friends outside the sphere of family kinship. They constitute, even now, perhaps the most important type of trans-local relationships that can be found in all localities throughout the country. A second question raises the delicate issue of trust. The answer may be suggested, in part, by observing how the diffused household operates. It has been affirmed many times that relationships between various family members situated in different areas have strengthened the family and kinship 10 Vintila Mihailescu during the Communist period. As Kideckel (1993) showed, there was in equal measure an inverted process of family erosion and, especially, of trust between members. The diffuse household is a selective and elective unit of kinship (and sometimes non-kinship), in which only those members sharing the same interests and strategies are allowed to participate. In addition, such households are not exclusively based at the source of the community’s origin and do not maintain relationships of generalized reciprocity with that community. An appropriate example of this type of relationship is the wedding. In Pucheni, each family has a wedding record book in which they systematically note whose wedding they went to, how many children in the family are yet to be married, and the gifts they offered to the newlyweds (the gift being evaluated, most recently, in U.S. dollars). Based on this accounting, and also based on its perceived status and prestige, the family establishes a network with other families with whom it would be profitable to maintain a special relationship. Profitability, here, means a reciprocity that is profitable in the long-term, and may be likened to a kind of trust investment. Trust here becomes an essential type of interpersonal capital, selective and fluctuating, formalized only as reputation. Doubtlessly linked to this kind of interpersonal capital is the obsession with large houses having many rooms (most of which are seldom used). Such an obsession was evident in Pucheni and elsewhere. The large houses with well-kept rooms are perceived as proof of good housekeeping, which furthermore, represents the minimum, if still insufficient, proof of being considered a person of trust. The question of trust also concerns the matter of exchange, this being the main means whereby respective individuals “pull it off.” The previously quoted individual from Pucheni told us how he built a house in the city for his child, paying for it all in tzuica (Romania’s national liqueur). When he ran out of tzuica, he borrowed another barrel from his father-in-law, offering, by way of interest payments, to cut his father-in-law’s hay in the summer: “Work costs nothing,” as the peasants say. However it is important to distinguish between several different forms of barter or exchange. There exist redistributive exchanges of resources, ranging from exchange of agricultural goods to exchange of goods and services available to the diffuse household, as frequently encountered in the case of large, impoverished families. Another form is exchange based on profit, in which two or more individuals or households provide reciprocal services as long they calculate this exchange brings them a degree of profit (for example, one lends his car for transporting produce to market and the other arranges the sale of the produce). And finally, putting one’s land in an association is also considered a form of exchange, insofar as this transaction lacks precise terms and obligations, but provides reciprocal help, as may frequently be seen in the villages of the plains that we researched. All these forms of exchange have in common the fact that they are not based on any form of contract, and are not regulated institutionally in any way, being rather are an aspect of the so-called informal or black economy. 1.5 Conclusions Seen from the perspective of community development projects, these results (to which must be added the already existing information in this field) can be summarized in terms of two broad/issues: why are community development projects necessary, and how can they be accomplished? • Why offer development projects? The problem of the “work ethos.” With notable differences between the plains and the hilly areas, it seems that the socioeconomic strategies of the villagers are centered, usually, on households (diffuse or not) and focused on subsistence or supply for the household. This does not mean that individuals do not want more, but only that in terms of spontaneous calculations of costs and benefits, long-term development in general, and that of the community in particular, simply do not count, except in rare cases. “Why should I keep the calf if I already have a cow?” is the typical justification for the relative limitation of their efforts, which do not aspire to anything beyond achieving sufficiency (itself a measure that differs from case to case). To draw the conclusion from this that “Romanians are not made for capitalism,” as the saying goes, would be totally erroneous. Equally erroneous is the assumption of a normal motivation for embracing community development, which usually cannot be instigated except by means of local development projects. 11 Peasant Strategies and Rural Development in Romania • How can development projects be accomplished? The problem of trust. The relative lack of trust in institutions and, in this case, in forms of associative activity, does not imply a lack of trust in general, or a mistrustful society. All social life must depend on a degree of trust. Calculated interest and selective investment in the networks of diffuse households would seem, in this context, to be the dominant form of trust existing in the contemporary rural world. This should not be viewed as some kind of social malfunction, but rather as a strategy determined by the existing means available and operating in conditions of profoundly dysfunctional institutions. This phenomenon is likely to change to the extent that the macro-social context also changes. Meanwhile, this particular form of trust has to be taken into consideration by any kind of development project as a possible obstacle to its fulfillment. • The problem of diversity Notwithstanding their limited scope, the present results are sufficiently detailed to suggest the existence of considerable regional and local differences, but are totally insufficient for establishing a comprehensive typology of the issue. However, with the help of earlier data collected by our institute, it is possible to indicate a broad outline of differentiation. Thus, we may make a distinction between strategies of reproducing poverty, based on distribution and redistribution of resources in groups sharing the same property – more frequent in plain counties – and welfare strategies, practicing more profit-oriented changes between individuals and/or individual households – more frequent in hilly regions, where the kolkhoz system was less wide-spread. 2. Local Development Projects. What Can Go Wrong? During our research in the 8 counties, we sometimes encountered a good deal of suspicion. The people who construct the community development programs often complain that the peasants are paternalistic and expect everything to be given to them. Between the beneficiaries and the providers there was unfortunately not always mutual understanding, even when both sides had good intentions. The tendency to explain everything in terms of the paternalism inherited from Communism does not, in fact, explain very much. It is more likely that in most cases of (relative) failure, the project proved to be irrelevant to local needs for one reason or another. Relevance is, we believe, the key concept in such projects. Above all it presupposes an elaborate negotiation between the two parties, at the end of which a good project can be developed, by which is meant one that is relevant to its supposed beneficiaries. Failure to do the necessary groundwork in this respect leads to a lack of commitment on the part of the community, and general disillusionment. Below, we attempt to summarize the results of our inquiry into this vital aspect of all projects, which indeed determines their success or failure. • Causes of inadequate involvement in projects by their supposed beneficiaries. * Responsibility assumed by outsiders: Explicitly or implicitly, villagers tend to consider that the origin of their problems lies outside themselves, because of the difficulty they have in understanding and controlling the social changes brought about by the transition from Communism. Many of them perceive their situation as so catastrophic in terms of natural disasters, together with an appalling infrastructure etc., that they regard themselves as automatically entitled to external assistance. Community intervention in the form of development projects will often be perceived in the same way, that is, as assistance that is theirs by right. Continuing assistance in this form will do nothing more than strengthen the same attitude, a by-product being the continuation of a dependency culture. * The lack of a development culture. An analysis of the most frequent difficulties that emerge in the course of community development projects clearly shows the lack of what may be called a culture of development. In general, social needs formulated at the community level are the direct expression of immediate material deficiencies, and the solutions consist in applying to some external figure or body for the remedy of these deficiencies. Community problems were typically posed in the following manner: “If only we had a road and/or a local hospital and/or central heating, etc. everything would be OK.” A longterm perspective in the systematic solution of community problems is usually lacking. In addition, there is the problem of agricultural and livestock know-how. Farming is almost exclusively focused on 12 Vintila Mihailescu subsistence, without any systematic approach to increasing and/or diversifying production beyond the primary needs of the household. Development, looked upon as a long-term strategy, is not the main preoccupation of the villagers. As a result, so-called development projects are perceived, often from the very beginning, as irrelevant to villagers’ needs. Projects that precisely and immediately answer explicit needs are preferred and there is little understanding of the objectives of more ambitious projects. * Lack of trust in institutions and resistance to forms of association. Lack of trust in state institutions (with the significant exception of the military and church) has long been evident among Romanians. Adding to this distrust is a general reticence of villagers towards newcomers, and anyone from outside the community and, by the same token, a prudent distribution of trust only within the networks of kinship and acquaintance already mentioned. In this context, the presence of a guarantor within the community (mayor, priest, or informal leader) is virtually indispensable, one who is able to mediate between those offering their help to the community and the community itself, and who, if need be, can impose from within the discipline and forms of associations needed for the project. * Disinterest of the authorities. In addition to these generic premises, we encountered cases of lack of interest or obstructive behavior on the part of the authorities (in one case, the town hall) for whom the development of such projects is sometimes perceived as a new bureaucratic task that they are simply not prepared to assume. * Conflict of interest. The relatively frequent conflicts between the headquarters of the administrative area and the villages in that area, as well as the conflicts that exist between the various factions of the local elite, can result in the slowing down or even abandonment of the implementation of community development projects. * Only about 6% of the land is used exclusively in associations of the formal or family type (European Commission & WB 1996) * 73.9% of the people in the rural area express no desire to engage in entrepreneurial activity, and only 4.4% have actually demonstrated entrepreneurial behavior (Sandu 1999:127). * A French association made a financial proposal in the sum of 23.000.000 French francs (about US $4 million), to lay asphalt on the internal roads of the Mircesti village, to equip the doctor’s and dentist’s surgery, to provide the village with electricity, and open a rest house, etc. The French financing body imposed the condition that a local consortium should be formed to administer these funds, which should include representatives of the administrative area. The disputes concerning the leadership of the consortium led first to the postponement and then to the cancellation of the financing offer. *A group of experts worked together with local representatives of Pucheni in order to build a local development project financed by the PHARE program on rural development in Romania. After they agreed upon the objectives of the project and the financing required, the community was asked to propose an associative body that would run it. After a year of waiting for agreement on this, the financing was