*4.1. Analysis of the Territorial Evolution of Ethnic Groups in Post-Communist Romania*

This part of the study responds to the first key question of this paper, i.e., how has ethnicity evolved in Romania during post-communism at the NUTS-3 (i.e., county) level? When compared to Western Europe, where most countries are more economically developed and attract immigrants from different regions worldwide, Romania and other East Central European countries are not yet developed enough to become areas of attraction for immigrants. However, as presented in an earlier section, Romania is a country inhabited by many ethnic groups who settled in historically different times due to complex political and administrative issues.

An analysis of the timeline of ethnic groups in post-communist Romania is important to determine if the short time of 30 years of democracy has brought changes (decrease or increase) to ethnic groups.

Figure 1a shows that the number of Romanians began to decline relatively slowly in the early years of the post-communist period, and then the decline became increasingly steep. This situation is a consequence of the demographic policy that repealed "Decree no. 770 of 1 October 1966, regulating the interruption of women's pregnancy" in 1990, as well as the right to free movement, which led many Romanians to immigrate to Western European countries for a better living. The decreasing population trend is specific to all counties of the country (see Figure 1b), except for Ilfov County, where the number of Romanians increased. This was because many inhabitants of the nearby capital Bucharest preferred to leave the city for Ilfov County because of overcrowding. After the Romanians, Hungarians are the largest ethnic group in the country, with about 1.5 million people, constituting between 6% and 7% of the country's stable population during the post-communist period. However, the number of ethnic Hungarians in the post-communist period decreased relatively slowly in the 1990s. Therefore, the decrease of Hungarians became significant, both at the national level (see Figure 2a) and at NUTS-3 (see Figure 2c). This was due to the country's new demographic policy, which prioritises democracy, and the fact that many ethnic Hungarians emigrated to Hungary or other Western countries after acquiring the right of free movement.

**Figure 1.** The numerical evolution of Romanian ethnicity according to the censuses of 1992, 2002, and 2011. ((**a**) National level; (**b**) NUTS-3 (i.e., county level).

**Figure 2.** *Cont*.

**Figure 2.** Numerical evolution of the Roma, Hungarian, and German minorities in Romania. ((**a**) Evolution at the national level; (**b**) evolution of Roma ethnic groups; (**c**) evolution of Hungarian ethnic groups; (**d**) evolution of German ethnic groups).

The analysis of statistical data for the Roma in the post-communist period shows that the number of ethnic Roma in Romania started to increase significantly (Figure 2b). This is because the Roma regained their ethnic status and were able to declare their ethnicity without any restrictions following the change of the political regime. At the county level, an increase in numbers of this ethnic group is noticed, except for counties in the south and west of the country. In the south and west, there was an increase in numbers, followed by a slight decrease in numbers due to immigration to Western countries (Germany, Spain, France, Austria, and the UK). Additionally, many Roma in those regions did not declare their ethnicity in order to avoid various stigmatisation or discrimination.

Many ethnic Germans in Romania migrated to Western Europe in the post-communist period, with their number almost halving (Figure 2d). At the same time, the processing of statistical data shows that the number of ethnic Germans is significant only in Banat, Transylvania, and Bucharest and that their population is constantly decreasing. On the other hand, after the fall of communism, democratic changes allowed the political, economic, and cultural affirmation of the German minority. In the last three decades, the German-language education network has been strengthened, cultural and scientific societies have resumed activities, new cultural and civil associations and societies have been founded, and numerous German-language media organisations have been established.

All the other smaller ethnic groups living in Romania have a much-decreased percentage of the total stable population of Romania and have encountered a numerical reduction in their population in the last few decades (Figure 3). For instance, Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes have significant numbers only in the Banat region (Figure 3a), while Czechs and Slovaks are mostly found in the counties of western Romania (Figure 3b,c).

Additionally, ethnic Ukrainians are still found in significant numbers only in the counties of Maramures, , Timis, , Caras,-Severin, and Tulcea (Figure 3d), while the Turks and Tatars are still an important ethnic group only in the counties of southeast Romania (Figure 3g,h). The Poles have significant numbers only in the northern Romanian counties (Figure 3e), and the Lipovans/Russians only in the Dobrogea and Bucovina regions of Romania (Figure 3i). Similarly, ethnic Greeks are found in significant numbers only in Bucharest and the counties of Constant,a, Tulcea, Brăila, Galat,i, and Ias, i, with their number decreasing during the post-communist period (Figure 3j). Bulgarians have a core area in the southwestern and southern counties (Figure 3f), while Jews and Armenians are mostly represented in several cities and towns (see Figure 3k,l).

In conclusion, the population of most of the ethnic groups in post-communist Romania has decreased. Migration to Western Europe, lower birth rates, and the assimilation of smaller ethnic groups are among the major causes of this process. Only the Roma population recorded an increase in population due to its traditional larger family nuclei.

**Figure 3.** *Cont*.

**Figure 3.** *Cont*.

**Figure 3.** *Cont*.

**Figure 3.** Numerical evolution of other ethnic groups in post-communist Romania. ((**a**) Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes; (**b**) Slovaks; (**c**) Czechs; (**d**) Ukrainians; (**e**) Poles; (**f**) Bulgarians; (**g**) Turks; (**h**) Tatars; (**i**) Lipovans; (**j**) Greeks; (**k**) Jews; (**l**) Armenians).

#### *4.2. Fractionalisation and Polarisation Indices in the Spatial Investigation of Ethnic Evolution*

Analysing the long or short-term effects and time-varying changes of ethnic diversity in a population could help us advance our knowledge of peaceful co-existence in ethnically and confessionally diverse societies. For this purpose, fractionalisation and polarisation indices are used, successfully measuring diversity as a steadily increasing function of the number of groups in a country based on the probability that two individuals randomly drawn from a country belong to two different ethnic groups [48]. To this end, we attempt to answer the second question of this paper, i.e., if there are spatial changes in the fractionalisation and polarisation indices according to the official censuses of the post-communist period.

Based on post-communist population census data and using the fractionalisation index formula (FRAC), we obtained data on ethnic fractionalisation at the NUTS-3 (i.e., county) level (Table 2).


**Table 2.** Ethnic Fractionalization Index at the NUTS-3 (i.e., county) level in Romania.


**Table 2.** *Cont.*

The cartographic representation of the values obtained (see Figure 4) shows that the ethnic fragmentation of the population in Romania has undergone some changes during the post-communist period in the sense that it has increased in some counties. This means that the risk of interethnic conflict in those counties has also increased.

According to the 1992 and 2002 census data, all Romanian counties had an ethnic fractionalisation of the population at a moderate level. According to the 2011 census data, however, the ethnic fragmentation of the population in Mure¸s County exceeded the threshold of 0.6, translating into a high ethnic fragmentation, a development that could generate tensions and interethnic conflicts, with the risk of triggering them being high. The northeastern part of Romania, including Salaj, Satu Mare, and Bihor Counties, also had high values of fragmentation (0.5–0.6). It is noted that the ethnic fragmentation of the population in the counties of southern Muntenia and Dobrogea, as well as in the counties of Hunedoara and Alba, has also increased from a very low level to a low level. While this does not raise any great concern at the moment, the situation should nevertheless be carefully monitored in the future. On the other hand, the ethnic fragmentation of the population in the counties of Moldova, Oltenia, and northern Muntenia remained at very low values, while that of the population in the counties in western Romania (Timis, , Caras,-Severin, and Arad) for the ethnic fragmentation of the population remained at low values. On the other hand, there were average ethnic fractionalisation values in the counties in the northwest of the country (Bihor, Satu Mare, and Sălaj). Based on the same post-communist population census data and using the formula for the polarisation index (Q), we also obtained the values for ethnic polarisation at the NUTS-3 (i.e., county) level in Romania (Table 3).

**Figure 4.** Evolution of the Ethnic Fractionalization Index at the NUTS-3 (i.e., county) level in Romania.


**Table 3.** Ethnic Polarization Index at NUTS-3 (i.e., county) level in Romania.


**Table 3.** *Cont.*

By mapping the values of the ethnic polarisation index (see Figure 5), it became clear that the ethnic polarisation of the Romanian population increased in the post-communist period. With the exception of Bihor County, where the value of the polarisation index decreased from a very high level (recorded in 1992 and 2002) to a high level only (in 2011), it increased or remained constant in all other counties, which means that the risk of interethnic conflict in some of the counties of the central western areas of Romania could also increase. It is also noted that the ethnic polarisation of the Romanian population has remained at a very low level in only one county—Gorj County in Oltenia. Meanwhile, there are also low values in Bucharest, Moldova, northern Muntenia, Oltenia and Alba County. This highlights that there should be no cause for potential concern regarding conflict at the moment, as the polarisation index has increased in these counties from very low to low values. Higher values of polarisation (over 0.7) are observed in the Transylvanian counties (Mures and Covasna), as well as in the counties of Bihor, Harghita, and Cluj, areas which should be monitored in the future for an upward trend.

**Figure 5.** *Cont*.

**Figure 5.** Evolution of the Ethnic Polarization Index at the NUTS-3 (i.e., county) level in Romania.

In conclusion, ethnic fractionalisation and polarisation can slightly change over short periods and at a regional spatial level, especially in areas where an important minority ethnic group, namely the Hungarians, cohabitate with an ethnic majority population and other ethnic groups.

#### **5. Discussion**

Romania is home to many ethnic groups who settled in different historical times due to complex political and administrative reasons. The analysis of the timeline of ethnic groups in post-communist Romania is important because the short 30 years of democracy had brought changes in the decrease in ethnic groups. Only the Roma population recorded an increase in number in most Romanian counties.

The existing literature highlights that an increase or decrease in ethnic diversity over time is likely to have very different consequences, even if people seem to adapt to the ethnic diversity of society over time [107]. For example, in the event of the dissolution of multi-ethnic states or the collapse of the communist regime, ethnic diversity could decline at a rapid pace, leading to completely different challenges for the new homogeneous societies. On the other hand, countries with increasing ethnic diversity may be more willing to introduce institutions to effectively manage the problems of more heterogeneous populations than countries with shorter histories of ethnically diverse societies and lower average rates of diversity change [108]. Failure to consider these historical developments could hinder our understanding of the effects of ethnic diversity on the population in a given region. As has been highlighted in this study, ethnic fractionalisation and polarisation can bring changes even over a short period and at the regional spatial level, mainly in areas where an important minority ethnic group co-exists with an ethnic majority population. In this case, Romania has to implement more cultural institutions in the areas of high fractionalisation and polarisation to manage potential friction between the Romanians and the Hungarians, especially in Transylvanian counties where Hungarians are present in a larger number. For instance, conflicts like those of March 1990 in Târgu Mure¸s should never happen.

Furthermore, there is a close correlation between the ethnic fragmentation and polarisation of the population in a given region and the risk of tensions. Conflict in society could appear at a given time [108]. Historical changes in ethnic diversity within countries are of particular importance in the countries of East Central Europe, of which Romania is a prime example. Even if Romania had not encountered major changes in the fragmentation and polarisation indices in post-communist times, particular attention still has to be paid to the erosion of ethnic diversity in Romania because this could negatively impact economic development, macroeconomic stability, social trust, participation in government, the quality

of governance, democracy, and many other socio-economic outcomes [109,110]. Moreover, ethnic fragmentation could also have an impact on the distribution of consumption, which may have independent negative consequences, with the ethnic and confessional heterogeneity of the population negatively affecting the provision of public goods [111,112]. To compound matters, given the redistributive nature of public goods, their low provision could lead to the negative impact of ethnic fragmentation on social inequality [113,114].

Finally, high levels of social inequality can lead to conflict and crime [115], inefficient redistribution [116], high tax rates [117], and lower rates of economic growth in general [72]. For instance, our results show that the Roma people are growing in number in most of the counties in Romania. Therefore, the Romanian state has to put into practice certain laws against social inequality towards the Roma. On the other hand, some researchers [118] argue that it may be useful to rethink the assumption that ethnic diversity is relatively invariant over time, as changes in the ethnic heterogeneity of a population may play a role in the relationship between ethnic and denominational diversity and socio-economic outcomes. Ethnic diversity has reshaped and will continue to reshape social relations in Romania. For instance, as Blau [41] argued, when the parameters of heterogeneity are only weakly correlated, fewer subgroups are perfectly homogeneous in all aspects. This is one reason why Romania's ethnic dynamics have to be further studied. This will help determine if ethnic fractionalisation and polarisation will change at different spatial levels.

#### **6. Conclusions**

Ethnic diversity has always represented a significant aspect of population studies. Changes in ethnic heterogeneity over time might be relevant for the effects of ethnic fractionalisation and polarisation on diverse social, economic, and political outcomes. Previous studies have concluded that changes in ethnic diversity could have a negative impact on macroeconomic stability [119], governance [120], and economic development [107].

This paper argued that ethnic diversity is a time and spatial variant. Historical and spatial changes in heterogeneity might play a role in the relationship between ethnic diversity and social, economic, and political outcomes. From the post-communist ethnic evolution analysed, this study has shown that most of the ethnic groups in Romania recorded a decrease in population because of the opening of Romania's borders after 1989, leading to the massive migration of Germans, Romanians, and other ethnic groups. Another cause would be the general decrease in the ethnic birth rate. This decrease highlights an erosion of ethnic diversity in Romania, which could have a negative impact on economic development, social trust, democracy, and many other socio-economic outcomes. However, an exception to the decreasing population growth was noted in the Roma people, who are growing in numbers due to a higher natural increase in the traditional population. These aspects can inform policy-makers to build stronger institutions in order to counter social inequality against the Roma people (see also [66–69]) and curb potential conflicts between the Roma and other ethnic groups at the local level.

Ethnic polarisation and fractionalisation are important indicators of ethnic cohesion and diversity at the territorial level. The situation in Romania has changed only in small geographical areas, mainly in some counties in Transylvania where Hungarians co-exist with Romanians. Therefore, ethnic fractionalisation and polarisation in Romania have encountered slight changes in the decades after communism at the regional spatial level. These appeared mainly in areas where an important minority ethnic group co-exists with an ethnic majority population. In this case, Romania has to implement stronger policies and institutions to manage potential conflicts between the Hungarians, Romanians, and other ethnic groups in Transylvania and other western counties of Romania, where Hungarians are present in a larger number. This will help avoid a similar dreadful event, such as the March 1990 conflict of T"argu Mures, .

A broad limitation of this study is that it did not consider other diversity variables, such as language and religion, as we intend to include them in our future studies. It did not

consider a longer historical perspective because our research interest was only in the ethnic diversity trends in post-communist times. Additionally, we did not connect ethnicities to economic growth or other socio-economic patterns. Finally, the recent Romanian census of 2021 could be a useful data tool for further ethnic diversity studies in Romania, but we could not rely on these data as they are currently available only as preliminary data. In this regard, future studies on Romanian ethnic diversity might determine if the trends in ethnic dynamics, including fractionalisation and polarisation, remain the same as in this study or if they change. Considering multiple variables in connection to ethnicities in Romania could be very useful for policy-makers. Comparative studies on ethnic diversity might also be conducted between different countries to observe the dynamics of the ethnic groups of the respective countries.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization: M.-A.R., R.C. and A.-N.I.; methodology: M.-A.R., R.C. and A.-N.I.; analysis: M.-A.R., R.C. and A.-N.I.; writing—original draft preparation: M.-A.R., R.C. and A.-N.I.; writing—review and editing: M.-A.R., R.C. and A.-N.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors participated equally in writing this paper.

**Funding:** This research has no funding.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are public and are available upon request from the first author. The data are not publicly available yet due to the fact that the data have not been entirely published.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
