DIFFICULT To Appreciate The Real Number of Roma PDF

Preface
The research on the “Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in present day Romanian Society”,
developed under the umbrella of the PHARE project “Strengthening Capacity and Partnership
Building to Improve Roma Condition and Perception” implemented by the General Secretariat of
the Government, has set out ambitious goals, one of which is to provide relevant data for further
policy making on the social integration of Roma. The document is of particular importance as there
is a lack of accurate data regarding the number and the needs of the Roma in Romanian society.
It is difficult to appreciate the real number of Roma people living in Romania, as the official
census cannot deliver a reliable real figure based on self-declaration of ethnicity, and therefore
Roma ethnicity is under-represented. Each new pertinent study on this topic is welcome and
appreciated as it complements the official but defective data, as well as the unofficial estimates of
the Roma in Romania. The survey of 2000 households (1000 Roma and 1000 non-Roma living in
close proximity to the Roma households), together with the country-wide Local Authorities survey
and the 36 community studies which are part of this research, have provided for an in-depth study
of the subjects of the research which is of great relevance to the specific needs of Roma citizens.
The focus on the specific needs of the Roma represents the added value of the research.
Nevertheless, the current study sheds some light not only on Roma communities but also on the
non-Roma population living in their close proximity.
In the wake of these findings we consider it will be easier to evaluate the real situation and to
adjust the current spending, outcomes, programmes and policies conducted by the Romanian
Government for the improvement of the condition of the Roma. We express our confidence that the
data provided by this study will benefit both Romanian policy makers as well as international ones.
Victor GIOSAN
State Secretary
General Secretariat of the Government
VI
Preface
The National Agency for Roma, in its capacity as a specialized unit of the central public
administration for issues concerning the Roma, and also beneficiary of the programme, welcomes
the completion and publication of this research report which is more than necessary for
substantiating Roma-targeted public policies and identifying the necessary resources for their
implementation.
Being the first important piece of research on Roma communities promoted by the Romanian
Government through the PHARE programme, this socio-economic analysis of the situation of
Roma communities presents clear and quantified arguments which raised awareness and concerns
about the social exclusion which the Roma experience day-to-day.
This piece of research covers the acute need which public institutions and other organizations have
for reliable data in order to plan, establish and implement policies, programmes and projects meant
to improve the situation of the Roma and, as such, increase the wealth of the society as a whole.
The National Agency for Roma, as the beneficiary of this programme and of the results of the
research, will disseminate these results in various ways nationally and internationally and will use
them as an advocacy instrument at the European level for a European policy on the social inclusion
of Roma.
In order to implement social inclusion policies, the National Agency for Roma has a special
interest in the necessity of documenting the situation of Roma communities in Romania, and will
ensure the dissemination of the data to different national and international structures, including
through the Social Observatory.
“Nothing for the Roma without the Roma”
Gruia Ioan BUMBU

President
National Agency for Roma
VII
Foreword
For the past sixty years, ever since the discovery of the death camps operated by the Nazis and
their allies and the clear association that emerged linking the practice of mechanised killing with
the pre-war rise of racist social analysis, open expressions of racial thinking have been totally
unacceptable in anything one would hope to call polite society. Today, in Europe at least, to talk
in terms of ‘races,’ ‘biological destinies’ or ‘the genetic capacity of the nation’ is to cast oneself
to the outer reaches of the political universe. And yet many of the basic ideas behind early 20th
Century racialism have not truly gone away.
One of the most disturbing developments in public discourse in the former communist countries
in the years since 1989 has been the emergence of a new kind of ‘explanation’ of what is
misleadingly called ‘the Gypsy question’ or, worse, ‘the Gypsy problem.’ Through a strange
alliance of cultural relativists, politicians seeking to excuse the failures of their policies as well as
some misguided Romany activists, a whole new rhetorical strategy for representing the
‘ difference’ between Roma and non-Roma has come to dominate the field. I refer to those
approaches that stress, in one form or another, the fundamental and in some sense irreducible
otherness of the people commonly referred to as Gypsies. When, as a result of ill-thought-through
educational conservatism, the ‘average’ Romany child systematically fails to progress as fast and
as satisfactorily through primary and secondary school as the ‘average’ Romanian child, we find
voices telling us that the problem lies in Romany way of life and “the uneducable Gypsy child” that
this culture produces. Likewise, when in the newspapers and electronic media we read of a rising
tide of petty crime and affronts to public decency we are introduced to a supposedly new sort of
criminality, characteristic not of a social but an ethnic milieu, ‘Gypsy criminality.’
The authors of such phrases do not see themselves in any way as bearers of the legacy of racialist
thinking. They are, after all, talking about ‘cultural differences’ and contrasting communities of
value, not races or other biological units. And yet, look closer, listen more carefully, and you will
see that here culture (and its proxy, ‘ethnicity’ ) stands in for race. Culture has become a hard,
fast-closed, well-bounded and clearly identifiable set of properties that marks out populations with
all the (supposed) rigidity and inflexibility of differences between biological species. Culture has,
in brief, become a pseudo-biological property of social groups. No longer referring to the endlessly
open, reflexive, strategically oriented cultivation of similarities and difference, culture comes to
stand for a marker of irreducible otherness and incompatibility.
And, as I said above, it is not just those who seek excuses for the failure of their initiatives, or to
whitewash their total lack of initiative in the schools which have become the site where ethnically
absolute differences are established and constituted, who resort to the discourse of incompatibility.
All those whose current employment and public positions depend on their perceived ability to
mediate between these two supposedly irreconcilable worlds have an interest in promoting this
Manichean vision. And hence among the ethnic entrepreneurs we find the complement of a hostile
cultural racism that focuses on ineducability and criminality in ‘positive’ and ‘celebratory’
discourses that presents a pastoral idyll of the ‘Romany family’ as a haven of nurturing love and
care. At the same time these social workers, mediators and activists naturalise and homogenise the
great diversity of Romany family forms in a cultural representation as crude and reductive as the
phantom image of the un-teachable, wild Romany child.
By contrast with these dangerously simplifying and homogenising discourses of the ‘ethnic
relations industry’ that seeks to deny and bury the real diversity of Romany lives in Romania,
what you have in your hand now in this report, ably organised and edited by Gábor Fleck and
Cosima Rughiniº, is as clear a statement as exists today of the sheer diversity of the lives of Romany
VIII
FOREWORD
peoples in Romania. The synthetic study draws on two sorts of data: an impressively conducted
national survey of Roma communities and their administrative regions and 36 local studies carried
out by sociologically and anthropologically trained researchers who lived in Roma settlements for
a period of weeks in the summer of 2007. In a report of this sort it is necessary, of course, to
construct the fictional figure of ‘the average Roma.’ And, in so far as a government wishes to
pursue a policy targeted at Roma in general, this kind of artificial construction has its uses.
You will discover that official statistics about the proportion of the population de facto treated
as Roma by the local administrative, educational, health and public order authorities is in a range
of four to ten times greater than the census (or self declaration in that) would leave you to believe.
It turns out quite clearly that Romany is not the preserve of the poor and isolated Roma, but also
the mother tongue of the significant middle class. And in all, two thirds of Roma would like to see
all Romanian children learning about Romany history and culture (compared to a smaller but still
significant minority – 33% - of Romanians who would be happy with such a deepening of the
national history curriculum. Perhaps most striking, we find out that a full 34% of the households
surveyed (and the survey focuses on those who live in areas of high Romany residential
concentration and so in general on the poorer Roma) have family members of Romanian ethnicity.
Where is the ethnic closure here?
For those who delve deeper into this fascinating national portrait, there are the equally
important facts of radical inequality and discrimination under which many Roma suffer. An
astonishing 60% of Romany respondents report that someone in their household went to bed
hungry in the past month (against 12% in the non-Roma sample). Only 53% of Romany children
have a winter coat (against 87% of non-Roma).
But it would be a grave error if the reader or policy maker stopped there. For while these figures
capture the position of those Roma who fall in the mid-range on any score in the sample of their
communities, a closer look at the data shows just how wide the range is. The ‘average’ Roma may
only complete the basic years of school but 9% of Roma have been to high-school and a small but
yet incredibly important 2% have completed university (thanks in large part to the pioneering
project – that has no equivalent any where else in Europe – in which reserved places are offered
only to Romany students). And while kindergarten enrolment in small towns may be a lamentable
33% it rises to 55% in villages (sadly mostly for reasons of keeping nurseries open in the face of
demographic collapse).
And in a series of powerful local studies that this project commissioned, we learn what this
diversity means in practice on the ground and how a one size fits all ‘Roma policy’ makes
absolutely no sense at all. To take just one example, in the town of Târgu Mureº, one of the
researchers reports on three completely different patterns of interaction between Roma and non-
Roma. In one impoverished settlement the inhabitants are seen by outsiders as more or less
untouchables and openly scorned as social inferiors. These Roma households are restricted to
collecting scrap if they are lucky and working with domestic rubbish most of the time. But just a
few steps away, the researcher finds an only slightly less poor set of families who are treated as a
reliable and convenient source of labour power by their non-Gypsy neighbours. Members of these
households find work on the farms, in the gardens and also the houses of their employers. And
finally, scattered through the same town we find wealthy trading families the more successful of
whom bring in incomes of € 3000 or more a month. What kind of ‘Roma policy’ could possibly
address the needs of such diverse families?
In an earlier, pioneering cross national survey two Hungarian sociologists, Iván Szelényi and János
Ladányi, argued that in certain crucial respects the ethnic barrier preventing access to public resources
was weaker in Romania than in Hungary. The average Romanian found it harder to determine with
certainty the ethnicity of another Romanian than the average Hungarian – allowing Roma to avoid
being identified as such and thus, one suspects, greater social mobility. And indeed the data the reader
IX
COME CLOSER
will find in this report also suggests reasons for some small degree of optimism about the future of
Romanian Roma. 6% percent of non-Roma are business owners, but it emerges that 4% of Roma are
the same: a suggestively small difference – in some areas social closure does not seem to operate. And
in comparison to the first few years after the system change, when violent conflicts between Roma and
other Romanian citizens rapidly increased in frequency, today in comparison with its neighbours,
Hungary or Bulgaria for instance, the attitude of the majority of Romanians towards this least loved
and respected minority seems mild. Of course, the economic boom in Romania and the long term
stagnation of its western neighbour no doubt promote indifference and hostility respectively. But I for
one see in the great dynamism of Romanian democracy and its relative openness to outside influences
and models considerable hope for the future.
Perhaps the greatest challenge in the long term will come from those governments and political
forces that, believing the so-called Gypsy question can never really be solved, or not for many
generations, want to take this particular hot potato off the national menu and kick the offending
item ‘ up’ into the European level. We can see this today in bodies like the Council of Europe
where strenuous efforts are made to try and define a ‘European wide’ Roma policy and to create
a supposed European Roma leadership. And the first signs of this emerge too in some currents
within the European parliament. The danger with this approach is clear. This is the sure route to
political passivity on the part of the governments that actually have the resources and means to act
at the level where policy takes effect. And it is the certain road towards a disastrous ethnicisation
of a series of social and economic problems that are only feebly understood under the label, ‘the
gypsy question.’ And, behind this ethnicisation lies precisely the kind of racial thinking about
culture that I identified above. This excellent and comprehensive report demonstrates the kind of
solutions that suit the Romanian context in all its complexity – solutions that cannot be generalised
to the European level because they confront the particular history of different populations that
have been labelled ‘Gypsy’ in Romania.
Dr. Michael Stewart

University College London and
Central European University
X
Contents
Preface ....................................................................................................................................VI
Preface ..................................................................................................................................VII
Foreword ................................................................................................................................VIII
Contents ....................................................................................................................................XI
Part I. Introduction............................................................................................................1
1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................3
1.1 Research Perspectives ......................................................................................................3
1.2 Research Subjects ............................................................................................................4
1.3 Agents of Change ............................................................................................................4
1.4 Definitions of Poverty and Exclusion in Roma-focused Research Programmes ..........5
1.4.1 Indicators of Poverty and Exclusion ......................................................................6
1.4.2 Defining “Roma Issues” as Ethnic or Social Issues ..............................................8
1.5 Strategies of Roma Identification ....................................................................................9
1.5.1 Hetero-identification of Roma People ..................................................................9
1.6 Finding the Roma People: Sampling Issues ..................................................................10
1.6.1 Sampling Roma Communities Versus Roma Individuals ..................................12
1.6.2 Comparability of Roma Samples..........................................................................12
1.7 Political Correctness and Public Definition of Roma Issues ......................................13
2. Methodology ..........................................................................................................................15
2.1 The Survey Research ....................................................................................................15
2.1.1 The Questionnaire ..............................................................................................15
2.1.2 The Samples ........................................................................................................15
2.1.3 Categories for Analysis ........................................................................................16
2.2 The Qualitative Research ..............................................................................................17
2.2.1 Community Studies..............................................................................................17
2.2.2 Data Types in Community Studies......................................................................18
2.3 The Local Authorities Survey ......................................................................................19
2.4 The Report ....................................................................................................................20
2.4.1 Ethnonyms Used in The Report..........................................................................20
2.4.2 Presentation of Statistical Information ................................................................20
Part II. Ethnic Affiliation and Classification ..................................................................23

3. Who Are The Roma? ............................................................................................................25
3.1 Diversity of Roma Communities ..................................................................................25
3.1.1 Levels of Differentiation ......................................................................................26
3.1.2 Self-differentiation Strategies ..............................................................................26
3.1.3 Hetero-differentiation..........................................................................................28
3.1.4 Different Community Patterns ............................................................................28
3.1.5 Researchers’ Classifications ................................................................................29
3.2 Traditional and Non-traditional Roma ........................................................................30
3.2.1 The Past and the Legendary Past ........................................................................31
3.2.2 Romani Language ................................................................................................32
3.2.3 The Marriage – What is Traditional and What is Not ......................................33
3.2.4 Tradition and Exclusion ......................................................................................36
3.3 Attitudes and Expectations from Life............................................................................36
3.3.1 Attitudes Towards Socialization ..........................................................................36
XI
COME CLOSER
3.3.2 Entertainment ......................................................................................................37

3.3.3 Children’ s Dreams of the Future ........................................................................38
3.3.4 Attitudes and Expectations Towards Social Intervention and Mass-media ......41
3.3.5 Attitudes Towards Work......................................................................................42
3.3.6 Attitudes Towards the Past ..................................................................................44
3.4 Religious Affiliation ......................................................................................................46
3.4.1 Survey Estimates ..................................................................................................46
3.4.2 Influences of Religious Affiliation on Family and Community Life..................47
3.5 Survey Analysis of Ethnic Affiliation ............................................................................48
3.5.1 Specificity..............................................................................................................49
3.5.2 Use of Romani Language ....................................................................................52
3.5.3 Pride of Roma/Gypsy Affiliation ........................................................................56
3.5.4 Experience of Ethnic Discrimination ..................................................................59
3.5.5 Summary of Influences on Ethnic Affiliation ......................................................60
3.6 Some Concluding Remarks and Points to Highlight ..................................................61
4 Stereotypes, Social Distance Attitudes and Inter-ethnic Contact..........................................63
4.1 The Þigani ......................................................................................................................63
4.1.1 What Sort of People are the Þigani? ....................................................................64
4.1.2 Explanations of Behaviour Variations..................................................................65
4.2 The Invisibility of Roma Culture ..................................................................................68
4.2.1 Defining “Culture” and Defining the “Roma” ..................................................68
4.2.2 Opinions on Teaching Roma Culture, Language and Education ......................69
4.3 The Roma, “Our Roma” and “Other Roma” ..............................................................71
4.4 Social Distance Attitudes ..............................................................................................72
4.4.1 Measures of Social Distance ................................................................................72
4.4.2 Influences on Social Distance Attitudes ..............................................................73
4.5 Inter-ethnic Contact ......................................................................................................77
4.5.1 Discrimination ......................................................................................................78
4.5.2 Kinship and Family ..............................................................................................80
4.5.3 Ethnic Closure in Family ....................................................................................82
4.5.4 Commercial Relationships ..................................................................................83
Part III. Quality of Life....................................................................................................87

5 Divergent Experiences ............................................................................................................89
5.1 Experience of Hunger....................................................................................................89
5.2 Experience of Cold ........................................................................................................90
5.3 Sleeping Conditions ......................................................................................................91
5.4 Age at first birth ............................................................................................................91
5.5 Working, Begging and Stealing ....................................................................................92
6 Health Care Issues ..................................................................................................................95
6.1 Health Issues in Community Reports ..........................................................................95
6.1.1 Health Problems Linked to Precarious Living....................................................95
6.1.2 Health Problems Linked to Precarious Resource Management ........................98
6.1.3 The Roma Communities and the Health System ..............................................99
6.1.4 Extreme Cases ....................................................................................................105
6.1.5 Assuming Responsibility ....................................................................................105
6.2 Registration with a Family Doctor in Survey Data ....................................................107
6.3 Some Concluding Remarks and Points to Highlight ................................................107
7 Housing Issues ......................................................................................................................109
7.1 Housing Issues in the Qualitative Study ....................................................................109
7.1.1 Living in an Urban Ghetto ................................................................................109
7.1.2 History of Residence Changes and Evictions ....................................................111
7.1.3 Housing and Conflicts........................................................................................112
7.1.4 Property Rights ..................................................................................................114
XII
CONTENTS
7.2 Housing Issues in Survey Research ............................................................................116

7.2.1 Property Rights ..................................................................................................117
7.2.2 Housing Density ................................................................................................120
7.2.3 Access to Main Utilities ....................................................................................120
7.2.4 Long-term Consumer Goods ............................................................................121
7.3 Residential Ethnic Segregation ..................................................................................123
8 Employment ..........................................................................................................................127
8.1 Employment Issues Reflected in Community Reports ..............................................127
8.1.1 Who is Unemployed? ........................................................................................127
8.1.2 Gender Issue in Employment ............................................................................128
8.1.3 Commuting Versus Social Benefits....................................................................128
8.1.4 Influences of Roma Projects on Employment ..................................................128
8.1.5 Work and Social Benefits ..................................................................................129
8.1.6 Past and Future of “Traditional Professions”....................................................130
8.1.7 A Special Case: The Former Miners..................................................................131
8.2 Employment Issues in Survey Research ......................................................................133
8.2.1 Ethnic Inequalities in Economic Activity ..........................................................133
8.2.2 Distribution of Economic Sectors ....................................................................136
8.2.3 Effect of Spatial Segregation..............................................................................136
9 Income and Expenditure ......................................................................................................140
9.1 Access to Income..........................................................................................................140
9.2 Types of Income ..........................................................................................................142
9.3 Amount of Income ......................................................................................................146
9.3.1 Influences on Income Level ..............................................................................147
Part IV. Agents of Change ............................................................................................151

10 Education Issues ..................................................................................................................153
10.1 Education Issues Reflected in Community Reports ................................................154
10.1.1 Educational Failure ..........................................................................................154
10.1.2 The Value of Schooling ..................................................................................158
10.1.3 Finding Solutions ............................................................................................162
10.2 Education Issues in Survey Research ........................................................................164
10.3 Level of Education ....................................................................................................165
10.4 Determinants of Educational Level ..........................................................................167
10.5 In the Classroom........................................................................................................167
10.5.1 Repeated School Years ....................................................................................167
10.5.2 Illiteracy ............................................................................................................167
10.6 Ethnic Segregation in Schools ..................................................................................168
10.6.1 Ambivalence of Segregation in Public Opinion ..............................................170
10.6.2 Experimenting with segregation ......................................................................171
10.6.3 Invisible Segregation in the Classroom ..........................................................174
10.7 Educational Segregation in Numbers ......................................................................174
10.7.1 Public Opinion on School Segregation ..........................................................175
10.8 Some Concluding Remarks and Points to Highlight ..............................................176
11 Financial Coping Strategies ................................................................................................178
11.1 Migration ..................................................................................................................178
11.2 Work Abroad in Community Reports ......................................................................187
11.3 Credit ........................................................................................................................189
Part V. Local Authorities and Roma Citizens ..............................................................195

12 Local Mediation Structures ................................................................................................197
XIII
COME CLOSER
12.1 The Formal – Informal Partnership..........................................................................199

12.2 Popular Suspicion ......................................................................................................199
13 A Survey of Local Authorities’ Information on Roma Communities ..............................202
13.1 Estimates of Rates and Numbers ..............................................................................202
13.2 Information on Formal Exclusion ............................................................................204
13.2.1 Lack of Personal Documents ..........................................................................204
13.2.2 Lack of Property Papers ..................................................................................206
13.2.3 Other Factors for Social Exclusion ..................................................................207
13.2.4 Information on Institutional Capacity ............................................................210
Part VI. Conclusions......................................................................................................215

14 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................217
14.1 Constructing the “Average” and the “Middle” Roma Subject ................................217
14.2 The Two Vicious Circles ..........................................................................................218
14.2.1 The Vicious Circle of Poverty and Low Education ........................................219
14.2.2 The Vicious Circle of Social Distance and Ethnic Segregation ....................220
14.3 Reflections on Research Data....................................................................................220
Part VII. References and Annexes ................................................................................223

15 Bibliography......................................................................................................................225
15.1 List of Unpublished Community Reports ................................................................226
16 Annexes................................................................................................................................227
16.1 List of Tables ............................................................................................................227
16.2 List of Charts ............................................................................................................229
16.3 List of Quotes ............................................................................................................230
16.4 List of Pictures ..........................................................................................................234
16.5 Tables and Charts ......................................................................................................235
16.5.1 Methodological Information............................................................................235
16.5.2 Charts and Tables for Ethnic Affiliation ........................................................236
16.5.3 Binary Logistic Regression Models for Ethnic Affiliation ..............................237
16.5.4 Binary Logistic Regression Models for Influences
of Residential Segregation................................................................................239
16.5.5 Education Level................................................................................................241
16.5.6 Housing ............................................................................................................242
16.5.7 Health ..............................................................................................................243
16.5.8 Local Authorities Survey ..................................................................................244
XIV
PART I
INTRODUCTION
1 Introduction
The main focal points of the research were the consequences of economic transition on Roma
communities, the different forms and aftermath of social exclusion, and its mechanism in local
societies in the present-day Romanian society. The main aims of the research were:
– To compare the socio-economic situation of the Roma with that of the other citizens of
Romania living in similar localities and neighbourhoods (see the discussion on the survey
sampling);
– To highlight present-day circuits of social inclusion and exclusion of the Roma citizens;
– To provide policy-relevant data concerning social inclusion and exclusion of the Roma.
To this aim, we used three different kinds of research methods:

– Representative survey with a Roma and a non-Roma sub-sample;
– Community Studies in 36 different Roma communities;
– Local Authorities survey.
This complex methodology, using different methods at the same time, is suitable for examining
the detailed situation of people living at risk of, or in the situation of different aspects of social
exclusion. Such reciprocal control of different methods should also reduce the possible errors of
sampling in the final conclusions.
1.1 Research Perspectives

This research report includes data from three empirical research projects conducted within the
Research Component of the PHARE (2004) Project “Strengthening Capacity and Partnership
Building to Improve Roma Condition and Perception”, implemented by the General Secretariat
of the Romanian Governement and having as beneficiary the National Agency for Roma. The
chapter on “Methodology” presents these three projects in more detail. In the following lines we
will try to position this research report within the general picture of current sociological research
on Roma issues.
Mãrginean et al. (2001) has analysed quantitatively 160 research publications on the Romanian
Roma/Gypsy people, thus creating an overview of the main research perspectives and topics. The
authors identify three main perspectives:
– The identity perspective, focusing on traditions, history and the specificity of the Roma
population, accounts for 43% of the publications included in the analysis;
– The socio-economic perspective, focusing on Roma poverty and standard of living,
accounts for 41% of the publications;
– The perspective of relationships with public authorities, focusing on institutionalized
discrimination of Roma people in accessing public services and in their relationships with
authorities, accounts for the remaining 16% of publications.
A proportion of 83% of the studies discussed issues related to ethnic identity; 75% discussed
relationships with the other ethnic categories of population; 64% discussed quality of life, 52%
discussed social integration, 31% addressed the number of the Roma population, 23% discussed
delinquency and 9% addressed linguistics topics (percentages do not add up to 100% since some
studies addressed several topics).
INTRODUCTION
It is easy to position this report in relation to the main research topics, since it also addresses
the most frequent ones: ethnic identity, interethnic relationships, quality of life and social
integration. It is more difficult to affiliate this research to one of the three perspectives discussed
above. The broader perspective that we used to interpret data can be best understood as a social
interaction perspective: we have discussed ethnic affiliation and the construction of ethnic identity
by focusing on (the lack of) interactions between Roma people and the non-Roma – mostly ethnic
Romanians or Hungarians. Processes of ethnic classification, ethnic affiliation, social distance, and
social exclusion are understood as different aspects and consequences of interaction patterns
between individuals, communities and institutions.
1.2 Research Subjects

All three research projects mentioned above have been focused on the social exclusion of Roma
people. For methodological reasons discussed below, the individuals that this report speaks about
are those Roma people who live in Roma communities. All three research projects have relied, to
some extent or other, on the identification of Roma communities as a first step towards selecting
the Roma people to be portrayed/being portrayed. Therefore, those Roma ethnic persons that
live dispersed among non-Roma neighbourhoods, and who do not belong to what is publicly visible
as a Roma community, are not “subjects” in this report. In the qualitative research we have also
selected communities which were more affected by various processes of social exclusion, thus
under-representing the more affluent or socially inclusive communities. Within these communities
we have paid equal attention to people in all social conditions and situations. The quantitative
survey and the Local Authorities survey include all types of communities, but it is probable, due
to the common practice of local authorities and research operators to focus more on the
impoverished communities, that these could be over-represented.
We can therefore summarize by saying that our research addresses the social situation of Roma
people living in mostly poor Roma communities.
1.3 Agents of Change

In writing this report we had in view its policy implications. The pervasive question we have
tried to address in all chapters is: which are the agents that will bring about change in the social
situation of the Romanian Roma people? The possible list of candidates which we had in view
included broad forces such as sharing in the national economic development, education, religion
and political emancipation.
National and local authorities also have a powerful influence on the Roma situation – either
directly, by specific interventions in Roma communities, or indirectly, by means of structural changes
in the Romanian society and economy.Direct interventions are discussed in the sections on mediation
structures between Roma communities and local authorities. Case studies and survey data do not
include enough relevant information to evaluate other development programmes and initiatives.
Indirect influences are discussed implicitly in sections on various aspects of living, such as
employment, health, education and segregation in education, or migration.
There are many possible direct and indirect effects of the general economic development of
Romania on the situation of the poor Roma. Among these, our research includes a chapter on
financial coping strategies, more precisely on migration and credit, as well as discussions on
4
INTRODUCTION
employment and income and expenditures. The research also includes an extensive chapter on
education, a section on religious affiliation and a section on local mediation structures.
Without entering into a detailed discussion here of these topics, it is important to underline
the main conclusions, providing an interpretation frame for the entire report.
Among all the agents of change discussed in the report, the most powerful one is, as expected, the
Roma people themselves, and their main strategy of emancipation is finding work abroad (see the
sections on migration). Nevertheless, the sections on credit, employment and income and expenditure
point out that Roma people are far from having a share of the benefits that economic growth has
brought to other Romanian citizens. Further research may also explore the role of increasingly available
technology (such as mobile phones or computers) in creating and reducing inequalities between the
quality of life of the Roma and the non-Roma (see the section on long-term consumer goods).
Local mediation structures, such as local leaders, health and education mediators or experts on
Roma issues, are also visible social actors and often agents of change. The chapter on health issues
focuses especially on what seem to be the limitations of these structures, these being of particular
relevance for policy discussions.
Political emancipation also refers to the situation of legal acknowledgments of national and
local citizenship by means of civil status and Identity documents, land ownership and residential
contracts. The issue of illegal housing is discussed in the two sections on property rights.
Religious organizations, especially the neo-protestant ones such as the Pentecostal and the
Baptist churches, are visible forces of change in Roma communities. The non-Roma and the Roma
themselves are aware of this, and usually this influence is celebrated by both sides. Still, it is
important to pay attention to the complex changes that religious conversion introduces into the
lives of any person or community. It is ironic, for example, that the “civilization” benefits of the
neo-protestant affiliation are sometimes praised by the same people who fear the “demographic
danger” of the Roma birth rate.
The school institution, although it has in theory an ambitious mission of shaping pupils into
autonomous human beings, has only a barely visible influence on the life trajectories of the people
this research speaks about. In comparison to other forces that contribute to the development of
Roma children into adults, the school is all but absent.
1.4 Definitions of Poverty and Exclusion

in Roma-focused Research Programmes
The issue of social exclusion is not the same as the issue of poverty. It rather belongs to the
complex discussion on social stratification. The distinction between quantitative and qualitative
indicators is of special relevance here. Household incomes or expenditures, labour market positions,
education, housing, spatial and geographical positions, information circuits, social relations as
indicators of social position are all useful quantitative indicators. In the case of social exclusion these
indicators can also be used as qualitative ones, and it is necessary to use some special indicators to
point out processes of social exclusion. If we want to understand the character of social exclusion,
it is necessary to understand the differences between being poor, or on the bottom of the economic
structure, or being outside the society. To be excluded from society may have various relative
meanings, but social exclusion is usually defined as more than a simple economic phenomenon: it
also has consequences on the social and symbolic fields. Social exclusion does not necessarily entail
poverty – although in stratified societies poverty nearly always leads to social exclusion. Therefore,
poverty is not a good indicator of social exclusion; it is neither sufficient on its own, nor necessary,
although it is true that the two are empirically correlated. “Social exclusion is about the inability of
5
INTRODUCTION
our society to keep all groups and individuals within reach of what we expect as a society. It is about
the tendency to push vulnerable and difficult individuals into the least popular places, furthest away
from our common aspirations. It means that some people feel excluded from the mainstream, as
though they do not belong” (Power and Wilson, 2000).
Ethnic categories, from this perspective, are not only target groups of social exclusion but they
may be actual results of the very processes of exclusion and inclusion. There are social contexts in
which being Þigan or Rom, as identified by the majority population, means being excluded.
For the purpose of this report, we can consider the Romanian society as a two-layered structure.
There is a formal or mainstream society, and a second structure of the socially excluded from the
mainstream. This is not just a theoretical argument. If economic differences are rather more
quantitative, social exclusion is a quantitative and a qualitative issue as well. While poverty is the
question of “how much”, social exclusion is somehow the question of “how and why”. This assertion
means that different measures, research methods and indicators are necessary in order to study it.
Our hypothesis is that Roma poverty is different from the poverty of non-Roma people in
Romania. And exclusion is not just, and not necessarily about poverty, but also about symbolic
boundaries, social networks and their rupture points, institutional and interpersonal discrimination,
access to services and information, possibilities of participating in the formal economy,
geographical distances from working opportunities, etc Social exclusion is a complex problem of
people living excluded from the mainstream society symbolically and/or economically. All of these
factors may have influences on ethnic and other community identities.
1.4.1 Indicators of Poverty and Exclusion

There have been multiple attempts to construct operational definitions and indicators for social
exclusion, in order to better understand living conditions in Roma communities.
Dumitru Sandu (2005) defines an index for community poverty in Roma communities (IPRC)
by a structure of six indicators:
Table 1–1. Index of poverty in Roma communities (IPRC).

Dimension Indicators Values Total value
Marginal location in relation 1= yes
Accessibility 1 if any indicator has value 1
to the locality 0 = no
Modernized access roads
1= yes
(paved with stones or 0 otherwise
0 = no
asphalt)
Location next to a garbage 1= yes
dump 0 = no
More than 50% of
1= yes 1 if any indicator
Infrastructure community households lack a
0 = no has value 1
source of potable water
More than 50% of
community households lack 1= yes
0 otherwise
connection to electricity 0 = no
network
Main income source for
more than 50% households
1 = yes 1 if yes
Income sources is social assistance (Minimum
0 = no 0 if no
Guaranteed Income) and/or
occasional activities
Source: Sandu 2005, p. 23
6
INTRODUCTION
Sandu defines poor communities as having at least two poverty indicators out of three. The research
data indicate the following distribution of Roma communities and estimated Roma population:
Table 1-2. Distribution of poor Roma communities and estimated Roma residents
Community type High probability Roma population
Communities Rural areas Urban areas Rural and urban
% % % %
No problem indicators 10 13 16 14
One problem indicator 31 25 44 33
Two problem
45 46 31 40
Poor Roma indicators
communities Three problem
14 16 9 13
indicators
Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total number 848 162994 111860 274854
Source: Sandu 2005, p. 27
In a more detailed research on poverty, Emil Teºliuc, Lucian Pop and Filofteia Panduru define
two poverty thresholds: the poverty line and the extreme poverty line (Teºliuc et al., 2003). The
research data is based on consumption figures recorded by (1) the Romanian Household Budget
Survey for the period 2001-2002, (2) the Integrated Household Survey (AIG) for the period 1995-
2000, and (3) the 2002 Living Conditions Survey. The authors make use of the following
methodology:
“The food component of the poverty line is determined as the cost of a food basked preferred by
the individuals from the second and third quintile, priced at the unit values faced by this group, with
quantities scaled up proportionally to give a caloric intake of 2550 calories per adult per day. (...)
The resulting food component of the poverty line, expressed in Dec-02 urban prices, was 872 005
ROL1. (...) The extreme poverty line is determined by summing up the food component of the
poverty line with the monthly amount of non-food and services typically consumed by those whose
total consumption equals the food requirement. If households that can cover only their food
requirements gave up on food for other consumption items, these items should be necessities. Thus,
the extreme poverty line is the sum of food and other non-food necessities. Individuals will be
classified as extreme poor if their consumption per adult equivalent will be lower than the extreme
poverty line. The extreme poverty line, expressed in Dec-02 prices, is 1 060 658 ROL. The total
poverty line is determined by adding to the food component the amount spent on non-food and
services by those households whose food consumption equals the food component of the poverty line.
In this variant, the definition of non-food necessities is broader. Individuals will be classified as (total)
poor if their consumption per adult equivalent will be lower than the total poverty line. The total
poverty line, expressed in Dec-02 prices, is 1 535 570 ROL2.” (Teºliuc et al. 2003, pp. 5-6).
Using the census auto-identified ethnic affiliation, which indicates a 2.5% total Roma population
in Romania, the World Bank Poverty Assessment Report of 2003 estimates that “until 2002, Roma
people had 2.7 times more chance of being poor than the rest of the population, and 5 times more
chance of living in extreme poverty. In fact, three out of five Roma people live in extreme poverty
and only one of five is not poor” (Teºliuc et al. 2003, p. 28).
1 Based on December 2002 currency rate, 1 EURO = 33330 ROL.

2 See footnote 1
7
INTRODUCTION
1.4.2 Defining “Roma Issues” as Ethnic or Social Issues

As discussed in the section above, research data (Sandu 2005, Teºliuc et al. 2003) indicate that
Roma people have a considerably higher risk of living in poverty than non-Roma people; the
difference is even higher if we consider those living in extreme poverty. A data interpretation issue
that emerges in several studies on the Roma is whether rejection of the Roma is due to the
qualitatively inferior socio-economic status of a large segment of the Roma people, or whether it
is associated with the ethnic classification in itself.
Some scholars on the Roma people in Romania have stressed the difference between the “ethnic
rejection” and “social rejection” of the Roma people, indicating that Roma are mostly confronted
with socially-grounded negative attitudes. For example, Zamfir and Zamfir (1993) write that “The
problem that most urgently worries the Romanian society is not the problem of Roma as Roma
ethnic. It is not, therefore, an ethnic problem. (...) This problem refers indeed to the Roma, but
only to a segment of the Roma population, the size of which is difficult to estimate, and it focuses
especially on social and economic issues than on ethnic issues” (p. 156).
Other analyses indicate that attitudes towards Roma may reflect various types of intolerance.
Sandu (2003) distinguishes between a generalized intolerance towards ethnic groups other than
one’ s own, and a specific intolerance directed at Roma people only. The author concludes that
specific intolerance tends to be a superiority complex of people who have recently improved their
material situation. Therefore, ethnic prejudice and asserting socio-economic status both play a
part in creating social distance and intolerance towards the Roma.
Stãnculescu (2004a) analyzes perceptions on poor neighbourhoods among various members of
a locality, mostly professionals in public institutions, and concludes that they usually define the
poor Roma neighbourhoods as unworthy of being included in a study, because the Roma are
responsible for their situation and even taking advantage of it.
Kligman (2002) notices that in post-communist Eastern Europe poverty and spatial
concentration are increasingly important criteria in hetero-identifying3 the Roma: “The local
transformation of attributing ‘ Gypsy identity’ to those who claim not to have been so identified
before the collapse of communism seems to be largely the consequence of two interrelated factors:
worsening poverty levels and geographical segregation. (...) Categories of classification such as
‘ Roma’ are not fixed or immutable; they may be expanded or contracted to include or exclude.
Hence, many of today’ s poverty stricken have been metaphorically ‘ Roma-fied’ , regardless of
how they self-identify” (pp. 73-74). Therefore, the author suggests that the stigma of the Gypsy
identity takes precedence over the stigma of extreme poverty, and in some cases the poor actually
become classified as Gypsy. Woodcock (2007) also believes that Þigani ethnic label is the bearer
of stigma, being the trigger for strong rejection attitudes.
Our research also addresses the issue of social distance between the Roma and the non-Roma;
still, we believe that quantitative and qualitative data support the hypothesis that attitudes towards
Roma people include a strong ethnic prejudice. In other words, it seems that among two people
of similar socio-economic status, the one which is seen as a Þigan will experience significantly
stronger rejection. This interpretation is supported by empirical findings on the stigma of the
Þigan category, and on the social distance of the non-Roma towards the Roma (see discussions in
Chapter 4 on stereotypes and social distance). Qualitative and quantitative data bear witness to the
power of the Þigani label, together with its embedded explanations of behavioural differences in
terms of stable cultural or personality traits, and with its family of additional uses in related words,
proverbs or metaphors.
3 Hetero-identification = to be identified by “the others”, cf. auto-identification (self-defined identity)
8
INTRODUCTION
1.5 Strategies of Roma Identification

The Þigan/Rom ethnic identity still bears the burden of social stigmatization, in Romania and
also, in its local versions, throughout Europe. Roma people are perceived through the lenses of
negative stereotypes, and social distance between them and the non-Roma is significantly larger
than in the case of other ethnic groups. Under these circumstances, Roma people sometimes
choose to identify as non-Roma in public or official contexts, in an attempt to escape possible
reactions of aversion. At the same time, the introduction of affirmative actions or special
programmes for the Roma has made possible, although on a far smaller scale, the reverse reaction:
non-Roma people may choose to identify as Roma in official contexts in order to access some
desirable benefits – such as, for example, reserved places in high schools or Universities.
Table 1–3. Relationships between self-identification as Roma in private and public contexts
…self-identifies as Roma …self-identifies as non-Roma
The respondent…
in private contexts in private contexts
…self-identifies as Roma (Seems to be negligible)
Consistent Roma identification
in public contexts Offensive identification strategy
…self-identifies as non-Roma
Defensive identification strategy Consistent non-Roma identification
in public contexts
The number of Romanian citizens who declared a Roma ethnic identity in the 2002 census has
slightly increased compared to 1992; even so, it is widely considered to be an underestimate, due
to the reluctance of Roma people to present themselves as such in front of an official interviewer.
Table 1–4. Number of Roma people in Romania according to census data, 1930-2002
Total
Year Ethnic groups
population
Serb,
Roma Russo-
Romanian Hungarian Ukrainian German Turkish Tatar Croat,
(Gypsy) Lipoven
Sloven
1930 14 280 729 11 118 170 1 423 459 242 656 45 875 633 488 50 725 26 080 15 580 50 310
1956 17 489 450 14 996 114 1 587 675 104 216 60 479 384 708 38 731 14 329 20 469 46 517
1966 19 103 163 16 746 510 1 619 592 64 197 54 705 382 595 39 483 18 040 22 151 44 236
1977 21 559 910 18 999 565 1 713 928 227 398 55 510 359 109 32 696 23 422 23 369 43 180
1992 22 810 035 20 408 542 1 624 959 401 087 65 472 119 462 38 606 29 832 24 596 33 769
2002 21 680 974 19 399 597 1 431 807 535 140 61 098 59 764 35 791 32 098 23 935 29 570
Source: National Statistical Institute
1.5.1 Hetero-identification of Roma People

Patricia Ahmed et al. (2001) and Iván Szelényi and János Ladányi (2002) conducted a research
project focused on the processes of hetero-identification of Roma people, using interviewers as
classificators in omnibus surveys4.
Ahmed et al. (2001) draw the following conclusions related to interviewer hetero-identification
of Roma people:
4 An omnibus survey is a method of quantitative research where data on a wide variety of topics is collected dur-
ing the same interview, usually undertaken on behalf of several clients.
9
INTRODUCTION
– almost all people who self-identify as Roma are hetero-identified as Roma;

– self-identified people are a subset of the hetero-identified people: around 10% of
respondents who self-identified as non-Roma in Romania were still designated as Roma by
interviewers;
– external characteristics of the individual affect the probability of being hetero-identified as
Roma: residence in a (perceived) majority Roma/Gypsy settlement, low level of education
(elementary or less), number of people in the household and low income all increase the
probability of being defined as Roma. Residence in a Roma neighbourhood increases this
probability twelve times, lack of education around three times, and poverty and
agglomeration each around one and a half times.
These features are unique to hetero-identification of Roma people, as they differ when it comes
to processes of identification of Hungarian people, for example. Specifically, living standard and
education does not influence attribution of Hungarian identity, for example.
Iván Szelényi and János Ladányi (2002) prove furthermore that interviewer classification of
Roma identity is highly inconsistent in Romania and Hungary (but not in Bulgaria). They took the
sub-samples of people that the first interviewer classified as Roma during the screening process (in
the omnibus surveys). This was a “blind” classification, since these surveys did not contain any
question regarding the self-identification of the subject. Subsequently, during the research survey
on the Roma sample, the second interviewer to speak with the subject would also classify her,
taking also into account information from her self-identification. Table 1-5 indicates that, for
example, in Hungary and in Romania around one third of subjects included in the sample on the
basis of screening classification were not considered by the second interviewer to be Roma. Even
more, “about two-thirds of those who were classified as Roma during the screening process in
Hungary and Romania do not regard themselves as Roma” (idem, p. 86).
Table 1–5. Inconsistencies between blind screening classification and informed survey classification
Bulgaria Hungary Romania
Second (survey) interviewer was certain 87.2 48.5 37.5
Survey interviewer was not certain 6.5 16.3 34.2
Classified as non-Roma by survey interviewer 6.3 35.2 28.3
Total subjects classified as Roma by first (screening) interviewer (5) 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sub-sample size 524 481 368
Source: Szelényi and Ladányi (2002), p. 85
1.6 Finding the Roma People: Sampling Issues

Qualitative research in Roma communities or with Roma people poses relatively little problems
for the researcher concerning the issue of finding Roma respondents and partners. Given the
nature of the relationship between the qualitative researcher and the population included in the
study – relationships which are rather informal and based on familiarity – Roma people are not
reluctant to self-identify as such, after the initial research stage. The difficulties are considerably
greater in quantitative research, for several reasons:
– Roma people may not be included on voting lists, due to lack of ID, and therefore they will
not be included in the sample;
– interviewers may be reluctant to enter a Roma neighbourhood, replacing the subjects with
people from the reserve list more often than people in non-Roma neighbourhoods;
– faced with an unknown interviewer in a short interaction, Roma respondents may prefer
to identify as non-Roma.
10
INTRODUCTION
Usually, individuals who define themselves as Roma in nationally representative samples are a
very low proportion of the sample, which does not even allow for frequency analyses on key variables.
Table 1-6. Inclusion of Roma respondents in several Romanian samples

Roma Roma
Data Collection Total
Survey Residence respondents respondents
Agency cases
(%) (N)
Domestic violence survey 2003, Open Institutul de Marketing
Urban and rural 1806 1.7 30
Society Foundation si Sondaje IMAS
Extremism Survey 2003, Institutul The Gallup
Urban and rural 1500 0.9 13
pentru Politici Publice (IPP) Organization Romania
Rural Barometer 2005, Open Society Metro Media Rural and small
1995 1.9 37
Foundation Transilvania towns
Urban Romania Survey 2005, Open The Gallup
Urban 2195 1.3 28
Society Foundation Organization Romania
Therefore, in order to conduct quantitative research on Roma individuals, Roma people must
be overrepresented in the sample, or included in a separate sample.
Ahmed et al. (2001) and Iván Szelényi and János Ladányi (2002) used a Roma subsample that
included respondents who had been previously hetero-identified as Roma by interviewers in
omnibus surveys. The use of hetero-identification in sampling is based on specific research
objectives backed by conceptual and empirical justifications.
Empirical justifications refer to the fact that the error of exclusion is negligible (Ladányi and
Szelényi 2002, p. 84). Therefore, the author starts from the assumption that self-identified Roma
people are a subset of hetero-identified Roma people. Moreover, if one further differentiates self-
identification from expert hetero-identification (classifications of teachers, social workers, doctors,
etc) and interviewer classification in surveys, it is likely that the three can be represented as three
concentric circles (idem, p. 81).
The main conceptual justification for studying hetero-identified Roma people is that “all of the
above systems of classification are ‘ real’ , tell us something important about the people who are
classified and who do the classification” (idem, p. 80). Furthermore, the authors add what we may
term the Thomas Theorem justification: people who are hetero-identified as Roma by interviewers
or experts are generally treated as Roma in the broader society, with significant personal and social
consequences.
Table 1-7. Errors in hetero-identification sampling the Roma population

…self-identifies as Roma …self-identifies as non-Roma
The respondent…
in private contexts in private contexts
…is hetero-identified as Roma
Correct identification Error of inclusion
in public contexts
…is hetero-identified as non-Roma
Error of exclusion Correct identification
in public contexts
The main question for quantitative social research has been whether to include hetero-identified
Roma respondents in analyses that purport to give data about the Roma population. There is no
doubt that hetero-identification is necessary if one studies the process of hetero-identification
itself, as Ladányi and Szelényi (2002) or Ahmed et al. (2001). Still, is it justified if the research aims
to study the Roma population?
Up until now, concrete research programmes have come up with two main answers to this question.
Authors like Zamfir and Zamfir (1992) or Zamfir and Preda (2003) accept samples that include hetero-
identified, non self-identified Roma respondents, based on the probability that these people would still
11
INTRODUCTION
identify as Roma in a private context. The errors of over-inclusion are seen as just an additional, non-
essential type of error in the survey, besides sampling errors, question bias, etc.
A second approach in sampling (such as the one used in the Roma Inclusion Barometer, Open
Society Foundation, November 2006) is to use hetero-identification in the first stage of sampling,
but then to use only the data from respondents that self-identify as Roma in the actual analysis.
This approach has the benefit of using a non-equivocal indicator of Roma ethnicity, but it has the
disadvantage of errors of exclusion and the added cost of filtering hetero-identified respondents
according to their public self-classification.
In order to overcome the debate of self-identification versus hetero-identification, D. Sandu
(2005) defines the operational concept “people with high probability of Roma self-identification”,
which can be targeted by various sampling means. The “Roma Social Mapping” research,
conducted in 2005, used local key informers to identify compact local communities larger than 19
households and then to estimate the proportion of Roma residents within them. The number of
people who probably self-identify as Roma within each community was computed by weighting
the total community population. This method uses key informers, both Roma and non-Roma, to
identify Roma communities, without attributing ethnic identities to individual respondents. The
author argues that, since self-identified Roma people participate in the process of community
identification, possible errors of over-inclusion are diminished. A significant shortfall of the method,
as the author acknowledges (pp. 11-12), relies in the inherently political implications of listing and
counting Roma communities in an official survey, as local authorities and key informants may hope
to receive help or other types of assistance from the central authorities. Such a bias in identifying
Roma communities and especially their problems can be reduced by a subsequent step of
verification. For example, the resulting list of communities from the “Roma Social Mapping”
research has been validated by subsequent surveys (when it was used for sampling the Roma
population), since no errors have been reported.
1.6.1 Sampling Roma Communities Versus Roma Individuals

Another difficulty in sampling the Roma population concerns those Roma individuals that do
not live in compact communities. The approach most used in sampling has been to start from the
Roma communities, which are easier to pinpoint, and then to search Roma individuals within
them. Such an approach has the risk of underestimating the number of dispersed Roma residents.
A sampling methodology such as the one used by Ladányi and Szelényi (2002) is theoretically
immune to this problem. Still, if we take into account the reluctance of interviewers for commercial
surveys to enter compact Roma neighbourhoods, it may be the case that segregated Roma residents
were in fact under-represented in their sample.
1.6.2 Comparability of Roma Samples

The differences in sampling methodologies discussed above can have significant consequences
on the distribution of Roma respondents on variables such as:
– respondents’ residence in compact communities or in mixed areas;
– probability of respondents being hetero-identified as Roma by an outsider;
– ethnic self-identification of respondents.
This is why comparability between different samples should only be assumed with caution.
When several research results are consistent, this inter-sample agreement may provide additional
reassurance for the correctness of the estimate.
12
INTRODUCTION
1.7 Political Correctness and Public Definition of

Roma Issues
Public debates and policies on the Roma issues have taken place over the last 17 years prior to this
research and it is clear that they have shaped, in one way or another, beliefs, attitudes and behaviour.
Research data on social distance supports the conclusion of an increase in ethnic tolerance, especially
if considering data on tolerance of Roma neighbours by non-Roma respondents.
For example, M. Voicu (2007) presents data from four surveys regarding the proportion of the
total adult population of Romania which do not accept Roma neighbours (p. 56). The declining
tendency is clear: 72% in the European Value Survey 1993, 60% in World Value Survey 1997,
49% in European Value Survey 1999, and 37% in the Roma Inclusion Barometer 2006. M. Voicu
concludes that “the degree of intolerance on behalf of the majority population against the Roma
has decreased very much since 1990/decreased very much after 1990. (...) There are multiple causes
for this change. On the one hand, an improvement in the economic situation. On the other hand,
we can say that during this transition period Romanians have learned the rules of the democratic
game, of tolerance and inter-ethnic respect. Not least, one should mention institutional causes,
legislative change and the development of programmes that aim to stimulate social inclusion of the
Roma” (idem). The quantitative survey data on social distance in this research also indicates that
37% of non-Roma respondents in the comparative sample would refuse Roma neighbours (see the
chapter on social distance).
It is difficult to discern the independent impact of possible causes for this change in survey
answers. It is plausible that at least one reason is the growing awareness of politically correct and
incorrect answers – part of the rules of the democratic game mentioned by Voicu. The relevance
of this factor is supported by the constant level of non-Roma respondents who refuse to accept a
Roma person in the family: 76% of the national sample in the Barometer of Interethnic Relations
2002 (apud Jderu 2002), and 82% of the non-Roma respondents in the comparative sample (see
Table 4-2). This could be the case because acceptance as a family member is the most personal
choice possible, and any selection criteria is seen as potentially legitimate, since it is largely a
matter of taste. Refusing to consider a Þigan as a marriage partner is probably seen as less
discriminatory and more publicly acceptable as refusing to have a Þigan as a neighbour.
The question remains, whether a tendency to give politically correct answers to survey questions
is only the result of wanting to be socially acceptable, or that this awareness itself leads to less
discriminatory behaviour in inter-ethnic relations.
Community researchers mention in different contexts the issue of political correctness. M. Goina
(2007) discusses the conflict between the apparent neutrality of language and subjacent attitudes
reflected by other remarks, while Pantea (2007) also identifies political correctness as a barrier to honest
communication with local authorities, a barrier that gradually subsides as the conversation develops.
Quote 1-1. Ambiguous attitudes to ethnic statistics in Timiºoara*

I realized that statistics on ethnic composition of population create a certain ambiguity.
Among Roma movements it is admitted the need for them (as they can define needs
and public policies have to be implemented), but at the same time statistics on ethnicity
represent a fear of ethicizing or racialyzing general phenomena such as poverty. This
impact may lead to strengthening racism against Roma regarding “genetics”, “Roma
blood” and “Roma culture” as mere causes of poverty. Among non-Roma this data is
meant to show their political correctness (“we don’ t ask our patients/clients/employees
* See Table 16-1 for a list of the localities, which also shows the county in which each locality is located.
13
INTRODUCTION
if they are Roma or not, they are all treated as equals.” Or: “They don’ t want to in-
tegrate and behave like us”, affirmations showing the importance of ethnic identifi-
cation. It is obvious, that ethnicity matters for those people, who declare themselves
neutral towards one’ s ethnic identity). (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Quote 1-2. Political correctness in Local Authorities in Oºorhei

It should be stated from the beginning that none of the representatives of the local au-
thority (except one of them) wished to be recorded during the interview. They all
spoke with great precaution about the “Roma issue” and had, at the beginning, a
speech that was politically correct. As the discussion continued the non-Roma repre-
sentatives began to express their own opinions, less correct. They didn’ t want these
parts to be written down or they said so after the completion of the interview. The
reason might be that the media from Oradea warned several times about the critical
status of the Roma in Oºorhei and Cheriu. (Oºorhei, Pantea 2007)
At the same time, the experience of M. Goina (2007), which is also reflected in Rughiniº (2004),
indicates that prejudiced discourse is not necessarily accompanied by hostile or discriminatory
actions against the Roma. Paradoxically, it is possible that any professional, whether a teacher, social
worker, priest or local official, could display a racist attitude against the Roma and at the same time
be personally involved in systematic actions to help particular Roma people or a community.
Quote 1-3. Prejudiced discourse versus empathetic action in public professionals in Curtici
The discourse of most Romanian intellectuals and public officers proves a racist atti-
tude, full of prejudices towards Roma people. Nevertheless, the same public officers
and intellectuals prove to be much more involved in the problems of Roma people
with whom they interact and try to do their best in order to help them. For instance,
one of the high school secretaries, leaving aside all the bad words she said about Roma
people, seemed to be sincerely preoccupied by the fate of children who abandon school
due to various reasons. One of the family physicians seemed determined to go in the
community and offer assistance for new-born babies regardless of the lack of interest
that the parents were showing for their children. The school director goes to convince
a grandmother to allow her granddaughter at least to complete the 8th year of her
studies. (Curtici, M. Goina 2007)
Still, at the same time one should not neglect the direct and indirect effects and costs of
prejudiced discourse at personal and social level, even when it is espoused by helpful and
empathetic individuals. Prejudiced discourse and attitudes contribute to the stigma associated with
the Þigan label, and thus prevent significant change from happening at a broader social level.
Insofar as such discourse becomes public, it can contribute to increasing social distance and to
experiences of shame and humiliation on behalf of the Roma, with serious consequences.
Therefore, it is important to have in mind how prejudiced discourse is hidden by the increasing
awareness of the need to provide politically correct answers, and also how it relates to behaviour
and attitudes at personal and community levels.
14
2. Methodology
2.1 The Survey Research
2.1.1 The Questionnaire

The questionnaire has three parts:
1. Questions about the household, addressed to the head of the household;
2. Questions about all members of the household, addressed to the head of the household;
3. Opinion and life experience questions, addressed to a household member selected randomly.
2.1.2 The Samples

The survey research uses two samples:
1. The Roma sample:
– It includes households with self-identified Roma heads of household;
– It is projected as a representative sample, at national and regional levels. The sample is
stratified according to locality type and historical regions.
2. The Comparative sample:
– It includes households with non-Roma heads of household in the same localities as the Roma
sample; respondents were also selected in the surrounding areas to the Roma neighbourhoods;
– It is not representative at national level, since it does not include residents from localities
without a Roma population, and it selects respondents who live close to Roma
neighbourhoods;
– It provides a basis for comparison of data from the Roma sample.
Both samples have the same list of localities. Localities were selected on the basis of having had
at least 10 people who identified as Roma in the 2002 Census. Within each locality (comunã ) we
selected the village with the largest Roma community.
The comparative sample therefore indicates the situation of the non-Roma population who live
in the vicinity of Roma neighbourhoods. Given the selection procedure, it is likely that, on average,
the households included in the comparative sample have a slightly lower socio-economic position
than the national average. This is confirmed, for example, by contrasting data from the
Comparative sample with data from the National sample of the Roma Inclusion Barometer 2006
(see, for example, the summary tables in the sections on Access to Main Utilities, Long-term
consumer goods, or Educational level).
The validity of the sampling methodology is supported by similar findings on key indicators
with other research projects on the Roma population, such as the UNDP 20045 or the Soros
Foundation RIB 20066. Comparisons across research projects are included throughout the
following analysis.
Our methodology asked survey operators to identify the Roma neighbourhoods in each locality
and to select two of them randomly. Within each community, households were initially selected
by the random route method. The operator asked who was the head of the household, and finally
conducted interviews only when he or she self-identified as Roma. The respondent for the second
5 Available on the UNDP site at URL http://roma.undp.sk/
6 The report is available on the Soros Foundation site at URL http://www.osf.ro/ro/program.php?program=16;
the database is also available on request.
15
INTRODUCTION
section of the survey was selected randomly in the same household, as the adult member who had
the most recent birthday.
As is usually the case with Roma surveys that rely on operators’ selection of Roma
neighbourhoods, it is probable that Roma people who live in non-Roma neighbourhoods are
under-represented. It is also probable that some operators avoided the neighbourhoods which
were most remote, difficult to access or perceived as dangerous. Still, this does not affect the
comparability of the data with other Roma surveys who deployed a similar methodology, such as
the UNDP 2004 or the Soros Foundation RIB 2006.
2.1.3 Categories for Analysis

The two samples were selected according to the ethnicity of the head of the household.
Consequently, the Roma sample includes only Roma heads of household and the comparative
sample includes only non-Roma heads of the household. Still, since the individual respondent was
selected randomly from the household, his or her ethnic identification may not coincide with that
of the head of the household. Households were selected in the sample only if the head of the
household self-identified as Roma, though the randomly selected member of the household could
be non-Roma. Given the fact that both samples include random respondents of various ethnic
groups, questions from the individual part of the questionnaire are analysed by four categories. The
first two are the main object of analysis: the non-Roma subjects in the comparative sample, and
the Roma subjects in the Roma sample. The remaining two are presented only for comparison
purposes, as there are relatively few individuals in these categories: Roma subjects in the
comparative sample and non-Roma subjects in the Roma sample. For the sake of simplicity, when
it is not otherwise specified, we shall use the expression “Roma respondents” to refer to the Roma
respondents in the Roma sample, and “non-Roma respondents” to refer to the non-Roma
respondents in the comparative sample.
We have included in the category of Roma respondents all people who have indicated that their
first or second ethnic affiliation is Roma.
Table 2-1. Distribution of individual survey respondents by ethnicity and sample type
Nr of cases Percent
Roma subject in Roma sample 1070 50
Non-Roma subject in comparative sample 954 44
Roma subject in comparative sample 59 3
Non Roma subject in Roma sample 72 3
Total 2155 100.0
The combination of two samples (Roma and non-Roma) with the format of the survey
instrument following the philosophy of an integrated household survey provided the unique
opportunity for two types of comparability:
1. Between Roma and the local majority living in neighbouring areas;
2. Between Roma and the status of the average population of the country (reflected in
national household and labour force surveys).
Given a major sampling constraint —uncertainty of the number of the Roma population (due
to the diffuse border between ethnic groups) —the data (and thus all possible comparisons) has
certain limitations. The survey does not provide the answer to questions like “How many Roma
live in poverty?” or “How many Roma have completed secondary education?”, but it helps
estimate answers to questions such as “What proportion of Roma live in poverty?” and “What
16
METHODOLOGY
proportion of Roma have completed secondary education?” We must still take into account that
the survey refers especially to residents of Roma communities, and not to dispersed Roma.
Such answers are comprehensive enough for policy purposes because they outline the distance
between various groups and provide clues to the reasons why disparities exist.
2.2 The Qualitative Research
2.2.1 Community Studies

The tradition of Community Studies is not a sub-discipline of sociology, or of ethnography or
social or cultural anthropology, but rather a research method on the edge of the mentioned social
sciences. In the United States the tradition of Community Studies came from the qualitative
sociology of the Chicago school. In Eastern Europe sociography had come before sociology was
developed. But modern Community Studies, mostly based on the Western European and American
traditions, has a very strict methodology, mostly focusing on cultural changes of ethnic
communities, the reproduction of ethnic identities and influences of local and national policies.
“Community studies are characterized by an eclectic methodology: some elements are chosen and
their connection and interaction with each other is observed, while focusing on certain communities
and neighbourhoods, which are relevant for the analysis of the research topics beyond the question
of locality. Moreover, the method is able primarily to point to group behaviours, and it generally
creates theories starting from empirical data, rather than from theses” (Kovács 2007, p. 11.)
In our research project in-depth qualitative research was conducted in 36 communities with a high
risk of social exclusion in order to clarify the different mechanisms that lead to this social process, in
different situations. This type of research allows for a more detailed understanding of the local
problems and a better view on local opportunities and suitable solutions/improving strategies.
The criteria used for the selection of the 36 localities were:

– Census information and information provided by the Local Authorities Research, that
indicated a high risk of social exclusion;
– Sub-ethnic group of Roma communities: the selection procedure aimed to maximize the
diversity of neamuri;
– Availability of a field researcher willing to spend four weeks in a given community;
– Previous research experience of the field researchers in a given community: preferences of
field researchers were given priority in the selection process;
Using these criteria, we assembled the list of communities (see Table 16-1).
The researchers we worked with had the following qualifications: university level studies in either
sociology, anthropology, ethnography, social work or other social sciences; experience in Roma
communities, experience in disadvantaged communities or in qualitative community research.
Each field researcher was expected to live in the locality where the community belongs, or, when
possible, in the community itself, for a minimum of three weeks (with weekends). The researcher was
expected to produce the data and the community reports, based on his/her direct experience.
The following research instruments, to facilitate the work of the researchers, were used:
– A General Guideline, with an introduction to the method of the fieldwork and way of
collecting and recording data;
– A short guideline about how to behave in the field;
17
INTRODUCTION
– Format and instructions for the field diary;

– Observation guideline with focus points for observation;
– Semi-structured interview guidelines for the in-depth interviews;
– A list of documents and other materials to be collected/copied.
Research targets were:

– Roma families;
– Non-Roma families living around Roma inhabitants;
– Local institutions and organizations that have or should have official relations with the
Roma inhabitants;
– Schools, kindergartens to which Roma pupils go;
– Roma and non-Roma NGOs in localities.
The focus points of the qualitative fieldwork were the following:

– main problems and needs as defined at local level;
– access to utilities and infrastructure;
– access to social services;
– access to income sources;
– identity and property papers;
– relations to the institutions and authorities;
– working experiences (position in formal and informal labour market), experienced labour-
market inequalities ;
– experiences in school, with teachers (in the case of parents, both their own when they were
students, and currently as parents), experienced inequalities in school;
– aspirations;
– coping strategies;
– migration potential and migration experiences;
– geographical mobility inside the country (ways and reasons);
– representation of interests at local and county levels;
– social relations inside the community;
– inter-ethnic relations, ethnic affiliation and self-definition.
Researchers conducted an average of 15-20 interviews, which were distributed as follows:

– Roma and non-Roma Local residents, including people who have problems with birth, ID
or property papers (6-10 interviews);
– Mayor or Deputy Mayor;
– Local councillor;
– Proximity policeman;
– Medical doctor;
– School, kindergarten director and/or teachers;
– Officer for Population Registration;
– Social Worker;
– Expert for Roma Issues in Local Authority;
– Other Roma leaders and experts.
18
METHODOLOGY
2.2.2 Data Types in Community Studies

The qualitative fieldwork research provides several types of data, which are incorporated into
the community research report and its annexes. Field researchers have submitted:
1. Statistical data at local level, provided by local authorities and social service providers;
2. Interview transcripts for the most informative interviews (selected by the field researcher), and
audio files or abstracts for the other interviews;
3. Their own research report, including:
– a presentation of the most informative field data;
– their own research conclusions;
– a research journal.
4. Audio-visual materials: photographs, brief films, etc;
5. Other annexes, such as newspaper articles or other documents available on the locality, other
data, etc
The field researchers have a socio-anthropological background and/or experience, and therefore
their reports are not only collections of primary data, but also include their field experiences and
their understanding of the situation on the ground. Field experiences include information on the
personal history of encounters with local authorities and with the inhabitants, the ease or difficulty
of obtaining information, the sense of being welcomed or mistrusted, and so on. The researchers’
conclusions cover topics such as local cultural practices, standard of living, forms of social
participation or exclusion from different institutions, ethnic discrimination.
Therefore our report is to some extent a meta-analysis of the field-reports, which are in themselves
pieces of sociological research. The conclusions of the field researchers are interpreted in the light
of statistical, interview and audio-visual data from the locality, and integrated into the broader context
of the other reports. We also evaluate the credibility of the conclusions drawn by field researchers,
taking into account the diversity and coherence of data that refer to their assertions.
2.3 The Local Authorities Survey

The Local Authorities self-applied questionnaire was designed in order to:
1. Obtain recent data at locality level about Roma communities (focusing on the compact,
segregated ones);
2. Assess the perception of local governments on the Roma inhabitants in their localities
(focusing on the Local Authorities’ perception of the lack of ID cards, property papers and
education issues);
3. Compare the data provided by local governments with the data from the 2002 Census.
The research instrument was a 4-page long self-applied questionnaire, with 23 questions
(including tables and open questions). The questionnaire was intended to be sent with a letter to
all local governments, for self-completion and return to the Technical Assistance Research Team.
We sent the questionnaires to all 3177 local governments in Romania by mail and, when it was
possible or required, by fax or e-mail. The final response rate was around 56% (1770 answers received).
A frequent problem encountered at local level was that some local government representatives
did not want to contradict the 2002 Census data on the number of Roma people in the locality,
although they believed that the real situation of the Roma communities was different. For example,
in some cases local governments did not want to indicate in the questionnaire Roma communities
whose residents did not declare their Roma ethnicity in the census, even if they actually considered
and declared themselves of Roma ethnicity in less formal contexts.
19
INTRODUCTION
We conducted the analysis of the descriptive statistics together with the comparative analysis of
the Census data and of additional indicators from the annual data collection of the National
Institute for Statistics.
When using a weight variable, the Local Authorities survey data is representative on regions and
types of locations7.
2.4 The Report

This report combines the findings from the qualitative and the quantitative research, and it also
includes a chapter on the data from the Local Authorities Survey (see chapter 13). Quantitative
data is used to discuss the frequency distributions of relevant variables and to identify the most
relevant influences, by multivariate and univariate analysis. Qualitative research is used to illustrate
concepts used in the quantitative research, and to highlight the connections between numbers and
the real lives of Roma and non-Roma people.
The report is integrated at chapter level, while sections rely dominantly either on qualitative or
on quantitative analysis. Since each type of data requires a certain mindset to interpret it, we hope
that this structure will facilitate reading.
The questionnaires for the Survey research and for the Local Authority research are available
on the project website: www.sper.org.ro
2.4.1 Ethnonyms Used in The Report

In this report we have used various ethnonyms related to the Roma people, such as Roma,
Gypsy, Þigan or more specific ones such as Cãldãrari, Ursari, Gropeni, and others. For each person,
the proper ethnonym is the one she or he uses, and ethnonyms are most often difficult to translate
because part of their meaning has been lost. However, since this report is based on qualitative and
quantitative data on thousands of Roma people and dozens of communities, it is impossible to use
in each case the specific ethnonym by which these people and groups define themselves.
We have used the name “Roma” to designate the various groups and individuals that refer to
themselves as Romi, Þigani, Ursari, Cãldãrari, Þigani romanizati, Rudari and any other ethnonyms
commonly subsumed under the label of Rom. We chose to use “Roma” and not “Gypsy” as the
generic term because the first is less charged with moral, emotional, explicative and descriptive
assumptions. Gypsy is commonly translated as Þigan, and we also wanted to maintain a distance
towards stereotypes of the Þigani and the stigma of being a Þigan. Therefore, we have only used
the ethnonym Þigan in the analysis, marked in italics, when referring to the perspective of non-
Roma people in Romania on the Roma.
We have used specific ethnonyms, such as Lingurari, Gabor, and so on, in all contexts in which
the specific affiliation of a person or a community was known and when this information was
relevant for the topic under discussion.
When writing about people with other ethnic identification than Roma, we have used the terms
“non-Roma” and Gadje interchangeably, as a succinct reminder of the Roma perspectives on the
outside society.
7 This means that in the database the proportion of localities by (development) regions and the rates of localities
in different categories of type of location (municipality, town, commune) is the same as in the national database
(Census 2002)
20
METHODOLOGY
2.4.2 Presentation of Statistical Information

In the following pages, survey data is most often presented as frequency distributions, in tables
or charts. The distribution of a certain variable, such as the language spoken in the household, is
also presented as a function of other traits of the respondents – such as education, income, urban
or rural residence, etc It is always possible that a given association between two variables, for
example a better rate of school success of pupils in towns compared to rural localities, to reflect
the effect of another variable, such as income, since urban households are wealthier on average.
In order to see, for example, whether differences in school success can be attributed to residence
or to household wealth, one can use a regression model which tests both correlations
simultaneously. While linear regression models attempt to describe the variation of a given variable
as a function of several variables, logistic regression models describe the odds of a given event (the
probability of its occurrence divided by the probability of it not happening) as a function of several
variables. In this report we have use regression models mainly in order to identify the main
predictors and thus possible influences on a given feature. Therefore, the chapters include
presentations of relationships between pairs of variables, while background exploratory regression
models are included in the annexes.
When available, we have included data from the Roma Inclusion Barometer RIB 2006 (Bãdescu
et al. 2007), for comparison purposes.
21
PART II
ETHNIC AFFILIATION
AND CLASSIFICATION
3. Who Are The Roma?
The Roma population is in a process of complex differentiation, influenced by structural changes
in the Romanian society and economy, as well as factors with a more focused influence. The wealth
extremes are the ones that influence the most the public representation of the Roma: the very rich
and the very poor. The “Roma tradition”, the manele8, and the stark contrasts brought about by
rapid change are frequent subjects of emotionally-laden discourses about the Þigani. Besides this
representation of the Roma culture focused on its “exotic” and most distinctive features, there is
little public awareness of the commonalities and the differences in worldviews and experiences
between the two sides of the “Þigan” divide. This chapter uses information from qualitative and
quantitative surveys to discuss the ethnic affiliation of the Roma against the background of more
general information on the diversity of Roma people and communities.
There are multiple perspectives which we could deploy to answer the broad question “Who
are the Roma”? One such perspective could be methodological – namely, focusing on the Roma
people that are portrayed in this research, on the criteria that led to their selection and their
influence on the emerging picture. The issues of sampling and community selection have been
discussed in the first part of the report. To summarize, our research is based on information from
a variety of communities, and it mostly refers to Roma people who live in more or less distinct
Roma communities. We have gathered little information on Roma people who live among non-
Roma neighbourhoods. This is usual in sociological research, due to common sampling practices.
However, it is important to have this community-centered selection in mind when interpreting the
results from a broader perspective.
A second perspective starts from the researchers’ understanding of Roma people’ s lives – of the
main forces that lead to their similarity and variation, and of those experiences that are more often
found in the life tracks of the Roma, compared to the non-Roma. In this chapter we use qualitative
and quantitative data to explore the diversity of Roma communities, the issue of tradition, their
attitudes and expectations, their experiences of extreme poverty, religious affiliation and the age
of motherhood (see sections 3.1 to 5.4).
A third perspective refers to the ethnic affiliation of the Roma people themselves: how do they
define their ethnicity? What do they mean by “being Roma”? What emotions are associated with
this identity? How does it influence their choices in relating to people in other ethnic groups? This
is the type of approach we shall pursue in the section 3.5 on “Survey Analysis of Ethnic Affiliation”.
A fourth perspective refers to the Þigani and Romi stereotypes shared by the Roma and non-
Roma population of Romania, and the emotions, attitudes and practices that are associated with
these stereotypes. We explore this perspective on the Roma people in the chapter on “Stereotypes,
Social Distance Attitudes and Inter-ethnic Contact”.
3.1 Diversity of Roma Communities

Observed from different points of view the perceived, presented, represented, reclaimed
diversity of the Roma communities gives us certain clues to the mechanisms of social/cultural
exclusion and how these are confronted by the people themselves.
8 Manele = Musical style, with Oriental-type tonalities, performed especially by Roma artists, highly popular with
segments of the Roma and non-Roma public, while at the same time heavily criticized by other segments of the pub-
lic, especially for the content of its lyrics.
25
ETHNIC AFFILIATION AND CLASSIFICATION
3.1.1 Levels of Differentiation

This section starts with a fourfold distinction of classifications and differentiation of the Roma
people and communities:
1. Self-differentiations employed by the Roma themselves, in order to identify as opposed to
“other” Roma, such as the Roma from neighbouring localities or the most marginalized Roma
from the same locality/ settlement.
An eloquent example of how “the other” Roma are built up as a mirror-representation can be
found in the case of Cetate: the interviewed Roma differentiated themselves from the Roma who
live in the neighbour localities and who are perceived as a self-segregated Roma community, with
a high rate of unemployment, wood-stealing and other law infringements. At the same time, the
Roma from the nearby village are perceived as new-comers, migrants from the Moldavia region and,
therefore with a lower social status. Another category of “other” Roma are the families living in the
social housing block (the poorest and the most excluded from the socio-economic networks of the
locality) – who are perceived as inferior because they are new-comers to the locality.
Another example is the sub-ethnic group of Gabors – present in the studied Oºorhei, Sîntana de
Mureº, Târgu Mureº settlements – who consider themselves the only real Roma, speaking the
only real Romani, with the noblest blood of all Roma. They consider all other Roma as inferior,
thus exogamic marriage with non-Gabors is highly undesirable and banned. Moreover, the
“inferior” Roma are treated as servants and perceived as the “trouble makers” who generate the
discriminatory attitudes among the non-Roma – the reason for which the Gabors use the same
discriminating stereotypes as the non-Roma towards the “other Roma”.
2. Hetero-differentiations employed in the discourses of the non-Roma. The main categories
used by the non-Roma subjects were “our Roma” – the Roma from the locality or the Roma they
have a certain amount of contact with – and “other Roma” – Roma from other localities or who
are absent from the socio-economic networks of the non-Roma subjects.
3. Researchers’ classifications of the Roma in case studies add to this multiplicity of perspectives.
Some of these classifications closely mirror the common stereotypical distinctions, while others are
more useful as analytical instruments.
Quote 3-1. Researcher’ s categorizations of Roma in M. Kogãlniceanu

Roma can be categorized in this respect, as well: there are the orderly, with tidy
homes, and there are the very filthy, unkempt. Children relieve themselves on the
street, run around naked, have very many cats and dogs. In large families, hygiene
rules are more precarious, as well, because the mother does not have time for all the
children at once. (Mihail Kogãlniceanu, Marcu 2007)
4. Last but not least, we can discuss the diversity of the Roma community patterns from the
broader perspective provided for us by an overview of all community reports.
3.1.2 Self-differentiation Strategies

Self-differentiation strategies refer to how Roma perceive and present each other within one
settlement, be it within family groups or as neighbours, both near and more distant.
As observed in most of our case studies, the “new-comers”, even if already settled for a long time,
have a lower status. Thus, the length of the period of settlement in one locality is used as a resource
granting status and also priority in accessing further resources and welfare.
26
WHO ARE THE ROMA
Quote 3-2. Status and the period of settlement in Cugir

With regard to integration in the Cugir community, it seems that the least active
group is the “corturar” community – which is probably due to their inadequate
standards of living, but also to the fact that these Roma are among the last ones arrived
into town. As a matter of fact, with regard to Roma’ s arrival in Cugir, 3 large stages
can be identified: before the ‘ 50es in the 20th century; the 1968-1989 period; the
years after 1990. These results in appreciations they make about themselves or their
neighbours: “...we are all ‘ barabe’ /’ vinituri’ (newcomers, intruders), but some are
more ‘ newcomers’ than we are” (baraba and vinitura are words used in popular
Romanian language to indicate someone’ s alien origins). (Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
In Sântana, there is a strongly claimed difference between the “old elite”, who used to practise
traditional occupations around the region – the leather and feather merchant families, practising
these occupations on a regular basis in the ‘ 40s – and the other “old” Roma families, who never
had a regular or traditional occupation in the past. The status differentiation functions even today,
many years after these occupations collapsed. One has to acknowledge that in the ‘ 40s these
regular/traditional occupations gave an economic and social advantage to the ones performing
them, by bringing them into more stable socio-economic networks with the non-Roma and also
by offering a sense of protection/security during spatial mobility.
In the communities where there are certain opportunities for economic mobility, the status is
reclaimed – and granted – according to the position of the houses toward the non-Roma houses.
Quote 3-3. Status differentiations and the position of the houses in Curtici
During the process of advancement of the Roma and withdrawal of the Romanians
towards the centre, some richer families within the Gropeni group managed to buy
houses in the Romanian neighbourhood. Just as recently, richer Roma buy houses in
Romanian neighbourhoods. Just the way one may see specific “palaces” in the very
centre of Curtici town. It is obviously a status matter to own a house in the Romanian
neighbourhood, or closer to the centre. A woman of around 50, told me proudly: “see
how far from the community I live...”, then she explained that since her sons are
working in France they were keen on buying a house in the Romanian neighbourhood.
There is evident a continual process of the well-off individuals moving from the outskirts
areas to the central ones and outside the Gypsy ghetto. (Curtici, M. Goina 2007)
In some of the more compact Roma communities it seems that, despite these internal
differentiations, all the children are treated as if all the adults were their parents. There were
several case studies which reported that the babies are sometimes fed by women other than the
mother, and that children are allowed in all houses and when they are inside they are treated and
fed as if they were household members.
Quote 3-4. Child care and “community behavior” in Dolhasca

I have seen that it is quite frequent and normal for women other than the biological
mother (or her sister) to nurse a baby. (...) Ms M. told me that once she was even
helped by a Romanian family living in “the valley”, and that this was not
exceptional. (Dolhasca, Lazãr 2007)
Exceptions to this “community behaviour” were observed in the urban “ghetto communities”,
living in the crowded blocks of flats – where the children often become reasons/ pretexts for
27
conflicts among the grown-ups. What the researchers noted about these exceptions is that the
settlement/neighbourhood cannot be actually considered a “community”.
Quote 3-5. Children as reasons for conflicts in a Roma “pseudo-community” in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest
“It is from the children that all fights start, from the children and from money. There
are no other reasons” (G.M., Roma woman aged 21, Zãbrãuþi, quoted by Tîrcã 2007)
3.1.3 Hetero-differentiation
The differentiation “our Roma” – “other Roma” is charged with moral and emotional meaning
as “our Roma” tend to be seen as better and nicer people, who could enter the social networks of
the entire locality, while “the other Roma” – who were never the subjects of direct interaction –
are perceived as capable of infractions of the law and as worthy of the negative representation of
the Roma. We will discuss further this dichotomized view in chapter 4.3.
It is on the background of this differentiation that the social distance and the social stereotypes
are constructed.
An important aspect of hetero-differentiation is related to the geographical differentiation of the
Roma settlements – names such as “pe vale” (from the valley), “din deal” (up the hill), “Viitorului”
(neighbourhood name), “Byron” (street name). In the same locality, with more than one Roma
settlement, some settlements are perceived, in general, as dangerous; others are perceived as
friendly, others are perceived as neutral. The geographical differentiation indicates levels of
physical distance as well as structures of social maps, employed by the non-Roma. Thus, the
geographic differentiations correspond to levels of social exclusion and to levels of welfare within
the Roma settlements.
3.1.4 Different Community Patterns

The Qualitative Research performed in the 36 Roma settlements showed not only a high inner
heterogeneity and diversity within the settlements, but also a wide variety of community patterns.
There were some in which the inhabitants had similar problems, similar coping mechanisms and
were involved in and connected through tight social networks:
In the case of Lupeni, in the “Revolutiei” neighbourhood, the strong social networks are a
reason for the families to remain in the community and, as the researcher suggested, the main
resource for fighting poverty. It is worth noting that this pattern is common in the rural areas and
the urban areas with houses.
Quote 3-6. The “community” as a resource – the social capital, in Lupeni

An important way to survive is relying on kinship. One of my days in the field
everyone was washing carpets by hand, until one borrowed a sprinkler from a cousin.
One of the women I made interview with stays all day long at her sister to help her
with children; local people would be completely lost in this web of institutions
unfamiliar to them without relatives’ help. A woman takes water daily from her
daughter and takes care of the grandchildren in return. Employees of cleaning
company have better access to wastes and they can also arrange transporting collected
materials with the firm’ s car, thus his family members have these possibilities, too.
Once I tried to visit a man, who wasn’ t at home, as he left for a funeral where the
grave was dogged by relatives. Local people have never mentioned they can rely on
an acquaintance, as they have no relations with people outside the family. But there
28
WHO ARE THE ROMA
are also opposite situations: once a woman decides to leave her home and move to this
district, she loses all the support from her family. (Lupeni, Geambasu 2007)
Besides these examples, which can be granted the term “community”, there were observed some
which do not bind the people into tight networks or similar mechanisms for coping with problems
and exclusion.
Indeed, in certain case studies, the researchers mentioned that the Roma inhabitants – self and
hetero-identified – can hardly be considered a “community” – in the sense of consciously having
a group identity and/or developing strong social networks. The field studies performed in urban
areas or in areas where the main dwelling form is the block of flats offered a divers image of
“pseudo-communities”:
1. The “transit community” of the Zãbrãuþi ghetto from Bucharest – where the people forge
temporary relationships and networks, while at the same time trying to find the means to move out
as fast as possible, to a better place. The connections and differentiations are defined mainly
according to the “hang-out” groups (“anturaj”) and the temporary channels of communication,
build on momentary needs.
Quote 3-7. Temporary social networks of a “pseudo-community”, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

There are some communication networks in the neighbourhood: on the one hand
there are those networks based on family relationships, then the groups of people who
spend time together socializing in front of their blocks, in entrance hallways or on the
only little bench in Zãbrãuþi, the groups of teenagers who gather at various points of
the neighbourhood as well as big groups of children who improvise a playground
within the neighbourhood. Overall this there’ s also the relationship between the
informal leaders and the rest of the community. (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
2. Iris, the “dispersed urban vicinity”, with a rural aspect, from Cluj, where the people are united
only by the school, the Pentecostal church and the community centre (not an institution, but a
small square, a meeting place) (Plainer 2007).
3. Lupeni, the “Viitorului” neighbourhood of social housing blocks, “the refugee community”:
where the inhabitants have strong links among members of the same family, living in the neighbour
apartments, but hardly ever develop relations with other families.
Quote 3-8. Strong family ties versus weak community networks

in the “Viitorului” neighbourhood, Lupeni
The social capital, the relation with the relatives and the extended family, is the most
valuable resource for these people. This is shown through the fact that the locals have
no contacts (or relatives) outside the district, and relations with colleagues are
completely missing; but contacts among families from the same block are very strong...
(Lupeni, Geambaºu 2007)
3.1.5 Researchers’ Classifications

The researchers’ use of classifications was an instrument for organising their fieldwork. When
the locality had several Roma settlements, the initial categorizations they made in the field had the
function of identifying those one or few communities to focus on. The community researchers
used the geographic limitations, as well, in order to reflect on the perceived social maps of the
29
localities. They explored the sub-ethnic differentiations employed by the Roma themselves and
used in self-differentiation strategies.
In each community report, this classification was presented in the first chapter. This shows
again the well-known fact that classifications and categorizations are a useful instrument, especially
if used properly – just as in everyday life.
Only a few of the researchers chose to add judgments of moral value to their classifications and
chose to represent the different Roma groups through the perspective of the non-Roma and the
hetero-differentiation.
Quote 3-9. Reseacher’ s categorisation and moral judgments, in M. Kogãlniceanu

(...) Muslim Gypsies themselves could be grouped under 2 categories, as there are
the Roma petty retailers, full of gold, wearing heaps of rings, normal or larger,
ornate, bulged, and neck chains, are far more cleaner and more concerned about their
physical appearance and hygiene, and then there are poorer Muslim Roma. (Mihail
Kogãlniceanu, Marcu 2007)
In addition to all this, the general research project relied on different levels of classification of
Roma settlements: first, when survey samples were designed, as presented in sub-chapter 1.1;
secondly, when the 36 communities were chosen, according to the characteristics presented in sub-
chapter 1.2; third, when different characteristics of communities or settlements were referred to in
order to indicate different patterns of social exclusion and “typical” cases of social exclusion.
3.2 Traditional and Non-traditional Roma

In recent decades, the use of the concepts “tradition” and “culture” has become quite
controversial within the field of sociology and anthropology. It has been argued that the traditions
are a social construction, in permanent change and adaptation according to social contexts or
simply in order to actual interests (such as political or discursive manipulation)9. Furthermore,
“culture” is not something that people are born with, but is a social construction, a certain
behavioural or attitudinal answer to specific realities and wider contexts, which groups of people
facing those specific realities employ or used to employ10.
It is important to keep these aspects in mind, while addressing the topic of Roma culture and
traditions, particularly because the term “tradition” generates emotional reactions and
discrepancies between different uses of the symbolic meanings – what is valuable for some, can be
stigmatized by others.
For example, there are two main views on Roma traditions shared by the non-Roma and Roma
alike. One view is that the real Roma are only the traditional ones and all the others are a fake form
of Roma, who, being out of normality (nor Roma nor Gadje), are open to anti-social behaviour.
The alternative view is that the Roma are facing a precarious living and exclusion because of their
culture and traditions.
9 Since 1983, with the publication of the book “The Invention of Traditions”, by Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terrence,
Cambrige University Press, there has been an entire current of social throught and scholars sustaining this argument.
10 Recently, this ackowledgement has been introduced even in the Council of Europe debates on Intercultural
Learning and Dialogue – through Gavin Titley’ s assesment “Plastic, Political and Contingent: Culture and Inter-
cultural Learning in Department of Youth and Sport Activities”, 2005.
30
WHO ARE THE ROMA
Quote 3-10. Social representations of Roma, according to cultural patterns, in Timiºoara

Public perception of local Roma is structured by two impressions which mix and, when
generalized, nurture negative stereotypes. One refers to the “rich Roma” who have
built “palaces” for themselves in the city centre and, as people say, “believe they can
buy anything with their (dirty) money. The other refers to the “poor Roma” who live
in shacks at the margins of the city and, according to majority opinions, “bring shame
to the city”. This is how Timiºoara Roma have become unwanted elements either by
their wealth, or by their poverty. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Still, empirical data does not support any simple causal relationship between cultural traits and
poverty. Attitudes, values and patterns of behaviour are negotiated answers to difficult questions
posed by life, and they reflect the problems they solve.
On the other hand, the issue of identity and self-definition is always a complex one, for any
person – bearing in mind that identity is constructed through reciprocal social interactions and
complex life situations, as the classic sociological concept of “looking-glass self” 11 implies. The
process of using tradition/giving up tradition/changing or adopting a “new tradition” – as a term
of reference for one’ s identity – should be analysed from this perspective. This perspective is also
relevant for understanding the processes of social exclusion, as they reflect in the construction of
self-representations: self-representations of Roma are also built as an answer to the negative
stereotypes used in the dominant discourses, by the non-Roma.
The Roma who self-declare as Roma and give importance to their ethnic identity may use
several ways related to tradition, in order to construct and self-represent themselves, such as:
speaking Romani language, reference to the past, practice of the occupations of the parents,
adhering to an extended family unity, keeping the dress code and keeping the marriage customs.
At the same time, they may use none of the above and still affiliate to a Roma ethnic identity.
3.2.1 The Past and the Legendary Past

Stories of the past are told in order to build up not only identity, but also status, as opposed to
“others” – Roma who have a less “honourable” past or who are new-comers in the area and also
the non-Roma who judge these identities and status.
One of the methods the Roma employ in this sense is to highlight stories of an honourable past,
in which they had good relations with the noble or high-ranked non-Roma and they were involved
in social networks with them (even if these networks were economically based or even based on
slavery). These stories are also used to prove the long-time settlement of the Roma in the area/
locality, in order to legitimize the presence of the Roma and their right to live there – as an answer
to the rejection attitudes of the non-Roma and the banning threats, present in the public non-
Roma discourse in Romania.
Quote 3-11. Being the oldest inhabitants in the locality: Sântana, Cetate and Coltãu
Historically, the Gypsy community of Comlaus is perhaps the oldest in the region.
When asked ‘ what kind of Gypsies they are’ all my respondents told me that they are
“bastinasi” – that is autochthonous Gypsies, or “vatrari” using the radical “vatra”
(hearth) to underline that they belong to the place. (Sântana, C. Goina 2007)
They differentiate themselves from the others in Budacu de Sus and Ragla, who are
said to come from Moldova (being also called “moldeni’ ). (...) Old family photos, as
well as interviews with elderly Roma people prove that local Roma have adopted
11 Central concept in social psychology to define the process of building identity through social interaction –
reflecting in the others, who reflect in one-self. It was created by Charles H. Cooley in 1902.
31
clothing and traditional Saxon customs. Wedding customs, New Year celebrations,
and traditional local entertainment practices are all Saxon in origin. This fact proves
that the claims of Roma residents of being “Saxon Gypsies” and actually the oldest
residents in the locality are somehow well grounded. (Cetate, Isan 2007)
“It has been discussed plenty of times: who was here first – Roma or Hungarians?
We have nothing, neither land nor property; they came after us and have them all.
We’ re used by them... without being very liked by them. (K. O., Roma, 37 y. o.,
Coltãu, quoted by Iorga 2007)
Another method to build identity and status by using traditional cues is to highlight a romantic
past or a certain celebration that refers to the romantic past of the Roma ethnic sub-groups.
Quote 3-12. Memory and celebration of a romantic past in Curtici

We are not called Cãldãrari, (they) are to be found above, we are called Cortorari,
our ancestors travelled with their tents.... So we are called Cortorari, there you go,
we are two different Roma nations, for example, Corbei are Gypsy by speak no
Gypsy.... (C.I., 57, Curtici, quoted by M. Goina 2007)
Quote 3-13. Memory of past traditions in Dolhasca

The Gulia community is not a traditional one, it has not preserved its clothing
customs and ancient practices are increasingly influenced by cohabitation with
Romanians. When asked about old celebrations and customs, people tell only about the
Green Thursday, a traditional event and a key moment in the calendar, for which
even those who are away in the country or abroad come back. This is celebrated in the
week after the Easter, a delay which can be explained in the same way as the practice
of having weddings on Thursday instead of Saturdays: on Easter and ond week-ends
the Roma sing for other people’ s celebrations. (Dolhasca, Lazãr 2007)
Quote 3-14. Collective memory in Oºorhei clan

The collective memory says their migration began 8-10 generations ago from a family
called Gabor, from Târgu Mureº, who went to Transilvania, Valahia and Hungary.
Under these circumstances one may speak about a Gabors’ clan, just like the Scottish
clans, with certain nostalgia for the mythic place of origin left by the predecessors.
They all speak Romani, Hungarian and Romanian. (Oºorhei, Pantea 2007)
3.2.2 Romani Language

Romani language as the mother tongue and the use of Romani in the household was presented
in many interviews as an identity trait, marking the “real Roma” as opposed to the non-Romani
speakers who are sometimes considered inferior.
Quote 3-15. Romani language as a mark of Roma authenticity, in Curtici

“Roma in Curtici are split into two communities. Each of them is known under
several names. According to their own viewpoints, Cãldãrari1, Cortorari2, or Roma
is whoever speaks Romani and that defines himself as Roma, or rather Gypsy, in
relation to the others who are denied the affiliation.” (Curtici, M. Goina 2007)
32
WHO ARE THE ROMA
Quote 3-16. The lower status of non-Romani speakers in Curtici and Sântana
They define themselves as “Romanian Gypsy”, as they speak Romanian among
themselves.”Our ethnic group is dubbed Cashtalei by the other Gypsy. There is no
such ethnic Gypsy group, we are Baiasi, Lingurari, Rudar, but no Cashtalei, this is
for disdain, a moniker“(V.S., 52 y. o., in Curtici, quoted by M. Goina 2007)
Everybody speaks Romani in the neighbourhood. I’ ve met at least two newcomers, a man
who married into the community in the 90’ s and a woman who married in the community
in the late 50’ s, neither of whom spoke Romani before – as they belonged to other Roma
communities – who had to learn Romani in order to be accepted. (Sântana, C. Goina 2007)
The use of Romani is also seen, especially by the public service professionals, as a factor that
maintains the disadvantage of the Roma by hindering communication:
Quote 3-17. Romani mother tongue and the risk of exclusion, in Nuºfalãu and
Timiºoara
You have children who don’ t know anything, but anything, those who speak only
Romani. And I have to use an interpreter to communicate with them, because there
are a few among the others, class-repeaters (who have had to repeat their class) who
have already learned some Romanian, and they help me and translate. And it is very
difficult, to understand them, to learn some words in Romani. But they learn the
language very quickly, if they would attend regularly, they could learn very fast.
(Romanian teacher, Elementary school from Nuºfalãu, quoted by Toma 2007)
When they come to me, and I see they’ re poor, they have no money, no insurance,
some can’ t read and speak Romanian (...) I go with them and help. (Health mediator
from Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
3.2.3 The Marriage – What is Traditional and What is Not

The early age of marriage of the Roma is quite a controversial matter. Teachers, local authorities
representatives, doctors, the media use this social behaviour as an argument to blame “the culture”
and “the mentality” of the Roma for their vulnerability to severe socio-economic problems.
In fact, the early age marriage is not always an assumed tradition. Early marriage is defined as
part of the “tradition” and valued as such especially in the communities of the wealthier Gabori,
Cãldãrari or Corturari, where the arranged endogamous marriages have the social function of
managing the family wealth and heritage. However, there are only few such wealthy households
– an observation supported by survey data on income and on long-term consumer goods
ownership. In other cases, the family strategy of early marriage is not motivated by an
acknowledged “tradition”. In these situations, marrying young may be a result of the lack of other
attractive options for their future. Young people follow the common path of the community in
their family-life, without defining it as a “tradition”, due to the scarcity of alternative trajectories.
For example, in the Mimiu community in Ploieºti, the gymnasium girls perceive love and
marriage as a possibility to escape the extreme poverty conditions in which they live, to escape the
high density households in which they take care of their younger brothers, sisters, cousins and to
build their own family, in which they could expect to work less hard (as they confessed to the
researcher, who is also the Romani teacher in the neighbourhood school).
33
In this context of scarce alternatives, the immediate affordable solution of marrying (starting
from the beginning and then settling down with one’ s own family) finally leads into a trap: of low
social mobility and the perpetuation of precarious living, with very few alternatives for themselves
and for their children.
The non-Roma people living in poor conditions, in the segregated neighbourhoods with a high rate
of Roma population, in ghettos or in poor rural areas, have similar marital/ family planning behaviour.
Quote 3-18. Early marriage as an indicator of precarious opportunities, in Curtici
When speaking with several Romanians with a modest income level, I was surprised
to find out that they, too, get married at similar ages. V. I, 56, raised without a
father in a family with many financial problems got married at the age of 16 and
her son got married at 18. I realized that early marriages do not characterize only
Roma people from Curtici, but also Romanians, and this early age could be an
indicator of the social class rather than of the ethnicity. The fact that early ages for
marriage are also practiced by wealthy Roma people underlines, in my opinion, that
local tradition and certain features of the cultural identity change at a slower pace
than the economic situation. (Curtici, M. Goina 2007).
Qualitative data indicates that in some Roma communities the family pattern is passing through
a process of change: the age of the first marriage is increasing and the number of children is
decreasing, with the growing access to information on family planning. The same happens for
similar groups (young non-Roma families, with low social mobility and scarce opportunities),
living in the same poor rural areas or urban poverty enclaves as the studied Roma.
Quote 3-19. Change of pattern in the young families, in Dolhasca and Sântana
In recent years young couples prefer to have fewer children. For example, although
they were raised in large families, with many siblings, several young women told me
that it is best to have two children, to be able to provide for them and to give them
an adequate education. (Dolhasca, Lazãr 2007)
One of the ‘ health mediators’ told me that initially women were reluctant to use
their services, and especially reluctant to use contraceptive methods. Now, they often
go to Arad with groups of women who either need gynaecological consultations, or,
more often still, are there to receive the ‘ sterilet’ as a contraceptive device. At my
questioning whether the husbands approve of such measures the ‘ health mediator’
told me that it is not always necessary that men know everything, and that Gypsy
women are very voluntary (...) even some fervent Pentecostal women came for
contraceptive help after having two or three children. (Sântana, C. Goina 2007)
At the same time, explicitly traditional rules of early marriage are still present in some of the studied
communities, especially the wealthy ones. It is interesting to see how in these cases the interventions
of Romanian authorities have become a currency for negotiations within the traditional system, rather
than the agent of change which they are supposed to be according to their mandate:
Quote 3-20. Traditional marriages in Babadag
One example in this sense is the marriage of a young girl, A., aged 14. One year ago,
the young girl had been promised by her father to his nephew, his brother’ s son – that
34
WHO ARE THE ROMA
is, the girl’ s first cousin – for the amount of 100 million lei. The amount had not been
paid, so the daughter had remained in her parents’ house, until the in-laws were going
to collect the amount and the wedding could take place. Unfortunately, one night,
meanwhile, the girl is kidnapped from her house by another cousin of hers from Tulcea,
underage as well, assisted by some people. From her account, she had been taken to a hotel
in Tulcea, where she had been kept for almost two weeks and she had lost her virginity
in the traditional way. After this, the young boy’ s family had contacted the girl’ s family,
in order to negotiate about purchasing her. Obliged by the circumstances, the girl’ s
father accepts the price of 90 millions, out of which he gets an advance payment of 40
millions. With the deal done, for sanctifying, they shake hands and the girl stays in
Tulcea. At this moment, however, the first suitor intervenes, stating that he feels cheated,
that he would accept the girl even if she was not a virgin – moreover, he was ready to
pay 120 million for her. Caught in the middle and convinced by the considerable amount
involved, the girl’ s parents quickly work out a solution: they complain to the police about
the girl having been kidnapped and they ask that he is brought home. After the girl is
recovered, she is taken right away to the house of her uncle – her first suitor, under the
formal claim that she would receive better protection that in her parents’ house, from
where she had been kidnapped before. No one gets arrested and no fine is written
following the investigations. The police continue to state that there is no evidence to file
the deed as kidnapping or rape, and they mediate the conflict between the girl’ s family
and the Tulcea family; the Tulcea family is recovering their golden jewellery that they
had given to the girl as a present, but they lose the 40 million advance payment, which
is kept as a compensation for the girl having lost her virginity. (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)
Traditional marriage practices also rely on endogamy in the selection of partners, based on neam
affiliation.
Quote 3-21. Endogamy rules in Curtici Cãldãrari community
Mixed marriages between Cãldãrari and Cashtalei are not allowed in the community
in Curtici. Cãldãrari further say that they don’ t mix with any other nation and that
they get married only among themselves, between neighbouring Cãldãrari
communities. Asked whether they have any relations with the Vatrar community from
the neighbouring Comlaus, located 15 kilometres away from Curtici and speaking
Roma they said they didn’ t, because they are not Cãldãrari :”Us Cãldãrari, we’ re
only marrying Cãldãrari (...) Here in Curtici, Siria, Covasanti, Sambateni, we are
Cãldãrari... relatives, kins... even the accent of our speaking.... Comlausul is not part
of us, it is of different kin. Ourselves, our kin, we’ re not giving them our girls, neither
taking theirs (emphasised.) (G, C, 42). These regulations which are “formal” and
inflexible at a discursive level, have their generalised exceptions. In the field we met
mixed marriages between Cãldãrari in Curtici and the Vatrari community in
Complaus, at a three generations level. Grandmother, A. G., 56 years old, just as R.,
13 years old told me that each has a sister married in Compaus. Still, I only met with
one mixed marriage, of a respectable age, between a man in the Gropeni community
and a Cãldãrari woman. Romanian Gypsies seem to be affected by this separatism
“they don’ t get married to our girls, though they bring Romanian Gypsies from other
parts (that is, they accept marriages to other Gypsies that don’ t speak Romani), their
church is separated from ours, our neighbourhood is separated from theirs, we’ re only
greeting each other, that’ s all...” (D.P, 42). (Curtici, M. Goina 2007)
35
3.2.4 Tradition and Exclusion

Practicing traditional crafts still brings wealth for some Roma families. Arranged marriages still
preserve wealth among some richer Roma families. But, in the long run, these practices may inhibit
social mobility – especially by hindering educational and professional/occupational mobility – and
they may create vulnerability to the structural changes in the wider macro-social context.
Quote 3-22. The traditional Gabors’ vulnerability
The Gabors’ situation is very different. They may be considered integrated from
some points of view: economic, residential, and even in respect to their status. Still,
their position is paradoxical: they are integrated precisely because they are looking
after their autonomy; their peculiar “life-style” allows them to preserve their
economic and to a certain extent their social independence, but it also makes their
position fragile: with their low level of education and social isolation they cannot fully
participate in the collective decisions and may be easily subjected some law
enforcements and regulations they are not aware of. Therefore, some of them may be
wealthy, respectable people but still marginal and excluded in many ways that are
proper to a modern society. In fact, they manage precisely because they are not modern
people, but preservers of an archaic way of life. Whether they can remain unchanged
in the longer run is questionable. (Sântana de Mureº, Troc 2007)
On the other hand, maintaining certain traditions or customs is a way of maintaining self-esteem and
the symbols of status, even in declining economic situations or while experiencing marginalization.
Quote 3-23. Customs and self-esteem of the poor Roma

I have encountered an intriguing aspect with the Mustafa’ s, a family of Muslim
Roma, who, albeit very poor, think that, according to tradition, a child’ s consecration
ceremony should always take place with great pomp, with musicians. The price of
such a celebration is allegedly higher than 1000 RON. For this reason, they must still
raise money for two of the children who are still to be consecrated, but they will spare
no expense, they say. (Mihail Kogãlniceanu, Marcu 2007)
3.3 Attitudes and Expectations from Life
3.3.1 Attitudes Towards Socialization

Most of the case studies showed that socialization is not something chosen, but something
imposed by the specific living situations: it can be the housing segregation, it can be the negotiation
of trust and the networks of familiarity, it can be the opportunities to meet/ encounter/ get to know
“the others”, or it can be the adherence to a restricting tradition (as it is in the case of Gabors).
Social capital is one of the main resources people have in order to cope with social exclusion or
precarious living. So, socialization is a vital resource and, as such, can provoke competitiveness. As
the restrictions on it increase, so also do the resulting social exclusion mechanisms.
In the context of segregated or compact (homogenous) ethnic communities, either rural or
urban enclaves, people are forced to interact with each other, even when they wouldn’ t in the
36
WHO ARE THE ROMA
normal course of events. The scarcity of social space and the lack of buffer-spaces inhibit intimacy,
worsen communication, and strengthen the fight for a privileged status.
Quote 3-24. Forced socialization in an urban ghetto, such as Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

Socializing in Zãbrãuþi is often unpredictable. (...) Field observation prompted me
into reaching the conclusion that living in a ghetto does not enable one to choose who
to socialize with; freedom is very much restricted in this respect and is reinforced by
one’ s relatively reduced mobility towards other places or social spaces in town. Their
education in what is meant by socializing is the following: ‘ We all live here together
and we have to deal one with the other whether we want it or not, because we have
no other choice’ . The Ghetto does not provide one with a very high-level kind of
socializing, it does not even allow one to delimit their group of acquaintances, it is
rather a fight for prestige, power and respect and having an important position
within the community. Often, socializing includes faked aggressiveness, swearing
words used as greetings, and jokingly employed threats, functioning according to
totally different social codes than the ones we are accustomed to (or at least the ones
I was accustomed to). (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
Quote 3-25. Socialization as a negative influence, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

The first time I entered this neighbourhood I was six, this was 10 years ago, and I
didn’ t know any swear words back then, I didn’ t know anything about cigarettes
nothing at all, but when I entered this ghetto I also joined an entourage and started
swearing, and taking drugs and inhaling from the bag, I used to go away from home
for days and begged, I used to like this entourage here, but I grew not to like it that
much anymore... I saw my cousins that kept coming after me and I saw that things
did not turn out well, that substance almost killed me twice (C.I., 16 y. o. girl,
Zãbrãuþi, quoted by Tîrcã 2007)
On the other hand, in such contexts, family and kinship become the most valuable network capital
– especially since other networks of support (such as colleagues, or commercial services such as credit
or baby-sitting) are not available. According to the qualitative data, dependency on the extended family
networks is associated with experiences of social exclusion, at the network capital level.
Quote 3-26. Extended family dependency in Lupeni

A dominant preoccupation for these people in shaping their decisions is not to depart
from the rest of the extended family – the reason which usually shapes the decisions
of families living in poverty. (Lupeni, Geambaºu 2007)
3.3.2 Entertainment
A common stereotype is that Roma are culturally (if not genetically) dedicated to entertainment.
This goes even further and become a judgment that Roma are loud, lazy, liars about their poverty
or indifferent to their poverty.
Scholars in cultural anthropology consider entertainment and “escape strategies” as a social
behaviour embedded in the very core of our lives12. The entertainment practices – whether this
means looking at TV, listening to music, hanging out, playing games or sports, etc. – reveal
12 The theory of “structure and anti-structure” balancing each other within the society, conceived by Victor
Turner since the late ’60s, established this acknowledgement in the field of anthropology and sociology.
37
themselves more to analysis if considered from this perspective, rather than just through a rigid
interpretation of Maslow’ s “pyramid of needs” paradigm.
Magyari-Vincze (2007) situates the use of entertainment in a more political framework,
following Day et al. (1999). In this perspective, living in the present is a strategy of active protest
and resistance, gestures that create not only joy but also freedom. For those in control of their lives,
it may seem a form of self-limitation, but for those who are disempowered focusing on today is a
strategy to deal with their invisible imprisonment.
It is sometimes noticed by researchers and by non-Roma respondents that some Roma households
living in severe poverty own a TV set or that Roma families living in high density one room houses
accept the offer of a cable company to connect to a satellite dish (for example, in the Iris, Zãbrãuþi and
Mimiu ghettos). This empirical observation suggests that indeed needs are not experienced in a strict
hierarchical order – for poor and wealthier households alike. Such investments, directed at making the
living a little bit more bearable or cosy, are understood to be important or even vital by the household
members, even those living in conditions of severe poverty, taking into consideration the options/
action alternatives accessible to such persons/ households.
Quote 3-27. Entertainment items which make living cosier, in Lupeni

I suppose that each researcher that studies marginal, impoverished communities has
some key moments which define their fieldwork. One of these, for me, is that in which
I discover modalities that people use to design and arrange their homes so that they
provide, as much as possible, the highest feeling of familiarity. Living conditions that
for an outsider could be at best temporary, a transition state, are part of what these
people call their home. These are places where people are going to live in the long run.
The inside of their homes reflects these attempts: small objects that were bought, and
the order, and all elements that defy poverty and give the visitor the feeling of “being
at home”. (...) People do not want and they cannot invest in their homes. This is a
perfectly rational attitude, given that they cannot buy them. Still, they buy equipment
and accessories that ease their lives. After 13 years of hard work in urban cleaning
services, a man has decided to buy a TV set, a DVD player and a freezer. “Well, my
father took the credit. He brought a freezer, a TV set and a DVD. We pay a million
monthly, for four years. We said, at least, if he works for this company for so long,
at least now he can take a credit; it is the first time since he started working that he
took one. So he pays a million monthly (Lupeni, Geambasu 2007)
On the one hand, many inhabitants in the Roma settlements, especially the youngsters,
complained about the lack of entertainment alternatives: in the urban ghettoes (such as Zãbrãuþi
in Bucharest, Byron in Cluj) the people can only afford to hang out in front of their blocks, without
having access to the social life of the city. On the other hand, the researchers noted that the few
rich Roma households (recently richer or with a longer history of welfare) households adopted
consumerist behaviour noticeable in Romanian society: from buying more fashionable clothes
than needed, buying high-tech electronic equipment, and spending more money than needed on
food or design decorations.
3.3.3 Children’ s Dreams of the Future

While in the field, the researchers collected short “essays” from the children in the communities
they studied. The children were asked to write about themselves and how they imagine themselves
in the future. These short essays illustrate the events and dilemmas that they experience in everyday
life or that strongly marked their childhood. At the same time, they illustrate the adult talk that they
manage to catch and from which they interpret in their own vision.
38
WHO ARE THE ROMA
Quote 3-28. Children reproducing adult advice about marriage and family, in
Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest
“As for children, I want to have them cured of diseases, I want them to receive
medical prescriptions, then when I’ m about 32 I’ ll start a numerous family and
I’ ll take care of my children, I’ ll see to it that they get enough food and money, then
I’ ll go to work so as to feed them I would like to respect their wishes, I would like for
them and their mother to be beautiful, their mother should be also hardworking and
should work so as to get food so that we can live happily ever after; and I would like
to send my children to school so that they can work when they grow older, and I want
them to be lawyers” (M.A., 4th grade, Bucharest, quoted by Tîrcã 2007)
Quote 3-29. Children reproducing adult talk about policemen and unemployment, in
Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest
“When I grow up and finish school I would like to join the special forces so as to catch
burglars and to do what my boss commands me. I want to have my own family, with
my own kids and wife. But what if they fired my or my wife? If they fired me, I
would become a fiddler, or a taxi driver or I could work for a farm or a butchery or
in many other places. What would my wife do if they fired her?” (R.R., 4th grade,
Bucharest, quoted by Tîrcã 2007 )
The similarities of “essays” written by children from the same community show the precarious
opportunities they have for the future and the few reference points that mark their everyday life.
Such references are the example of their parents – as undesirable patterns of future development –
and other kin, especially the ones working abroad – as desired patterns of personal evolution. As the
researchers observed, the visions of the future are a mixture of moments well grounded in the social
reality, fantasies that have no real basis and the desire for change and “going further”.
Quote 3-30. Brothers’ failure as reference point

in structuring the youngsters’ dreams, in Veseuº
For some of the children, the appearance and choices of the family members seem to
work as landmarks and structure the field of possibilities for themselves: what the
brothers, sisters or parents have chosen to do in their lives and where I am, as compared
to them. This kind of relating is expressed explicitly by a 14-year old girl who had just
been accepted at the Economic High School in Blaj, and who gives us an extremely
pragmatic description of the alternatives that a teenage girl has in Veseuº : either she
studies and she goes to the Arts and Trades School or the high school, or she gets
married and she grows the vine, just as her parents did. (Jidvei, Silian 2007)
Quote 3-31. Parents’ life as reference point, in Veseuº

Whether expressed directly or deduced from the children’ s concern in comparing their
chances with those of other members of the family, everyone’ s ideal for when they are
grown up is to live a better life than their parents’ : “So, all I want is to have a future
that would make me feel satisfied, better than that of my parents”. (16) And the path
to a better life is always through learning some trade that is easier than farming:
“My dream for a better future is to graduate and then go on to some school and learn
a trade, as nice as possible”. (Roma girl, 14 y. o., Veseuº, quoted by Silian 2007)
39
Quote 3-32. National exams as reference point in structuring the future, in Veseuº
For all children, the turning point in life, the threshold that sets the alternatives and
dictates which paths to be taken is the proficiency examination. They all take full
responsibility for the national tests; their success or failure depends entirely on
themselves. The parents play no part in this result and no child complains about the
resources that are insufficient to pay for private classes: “What I want most when I
am in the 8 form, I want to be able to study very well so that I can pass the exam and
go on to school.” (Roma child, 13 years, Veseuº, quoted by Silian 2007)
Quote 3-33. Dreaming of an un-material happiness, in Veseuº

In spite of the differences in age and school forms, the children’ s compositions sound very
similar – the most striking similarity is that each of these compositions describes and is
structured as an imaginary pathway, a clear progression from their current status to
achieving their ideal in life. Except for a 13 years old girl, who says: “I want to own a
computer”, none of the children mentions any reference to owning material goods or
builds lists of items that would materialise the idea of a “future better than the parents’ ”.
Nothing about houses, cars, clothing or furniture. Which does not mean that the
youngsters or their parents do not talk about these things. On the contrary! Just that
none of the children sees these as a mean or purpose in the equation of happiness. In
exchange, every composition describes a story of individual growth, identifying even the
turning points, the results of which shape the imaginary life paths. (Jidvei, Silian 2007)
Quote 3-34. Distance between dreams and means to access them, in Veseuº
The trades that children go for are quite varied, and so are the motivations for their
choices. Except for the situations when children want to become sales people or accountants,
because this is what they imagine the Blaj Economic High School generates, the other
cases present rather fantastic choices and the children do not know which education
institutions exactly they would have to go to, in order to see their dreams come true:
“My dream is to become a judge because I like that justice be done”.(11 y.o.)
“I would like to become a railway worker, receive the travel tickets and pinch them,
and fine those who have no tickets. At the same time, I would like to become a doctor,
so that I can heal the people who have all sorts of diseases”. (12 y.o.)
“I would like to be the Chief of Police”. (14 y.o.)
“When I grow up, I would also like to become a sales woman or a maths teacher”.
(13 y.o.)
“My dream is to become a police woman, I like this job because I like action”. (14 y.o.)
“I would like to become a skilled engineer/accountant.” (16 y.o.) (Jidvei, Silian 2007)
Not only that is there a gap between what the children/ youngsters dream about and their means
and knowledge to fulfil these dreams, but there is also a gap between their dreams and what the
others think/ imagine that these youngsters could aspire for. On the one hand, it is the parents’
distrust in their children’ s capacity to choose the right way for the future, on the other hand, it is
the teachers’ view about the children’ s motivations.
Quote 3-35. Gap between children’ s dreams and teachers’ understanding, in Veseuº
The image that the teachers I talked to have about their pupils’ aspirations is quite far
from what the children have described in their compositions: “Their lives are pretty
simple. No demands, no motivations, why strive to do anything when you can live like
this just as well. Examples in the village... most of them live on that social welfare,
40
WHO ARE THE ROMA
they go and clean the ditches alongside the road, at least. (...) But they do come to school
and they can be taught civilised behaviour, even though they don’ t study. You can get
them out of their Gypsy condition!” (Teacher in Veseuº, quoted by Silian 2007)
3.3.4 Attitudes and Expectations Towards Social Intervention and

Mass-media
During the field research, some of our researchers had to face the suspicions and the scepticism
of the subjects. The sceptics were the ones who had been interviewed already, on previous
occasions and were hoping to see a change in the mean time; or the ones who were promised
benefits by certain social projects which never reached their target; or the ones who were politically
manipulated in electoral periods; or the ones who encountered the press and were used as
characters in scandalous articles; or simply the ones who, without really understanding the
mechanisms realized that other people – experts, researchers, self-proclaimed representatives –
often gain profits from the visits to their community or household.
This reaction is a combination of real disappointment and loss of hope – due to the failure of
certain promises or improper interventions – with low access to information about social projects,
and lack of actual participation and decision making in these projects.
Quote 3-36. Suspicion towards social interventions, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

Another, relatively new thing, is the fact that the inhabitants of the neighbourhood
have become aware of the social projects and they have begun to understand the
underlying mechanisms on which the foundations and associations function, and
especially, those mechanisms which involve money. This resulted in a certain type of
attitude: people complain that they are being used as guinea pigs for other people to
make money at their expense; they claim that whoever comes into the neighbourhood
with various proposals or simply to implement projects, is actually out to make money
‘ at their expense’ ; they have high expectations concerning the help they should get
and on top of that, they share the deeply rooted belief that they should be getting this
help without giving anything back. One can understand such attitudes up to a certain
extent because people’ s suppositions have a basis in reality and NGOs and
foundations often make money from lavishly financed project which have, however,
too little impact on the less favoured communities. (Bucuresti, Tîrcã 2007)
The stereotypical bias in media presentations of the Þigani aggravates the distrust of mass
information media among the Roma people. Lack of money, time and background experience and
knowledge on the aspects of the institutions from which they are largely excluded also discourages
a critical consumption of the multiple media sources, and thus decreases access to quality
information among the impoverished and marginal people.
Quote 3-37. The lack of social balance in media representations, in Timiºoara

“Who can be blamed for the seriousness of Roma problems? Television also highlights
negative features, in a conflict between Romanians and Roma the latter are presented
in a negative manner and the Romanian is the victim. It is also said that Roma destroy
the image of Romania in Europe, they then being the black sheep. But how many
Roma have opened bank accounts, stolen millions of dollars and are thoroughly
corrupt? These people were baggers in Romania and they bag outside, too. We have
our rests, too, but not like this ... Why are they begging? They have to live from
something. Why do they collect iron? How many kilograms should make out one
41
million? They can’ t do anything else, they do day work. Can children do something
different from what parents do?” (MP, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
People and groups who cannot represent themselves are usually represented by the media in a
biased way, following stereotypes and the opinion of the dominant majority (economic and cultural).
This is also the case with the Roma, whose portrayal in the media often stresses the negative features
of the Þigani stereotype. Secondly, the (sometimes self-declared) representatives of the socially
excluded tend to lose contact with the ones they represent, as they gain a public image.
The researcher Enikõ Magyari-Vincze actually witnessed such a process while performing a
field study in Timiºoara, when a Roma was murdered and another one severely injured by a
Romanian. At the same time, an international Romani culture festival was being organized. On the
one hand, the media presented distorted stories about the murder, allowing chauvinistic
declarations to emerge and to gain popularity. On the other hand, the Roma representatives at the
festival avoided having to take an attitude towards the murder, as the event was supposed to be a
positive and placatory one.
Still, the Roma who found access to consuming media products began to be suspicious about this
institution and its way of portraying the entire ethnic group.
Quote 3-38. Awareness of the negative media stereotypes, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

People are also aware of the fact that the media have presented and will present their
community from a very negative standpoint. People from Zãbrãuþi are aware that
external views are negative and the TV channels and the press contribute to this
negative perception. (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
The subjects of interviews and group interviews tended to have low expectations of the political
parties as the mistrust and disappointment seem to be high. Attitudes towards the local authorities
and their duty to ensure decent living conditions for all, oscillated from great complaints and
blame, to distance and refusal to ask for help.
The poorest and most excluded communities in Iris, Cetate, Grãdinari, Sîntana de Mureº (to
mention only some of them) complained about the local authorities (which they are dependent on)
because of the impossibility of accessing any other resources but the social benefits. Others, for
example the Rudari from Grãdinari, do not apply for social benefits, declaring that they have their
pride – which shows the stigma attached, after all, to a social right.
Quote 3-39. Expectations of support from external actors, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

People living in Zãbrãuþi generally declare that they have no expectations from the
government or from the political parties. They say that the latter only visit the area
during election time when they give away food. People mainly have expectations from
the Town Hall in the district, especially those whose names are on the lists, waiting
to receive their social allowance. (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
3.3.5 Attitudes Towards Work

Attitudes towards work differ between communities and within communities, depending on
local opportunities for employment and income-generation. For example, in the same locality,
two groups of Roma employ different attitudes towards the external intervention for improving
their living conditions. While the “din vale” community (the poorest community in Grãdinari,
mentioned above), expects direct and material help from the local authorities, the “la stradã ”
community (better-off Roma, suffering from less housing segregation) employs entrepreneurial
42
WHO ARE THE ROMA
attitudes, attempting to improve the situation from within – in the form of economic networks and
trade. This has to do with access to different coping strategies and to different work opportunities.
The stereotypes of lazy and work-shy Þigani are often in direct contrast with the work practices
of the people whom they purportedly describe. In some cases the so-called laziness may be linked
to the fact that Roma are generally informally employed on a daily basis, mostly in unqualified
occupations, which require hard physical work, but which are stigmatized as “temporary”, inferior
occupations. In other cases the stereotype is just overwritten on visible working habits, as an
overgeneralization. The structural context and mechanisms which block access to formal work
are blurred in the dominant discourse by the “blaming the victim” strategy.
Quote 3-40. “Inferior” work perceived as laziness, in Coltãu

“The Roma go and we pay them... This is what bothers me – we always say that the
Roma are lazy.I say that they are not lazy as long as they dig for you from 7 o’ clock
in the morning to 7 in the evening, no matter how hot or what weather it is. If they
do this and you don’ t do it, this means that they are not lazy. It is rather that you
cannot appreciate them, since they work, for 200 or 300 thousands (EUR 6-9) more
than you. Then I say that they are not lazy... they are being used. Some people do not
even give them anything to eat. If Hungarians went there to work, then they would
be give something to eat and coffee and cigarettes, but like this, maybe they are even
paid less, but they have no other choice. And we call them lazy.” (21 years old
Hungarian, Coltãu, quoted by Iorga 2007)
In the studied communities it was revealed that the Roma not only performed hard work, but
also important work for the local employers and for the maintenance of the local enterprises. Still,
the fact that they were employed on a daily basis, informally and unqualified, was considered
enough of an argument for the non-Roma not to appreciate this work.
Quote 3-41. “Inferior” work perceived as non-work, in Nuºfalãu

Although the Brazilian Roma have participated in these structures for a long period,
these activities were never considered economic activities. It was obvious and natural
that the Roma are there when somebody needs their work. For example, although the
Roma women provide mushrooms and woodland-fruits for the village, the Gadje (a
Hungarian woman) say: “yeah, big deal picking up fruits; you go to the woods, you
take a walk, and you get money for nothing”. (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
Another aspect contradicting the common view of work-shy Roma is the desire to migrate
abroad (see also the survey data on migration intentions, in the section 0) and the appreciation of
the hard work (mostly in construction) performed abroad (for example in Mihail Kogãlniceanu,
with high migration abroad).
Quote 3-42. External and internal contradictory views about work, in M. Kogãlniceanu
The whole idea of work has a different connotation for the Roma – it is not viewed
as a source of gratification or torment, but rather as a sporadic necessity. Work is
perceived, first of all, as a source of income: when money is needed, one should go out
and work. A career is never even considered. Apart from that, the feeling of confort
and the fear of novelty are things that make many stay at home. Most of the time
they (Roma from M. Kogãlniceanu) tend to sleep late, until around noon.
“Question: How do you find the life abroad?
Man: Better, much better.
Q: For what reason?
43
M: You can find work there, it’ s more beautiful, you have more money there.
Q: Where did you stay?
M: Valencia. Right in the capital...
Q: And what did you work in?
M: As a daily worker.
Q: What does that mean?
M: In construction.”
(Interview in Roma community) (Mihail Kogãlniceanu, Marcu 2007)
In addition, the qualified or the professional occupations, such as being a musician or a farmer,
are associated with a strong sense of dignity and self-esteem, which is worth enduring economic
hardship for or a lifetime of learning and studying.
Quote 3-43. Work as a source of pride and self-esteem, in Cugir

The players from there are the examples to follow: they are people who were playing
in the band, but also working the fields or having other jobs; musicians with not too
much school, but with great talents, people who found in music a support for better
living, especially in the recent decades. Indeed, for a long time, music lovers had a very
hard life; the massive exodus looking for jobs (like in the case of those who had come
to Cugir) was driven by economic crisis or by the wish to stop repeating the drama
or the tragedy of the ancestors (“my great-granddad was playing the ‘ fly trumpet’ ,
and there is one thing I am sorry for – poor guy died of hunger; the famine in ‘46”
N.S., Roma, 25 years old, trumpeter). (Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
Quote 3-44. Work as a source of pride and self-esteem, in Curtici

“We are Roma, Cãldãrari, and we are working, we’ re not on the dole... we’ re not
begging, we’ re more into agriculture (...) we own many plots of land, which were
inherited.” (Roma family in Curtici, quoted by M. Goina 2007)
3.3.6 Attitudes Towards the Past

We mentioned before the nostalgia admitted by some of the interview subjects towards the
interwar, “legendary” or romantic past (see also section 3.2.1), in which they or their predecessors
were respected, rich or simply happy.
This nostalgia enhances even more case of the families that still practice traditional crafts and have
to witness the degradation of their occupation, in the context of recent economic development.
This nostalgia can materialize in the form of contempt towards new occupations or trade practices.
Quote 3-45. Nostalgia and change in occupation patterns, in Oºorhei

The Gabors from Oºorhei are aware of the fact that the market they used to have
20 years ago is rapidly geting smaller. The request for tin pipes has been significantly
decreasing and they do not have the technology required for making plastic pipes.
Because they do not have a stable income the banks won’ t grant them loans for
purchasing the tools. Therefore, their situation becomes more and more dramatic. At
least the moment they travel to rural areas, to families who can only afford tin pipes.
(...)Lately the traditional tinsmith craft has been losing ground in favour of
businesses. Depending on the interviewed subject businesses can be considered
favourable or unfavourable by the families of Gabors. (Oºorhei, Pantea 2007)
44
WHO ARE THE ROMA
Attitudes towards the communist past are also diverse. On the one hand, there is nostalgia for
a time when work was more available for the masses of unqualified people, and when social
polarization was less visible and less experienced in daily life. These personal feelings are usually
associated with a less clear understanding of the wider context and the wider implications of the
former regime and of the new one. On the other hand – in much fewer cases – ther is clear
understanding of the communist oppression and forced assimilation practices.
Quote 3-46. Communist nostalgia in a mining community, Lupeni

“Man: If Ceauºescu was alive, he would never close the mine. I was a miner for 2I
years, and I was fooled, too, as I wasn’ t told about this amount of pension I have to
raise my kids from. I make ends meet very hard. But I don’ t beat and steal.
Woman: my husband was working in the mine, and it wasn’ t bad then, not at all.
M: Yes, it was good.
W: We had a good life than, as we had money and children were in school. Because there
was a school made for children not to become vagabonds, as they can become today. We
sent them to school, telling them to learn to make a better life. But now it is hard for us.
M: Communists, these country burglars, made many factories in the whole country,
and than all were sold out.” (Woman and man, 49, respectively 53 years, Lupeni,
quoted by Geambaºu 2007)
Quote 3-47. Memories of communism through a woman-worker’ s eyes, in Iris

She recalls state-communism period when “everything was fine because people had work
and money”. In Cluj they were working at ªantier 1, 2 and 4, engaged with building
blocks of flats from Mãnãºtur and Mãrãºti. In her memories men and women had the
same work to do except cleaning the newly built block which went exclusively to women.
In that period there was a separated brigade of Roma workers just because, as she said,
they were from the same village and liked to work together. For her, state communism
was also a period when many social events took place: birthday parties, weddings with
music and dances. They frequently left for Sárpatak in order to participate at family
reunions, but they also had celebrations in Cluj: she butchered 10 chickens for her sons’
birthday once. (Roma woman, 51 years, in Iris, quoted by Plainer 2007)
Quote 3-48. Awareness of the communist violent assimilation policy, in Curtici

“Before the 90s there was discrimination, we were not granted our rights, but what
can I say (...) there was no law of the CC (Central Committee) to say that Roma had
to be marginalised, isolated. Here in Curtici we were not allowed to build houses (in
the town centre), that was not allowed, Romanians came with bottles (incendiary)...
(somebody) intended to buy houses in the centre and they were forced to give up from...
buying; Since the revolution it is better, around 92, 95, everybody stopped bugging us,
we used to be beaten up, abused by the police, town hall, when we went to down town
we were beaten, arrested, when they saw groups... now they have precise information,
if they know somebody is messing about they are fining them.... but they’ re not beating
them up anymore...” (P.D., 42, local leader Curtici, quoted by M. Goina 2007)
Quote 3-49. Awareness of the segregation policy before 1990, in Curtici

“My father told me that he went to work, tying bunches, and when he came back
from work he saw that (the town hall) had flooded their houses, so from that place,
next to the railway station, they were moved here...so that’ s how we moved here.”
(Roma in Curtici, quoted by M. Goina 2007)
45
3.4 Religious Affiliation

3.4.1 Survey Estimates
A distinctive feature of the Roma people regarding religious affiliation is the large proportion
of the members of Neo-protestant churches (see below). If we take into account all adult household
members, 12% of the Roma sample household members are Neo-protestant, compared to 4% of
the comparative sample household members.
Chart 3-1. Distribution of religious affiliations, by sample type (percentage)
In Table 16-3, in the annex, we can see a binary logistic regression model for Neo-protestant
affiliation of the Roma people. The odds of being affiliated to a Neo-protestant church are higher
for members of the better off Roma households (owning an automobile, or having bought recently
a long-term consumer item), but at the same time are lower for members of more modern, mobile
households – with experience of migration abroad, or owning a mobile phone. The probability is
also lower among the urban residents and the high school graduates (see Chart 3-2). The use of
Romani language and the affiliation with a traditional sub-group is not significantly associated
with a Neo-protestant affiliation.
Chart 3-2. Neo-protestant affiliation by type of household and education (percentage)
46
STEREOTYPES, SOCIAL DISTANCE ATTITUDE...
3.4.2 Influences of Religious Affiliation on Family

and Community Life
Religious affiliation is used by Roma and non-Roma alike in their interactions. The Roma may
use it to improve their self-presentation (see Quote 3-50), while the non-Roma use it to
differentiate among the Roma people.
Quote 3-50. Pentecostal affiliation among the Babadag Roma

Three neo-Protestant denominations have appeared in the 90’ s alongside the
Muslim religion prevailing in the community: Adventist, Baptist and Pentecostal.
The latter is extremely active and has great influence in the Turkish Gypsies’ social
life. One of the most significant achievements of the Pentecostals is the ‘ Children’ s
club’ , exclusively dedicated to Roma children, located on Vlad Tepes street – that is,
in the centre of the Bendea neighbourhood. The activity at the club is sustained by two
young women 30 and 33 years old who have lived in Babadag since 2004 and are
extremely visible in the Turkish Gypsy community; they attend various events, get
involved in settling conflicts or offer their assistance when necessary.
Even though the horahai Gypsies are very tradition-oriented and the Muslim
religion has a strong positive value for them, they have nothing against a member
of the family receiving the Christian christening, whichever one – Orthodox, Baptist,
etc Among the young ones, almost all have a Christian name as well, which they
acquired as a result of their christening, or just borrowed and use it to introduce
themselves to people outside the community. The parties accompanying the boys’
Muslim baptism – manifested with the circumcision – are quite frequent in Bendea
neighbourhood. It is also a wish that has to do with every family’ s status – to throw
impressive parties, attended by many guests, either on weddings or baptisms. Such a
party would last approximately three days, and it starts with the close friends and
relatives on the first day. (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)
Baptism to a Neo-protestant church is seen by the non-Roma as a positive, “civilizing” influence

on the Þigani. The Neo-protestant churches, especially the Pentecostal and the Baptist churches
also have visible social projects in Roma communities and they are active organizations, mobilizing
people’ s participation. However, community researchers point out that this influence on people’ s
lives is complex and also limited (see also Quote 3-19).
Quote 3-51. Baptist affiliation in Nuºfalãu

“Most of the Roma of Nuºfalãu used to be of Reformat religion (the remaining part
Orthodox), but in the last 10 years a Baptist Church began its activity in the village
and managed to attract a considerable part of the Roma from Brazilia.(...) According
to the interviews taken in the community and in the village almost all out of 441
Baptist people are Roma from Brazilia. All the representatives of the authorities and
school representatives in a way welcomed this new tendency which emerged among
the Roma to adhere to the Baptist Church. Every interviewed person expressed
his/her hope that this way the Roma of Brazilia will be shown a good example of
conducting their life: to think about their future and not to spend money on luxury
products (as alcohol and cigarettes), not to steal and to be more serious about their
children’ s education.” (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
47
Pentecostal churches presented in the community reports require believers to give up alcohol,
smoking, but also music, jewellery and dancing. It has contributed to legalizing civil status,
including marriages, and it opposes family planning measures.
Quote 3-52. Pentecostal influences on local life in Curtici

The rules of the Neo-protestant church were the first to address the problem of identity
documents, as they asked for the legalization of marriages. The Neo-protestant church is
seen as the institution which generated the Roma integration, while the State ranks second
in contributing to this achievement: “no one was able to do for us, Roma people, what the
Church did.” The interesting fact is that, although the church asks its parishioners to
give up an important part of their cultural tradition, such as music, dance or wearing
jewellery, these rules are accepted with no resentment. When I suggested that it would be
a pity to lose the traditional wedding customs, with music and Gypsy dances, the
community members did not seem concerned. (Curtici, M. Goina 2007)
Quote 3-53. Strength and limits of Pentecostal influences on family practices in Oºorhei
Roma women are confronted with a dilemma as to their commitment to have children.
On the one hand they are aware of the poor economic status, which diminishes their
wish to have many children. On the other hand, the Neo-protestant churches that
most of them converted to, forbid abortion and the use of contraceptive methods. The
condom is seldom used because of the retrograde mentality of the men. The general
practice is the use of contraceptive methods after the birth of 4-5 children. The most
common methods are the intra-uterine conceptive device and the “injection” (based on
hormones), procedures performed at the Maternity of Oradea (...) The major problem
faced is the marriage of the 12-14 year old girls. According to the rite, they are
baptised when they come of age. Therefore, at this age the girls are not baptised and
thus the religious ceremony may not be celebrated as well. From the point of view of
the Pentecostal Church, these girls live “in sin”. (Oºorhei, Pantea 2007)
At the same time, religious conversion may not succeed in changing the practice of early
marriage, despite the fact that that it is considered immoral, or in unifying the segregated neamuri
into a single religious community.
Quote 3-54. Segregation of two neamuri in Pentecostal communities in Curtici

Although both communities (Romanized Roma and Corturari) are mostly
Pentecostal, each community has its own church. I tried to attribute this separation
to the different language used by the two communities. I asked if the service is
delivered in the Roma language and I was told that in both churches they use
Romanian, even if some explanations are given in Roma. Some leaders of
“Romanian gypsies” say this separation is the result of disagreements between them,
while others view it as a part of the Cãldãrãri attitude of “avoiding them” and
mention it with resignation and regret. (Curtici, M. Goina 2007)
3.5 Survey Analysis of Ethnic Affiliation

The following sections explore the ethnic affiliation of the Roma, considering the following dimensions:
1. Specificity: affiliation to sub-groups (‘ neamuri’ ) and use of Romani language
48
WHO ARE THE ROMA
2. Pride of ethnic affiliation, measured directly by the favourable attitude towards teaching
pupils about Roma language and history (see the analysis of these attitudes in section 4.2.3)
3. Closure: experience of ethnic-based discrimination, and refusal to allow a Romanian ethnic
into the family (see the analysis of ethnic closure in the family in section 4.5.4).
Ethnic affiliation is thus understood as a combination of life experience – including being a member
of a community and/or being rejected by other communities – and personal choice, informed by
previous experience. For each dimension we have explored the influence of three types of variables:
1. Socialization institutions: school education, employment, family and friends, close
neighbourhood (ethnic segregation) and larger neighbourhood (urban/rural);
2. Ethnic specificity (as defined above);
3. Other socio-demographic control variables: gender, age, and household wealth measured
as the number of long-term consumer goods.
Table 3-1. Operational definitions of variables in the study of ethnic affiliation

Variable Indicators
Affiliation to sub-groups Whether the respondent declares that s/he is a certain type of Roma
Use of Romani language Whether Romani is used as a main language at home
Pride of ethnic affiliation “How proud are you of the following aspects in your life” ... “I am Roma/Gypsy”
To what extent do you agree with the following?
“Roma children should learn Romani language in school”
“All pupils should learn about Roma history and culture in schools”.
School education Whether the respondent has graduated high school
Whether in the last month the respondent has received a wage
Employment
in a private or state-owned organization
Family Whether there are Romanian or Hungarian ethnic members of the family
Whether among the best three friends of the respondent at least one
Friends
is Romanian or Hungarian ethnic
Whether the operator estimates that in the close neighbourhood
Close neighbourhood
all or almost all families are Roma
Larger neighbourhood Urban or rural locality
For each dependent variable we have first computed exploratory regression models which are
included in the annex; the following sections only present bi-variate associations with significant
factors by using cross-tabs and charts (see also section 2.4.2).
3.5.1 Specificity
Ethnic affiliations of the Roma
We asked all respondents in the quantitative survey for two ethnic affiliations: the most
important one and a secondary one, with a semi-open question13.
Of all the randomly-selected respondents who declared themselves Roma in the Roma sample,
around 21% consider their second ethnicity to be Romanian, 3% consider it to be Hungarian,
0.3% other ethnicity, 28% state Roma/Gypsy also as their second ethnic affiliation and the
remaining 48% offer no second ethnic identification at all.
13 Semi-open question is an open question with categories written in the questionnaire. After answers were
given, operators need to categorize them (in this case chosen from a list including “Roma”, “Romanian”, “Hugar-
ian”, “German”, and “Other – specify which one”).
49
Chart 3-3. Distribution of second ethnic affiliations
Among 719 respondents whose first mother tongue is Romani, in both samples, only 7 consider
themselves of non-Roma ethnicity. This indicates a very strong connection between mother
tongue and ethnic affiliation in adult years.
Only 44% of the Roma respondents also identify with a sub-group, in an open-coded question.
The main sub-groups (as they resulted after recoding the answers given by the respondents) are
listed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Affiliation to Roma/Gypsy sub-groups

Nr of cases Percent Nr of cases Percent
Cãldãrari 28 3 Domnesti 6 1
Ciurari 5 0 Romi maghiari 29 3
Cortorari 13 1 Rostas 9 1
De vatra 31 3 Rudari 32 3
Gabori cu palarie 18 2 Spoitori 36 4
Geambasi 11 1 Ursari 85 8
Lingurari 9 1 Other 42 4
Romi romanizati 48 5 Total affiliations 448 44
Romi romanesti 35 3 No affiliation 567 56
De matase 11 1 Total 1015 100.0
In order to use sub-group affiliations as an explanatory variable, we have classified them

according to several criteria: use of Romani language, education, average age at first birth and
acceptance of Romanians as family members. We have grouped the affiliations that had very few
cases, and we have included in an exploratory analysis those neamuri or classes of neamuri with
around 30 members of more. Of course, proportions of such few cases can only be used with
caution. Still, one can discern a certain pattern (see Chart 3-4):
- The Rudari have extreme values for three out of the four criteria: they speak least frequently
Romani (13% of the Rudari use it at home), they have the highest proportion of high school
graduates (22% of the Rudari) and the highest age of first birth (20.9 years). It is also relevant that
in many situations the Rudari do not consider themselves properly Roma (see for example Quote
3-58), but Romanians, or a different ethnic group;
- The Romi romanizati, Romi româneºti, Romi de vatrã, Romi maghiari and the residual affiliations
(labelled as “other” in the database) have a lower use of Romani and higher level of education,
higher age of first birth and higher acceptance of Romanians as family members.
50
WHO ARE THE ROMA
Table 3-3. Exploratory classification of sub-groups (neamuri)

High school Average age at first Accept Romanians
Nr of Romani at home
Graduates birth for women as family
cases (row percent)
(row percent) (years) (row percent)
Rudari 32 13 22 20.9 38
Romi romanizati 48 27 13 18.5 56
Romi romanesti 35 34 6 19.6 77
De vatra 31 42 19 18.3 50
Romi maghiari 29 45 11 16.9 54
Other affiliations 42 62 18 18.5 69
ciurari and other less
82 77 5 17.9 51
frequent affiliations
Cãldãrari 28 82 4 17.7 33
Ursari 85 91 6 19.1 45
Spoitori 36 97 9 17.0 14
Total 443 62 10 18.4 49
Respondents
567 46 12 19.1 53
with no affiliation
Therefore, we can distinguish four main types of sub-group ethnic affiliations:

1. Respondents who choose only the main identity of Roma, but no sub-group;
2. The Rudari;
3. Respondents who choose an assimilated label – such as Romi românesti, Romi romanizaþi,
De vatrã or Romi maghiari/unguri; we have included here also the residual category “other”,
grouping the infrequent affiliations, and we have labelled them the “assimilated affiliations”;
4. Respondents who choose traditional sub-groups – such as Cãldãrari, Ciurari, Cortorari,
Spoitori, etc. We have labelled such neamuri the “traditional affiliations”.14
The global category of “traditional affiliation” includes 22% of the Roma-ethnic respondents
in the opinion questions in the Roma sample.
14 Cãldãrari, Ciurari, Cortorari, Gabori cu pãlãrie, Geambaº, Lingurari, Romi de mãtase, Romi domneºti, Rostaº,
Spoitori, Ursari
51
Chart 3-4. Proportion of people who speak Romani, who graduated from high school
and who accept Romanians as family members (percentage within affiliation category)
It is important to underline that this classification of “neamuri” in “traditional” and “assimilated”

is meant as an exploratory statistical instrument, since it is built on the basis of several broad
quantitative indicators. It is possible that there is considerable variation in world views and life
trajectories within these classes, and indeed within the neamuri themselves. Still, this variable does
reflect a dimension of ethnic affiliation, and it can be useful for exploring patterns of behaviour.
3.5.2 Use of Romani Language

Around half of the Roma respondents use Romani language in the household: 47% mention it
as the first and 3% as the second language. 34% of the Roma respondents use Romani as the main
language in their interaction with friends and acquaintances, while an additional 6% use it as a
secondary language in these circles. When it comes to interactions with other, more distant people,
17% of the Roma use it as the main language and 6% use it as a secondary language.
It is important to mention here that the 2002 Romanian Census includes 535,140 people of Roma
ethnicity, of which a proportion of 44.4% (237,570 people) have Romani as their mother tongue15.
The Roma Inclusion Barometer indicates that 40% of the Romi românizaþi and 55% of the other
Roma people have learnt Romani as their mother tongue (Bãdescu et al. 2007, p. 8).
57% of the randomly selected respondents have learned Romani as their first mother-tongue,
and an additional 10% learned it as a second mother-tongue.
Table 3-4. What are the main languages your household members use... (percentage)
... at home ... with friends ... with other people
Roma Comparative Roma Comparative Roma Comparative
sample sample sample sample sample sample
Romanian 50 88 64 90 81 92
Hungarian 3 10 4 9 5 7
Romani 47 1 32 1 14 0
Other 0 1 0 0 0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
15 See the Census data on the site of Jakabffy Elemé r Foundation, Asociaþia Media Index:
http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/
52
WHO ARE THE ROMA
Within the households which use Romani language at home, one third use Romanian language
in conversations with friends, and more than two thirds use Romanian in conversations with other
people. Of course, not all people who use Romani at home also use it in public contexts, and vice-
versa. There are around 12% of households in the Roma sample in which members speak mostly
Romani in all three types of situations, while the others only use it frequently in one or two types
of interactions.
The use of Romani language decreases with education (see Table 16-5).
Chart 3-5. Household and public use of Romani language by education categories (percentage)
There is also a strong influence of family ethnic structure: 60% of respondents with no
Romanian or Hungarian family members use Romani at home, compared to 30% among those
with mixed families.
There is no linear relationship between the locality size and the use of Romani language: it
seems that small towns encourage its use, while large towns offer the strongest incentives to use
other languages, in public and in private encounters.
Chart 3-6. Home and public use of Romani language by locality type (percentage)
The Roma families which do not speak Romani at home have on average more appliances, with
the only exception being the car, which is more frequently owned by Romani speakers (see Chart
3-7). For example, 43% of the Romani-speaking households have a refrigerator, and 15% own a car.
This indicates that modern living styles are more frequently met within households that use of
53
Romanian or Hungarian as the main family language. The exceptional situation of the car is possibly
due to the higher proportion of traders in traditional Roma communities. Of course, this does not
indicate a causal relationship between language and access to resources, since probably both aspects
are shaped by particular life trajectories, adapted to local opportunities.
The use of Romani language within the household is related to a U shaped subjective standard: the
better off and the worst off use it more frequently than the households in the middle. For example,
around 50% of the households with a decent living standard and also the ones with a lower than
minimal living standard use Romani internally, compared to around 40% of the ones who have enough
just for the minimum necessities. The consistent use of Romani language (at home, with friends and
with other people) is inversely related to subjective well-being (see Chart 3-8).
Chart 3-7. Household appliances by main language spoken within the household (percentage)
Chart 3-8. Use of Romani language by subjective standard of living (percentage)
Data indicates that households that use Romani language have less access to material resources
than households that use other languages. For example, 25% of households in the comparative
sample have bought durable goods in the last year, compared with 20% of the Roma households
who do not speak Romani and 10% of Roma households who speak Romani either at home, or in
both private and public situations.
54
WHO ARE THE ROMA
This general observation is also illustrated in Chart 3-9 and Chart 3-10. Both charts indicate that
people who use Romani language consistently (at home and in public places) are more
impoverished than the ones who use it only at home.
Chart 3-9. Evaluation of living standard by type of language use, Roma sample
(percentage of language categories)
The difference between family Romani speakers and community Roma speakers is largest in
relation to access to credit. Roma families mostly have access to credit from private creditors and
family members. However, among households that use Romani language in public places, even
accessibility of this type of credit is much lower. On the contrary, the difference between family
Romani speakers and non-Romani speakers is erased in the case of credit.
Chart 3-10. Access to resources by type of language use, Roma sample

(percentage of language categories)
55
3.5.3 Pride of Roma/Gypsy Affiliation

Pride, shame and ethnic affiliation
In the common language of the non-Roma, the label of Þigani and its associated words, such as
“þigãnie” or “a se þigãni” has long been a stigma. This is reflected not only in the meaning of the
words, but also in their asymmetric use (see Silian 2007 below).
Quote 3-55. “A þigãni” – a lexical innovation in Veseuº

At a lexical level, there was a word that I found striking, used to describe situations
implying inter-ethnic relationships: to ‘ gypsy’ (a þigãni) someone – a word I never
heard in the vocabulary of Romanians in Transylvania or elsewhere. On the other
hand, the phrase ‘ to make the Gypsy’ (a se þigãni) is frequently used by Romanians
to describe an insisting, annoying behaviour. The procedure is rather transparent: a
type of behaviour is seen as specific to all the members of an ethnic group, so it is
described by turning the name ‘ Gypsy’ into the verb ‘ to gypsy’ . However, it would
be tautologous to say about a Gypsy that he is ‘ making the Gypsy’ , so the verb is used
to warn a non-Gypsy that they bargain too much or ask for something too insistently
that they risk resembling the Gypsies to a dangerous extent. However, when we cut
to the chase and overtly use invectives such as crow/Gypsy, with all the usual attributes
that come along – dirty, stinky, slimy, etc – we are actually ‘ gypsying’ someone (a
þigãni or a cioroi). Indeed, as we practise this action, we are not aware that our action
has a name, but those who are targeted by it describe their experience in this way: he
gypsied me. Whether you are accusing someone that he makes the gypsy or you gypsy
them, it’ s an asymmetrical, power-based relationship: the reproach that you resemble
the Gypsy or you are a real Gypsy comes from a moral position of superiority. Maybe
this is the reason why there are no verbs derived from the names of other ethnic groups:
you say that someone is making the Gypsy, but not that he’ s making the Romanian;
we ‘ gypsy’ someone, but we don’ t ‘ romanianize’ anyone. (Veseuº, Silian 2007)
The introduction of the “Rom” ethnonym after 1990 has generated a still lively debate on the
proper identification of the Roma people, fuelled especially by the Romanians’ strong negative
feelings about its phonetic similarity with the “Romanian” ethnonym. The “Rom” ethnonym has
functioned as a spontaneous experiment, testing and supporting the definition advanced by F.
Barth of ethnic distinctions as boundaries among people, irrespective of inventories of cultural
traits (see Barth 1969 and Wimmer 2007). Indeed, the most powerful aspect of the “Rom” label
is that it fails to perform its boundary-making functions, and it blurs the much-wanted difference
between the Roma and the non-Roma. The practice of using the “Rrom” ethnonym is another
strategy to mark the ethnic difference.
Given this debate, the emotions associated with ethnonyms as “Þigan” or “Rom” have become
more diverse, as various groups and individuals choose to affiliate with one, another or none, and
to experience shame and pride accordingly. This multiplicity of affiliations is reflected in the
experiences of field researchers (see Quote 3-56).
Quote 3-56. Rom/Þigan affiliation

We should mention one more thing - most of them refuse to avoid using the name
‘ Roma’ when referring to themselves, and they prefer to say, ‘ man, I am Gypsy...’ .
Unlike the formal variant, the word ‘ Gypsy’ is used frequently with a double
meaning in the community; sometimes they would say ‘ tiganie’ in a pejorative sense
- or ‘ sa nu ne tiganim’ (let’ s not be like Gypsies) - but also ‘ we are Gypsies and
56
WHO ARE THE ROMA
we are not ashamed of that’ . An interesting thing is that, for some, the bonds within
the group are generated by something else, besides the ‘ ethnic origin’ : “Roma...
Gypsies, who knows what we are... we are miserable people, that’ s what we are...”
(P.R., 67 years old, Roma) (Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
The ethnic affiliation of the Roma has always been a differentiated process, because of
identification with various sub-groups (neamuri) – some of whom, such as the Rudari, sometimes
do not even consider themselves Þigani (see Quote 3-57 and Quote 3-58).
Quote 3-57. Public acceptance and rejection of Þigani affiliation in various neamuri
Thus, when an attempt is made to approximate the size of the two large Mureº
Roma communities, we can take the official figures (3759) as being representative
mainly for the Gabor Roma sub-group; the information we got from people in the
community is that a great number of the settled Roma declared themselves as
Hungarians in the 2002 census. On the other hand, the ‘ Gabor’ Roma recognize
their (Roma) identity to a much wider extent, and the first indications of this are the
traditions and costumes they preserve. “If you ask a Gabor what he is, he will tell you
he is Gypsy, they have no shame. They talk Gypsy language in the church as well –
in their Baptist church. They have no shame, those ones.” (J.L. 48 years old, Rom
de vatra). (Târgu Mureº, Cengher 2007).
Quote 3-58. On “Rudari” identification

The first Roma I met (a young man aged around 20) directed me towards a person
he knew was dealing with “such things” – after I explained the purpose of my arrival
in the locality. He insisted on telling me that he and the other Roma (sic) who live in
the locality “are neither Þigani nor Romi, we are Rudari”. He said there are a couple
of families who are Argintari Roma (the second type of Roma who live in the locality)
who, in contrast to them (the Rudari), are speaking Romani. I tried to explain that
in fact Rudari are Roma too, even if they do not speak Romani, but then I realized
that he also knew that they are Roma, but he would not admit to calling himself Þigan
or Rom and he preferred to call himself Rudar – a situation which I encountered with
many other Roma families during my stay in the locality. (Modelu, Feraru 2007)
The field researcher’ s discussion of Rudari identification illustrates a common reaction: non-
Roma often deny the claim of hetero-identified Roma/Þigani not to be Þigani, either on theoretical
considerations, such as the one in the Quote 3-58, or on other assumptions. Hetero-identification
of the Þigani is, in this regard, not easily falsifiable.
Variations in Ethnic Pride Among the Roma

Except for local identity, all other types of identity elicit the same feelings of pride among Roma
respondents. The same is true for the comparative sample. Differences among Roma and non-
Roma respondents are significant only for ethnic pride and for pride in being a Romanian citizen
(see Chart 16-1).
It is interesting that the members of more traditional ethnic sub-groups feel more often proud
or very proud of their Roma/Gypsy identity than those with no affiliation or those in assimilated
affiliations. There is no statistical difference between the latter two.
57
Chart 3-11. Pride of ethnic affiliation, by type of ethnic sub-group affiliation (percentage)
The use of Roma language is also a significant positive influence on pride of Roma affiliation.
The chart below indicates that 45% of respondents who speak Romani at home are very proud of
their Roma ethnicity, compared to 33% of those who do not speak Romani.
Chart 3-12. Pride and use of Romani language at home (percentage)
Surprisingly, the level of education does not influence ethnic pride, although one might expect
the higher educated to have less pride in a socially stigmatized ethnicity. However, a logistic
regression model indicates that the probability of being “very proud” of the Roma/Gypsy ethnicity
is only influenced by sub-group affiliation and use of language, and it is not affected by education,
age, type of residence or gender (see Table 16-6 in the Annex).
58
WHO ARE THE ROMA
3.5.4 Experience of Ethnic Discrimination

Roma respondents have experienced ethnic discrimination much more frequently than the non-
Roma respondents. One third of the Roma subjects declare that they have been discriminated
against on the basis of their ethnic identity, compared to only 6% of the non-Roma.
Table 3-5. Experience of ethnic discrimination by individual respondent category (percentage)

“Have you ever been treated worse
Non-Roma subject Roma subject
than another person, because you are...
in comparative sample in Roma sample
(ethnic affiliation of the respondent) ?”
No 95 67
Yes 5 33
Total 100.0 100.0
It is probable that this discrimination is simultaneously ethnic and economically based. For
example, Grigoraº and Surdu (2004) notice that the extremely poor residents of poor urban areas
are much more probable to feel discontented with the way they were treated by local authorities
than the average urban resident, and to report the use of small bribes to receive attention (p. 371).
More than half of the respondents that reported cases of discrimination remembered these
incidents to have taken place at the local authorities, in the street, in schools, medical facilities, on
public transport and at the police. This indicates that discrimination most often occurs in
interactions with the public authorities and social service providers, on the one hand, and the
general public on the other hand. Employment and commercial relationships are mentioned by
about 25 – 50% of respondents, while the church is mentioned by around 20%. Other cases
occurred in interactions with the military, abroad or at border crossing points.
Nevertheless, the frequency of discrimination reports reflects not only the presence of
discriminating practices, but also the frequency of interactions: the less often one interacts with a
particular type of agent, the less likely it is that discrimination will occur. From this point of view, it
is to be assumed that the lower level of reported discrimination in employment, for example, is partially
due to the less frequent contacts with employers and colleagues than with local authorities or service
providers – a situation which is, at least partially, a consequence of discrimination in the labour market.
Table 3-6. Where have you been treated worse than another person, because you are Roma? (per-
centage from the total of 326 Roma respondents in the Roma sample that answered
“Yes” to the question ...). Multiple answers were possible.
Percent of Percent of
affirmative affirmative
answers answers
At the local authority 67 From the neighbours 36
In the street 64 At workplace from colleagues 30
In school 60 At workplace, when layoffs
25
were made
During medical services 61
In the church 20
On public transport 55
At workplace, when wages
At the police 52 18
were established
When you applied for a job 49 In the army 14
In the shop 43 Abroad 14
At places of entertainment 42 At border crossing points 12
59
We have explored the experience of ethnic discrimination in two logistic regression models.
The first one only included socio-demographic variables, of which the only significant influences
are urban residence and household welfare. Education, measured either as graduation from the
gymnasium or as from the high schools, has no influence. In the second model, we have added
variables that indicate inter-ethnic contact, such as working in an organization, having Romanian
or Hungarian family members or residence in a Roma neighbourhood. People who work in an
organization and residents of mixed neighbourhoods are more likely to remember an experience
of discrimination. In this model household welfare continues to have a significant negative
influence, but urban residence is no longer significant (see Table 16-10 in the annex, and see also
Chart 3-13 for bi-variate analysis).
Chart 3-13. Experience of ethnic discrimination by employment status,

type of neighbourhood, residence and wealth (percentage)
The influence of household welfare on experienced ethnic discrimination indicates that, indeed,
economic discrimination against the poor enhances the ethnic discrimination of the Roma.
However, there is no reason to conclude that Roma people are confronted solely with economic
discrimination, since the better off Roma have still experienced differential treatment. For example,
51 of the 190 respondents living in households with 4 or more long-term consumer goods declare
that they have been discriminated against (27%).
3.5.5 Summary of Influences on Ethnic Affiliation

The overall picture of influences on ethnic affiliation is summarized in Table 3-7. It is very
interesting that school education only influences the use of Romani language, with no other
statistically significant association with ethnic affiliation variables. It does not influence pride in,
or evaluation of, Roma culture, and it does not influence experiences and opinions of ethnic
closure. We can infer that the institution of school is largely absent in the constitution of the
ethnic identity of Romanian Roma people.
Language use and traditional affiliation seem to be at the core of ethnic affiliation, as they are
associated with each other and with ethnic pride. Ethnically mixed families and friends do have a
negative influence on specificity, and a mixed family increases the probability of ethnic openness
towards Romanians, at least.
Paradoxically, wealth and a homogenous Roma neighbourhood have the same influence on
experienced discrimination, although it is probable that the causal circuits are very different. It seems
60
WHO ARE THE ROMA
plausible that a segregated residence lessens the degree of discrimination experienced by reducing
the opportunities for inter-ethnic contact, while wealth reduces discriminatory attitudes of interaction
partners – thus, as popular wisdom says, haina face pe om (“clothing defines a person”).
Table 3-7. Summary of influences on ethnic affiliation

Trad. Language Organization Mixed Mixed Roma
Variable Education Urban Wealth
Aff. use employment family friends neigh.
Traditional
affiliation + -
Language
use + - -
Feeling
proud + +
+
Favorable (polari-
evaluation of zation of
Roma + + attitudes
culture (see towards
section 4.2.3 Romani
language)
+
(due to
Experience ethnic
of discrimi- + - inter- -
nation action
oppor-
tunities)
Acceptance
of + (due to
Romanian ethnic
family - interaction + +
members oppor-
(see section tunities)
4.5.4)
3.6 Some Concluding Remarks

and Points to Highlight
Points to highlight
• Around 25% of Roma people also have a second ethnic affiliation. Around 21% consider
their second ethnicity to be Romanian, and 3% consider it to be Hungarian.
• 50% of Roma use Romani in their homes, 40% use it with friends and acquaintaces, and
23% use it in interactions with more distant people.
• If we take into account all adult household members, 12% of the Roma sample household
members are Neo-protestant, compared to 4% of the comparative sample household
members.
Qualitative and quantitative data alike supports the already common observation that Roma
people and communities have widely differentiated strategies of defining themselves in relation to
their ethnicity, history, traditions and practices of daily life.
What may seem the very same behaviour for an external observer, such as speaking Romani or
a strategy of early marriage, can be lived and understood very differently from one community or
family to another. For example, it can be experienced as an instrumental choice, as a symbolic

identification of one’ s community, or both of them to some extent. It can be a reason for shame
or for pride, or simply irrelevant for emotional affiliation with one’ s community.
Ethnic classifications are done and undone with fine distinction by Roma people, who often
distinguish between several types of Roma, and with a less finely-tuned distinction by the non-
Roma. Individual or collective claims of being of non-Roma ethnicity are often denied by people
who also consider themselves of non-Roma ethnicity. Ethnic distinctions are used as powerful
moral instruments, in order to judge people and allocate merit and blame.
Traditional affiliation, the use of Romani language in the household and pride of Roma identity
are mutually reinforcing. There are several visible forces of systematic change in the area of ethnic
affiliation and the construction of one’ s identity in relation to others. Education decreases the
use of Romani language and creates more opportunities for social interaction with non-Roma,
which leads to increased tolerance towards inter-ethnic families. Wealth decreases the experience
of discrimination.
A future line of investigation may be to study how the experience of migration leads to reshaping
ethnic definitions and classifications, as the inter-ethnic interactions difersify, social networks are
consolidated and income increases. Survey data cannot capture these changes now, as they are yet
incipient.
62
4 Stereotypes, Social Distance
Attitudes and Inter-ethnic
Contact
This chapter explores the beliefs and attitudes of the non-Roma about the Roma and, as they are
often identified in Romania, about the Þigani. Of course, the labels of Roma and Þigani do not refer
to the same social reality, since the label used to identify them also projects stereotypes, activates
attitudes and indicates which people properly belong to the group and which do not. While in survey
questions and in our discussions we often use the ethnonym “Roma”, it is important to keep in mind
that this is still contested in Romanian society, also by Roma people themselves, and Þigani is still
widely used by Roma and non-Roma alike – although with different meanings and connotations. We
can distinguish between several types of usage for the Þigani ethnonym:
1. Self-identification as Þigan; for example, within the sample of the Roma Inclusion Barometer
a proportion of 45% of Roma respondents consider themselves “Rom românizat”, 23%
consider themselves “simply Þigan”, and the remaining 32% affiliate themselves with various
sub-groups (Rudari, Cãldãrari, Ursari, etc)16 (Bãdescu et al. 2007, p. 8).
2. The use of Þigan in relation to a specific person or community who self-identifies as such
(by Roma or non-Roma observers) (an “emic” use of the term, to use the emic/etic
anthropological distinction)17
3. The use of Þigan in relation to unspecified people, whose self-identification is either
multiple, different or unknown (an outsider’ s use of the term, though not “etic”, insofar
as it is not based on inside knowledge and systematic reflection).
We can say that the Roma people are often (un)seen and (mis) perceived through the Þigani
lenses (see for example Quote 4-6).
This chapter uses qualitative information to discuss the stereotypes surrounding Þigani, the poverty-
focused understanding of the Roma as “problem people” and the public invisibility of the Roma
culture (see sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3). We then use quantitative information on social distance
attitudes to sketch a map of the relative proximity felt by various ethnic groups to one another (see
section 4.4). Qualitative community reports illustrate how these attitudes are shaped by and in their
turn contribute to shaping opportunities for inter-ethnic social contact (see section 4.5).
4.1 The Þigani

The stereotype of the Þigani is a powerful moral and social label, defining rather clearly the
expected personality of the person and the appropriate attitudes and interactions towards it. It is
used mostly by the non-Roma, but not only. It may also be used by Roma people in a community
against other Roma communities (see Quote 4-1).
Quote 4-1. Uses of the Þigani stereotype in Nuºfalãu

The Roma of Bakos use exactly the same stereotypes and exhibit the same attitudes towards
the Roma of Brazilia, Boghiº and Valcãu. Roma from Bakos consider the Roma of
Brazilia as dirty, uncivilized, thieves, alcoholics, lazy and so on. (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
16 This distribution of affiliations to ethnic sub-groups may vary from one sample to another, according to the
criteria of selecting Roma communities in the randomly chosen localities.
17 “Emic”: understanding a culture from “inside”, from within its own frame of reference, from experiencing
it as a participant; “Etic”: the phase in one’ s study of a particular culture – having experienced it and participated
in it first-hand – of “stepping back” and evaluating the experience. The point at which an “emic” experience is “in-
terpreted” into explanatory terms in one’ s own culture.
63
4.1.1 What Sort of People are the Þigani?

Ethnic stereotypes about the Þigani, also transferred to the Romi, are common knowledge among
citizens and authorities and they may be easily and voluntarily communicated to benevolent
strangers, without malice (see Quote 4-2). As for the year 2007 in Romania, the “politically
correct” filter against expressing ethnic prejudice is not very powerful.
Quote 4-2. The Þigani label

“The biggest problem for our locality is represented by that (Gypsy) community where
aprox. 350 people live. Their attitude towards work and life is pretty negative. They
have already spent on drinks yesterday what money they will get today. They don’ t
think about anything. (...) They learn from each other that particularly untidy way
of life all the time, they are born into this life, and they continue to live their lives
this way.” (Official, Hungarian man in Nuºfalãu, quoted by Toma 2007)
The contemporary Þigan image is in contrast not only with the Român or Maghiar, but also with
the past Þigani:
Quote 4-3. The Romantic Gypsy in Nuºfalãu

“We can still find a romanticized view of the Roma, mostly among the old Gadjo.
They still remember the great Gypsy musicians from Nuºfalãu, who were well-known
both in the country and abroad. The Gadjo remember the traditional occupations of
the Roma from Nuºfalãu: musicians, brick-makers, smiths. The strong solidarity of
the Roma is positively mentioned in almost every case. The respect and attention of the
younger Roma towards the elder is another positive feature, besides the care that the
Roma show towards their children. In the narratives of the Gadjo, these images are
valid for the entire Roma community in general, without differences between a Roma
from Brazilia and one from Bakos. But the subjects declared that these Old Gypsies
already belong to history. Such Roma do not exist nowadays. Only the poverty and
misery remain constant; even if there are musicians in the community, they have no
money to buy new musical instruments, and anyway the greatest musician has died,
and the others cannot even be compared with him” (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007).
Development or charity projects destined for Roma people also contribute, unintentionally, to
the cognitive and emotional content of the Þigani label. For example, assistance for Roma may be
seen as undeserving and discriminatory (see Quote 4-4), or as indirect proof of their ethnic
deficiencies (see Quote 4-5).
Quote 4-4. Perceptions of discriminatory assistance in Coltãu

According to a common local belief, conveyed by one of my Hungarian interlocutors,
non-Roma consider unjust all that help (allowances, projects for them, people coming
to see their lives) Roma get, because they have no lands and don’ t work. Meanwhile
Hungarians who are busy raising animals and cultivating plants have no one to help
them. In this view all good things are given to Roma, “which may lead to their
superiority in this Hungarian village.” (I., Hungarian, 44 y. o., Coltãu, Iorga 2007)
Quote 4-5. The “Baia socialã pentru romi” (“Social Bathroom for Roma”) in Cugir
Many find strange the set up of the Social Bath “for the Roma”, when the entire
town lacks hot water. (Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
64
The stigma borne by the labels of Þigani and Þigãnie is independent of the actual lifestyles of the
people who are identified as such. It may be that attitudes towards the Þigani that do not display
the stereotypical marks of the Þigani are more tolerant – but these particular emotions do not lead
to a redefinition of the Þigani category itself.
Quote 4-6. Definitions of Þigani and Þigãnie in Veseuº

Out of the three villages with Roma population, Veseuº is the only one where the
number of Roma who declared themselves as such with the 2002 census matches the
numbers in the Mayoralty’ s records.
Many of the Veseuº Roma could be easily taken for Romanians. Even at the end of my
stay in the village, had I not known the people already, I could have thought that most of
them were Romanian. My host was telling me a similar story, when she took one of the
girls to enrol in the Blaj Economic High School. The secretary had asked her a few times,
in order to make sure she was really Roma: “Yes, my lady, you think we are lying? You
want me to speak Gypsy language?” The same when she was looking for a room to rent
for her daughter in Blaj – she told the old lady that they were a Þigan family from the
very beginning, being afraid that, should the woman learn about that later, she could
create problems. After they had spent some time chatting, the old woman had taken the
child aside and gave her wise advice: “Your mother is not really sane – to say that she is
Þiganã, like that. She sounds like she is proud of it! Don’ t ever say you are a Þiganã
again!” There is no one in Veseuº who doesn’ t have one or two stories like this one. The
attitude people would display towards me was ‘ understanding’ – invariably, they would
try to show their tolerance for my assumed reluctance towards the Roma and, with some
compassion for me having to be there, they would ask: “How do you feel in Veseuº ? How
do you like Veseuºul?” And before I got a chance to answer, they would continue: “It
could be nice if there wasn’ t so much of a þigãnie, right?” (Veseuº, Silian 2007)
4.1.2 Explanations of Behaviour Variations

The Roma people and their problems are often seen, by the general public and by authorities,
as one entity, because the people are considered to be the source of the problems. This causality
is defined in moral terms as personal responsibility for one’ s own situation. This responsibility is
not seen in the broader context of different opportunities and constraints faced by people.
Institutional arrangements that encourage a certain behaviour and discourage others are also
neglected, in favour of a minimalist conception of liberty, in which all people are equally free to
do what they choose. This conception also has the advantage of being ethnicity-blind at face value,
which gives it additional legitimacy.
This people-centered understanding of social problems seems to be common among local
authorities (see Quote 4-7 and Quote 4-8).
Quote 4-7. Face-value neutrality in ethnic stereotyping

“- We have to learn that all consumptions have to be paid. All. If you have running
water, you have to pay for it.
- Do you find this a solution for Roma’ s problems?
- We are still beating about the bush here. There are no special Roma problems, but
problems of inhabitants in general. There is no such category as Roma. Have you
ever heard about particular Romanian problems? In order to integrate anyone, let
it be Roma or Romanian, we ourselves need to adapt to a way of life.
65
- Do you find it a coincidence that people with a darker complexion are living on the
peripheries of the town?
- It wasn’ t their choice, ask them. I, for instance have lived in the same apartment
at ‘79. Ask them, how many apartments they had till they get there. It isn’ t about
complexion, but about the way you organize your resources.” (Local authority,
Lupeni, quoted by Geambasu 2007)
Quote 4-8. Local authority view of Roma people

I go again to the Town hall, where I meet the mayor. He does not want to give an
interview, but he tells me his own opinion of the Roma. According to him, Roma are
too much a focus of attention and, since discrimination against Roma has become an
issue, they play the victims. There are lots of available jobs in the locality but they are
not interested. He is very upset that, when they do apply for a job, they only stay for
one week and then they leave. (From a researcher’ s non-public field note)
Common explanations for the behaviour differences between the Roma people and the non-Roma,
such as the differences in school behaviour, include two main factors: the economic and the cultural.
Quote 4-9. Economic and cultural explanations of school failure in Cugir

School abandonment among Roma children – and not only them – is another issue;
as far as the Roma population is concerned, the justifications are economic, as well as
traditional, in the teaching staff’ s opinion (‘ they do not value education’ ). School
abandonment among non-Roma children also has economic grounds, as entire
families are away, working abroad. (Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
These two may also be seen as interrelated into a “culture of poverty”. This type of explanation
construes the Roma people’ s life strategies as somehow self-contained, with no rational connection
to the outside context (see Quote 4-10). References to poverty, while they may seem contextual,
are actually not, since it is not in the power of local decision makers to significantly alter this.
Contextual variables that could be potentially altered – such as organizational practices,
communication processes – are not taken into account in common explanations.
Quote 4-10. “Culture of poverty” explanations for school failure, Nuºfalãu

“ (...) they don’ t attend regularly. It is useless to come one or two days and after that
he/she is missing a month...because that’ s nothing. And the worst thing is that they don’ t
want. And I am angry with them because of that. They simply don’ t want to break that
situation in which they are. Although they could do that, now they really could do that.
Because they receive social aids, they receive anything, still they don’ t want...I don’ t’
know. (...) ...and they are satisfied, children learn this way of life, so... they see this...”
(teacher in elementary school, Hungarian section, Nuºfalãu, quoted in Toma 2007)
Overall, explanations of school failure focus on the demand side of education, and less on the
supply side. Pupils and parents are seen as the only focus of attention for understanding why Roma
children drop out of school and little attention is given to school itself. Even in cases where alternative
educational organizations succeed, this success is not seen as an indication that organizational change
is required – or it may even be seen as a potential disadvantage (see Quote 4-11).
66
Quote 4-11. “Demand side” and “supply side” explanations for school failure in Nuºfalãu
“...they constructed a more bigger building, they are many people...and it is
good...and the (Roma children from Brazilia) go there in the kindergarten. There
is one...Almost all the “tanya” is “believer”...they go there in the kindergarten...now
is vacation, but they go, and they receive some food, the school age children go there
as well, there is a room where they can write their lessons, there is somebody who
helps them to learn....it is very good...but I don’ t know how long will be like this...yes,
yes, there are more children attending the school now, thus when somebody is working
with them a bit more, they become a bit different... it is a very good thing, I
think...because at home the parents doesn’ t really care about them...poor of them,
they go to school, because they receive some food, during the winter even clothes,
shoes...it is good. From one point of view is good that they receive, but from the other
point of view it’ s not good, because they learn this...they learn that they receive
without making some effort, and they will expect this all the time, you know. And
this is not good. Not at all. Because they receive all the time aids...I don’ t want to
say that they don’ t need this. Because they are very poor, but they will be used to
receive things just for nothing, and in my opinion this is not good. We have to help
them, because it’ s necessary, because – God help us – there are cases where there are
children of 8-9, have no jobs, they receive only the children’ s allowance and the social
aid, are not able to find work, and they need this little help. But...they won’ t receive
this help all the time. And... it is not good when people don’ t care about things to get
fixed... no... ” (Roma, reformat woman, Nuºfalãu – Bakos, quoted in Toma 2007)
The influence of organizational factors on motivation structures is also exemplified by the

informal electricity connection system in Coltãu. Despite the widespread stereotype of the Roma
people as lacking discipline with invoice payments (rãu-platnici), alternative organizations manage
to be sustainable economically (see Quote 4-12).
Quote 4-12. Payments for electricity - Coltãu

The mutual help system of electricity provision is, in most cases (even when it involves
relatives) a profitable one for the one who supplies it. For example:
- In the first situation: if someone receives electricity but does not give it away to
somebody else, either the bill is divided by half or it is entirely paid for by the receiver.
- In the second situation: if someone receives electricity and passes it along, the one that
provides pays nothing and the others divide the bill among themselves, or (very rarely)
bills are divided among all beneficiaries, including the supplier. (Coltãu, Iorga 2007)
However, there are also respondents who understand the logic of what their Roma acquaintances
and neighbours are doing, and who seek possible improvements for them (see Quote 4-13).
Quote 4-13. Infrastructure necessities and cleaning practices in Coltãu

“Electricity and running water would be the first to be installed, I guess, because
people here have a few wells. We just say they’ re dirty and make no cleaning, but
believe me, when making social investigations I found some houses of theirs cleaner
than ours. Although they have no water to wash in, or money for washing powder
they are still cleaner than Romanians or Hungarians. This is it. They’ re staying at
home all day long and care for they houses. They take care of the insides as they have
no possibility to take care for the outside look of the house. And the insides look good.”
(Hungarian woman, aged 21, Coltãu, quoted in Iorga 2007)
67
Another concept widely used in explaining patterns of behaviour for Roma people is dependency
on aid. Material or financial aid to Roma families is widely understood as counter-productive,
encouraging a passive attitude towards work (see Quote 4-14).
Quote 4-14. Attitudes towards aid in Târgu Mureº

In the successive discussions I had with the institution’ s employees, they expressed their
disagreement regarding any form of direct support granted by foundations, except for
extreme cases – because such gestures only maintain this perception of the Roma’ s
dependence and marginal, inferior existence. (Târgu Mureº, Cengher 2007)
4.2 The Invisibility of Roma Culture

The Þigani are most often not seen as bearers of culture, but as bearers of poverty and social
problems. This “culture of poverty” understanding of the Roma people’ s world view is shaped, on
the one hand, by the powerful stereotypes about the Roma, and on the other hand by the folkloristic
understanding of popular culture – based on the idealized images of the “traditional peasant”.
Quote 4-15. The poverty-focused definition of Roma in Veseuº

As any other Romanian not specializing in sociology, I placed ‘ considerable Roma
community’ and ‘ social problems’ as equal terms in an equation. Later on, I came
across the same interpretation in the pages of the General Landscape Development
Plan18, mentioning the following warning under ‘ Dysfunctions’ :
“A larger part of the Roma population in some villages (of Jidvei commune) will
generate specific social issues and thus require assistance and support programmes.
The Roma population is characterized by a demographic behaviour that differs from
that of the majority population, and by high levels of poverty”. (Veseuº, Silian 2007)
4.2.1 Defining “Culture” and Defining the “Roma”

“Culture” is often commonly understood as a set of past dances, costumes, ancient poems, and
the omnipresent “traditions”. This folkloristic and nostalgic view of popular culture excludes the
current meaningful practices of the non-Roma and the Roma population alike. Even so, the
Romanians (and other ethnic groups such as the Hungarians, the Germans, etc) have easier access
to this museum-like display of dances and carols. Such a limited unbalanced understanding of
culture carries a lot of force for the Romanians – but even more powerful for the Roma. The
stigma of Þigani and the discrimination that goes along with it is reinforced by – and reinforces the
“a-cultural” definition of the Roma people.
Quote 4-16. The Gypsy culture in school festivities in Veseuº

On two occasions, the children from Veseuº school were invited to attend the 1st of June
and the Christmas celebrations and participate with Gypsy dances and carols; both festivities
took place at the Jidvei cultural house. At Christmas, the transport that the Mayoralty had
provided to take the children in the morning did not show up until around noon. The
children, dressed up in new suits and gowns, got to the festivity when it was about to end
and then someone announced on the stage that the Veseuº and Bãlcaciu children are not
going to sing carols, because they were not wearing folk costumes. They were offered a
18 General Urbanism Plan. Landscaping Plan – Jidvei commune. 2005. p. 34.
68
compromise: to sing outside, in front of the Christmas tree, not on the stage, so that they
have a chance to get presents from Santa Claus. The school facilitator refused. She thought
it was too much of a coincidence that the children excluded from performance were from
both schools populated with mostly Roma children. She said she was sorry no one had told
her in the evening, so she could come up with ten costumes from the people in the village.
Moreover, as they got there when the festivity was almost over, there was not much to see
on the stage either, for the Veseuº children. The children had rehearsed a lot and the
parents “had spent money on new clothes, so that people could see the children”. “They
didn’ t go there for those presents; after all, every child spent 50,000 lei in Jidvei for soft
drinks and sweets, and all that amounts to more than the packet they received”. (Veseuº,
Silian 2007)
Another frequent idea about culture developed in Europe and mainly articulates the inequalities
between different nations and societies (originally the European societies and societies in their
colonies), identifying culture as civilization in contrast with nature. Based on this concept one can
classify a nation as “more civilized”, and others as less civilized, but closer to nature.
If Roma people are to be seen as culture-bearers, they are expected to adopt the pre-existing
image of the romantic Gypsy as an exotic, wild man or woman – even if it has no relevance to
their local history and life:
Quote 4-17. Roma children in “Gypsy” disguise in Veseuº

“The girls were wearing long skirts and scarves, their hair plaited with marbles,
like the Gypsies. Although we don’ t have any costumes in the village – that’ s how
it was.” Even though they are Roma and their costumes are different, they were
expected to wear Romanian folk costumes at Christmas. (Veseuº, Silian 2007)
4.2.2 Opinions on Teaching Roma Culture, Language and Education

Two thirds of the Roma believe that all children should learn about Roma history and culture in
schools, compared to one third of the non-Roma respondents who agree with this (see Table 4-1). This
distribution of answers probably reflects the current invisibility of the Roma culture and history in the
Romanian public discourse, from school textbooks which completely ignore the history of Roma people
in Romania, to mass-media reports which often portray Roma people as “social problems”.
A majority of respondents agree that Roma pupils should learn Romani in school. There are statistically
significant differences between Roma and non-Roma respondents. For example, 65% of the Roma
respondents agree with Romani as a school discipline for the Roma children (20% “rather agree” while
45% “totally agree”), while around 50% of the non-Roma respondents agree with the same assertion.
Table 4-1. Opinions on educational reform (percentage)

All children should learn about It is necessary to have reserved
Roma children should learn
Roma' s history and culture places for Roma at high school
Romani language in school
in school admission
Roma Non-Roma Roma Non-Roma Roma Non-Roma
Totally disagree 20 32 15 42 13 28
Rather disagree 14 19 19 24 10 24
Rather agree 20 24 24 19 30 27
Totally agree 45 25 43 14 47 20
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Differences of opinions between Roma and non-Roma respondents are statistically significant for all questions (Chi
Square test) for p=0.01.
The same distribution of answers was indicated in the Roma Inclusion Barometer of the Open
Society Foundation, November 2007 (see Chart 4-1).
Chart 4-1. Opinions on learning Romani in school, by ethnic affiliation (RIB 2006) (percentage)
It is interesting that the opinion on whether Roma pupils should learn Roma language in school
is only marginally influenced by the current use of Romani language in home conversations. People
who actually speak Romani and people who don’ t have, on average, very similar opinions. It seems
that Romani language is not evaluated according to its usefulness for the respondent, but according
to its perceived cultural value and dignity as a school topic.
The education of the respondent has no significant influence. Living in a dominantly Roma
neighbourhood (as perceived by the operator) has a mixed influence: strong agreement and strong
disagreement both increase, leading to a more polarized public opinion.
Chart 4-2. Distribution of answers to the question about teaching Romani language
to all Roma pupils, by neighbourhood composition (percentage)
The same pattern of associations can be found on opinions regarding teaching Roma history and
culture to all pupils (see Table 16-8).
70
4.3 The Roma, “Our Roma” and “Other Roma”

As social-psychological literature on stereotypes has shown, counter-stereotypical information
may not necessarily lead to changes in the stereotype (Cernat 2005, pp. 177-196). A visible
stereotype-maintenance strategy in case of the Roma is a sub-type construction, by using the
distinction between “our Roma” and the “other Roma”. Therefore, counter-stereotypical
information on “our Roma” may leave the general Roma stereotype unaltered.
Quote 4-18. “My Roma”, “our Roma” and the “other Roma” in Nuºfalãu
We could identify three dimensions in Nuºfalãu: the image of Roma from Romania
in general, the Roma of Nuºfalãu in general, and in the relationship between the two.
The Hungarians, comparing the ethnic situation in their village with that of
Romania, consider that their village has a model-value. The people of Nuºfalãu have
not experienced interaction with other Roma groups from other regions of Romania.
They know about Roma in general from the mass media - which is never neutral and
presents the Roma of Romania mostly in negative terms. Their experiences with
Roma however are different and this is the second dimension. The minor swindles of
the Roma from Nuºfalãu cannot be compared to the criminality of other Roma
groups. Nevertheless, in the local context, these swindles have became the
community’ s biggest problem. The third dimension is that of interpersonal relations.
It is interesting that the existing stereotypes applied in the context of the whole
community are not applied in interpersonal relations.
Finally, “my Gypsy” is trustworthy, hard-working, civilized. Yet, the social distances
and the behavioural intentions exhibited in interpersonal relations correspond to those
of the entire community (the second level). The Gadjo avoid close interactions with
Roma. Of course, there are exceptions – in the case of economic relations, the number
of interactions is very high. The presence of Roma in a formal institution also
increases the number of interactions (e.g. teacher in the local school, the health
mediator in the sanitary centre, etc). (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
For example, several community reports stress that respondents believe that local Roma are
exceptional, because they are not violent. Personal knowledge is therefore not used to inform a
stereotype, instead it is made compatible with it (see Quote 4-19). Even in localities where there
are no records of violent conflicts researchers have encountered violent stereotypes against Roma
(see Quote 4-20).
Quote 4-19. Perceptions of Rudari people in Modelu

From what the head of the Modelu police says, “rudari” Roma appear to be very
peaceful and they don’ t make any problems to him – he even thinks that they are
more peaceful than the Romanians. No big conflicts have been seen – only minor
incidents generated by alcohol consumption. It’ s from him that I also learned that
there are no people without Identity documents, and if there was such a case, the
police authority would take the legal measures required to establish legality. In his
opinion, crime rates are decreasing and they are very low compared to Roma
communities in other areas. (Modelu, Feraru 2007)
Quote 4-20. Prejudiced discourse against Þigani in Coltãu

The Roma in Coltãu are friendly, hospitable and tolerant. They enjoy life and they
enjoy other people’ s presence, no matter who they are. I was told that they do not steal
71
and I can go there relaxed. (...) On one of my nights spent in the local bar two young
Hungarians (18 and 21) expressed vividly their views on Roma, labelling them ugly
and dirty and expressing their wish to see them outside the village. This powerful
racism lacking every argument was based on the lack of experiences with Roma,
because, as they admitted, they had no encounters with them. On the contrary,
another young man (28) declared, when he was working in a working house close to
a Roma area, he had to pass by their places and felt no danger. They were greeting
each other and that was all. (Coltãu, Iorga 2007)
4.4 Social Distance Attitudes

4.4.1 Measures of Social Distance
From a Roma viewpoint, Romanians are the most favourably accepted ethnic group besides the
Roma/Gypsy. We have also asked people about their attitudes to a fictitious ethnic group, called
“Pirez”. The “Pirez” group suffered the most intense rejection levels: almost 20% of the Roma
respondents would not accept Pirez to be Romanian citizens. The situation is rather similar for the non-
Roma respondents, with the obvious exception of the social distance towards Roma (see Table 4-2).
A proportion of 18% of non-Roma would accept Roma family members, while among the Roma
54% would accept Romanian family members and 29% would accept Hungarian family members.
Only 10% of non-Roma have Roma relatives, while 34% of the Roma have Romanian relatives.
A proportion of 42% of non-Roma respondents would accept a Roma as a friend. Among the
Roma, 89% would accept a Romanian as a friend, and 45% would accept a Hungarian as a friend.
Around 20% of Roma and non-Roma respondents alike would accept a person of (fictive) Pirez
ethnicity as a family member. Around 30% of both Roma and Gadje would accept as Pirez as a friend.
Table 4-2. Social distance of Roma and non-Roma respondents towards various ethnic categories,
including a fictitious one (percentage)
Moldavian
Roma/
Romanian Hungarian Jewish** Chinese Pirez** Arab** (from Rep.
Gypsy
of M)
Respondent’ s ethnicity* R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR
would accept as family
54.1 92.3 28.5 37.7 87.0 17.9 20.4 24.4 17.9 19.7 19.7 21.8 20.5 19.9 24.9 29.4
member
would accept as friend 89.3 98.6 44.9 56.7 92.6 42.0 32.2 35.4 27.6 31.2 29.8 32.8 30.3 30.9 39.2 51.0
would accept as
95.3 99.5 64.6 68.7 96.0 63.2 45.1 49.9 38.7 40.4 38.9 41.6 39.8 38.6 56.1 63.9
neighbour
would accept as
97.1 99.6 72.9 77.6 96.7 69.6 59.8 63.6 48.5 v54.2 44.8 49.3 47.1 46.3 67.9 72.5
colleague
would accept as the
99.0 100.0 83.0 86.0 98.2 80.6 75.6 77.9 65.8 71.8 58.3 64.0 62.4 62.9 83.1 85.0
citizen of the country
would accept as a tourist
99.5 100.0 92.9 94.4 99.2 84.4 91.8 92.3 92.6 93.7 80.9 85.1 85.0 85.9 95.5 94.6
in the country
would prefer to ban
them from the country, 0.5 0.0 7.1 5.6 0.8 15.6 8.2 7.7 7.4 6.3 19.1 14.9 15.0 14.1 4.5 5.4
or would not let them in
* R = Roma respondent, NR = Non-Roma respondent
** No significant differences between Roma and non-Roma respondent’ s answers
72
On a social distance scale from one to seven, on average, Roma people are confronted with
slightly more rejection than the Moldavians from the Republic of Moldova, while at the same time
experiencing less rejection than the Jewish, Chinese, Arab or “Pirez” groups (see Chart 4-3.). This
average masks the fact that the Roma have the lowest score on acceptance as family members: less
than 18% of non-Roma would agree to a Roma family member (see Table 4-2). Their average
score is higher because of the more frequent disposition to have them as friends or neighbours.
Chart 4-3. Average social distance from various ethnic groups, for Roma and non-Roma respon-
dents, mean score (1=would accept as family member, 7= would prefer to ban them from the coun-
try, or would not let them in)
Data from the Roma Inclusion Barometer of the Open Society Foundation (see Table 4-3)
indicates also that around 63% of non-Roma respondents from the nationally representative
sample would prefer not to have Roma neighbours, a figure which is concordant with the social
distance information from Table 4-2.
Table 4-3. Comparison with other social distance information of non-Roma respondents
from the Roma Inclusion Barometer, Open Society Foundation (2007) (percentage)
Moldavian
Roma- Hunga- Roma Chines
Jewish Pirez Arab (from Rep.
nian rian /Gypsy e
of M)
Inclusion 2007 survey, non-
Would accept Roma in comparative sample 99.5 68.7 63.2 49.9 40.4 41.6 38.6 63.9
as neighbours
or closer RIB database, non-Roma in
- 76 63 77 - - - -
national sample*
*Source: http://www.sfos.ro/en/comunicate_detaliu.php?comunicat=22#
4.4.2 Influences on Social Distance Attitudes

Roma respondents who use Romani as their primary mother tongue maintain a greater social
distance from all other ethnic groups in comparison with those whose mother tongue is not
Romani, except for the social distance towards Roma/Gypsy people, where the correlation is
reverse. We can suppose that behind the fact of using Romani as a primary mother tongue there
is a stronger connection with traditions. In other words, those whose primary mother tongue is
73
not Romani are more assimilated; traditional communities are more closed off towards any other
ethnic groupings, while those being more assimilated are prone to be more open, while at the
same time maintaining a greater distance from other Roma. Those whose primary mother tongue
is other than Romani are presumably more assimilated and maintain a greater social distance from
other Roma: 77% of them would accept another Roma as a family member, while among the more
traditional ones this rate increases to 94 percent, and for those who would ban all other Roma
from the country the rate is eight times as high (1.6 versus 0.2%).
Table 4-4. Social distance of Roma respondents to various ethnic groups,

by mother tongue of the respondents, percentage
Moldavian
Romanian Hungarian Roma/Gypsy Jewish Chinese Pirez Arab (from Rep.
of M)
Respondent’ s
R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR
mother tongue*
would accept as
44.1 67.0 22.5 36.0 94.3 77.1 15.8 26.5 13.7 23.4 15.9 24.6 16.7 25.4 18.8 33.0
family member
would accept as
86.1 93.2 40.4 50.7 98.2 84.9 28.7 36.9 25.0 31.1 28.2 32.0 27.8 33.7 34.4 45.7
friend
would accept as
94.2 96.6 60.5 69.9 98.9 92.2 41.4 50.1 37.7 40.3 38.5 39.7 38.5 41.5 52.8 60.4
neighbour
would accept as
96.2 98.1 71.6 74.9 99.2 93.3 55.0 66.2 46.7 51.0 43.1 47.1 45.4 49.2 66.0 70.4
colleague
would accept as
the citizen of the 98.6 99.4 80.8 85.7 99.8 96.0 67.7 85.5 63.5 69.2 54.0 64.0 60.1 65.5 78.9 88.6
country
would accept as a
tourist in the 99.5 99.6 92.3 93.7 99.8 98.4 88.1 96.4 91.9 94.0 77.4 85.1 85.1 85.0 93.7 97.8
country
would prefer to
ban them from the
0.5 0.4 7.7 6.3 0.2 1.6 11.9 3.6 8.1 6.0 22.6 14.9 14.9 15.0 6.3 2.2
country, or would
not let them in
* R = Respondent’ s mother tongue is Romani; NR = Respondent’ s mother tongue is not Romani
Based on results from previous research on this topic, our hypothesis claimed that the higher the
level of education, the smaller the social distance of the respondents to various ethnic groups. In
some cases we could validate our hypothesis but in most cases our data shows a different picture.
Roma respondents’ answers towards Romanian, Jewish, Chinese and Pirez were influenced
positively by their level of education, meaning that the higher the level of education, the smaller was
the distance to these groups. Non-Roma’ s social distance to Hungarians and Jewish is also in a clear
inverse ratio to the level of education. The most interesting fact is that both Roma and non-Roma
respondents’ social distance increases in correlation with the level of education. In the case of the
Roma we could explain this as a consequence of forced assimilation policies.
74
Table 4-5. The average social distance to different ethnic groups, by ethnicity
and the level of education of respondents, mean score
Moldavian
Roma/
Romanian Hungarian Jewish Chinese Pirez Arab (from Rep.
Gypsy
of M)
Respondent’ s
R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR R NR
ethnicity*
Total 1.7 1.1 3.1 2.8 1.3 3.4 3.7 3.6 4.1 3.9 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.3 3.0
No school 1.8 1.1 3.2 3.2 1.1 3.1 4.0 3.9 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.1 3.4 3.8
Incomplete primary 1.7 1.1 3.1 2.9 1.3 3.1 3.8 3.7 4.2 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.3 4.3 3.4 3.0
Completed primary 1.6 1.1 3.1 2.8 1.3 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.2 3.1 3.0
Completed
1.3 1.1 3.0 2.7 1.8 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 3.2 3.0
secondary or higher
* R = Roma. NR = Non-Roma
Opinions of non-Roma respondents are significantly influenced by the opportunity of everyday

contact with Roma people. The ethnic composition of the neighbourhood, as estimated by the
head of a household, has a significant influence on social distance coefficients towards Roma
people. Around 23% of residents in Roma neighbourhoods would accept Roma people in their
family, compared to 17% of residents living in non-Roma neighbourhoods. Moreover, less than
10% living in a Roma area would ban them entirely from the country, compared to more than 15%
of those living in a neighbourhood largely inhabited by non-Roma families.
Table 4-6. Social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma,

by the ethnicity of majority in respondent’ s neighbourhood, percentage
Ethnicity of majority in
respondent’ s neighbourhood Total
Roma Non-Roma
would accept as family member 22.9 17.4 18.4
would accept as friend 51.0 42.3 43.9
would accept as neighbour 78.4 61.9 64.9
would accept as colleague 80.4 69.3 71.3
would accept as the citizen of the country 87.6 80.7 82.0
would accept as a tourist in the country 90.2 84.7 85.7
would prefer to ban them from the country, or would not let them in 9.8 15.3 14.3
The social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma people strongly differs depending on the
type of location of the respondent’ s residence. There is a clear tendency here: acceptance of close
bonds with the Roma population decreases considerably according to the size of location, i.e.
starting from the capital to the smallest places. In Bucharest this rate amounts to 40, while in other
villages it is less than 10% (see Table 4-7). At the same time though, if we analyse those who would
prefer to ban the Roma entirely from the country, the highest rate can also be found in Bucharest,
as well as in ‘ other villages’ . In the county capitals and the main villages there are slightly lower
rates of intolerant non-Roma, while the lowest rates are to be found in other cities.
75
Table 4-7. Social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma by the type of location (percentage)
Type of location
County Main Other Total
Bucharest Other city
capital village village
would accept as family member 40.0 23.3 18.8 16.1 9.5 17.9
would accept as friend 55.6 44.5 38.0 43.0 39.2 42.0
would accept as neighbour 73.3 59.6 65.4 62.3 62.7 63.2
would accept as colleague 75.6 66.4 75.0 68.4 66.5 69.6
would accept as the citizen of the country 80.0 73.3 89.9 79.8 77.2 80.6
would accept as a tourist in the country 80.0 82.9 92.8 82.5 80.4 84.4
would prefer to ban them from the country, or
20.0 17.1 7.2 17.5 19.6 15.6
would not let them in
If we check the average distance of non-Roma to Roma by type of location, Bucharest seems the
most tolerant or open type of location towards the Roma. At the same time though, it should be
borne in mind that this average also masks the fact that Bucharest equally hosts the highest rate
of intolerant people (see Chart 4-4). In other villages non-Roma maintain the biggest distance to
the Roma population.
Chart 4-4. Average social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma,

by type of location, mean score
Non-Roma’ s social distance to Roma also differs geographically. In Bucharest we can find the
highest rate of those who would accept Roma as family members (twice as high as the country’ s
average). Equally important in Bucharest, the level of those who would rather ban the Roma from
the country is somewhere in between the country’ s average figures. In the South we find the
lowest rates of ‘ open’ non-Roma towards the Roma, less than one third of the country total; in
the South-West the level is less than half. A very extreme anti-Roma attitude is also rarest in the
West, followed by the South-West. From this viewpoint we find the most intense rejection towards
Roma people in the North-Eastern region, where more than 20% of non-Roma respondents
would ban Roma from the country – almost one and a half times higher than the country total.
76
Table 4-8. Social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma by regions (percentage)

Regions
North- South- South- North- Bucharest Total
South West Centre
East East West West - Ilfov
would accept as family member 16.1 28.6 5.1 9.6 26.7 20.4 18.8 36.7 17.9
would accept as friend 27.4 40.3 39.1 40.7 51.1 44.5 38.2 66.7 42.0
would accept as neighbour 40.3 54.5 67.4 75.6 75.6 59.2 58.1 80.0 63.2
would accept as colleague 50.0 59.7 72.5 82.2 80.0 66.5 66.0 81.7 69.6
would accept as the citizen of the
74.2 79.2 82.6 88.9 91.1 75.9 77.0 85.0 80.6
country
would accept as a tourist in the
77.4 81.8 86.2 94.1 97.8 80.6 80.1 85.0 84.4
country
would prefer to ban them from the
22.6 18.2 13.8 5.9 2.2 19.4 19.9 15.0 15.6
country, or would not let them in
If we now analyse the average scores according to regions, the picture remains almost the same:
the North-East scores highest for the widest social distance, Bucharest is the most open part of the
country for having closer relationships with Roma people, while the average score of the Western
region also comes quite close to that (see Chart 4-5). We need to highlight the fact that these scores
mask very important differences between these two regions. Even though seven times as intolerant
of Roma, the non-Roma of Bucharest would accept Roma as friends, or closer, as would the non-
Roma of the West with their only slightly lower rate of intolerance (see Table 4-8).
Chart 4-5. Average social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma, by regions, mean score
4.5 Inter-ethnic Contact

Community reports indicate that inter-ethnic contact is profoundly differentiated among
individuals: some Roma are much more often in contact with non-Roma, and vice-versa. At the
same time, there is visible imbalance between communities, as Roma are much more familiar with
non-Roma neighbourhoods than the reverse.
Quote 4-21. Asymmetric contact in Coltãu

The Roma community’ s geographical setting means that there is an exit from it
only through Coltãu’ s centre, necessitating interactions with local Hungarians. These
77
two groups usually greet each other, and sometimes have a chat in the street. It is
interesting to mention that Roma do know the Hungarians quite well , while the
latter have less knowledge of them. (Coltãu, Iorga 2007)
At the same time, the informal contacts are usually limited to kin and close neighbours.
Quote 4-22. Social exclusion and social contact in Babadag

Young people are probably the group that feels the problems of social exclusion and
discrimination most acutely. Whether it’ s about sad daily occurrences – swearing,
offending appellations such as ‘ crow’ , the impossibility of socialising with other young
people in a bar in the city – or long-term experiences – such as the impossibility of finding
a job – the social context leads the young Roma originating from Bendea neighbourhood
towards the old ways of action, thus perpetuating the existing status quo. No doubt, one
may say, it is almost impossible for a young Turkish Gypsy to learn any other social roles
than the ones passed over to him by his family. (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)
4.5.1 Discrimination
Attempts to avoid any interactions with the Roma lead, in some cases, to community-wide
discriminatory practices (see also the survey data on experienced discrimination, in section 3.5.4).
Quote 4-23. Discrimination in commercial relationships in Babadag

Gypsies are forbidden to enter a number of shops in the city, especially the self-service
shops, for the reason that they would steal and that they have been caught stealing
quite frequently. Also, they are forbidden access on the microbuses passing from
Babadag towards Tulcea or Constanþa, and the reason invoked is their poor hygiene,
so they would use their own cars or the train to go to other cities. Another place where
Gypsies have no access is the bars in the city – they are resented for their uncultured,
noisy behaviour which annoys other clients. (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)
Field researchers distinguish between two types of discrimination affecting the Roma people:
economic discrimination and ethnic discrimination. Economic discrimination occurs when
unequal treatment is applied to people based on their economic situation – for example, when
public policies such as infrastructure improvement are shaped to benefit only the more affluent
neighbourhoods. Romanian and Roma people alike can be affected by economic discrimination.
Quote 4-24. Economic vs. ethnic discrimination in Cugir

As there is no neighbourhood exclusively inhabited by Roma, it would be too far-
fetched to assume that the negative social aspects in those areas only belong to their
communities. On the contrary, problems related to sewers, bad roads and access to
utilities such as heating are challenging all the citizens of Cugir. During a visit in
Riul Mic, I heard complaints about these things coming both from Roma and from
their Romanian neighbours, and all the criticisms were directed against the City
Hall. Indeed, the neighbourhoods on the outskirts are in bad condition, while other
areas in the centre, where the ‘ villas’ are, are much better in all respects, including
access roads. (Stoianovici, Cugir 2007)
Still, since Roma people are often significantly poorer than other people, they are simultaneously
affected by both – or by a combination of the two. Tracing the distinction between them is a
difficult issue.
78
Quote 4-25. Discrimination in labour relationships in Coltãu

Among people I spoke with today, V, the wife of a local leader, spoke about how
Hungarians discriminate and how they ask the Gypsies who go to their shops to speak
Hungarian. Still, when Hungarians ask for them to work for them they speak to the
Gypsies in Romanian. Also, they mock the daily Gypsy workers with their food, and
Hungarians have a very bad opinion of the Gypsies which they don’ t even know. This
is why they can afford to mock them, believing that they are dirty and can eat anything.
She also said that everybody should speak Romanian in shops, in Town hall and
everywhere: “we are living in Romania, not somewhere else”.(Coltãu, Iorga 2007)
Quote 4-26. Evaluating ethnic discrimination in Cetateni

In the last period of the fieldwork I started to have a distinctive feeling, more and
more powerful, that the situation of ethnic discrimination (a concept which I would
prefer to replace with the expression “ethnic difference”) is not exactly as Roma or
Romanians see at first sight. As the locals here say, “here one makes no difference”. I
have started to feel this change after contacting local officials, the teachers, the Police
officers, the town hall officials, the doctor. (...) These interviews display certain
duplicity, sometimes not fully conscious, towards the Roma and their problems. They
admit that the Roma are confronted with social problems, because they cannot deny it,
since they are obvious. They also assert that they have been involved in finding
solutions by means of different projects, but they still do not understand why there are
so many projects, so many efforts, research, etc for the Roma: what purpose do they
serve? They do not understand the usefulness of positive discrimination, or they believe
it is not positive for society as a whole. They would prefer a policy of assimilation since,
for example, what use is there for learning in Romani since the world tends towards
globalization, as a teacher told me. (...) On the other hand he said that the Roma
have their way of living and of being, and their abilities and that nobody can change
them. Therefore (the professor was contradicting himself), because they are not the
same, because they do not live like the majority population, they cannot be completely
assimilated in the majority. The respondents did not believe in the idea of assimilation
because of a specific theory, but because of their self-centred thinking. (Cetãþeni, Isan
2007)
At the same time, awareness of discrimination may lead to attempts to reduce it:
Quote 4-27. Strategies for equal treatment in Babadag

However, we should also mention the local administration’ s attempt to keep a balance
between the Bendea neighbourhood, inhabited by the Turkish Gypsies, and the other
neighbourhoods in the city. From what the mayor says, but also based on our personal
observations, the mayoralty’ s strategy is to start works to improve and/or replace the
water piping, public lighting grid, roads, etc in the rest of the city and in the Turkish
Gypsy neighbourhood at the same time, actually in order to prevent the potential
criticisms from both sides (when the research was conducted, construction works were
ongoing in parallel on two roads, one of which was in Bendea). (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)
An interesting situation is discussed by Silian (2007) in Veseuº, where Roma people face the
virtual impossibility in finding employment outside the community. Rumours and more or less
direct assertions as well, point towards an agreement between the local patron, who benefits from
79
their workforce, and other patrons and the local authorities – a strategy that is seen as benevolently
paternalistic but, if true, is exploitative and discriminatory:
Quote 4-28. Confinement strategies in Veseuº

However, all villagers share the suspicion that the weak involvement of the authorities
in pouring the concrete road has nothing to do with the electees’ incompetence. On the
contrary, they believe this is some agreement between the owner of the wine-making
company and the mayor: “My lady, others are building kilometres of concrete roads!
Kilometres! Becali alone built villages and put a sign at the entrance, with “Becali”
written on it! And here – they can’ t build 6 km of concrete road!? What happened,
we ran out of bitumen and rocks? Or he prefers not to build the concrete road, because
the owner is afraid his workforce would leave Veseuº ? That’ s how I see it!”. The
people’ s suspicion is also strengthened by other rumours about the owner’ s
interventions with other road construction contractors, asking them not to hire people
from Veseuº . In a manner that I would call paternalistic if it weren’ t even more
cynical, the commune’ s mayor explains how he had ‘ made’ the Veseuº Roma isolated
in the village: “Moreover – not that it’ s beneficial, because I can’ t say it’ s beneficial,
but the fact that the infrastructure up to the village where we deployed this costly
project (it’ s a Phare project to set up a basket-twining shop) is rather poor. The road
is difficult, almost impossible to take, so I somehow made them stay in the village
mostly and do this – twine baskets and so on.”. (Veseuº, Silian 2007)
4.5.2 Kinship and Family

Family relations are one of the most restricted areas for inter-ethnic contact – confirmed by
survey data on social distance (see Table 4-2): the percentage of non-Roma people who would
accept Roma family members is lower than for any other ethnic group included in the study.
Quote 4-29. Closure of family relations in Coltãu

Inter-marriages between Roma and Hungarians are seldom, usually despised by the
latter. “It is never accepted for a Hungarian to stay with a Roma. I don’ t know. In
my opinion there is a greater gap between Roma and Hungarian than Roma and
Romanian. So these marriages are disapproved of.” (G.A. Hungarian 21). (G. A.,
Maghiar, 21 years) (Coltãu, Iorga 2007)
Quote 4-30. Inter-ethnic marriages in Valea Mare

There are cases of mixed marriages, between Romanians and Gypsies, but there was
always a transition towards the Roma family because they believe that a Romanian can
survive peacefully among the Gypsies, but not the reverse. (Valea Mare, Turcitu 2007)
Quote 4-31. Informal relations in Nuºfalãu

The Gadjo have no informal relations with the Roma. Their interactions are limited to
economic relations. The institution of godfather, the only one that can be interpreted as
informal, gained a new interpretation among the residents. Even if initially the Gadjo
accept this relationship by virtue of an ethical and religious consciousness, this relationship
is gradually redefined in terms of informal economy. This way, the institution of
godfather has became a more subtle form of economic relationship between Gadjo and
Roma, or, in some cases, a consequence or condition of the same. (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
80
The Roma are much more open towards inter-ethnic marriages than the Gadje. However, this
openness is not unrestricted. Some Roma communities prefer endogamous marriage among their
own neam (see for example Quote 3-21), while others would just avoid the Gadje. Silian (2007)
illustrates the multiplicity of reasoning chains that take part in such a preference (see below).
Quote 4-32. Opinions on exogamy in Veseuº

As most of the time I was unhappy with the answers to my rather general questions about
the relationships between the Roma and other ethnic groups, I tried to bring the discussion
to a more specific field. As for sociologists, marriage is one of the classic points windows on
inter-ethnic relationships. I asked the Roma about mixed families: Didn’ t you happen
to love a Romanian boy, when you were young? Would you let your child marry a
Romanian woman/man? And if he/she brought a Romanian bride/groom, would that
be a problem? The answer never shows any doubt that the Romanians could make good
husbands – on the contrary, a mixed marriage is a sign that the Roma can get as high
as the Romanians: “Of course we would be happy, because we are civilised too, it’ s just
that Romanians should also want to marry Gypsies. They are young and they get together.
I mean, there are Roma that you cannot distinguish from the Romanian children – who
are educated and come from nice families. There are! There are quite enough of them
(marriages between people from different ethnic groups).” Actually, the Roma are
constantly proving their human qualities to the members of other ethnic groups, in order
to enjoy their attention. I asked old Veronica how were things were with the Saxons: “I
went along so well with those Hungarian women, we’ d go to plant (trees), they were not
walking proud – we’ d eat from them and they would eat from us.” At other times, the
interviewees are rather nostalgic about the orderly, simple world twenty years ago, when
everyone had their nation and people had not ‘ gone crazy’ like nowadays:
“Maria: May the storm take him! A Hungarian? (She laughs with her whole heart,
as if she had never heard of such a prank – a Roma woman married to a Hungarian)
Alina: Why not?
Maria: We don’ t need any Romanians and Hungarians.
Alina: Well, what was wrong with them?
Maria: Our own nation! (Again, she laughs loudly) Our own.
Alina: What were you afraid of – being the daughter-in-law of a Hungarian, or the
fact that they were people of...
Maria: My lady, it wasn’ t as it is now. When we’ d see a Romanian, we’ d run
away, afraid that he’ d beat us. Not even think about talking to him! Our nation!
Isn’ t it better – your own nation?!
Alina: I don’ t know!
Maria: It’ s better! And what does the Romanian woman say: Go to hell, Þî gane!
Or the Romanian man: Go away, Þî ganã. You are Þî ganã, right?! But otherwise,
I can’ t say that...
Alina: Well, you said you were getting along together quite well.
Maria: Well... Now we get along well, but it wasn’ t like this 23 years ago. I don’ t
know of a Gypsy married to a Romanian or Hungarian... I am 39 years old, but I
never heard of anything like that!
Alina: How about a Saxon with a Þigan?
Maria: No! There have been none in our village! Saxon with Þî gan. No! People only
went crazy recently. Let them be! If it’ s not your nation, let him be!” (Interview with
Roma woman, Veseuº, quoted by Silian 2007)
81
4.5.3 Ethnic Closure in Family

The degree of openness or closure of families towards members of other ethnic groups is
significantly different between Roma and non-Roma families. A proportion of 34% of Roma
respondents (heads of households) have family members of Romanian ethnicity, a proportion of
9% of Roma respondents have Hungarian family members. Overall, around 40% of the Roma
respondents have family members of non-Roma ethnicities – in contrast with the only 6% of the
respondents in the comparative sample who have Roma family members.
This data is concordant with information in the Roma Inclusion Barometer, which includes a
nationally representative sample and a representative Roma sample.
Table 4-9. “I have Roma/Romanian relatives”. Source: RIB 2006 database (percentage)
Non-Roma Roma/Gypsy
“I have Roma/
respondents about respondents about
Romanian relatives”
Roma relatives Romanian relatives
Yes 9.8 34.3
No 90.2 65.7
Total 100.0 100.0
This asymmetry is also reflected at attitudinal level: 78% of all Roma respondents in the RIB
sample declare that it is good or very good for Romanians and Roma to inter-marry, compared to
53% of respondents in other ethnic groups (Bãdescu et al. 2007, p. 11).
Family social contacts with non-Roma families are strongly influenced by the material situation
of the household. Around 60% of the Roma respondents which declare a decent living standard
or more have non-Roma family members, compared to 30% of those who do not have enough for
the minimum necessities.
Table 4-10. Family members of non-Roma ethnicity for households in the Roma sample,
by subjective standard of living (percentage)
We can afford...
...decent living or ...only the minimum Not enough for
more necessities minimum necessities
Only Roma family members 39 50 70
Non-Roma family members 61 50 30
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Within the comparative sample, 3% of the better-of households (a decent living standard or
more) have Roma family members, compared to 7% of other more impoverished households.
Mixed families are also predominantly found in those households who do not use the Roma
language (see Chart 3-10).
We have explored variations in opinions regarding inter-ethnic marriages in two different
models. The first regression model only included the main socio-demographic variables: affiliation
with a traditional sub-group (as discussed above), use of Romani language in the household,
education (whether she/he is a gymnasium graduate), the number of long-term consumer goods
in the household, and the urban residence. It is interesting to see that all of them have a statistically
significant influence on the disposition to accept Romanian family members, with the notable
82
exception of consumer goods (see Table 16-11)19. Roma people who affiliate themselves to the
traditional neamuri and those who speak Romani in the family are less likely to declare their
acceptance of a Romanian family member, while the gymnasium graduates and the urban residents
are more likely. Household welfare, as measured by long-term consumer goods, has no influence.
In the second model, we have added variables that indicate social contact with non-Roma:
working as an employee in an organization, living in a Roma neighbourhood, having Romanian
or Hungarian family members, and having Romanian or Hungarian friends. After adding these
variables, only the use of Romani language continued to be statistically significant. The influence
of affiliation to a traditional group, the level of education, and living in urban residence is explained
away by variables of social interaction (see the regression model in the annex, in which only the
significant variables are included).
As it is to be expected, Roma people who already have in the family a Romanian or Hungarian
ethnic member declare more often their willingness to accept a Romanian as a family member
(70%) than the others (42%). It is interesting that professional socialization has a similar effect:
almost 80% of employees in organizations accept Romanian family members, compared to 49%
of the others. A proportion of 62% of respondents who do not use Romani in the family are open
towards a Romanian family member, compared to 43% of the others.
Chart 4-6. Acceptance of Romanian ethnic persons in the family, by language use,
family composition and employment status
4.5.4 Commercial Relationships

In comparison to other types of interactions, commercial relationships are more frequently
inter-ethnic. If a marriage between a Roma and a non-Roma is exceptional and subject to intense
community pressures, commercial relationships are usually embedded in a local economic structure
and they are not seen as unusual.
At the same time, economic relationships are charged with power, as they give their partners in relatively
stable economic roles and allocate social status accordingly. Commercial transactions do not necessarily
constitute a first step for another type of transaction – they have their own logic (see Quote 4-33).
Quote 4-33. Power in commercial relationships in Nuºfalãu

Although the services offered to the Gadjo by the Roma represent a necessity for the
Gadjo, their activities are considered unimportant. Moreover, the Gadjo sanction
19 This model explains around 8.8% of the variation in attitudes (Nagelkerke R square).
83
these activities. This materializes in the continuous reproduction of stereotypes and

the maintaining of social distance on a constant level. (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
At the same time, the large-scale under-employment of the Roma (see chapter on employment)
limits drastically limits the opportunities for commercial interactions with non-Roma. Types of
employment more often available to Roma people situate them in the lower end of power
hierarchies, thus decreasing opportunities for other meaningful inter-ethnic relationships.
Table 4-11. Type of occupation for adult, working members of the households,
by sample type (percentage)
Comparative
Type of occupation Roma sample
sample
Business owner 4.0 5.5
Manager 0.4 1.4
Intellectual/Professional 0.7 5.2
White collar employee 0.4 2.2
Administrative worker 1.4 5.7
Foreman, technician 1.1 3.4
Skilled worker 24.7 42.9
Semi-skilled worker 3.3 1.8
Unskilled worker 30.4 10.6
Public servant (teacher, police officer, etc) 0.7 3.7
Farmer 2.8 9.2
Agricultural worker 21.0 2.8
Other 9.2 5.5
Total 100.0 100.0
For example, in the case of Babadag, the main type of relationship does not involve employment
or collegiality, but only the short transactions of itinerant traders (comercianþi ambulanþi).
Quote 4-34. Unemployment and social segregation in Babadag

All those we interviewed stated that neither themselves, nor anyone they know, has
a job – which is an indication of the extent and frequency of employment. (...) For
almost all households in the community, small itinerant trade is the main occupation
and source of income. (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)
The same community report, in Babadag, illustrates two forces that have negatively affected
the opportunities for economic relationships: one the one hand, a changing structure of needs (see
Quote 4-35), and on the other hand, conflicting cultural practices (see Quote 4-36).
Quote 4-35. Driving licenses in Babadag

One important investment for a horahai household is the Dacia “slipper“ (papuc)
car, which would help in developing itinerant trade, but what is really difficult is
getting a driver’ s license. Initially, Romanians would be employed as drivers on these
trips, and paid 300-500 thousands lei a day. Lately, the number of Turkish Gypsies
who have driving licenses started growing (getting the license is an event celebrated
with great grandeur and many guests – 50-100 people), so they gave up collaborating
with the Romanians. (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)
84
Quote 4-36. Emotions and commercial relationships in Babadag

The family’ s budget is also managed by the woman, who keeps the money (together
with other valuable things or documents) in a special pocket, made inside her skirt
or shalwar trousers, in the frontal part, around the pelvic area – she would take it
out from there any time she needs to. This habit triggers disgust and dissatisfaction
especially among sales persons in shops – who refuse to receive their money and sell
them goods. (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)
Another example of conflicting significance invested in the same practice (“normal” for the
Roma and “blameworthy” for the non-Roma) is illustrated by Toma (2007) in Nuºfalãu: Roma
parents often sell goods which they have received as aid. This is widely seen as a lack of respect
for the donors, and it is blamed accordingly.
On the other hand, even if commercial relationships are subject to unbalanced power
distribution, discriminatory practices and conflicting interpretations, they do sometimes generate
trust and function as a win-win situation (see Quote 4-37).
Quote 4-37. Trade and trust in Nuºfalãu

Poverty and lack of money forces many Roma to buy food and other products on credit.
This interest-free informal credit system is called “the list” because shop-keepers
write down all the products they sell mentioning also the exact date of payments. The
fixing of the date is done by the buyers as they know exactly the date of receiving
money. At the beginning of this practice, the shopkeeper was the one who settled the
date for payments, but this proved to be ineffective as it gave opportunities for
misunderstandings, which led to distrust on behalf of the shopkeeper. Being forced to
continue his familial business – as the single source of income – he had changed the
policy of his business and decided to go by his customers. His clientele is formed mainly
by Roma. Contrary to the expectations, his business is one of the most developing
among the others in the village. One of the explanations could be that he has a stable
circle of customers. The Roma buyers are faithful to him and make their payments
in time because if they lose his trust they lose almost any access to basic necessities.
For some of the inhabitants the existence of this list is the ultimate sign of poverty. But
– as we have seen – this is also a sign of trust beneath poverty (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)

Points to Highlight
• Around 50% of the Gadje agree that Roma children should learn Romani in school,
compared to 65% of the Roma respondents.
• Around 47% of the Gadje agree with reserved places for Roma in high schools, compared
to 77% of the Roma.
• Around 33% of the Gadje agree that non-Roma pupils should learn about Roma history and
culture in schools, compared to 67% of the Roma.
• The more educated Roma respondents accept more often close relationships with the
Gadje. On the contrary, the more educated non-Roma accept less often close relationships
with the Roma.
• 18% of non-Roma would accept Roma family members, while among the Roma 54% would
accept Romanian family members and 29% would accept Hungarian family members. Only
10% of non-Roma have Roma relatives, while 40% of the Roma have Romanian relatives.
85
• 42% of non-Roma respondents would accept a Roma as a friend. Among the Roma, 89%
would accept a Romanian as a friend, and 45% would accept a Hungarian as a friend.
• Around 20% of Roma and non-Roma respondents alike would accept a person of (fictive)
Pirez ethnicity as a family member. Around 30% of both Roma and Gadje would accept to
have a Pirez friend.
• 34% of Roma people have family members of Romanian ethnicity, a proportion of 9% of
Roma people have Hungarian family members. Overall, around 40% of the Roma have
family members of non-Roma ethnicities – in contrast with the only 6% of the respondents
in the comparative sample who have Roma family members.
The Roma have lived in Romania for centuries now, but they are still strangers to the Gadje.
Social distance attitudes of Romanians towards the Roma are markedly cold – especially regarding
the acceptance of them as family members. It is interesting to see that household welfare does not
affect the openness of Roma people towards potential Romanian family members, but graduating
from the gymnasium does. It is also interesting that the “tolerance” effect of education is actually
due to its positive effect on opportunities of inter-ethnic contact. As we have discussed in the
section on ethnic closure in the family, if we control such contacts, the influence of education and
urban residence disappears.
A general conclusion is that the opportunity for relationships between Roma and non-Roma is
low – be it family relationships, neighbourhood collaboration or just commercial interactions.
Inter-ethnic relationships are rare and, when they exist, they are most often power-laden, and also
more often with Roma participants in the predominant position. This conclusion is supported by
data which is disseminated throughout the remainder of the text, such as information on residential
segregation and educational segregation. We can see how in Roma schools the teacher – pupil
relationship, which could be the basis of a formative experience, sometimes degrades to a
meaningless co-presence experience.
Ethnic closure is mutual but asymmetric. Statistical and qualitative data indicates that the Gadje are
much more opposed to interactions with the Roma than the Roma are in relation to the non-Roma.
This asymmetry in attitudes towards interactions is enforced by a lack of opportunities for direct
knowledge. The mediated information – especially as second-hand information or mass-media
content – is too often biased by stereotypical assertions, which are the main frames for interpreting
and re-telling any event concerning a Þigan.
86
PART III
QUALITY OF LIFE
5 Divergent Experiences
As the following quote illustrates, extreme poverty is still a very tangible experience for many
Roma families. The following chapters explore the quantitative dimensions of living at the limit.
Quote 5-1. Living in extreme poverty in Timiºoara

The second day I meet E.L., early in the morning. We take a trolley and we travel
to the Health Insurance State Company (CAS). We are done there in about an hour;
we take an order ticket and we wait for our turn. We pay for October too, so I.L. will
be able to stay in the hospital not only the four remaining days in September, but also
in October, if necessary. We go towards the hospital, of course this trip also takes
long, and meanwhile we talk about everything – how they live, how they made a WC
by digging a hole and surrounding it with wooden boards; how they carry their water,
how children sit by the candle, how they cook, in the summer with an outside fire.
They have no wood for heating, so they use clothing. We talk about the huge rats that
wander through the house, how children did not receive any books in school and they
could not learn how to read and they had to repeat a year, about her endless
desperation, how she must be a woman and a man because anyway I.L is ill and he
cannot work, as he couldn’t anyway, not even before the accident. She was told in the
Neo-protestant church gathering that something will happen, and God appeared and
said that He could kill him, but He left him alive. We talk about how children are
hungry, how their shacks were put on fire and how the burners came back to them
to fight with them because “they made a scandal in the newspapers and TV and they
put shame on them” (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007).
5.1 Experience of Hunger

One of the relevant indicators of extreme poverty is the experience of hunger. Almost 60% of
the Roma heads of the household declare that at least once in the past month somebody in their
household has gone to bed hungry because s/he did not have enough food, compared to 12% of
the non-Roma respondents.
Table 5-1. Experience of hunger for Roma and non-Roma respondents.

Sorry for asking it, but has it happened in the last
Non-Roma in
month that you or your household members went Roma in Roma sample
comparative sample
to bed hungry because of not having enough food?
1 Never 38 88
2 Once 8 4
3 Couple of times (2-3) 17 4
4 Several times (4 or more) 37 4
Total 100.0 100.0
In Chart 5-1 one can see that answers to these questions have remained remarkably stable
through the years, especially in the Roma sample. Surveys from 2000 to 2007 indicate that around
37% of the Roma have experienced hunger systematically, compared to only around 6% of the
non-Roma. In the case of the non-Roma there is also a considerable stability in the data; the Yale
89
QUALITY OF LIFE
survey information refers to a sub-sample of poor non-Roma respondents, which explains why
the occurrence of hunger is higher than in the other two surveys.
Chart 5-1. Comparative analysis of exposure to hunger (percentage)
5.2 Experience of Cold

If we take into account the number of rooms which are heated during the winter and the total
number of household members, we can see that, on average, during winter the Roma households
must accommodate 3.1 members per heated room (3.4 members in rural households and 2.8
members in urban households), while the households in the comparative sample must
accommodate 1.5 members per heated room (1.7 in rural households and 1.3 in urban households).
Therefore, the housing density during winter in heated rooms is exactly double in Roma
households compared to non-Roma households.
Children also experience cold more frequently in Roma households. Only half of Roma
households can afford to give all children a pair of winter clothes and shoes, and less than one
quarter can afford a second pair of winter shoes for all children – compared to 60% of the
comparative sample (see below).
Chart 5-2. “Do all children (under 14) in the household have...” (percentage)
90
DIVERGENT EXPERIENCES
If we look at all children aged 1 to 14 years, we can see that 53% of Roma children live in
households that cannot afford a pair of shoes for all of them, compared to 15% of non-Roma
children; and 53% of Roma children live in households who cannot afford a warm winter coat for
all of them, compared to 13% for non-Roma children.
5.3 Sleeping Conditions

Quality of sleep is also affected by crowdedness in Roma households, which have to
accommodate on average 1.9 persons per bed, compared to 1.4 persons in the comparative sample.
It is interesting that the average number of persons per bed does not differ in rural localities from
urban localities, for Roma and the comparative sample alike.
The subjective living standard of the household is associated with sleeping conditions for the Roma
households, but not for the comparative sample. This indicates that such a basic need has been satisfactorily
attended to in all non-Roma households, but it is fulfilled to different levels within the Roma sample.
Table 5-2 Average number of people per bed, by subjective standard of living
Roma sample Comparative sample
A decent living or more 1.6 1.4
Only the minimum necessities 1.8 1.4
Not enough for minimum necessities 2.0 1.4
Total 1.9 1.4
5.4 Age at first birth

There is a gap of around three years between the age at first birth of women in the Roma sample,
compared to those in the comparative sample (see Chart 5-3). A majority (55%) of women in the
Roma sample carried their first pregnancies while minors of age, compared to 14% in the
comparative sample. 16% of women in the comparative sample carried their first pregnancy after
25 years, compared to 5% of women in the Roma sample.
Chart 5-3. Age at first birth by sample (percentage)
91
QUALITY OF LIFE
A regression model on age at first birth on all women surveyed, accounting for 17.5% of
variance (see Table 16-26.), indicates that education and Roma ethnicity have influences of almost
equal magnitude. It is also interesting that urban residence has no influence. (Age is not included
in the model, because we do not have complete information for women who have not ended their
fertile period).
If we analyse the two samples separately, we can see that around 10% of the variance of age at
first birth is explained by education and age, with no significant contribution of urban residence.
5.5 Working, Begging and Stealing

The Roma beggars (cerºetori þigani) and thieves (hoþi þigani) are part of the core of the Þigani
stereotype. These traits carry strong moral connotations and “iron-fist” policy implications. Still
it is a question, what the moral significance and the policy solutions are to such practices. When
put into the broader perspective of criminality in Romanian society, policy diagnostics may
significantly change (see Quote 3-37).
Subsistence-related crimes usually include non-predatory ones, such as begging (also begging
abroad), or predatory strategies, such as stealing scrap iron or other materials with commercial
value such as stone or wood, and stealing agricultural products from household gardens. These
practices may also be more or less organized.
Quote 5-2. Subsistence-related crime in Cugir

Major crimes are not frequent, and Cugir is considered a rather peaceful town. When
Roma are involved, besides “troubling public order”, one mentions scrap iron thefts
– a practice which is often met in many poor communities, be it Roma or non-Roma
(Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
Quote 5-3. Subsistence-related crime in Glod

Despite environmental warnings, due to the fact that stripping the stones from the
river bed makes it broader and increases the danger of inundations (which have
already covered the village areas close to the river in the summer of 2004 and 2005),
and despite high fines, residents still collect and sell stones. This activity is the only
one that can provide an income for a large number of them. (Glod, Oteanu 2007)
Theft is usually only a secondary strategy associated with a given business area – such as the
collection of scrap iron, or agricultural work. Such predatory practices are partly the effect of
poverty, partly the effect of poor organization or even corruption, in local organizations, that
enhances the profitability of criminality.
Quote 5-4. Scrap iron as business and theft oppportunity in Curtici

Collecting and selling scrap iron is another income source. It seems that both
communities are involved in this business, but the mediators between the community
and the collection points are Cãldãrari, who find themselves in a better situation,
again. Still, this cannot be said for certain, because it is a very sensitive topic in
Curtici. According to pieces of information coming from children, it seems that it is
a profitable business. “My father says that he makes better money inside the country,
with scrap iron, than abroad” (R, aged 13). The police officials, the Romanian
authorities, as well as Roma community leaders tell me that this is one of the serious
problems of the community – the theft of scrap iron. Some insinuate a certain
92
DIVERGENT EXPERIENCES
complicity of the Police. Some respondents also implied (off the record) that some
Roma people steal scrap iron from the collecting point and then resell it to other
collecting points, in Arad (15 km away from Curtici). (Curtici, Goina M., 2007)
Qualitative research supports the conclusion that such practices are a temporary alternative to
work, in social contexts in which work opportunities are extremely scarce while such income
opportunities are relatively accessible.
Quote 5-5. Alternatives to subsistence theft in Lupeni

A third reason (for falling into poverty) lies in the frequent negative experiences of
their acquaintances or kin, in the many cases when a company is cheating on its
employees. This happens especially with companies which recruit workers from
different areas (in Lupeni almost everyone is aware of such incidents with employers
in Ineu); they promise high wages and other benefits (accommodation, meals, free
transportation). In many cases people return home after the first month, after hard
work, with no wage. (Lupeni, Geambaºu 2007).
Illegal income opportunities may be tolerated or even supported by people in the broader
society, such as in the case of begging, which relies on the willingness of people to finance the
beggars. They may even be tolerated by employees of public and private organizations such as the
Police, or victimized factories, warehouses, etc Within the same community, some people choose
begging or predatory strategies while others stick to mainstream, work occupations (see Quote 5-
6). It is important to see that this is a different distinction to the legal/illegal distinction, since
work abroad can also be illegal for people without proper work permits.
Quote 5-6. Begging and working abroad for Roma people in Curtici
Another source of income is work abroad. Cornelia, sanitary mediator, estimates that
around 25% of the population is abroad. They usually go for destinations such as
France or Ireland. (...)The occupations of both (Roma) communities seem to be the
same abroad. It seems that the main occupations are begging, newspapers or flowers
selling, as well as working on building sites, or in agriculture, particularly mentioned
by Cãldãrari Roma. Sometimes working in agriculture in the country is done
together with leaving for work abroad. G, 38, told me that they leave “to countries”
at the end of the agricultural season, in late autumn, and that they come back when
they need to work on the seedling for the following year: “We were abroad too, and
to be honest you can' t make here the money you make there. You' re forced to go, you
never get enough money here... I worked there too, mostly in Spain, in the vineyards,
in tangerine, oranges orchards, how do you imagine Romania got better, from
working abroad too, don' t you think so, dear lady? Here with us, in Romania, you
can hardly make a living, live one day to the next, how are you going to build a
house?... and how about our children, how are they going to have their own house?...
there is no point now to stay here... it is my country here and it' s not fair to say so,
but it' s better there.” (C.G., 42, Curtici, quoted by Mariana Goina 2007)
93
QUALITY OF LIFE

Points to Highlight
• A proportion of 62% of Roma respondents declare that someone in their household has
gone to bed hungry in the last month, compared to 12% of the non-Roma respondents.
• The number of people per heated room (during winter) is double in Roma households
compared to non-Roma households.
• If we look at all children aged 1 to 14 years, we can see that 53% of Roma children live in
households that cannot afford a pair of winter shoes for all of them, compared to 15% of
non-Roma children.
• 53% of Roma children live in households who cannot afford a warm winter coat for all of
them, compared to 13% for non-Roma children.
• Roma households must accommodate on average 1.9 persons per bed, compared to 1.4
persons in the comparative sample.
Hungry, cold, crowded, holding babies and reaching for alms – this is one of several omnipresent
pictures of the Þigani. Destitution is indeed a visible reality in Roma communities. While it is not
a defining or an exclusive feature of the Roma, statistical indicators point out that it occurs more
frequently in Roma households. Of course, statistical indicators do not allocate moral responsibility
and do not know the social meaning of the Þigani label. There is a wide gap between private
experience and public perception of hardship and distress.
Qualitative information, as well as numbers, also point out that destitution may be more
frequent among the Roma, but it is not omnipresent and also not unavoidable. People fight against
it and go beyond it. Still, the “unworthy poor” stigma does not differentiate between degrees of
poverty, and the “culture of poverty” representation is a poor instrument to guide understanding.
94
6 Health Care Issues
This chapter discusses health problems and access to health care, and its implications for
people’ s lives, using community report information and data from the survey research.
6.1 Health Issues in Community Reports

The lack of medical insurance is a form of social exclusion, as this makes it almost impossible
to access medical services and solve health problems. Field observations support this affirmation.
People find themselves in the situation of not having access to medical insurance if they don’ t
have access to information about the medical system rules; or if they don’ t have, a birth certificate
or valid identity document. This situation can also arise for someone who doesn’ t have a formal
job, with registered papers and hasn’ t been able to pay the monthly contribution to health
insurance, together with the retroactive amount of insurance for the last 6 months (until recently,
it was supposed to be the retroactive amount for the last 5 years).
In all the 36 studied Roma communities the researchers noted issues of health and access to the
health system. The observations show that the situations in these communities combine issues of access
to medical services and health insurance; issues of poverty, poverty illnesses and precarious resources
unable to guarantee health, and issues of access to information and practices about cures and medication.
Quote 6-1. The vicious circle of the lack of health insurance

Lack of health insurance is one of mechanisms of social exclusion in health. Those, who
are unemployed, have no retirement pay, social allowances and/or those who don’t pay
regularly their sums for the Health Insurance Companies, don’t have medical
insurance. Thus they don’t have access to general physicians (medici de familie), free
and compensated medicines, access to free consultancies and examinations in different
fields and hospitals, etc. At the same time, certain changes could be seen, which,
theoretically and at the first sight, seem to improve the chances of accessing medical
assistance. Those without health insurance can now subscribe to a list of general
physicians, and they can also pay retroactively a contribution to a health insurance
company in order to have free access to services. (For instance, free hospitalization
implies contributions paid for half a year and not only for five months). But subscribing
to a general physician implies only free primary consultation without including free
medicines and special consultancies. In perception of many locals new regulations were
issued in order to make emergency situations easier, as many people with a lack of
health insurance turned to them. On the other hand those with no stable incomes can
now pay the sum of about 200 RON for a six month-period. (Timiºoara, Magyari-
Vincze 2007)
6.1.1 Health Problems Linked to Precarious Living

When assessing the health condition of the Roma communities they were studying, the
researchers noted a high rate of poverty illnesses. The resources for this information were
interviews with doctors who were involved with the community to a certain extent; town hall social
assistants; health mediators (where present); interviews with the community members themselves
and direct observations of the households, living conditions and medical practices.
95
QUALITY OF LIFE
Poverty illnesses are a general term for afflictions that are caused and maintained by cold, humidity,
precarious hygiene due to proximity of landfills or poor water sources, and inconsistent or low
nutritional quality food. Another characteristic of certain poverty illnesses is that their development
and spread as an epidemic is linked to high density living. (Such living conditions are documented with
survey data in the sections on experience of hunger and cold, housing density and access to utilities.)
To mention only a few of the field notes: in Oºorhei, in the Roma community, most children
have respiratory problems and anaemia; 90% have parasites; 60% have TBC and, due to low access
to medical care, there have been cases of death by TBC. In Coltãu, the Roma children suffer from
acute skin affections, especially in summer, when the parasites are breeding. In Dolhasca, the
researcher noted a high rate of poverty illnesses caused by cold and humidity.
Gabriel Troc notes the diseases and disorders that are frequent to the Roma in Sîntana, due to
their low standard of living: intoxications, malnutrition, stomach illness, dental problems, rickets
– mainly caused by the nutritional habits and the ways of producing food, marked by the difficulty
of obtaining fresh food and boiling it properly, to ensure acceptable nutritional levels; skin diseases,
heart disorders and alcoholism, severe injuries – due to high density living with crowding of
individuals and objects in the rooms – and freezing.
It is important to highlight that most of the investigated Roma settlements were severely affected
by the lack of water sources or by dangerous levels of water impurity. This has dramatic effects on
different aspects of individual and community health: first of all, it affects the vital supply of
drinking water; secondly, it affects nutrition (the impossibility of cooking properly or of breeding
small animals for household consumption); third, it affects individual hygiene and the proper
cleaning of dishes, linen and clothes, which then become transmitters of microbes and germs; last
but not least, if the water source is polluted (as for example in the case of Glod and Byron street
in Cluj), it becomes a medium of toxicity, affecting the respiratory system and skin.
Quote 6-2. Water sources – the main problem affecting health

in Roma communities, such as Curtici
“One of the proposals, put forward by the secretary was to built a public bath in the
community. She told me that before prices became prohibitive, Roma people used the lavatories
from the thermal water swimming pool in the town for shower.” (Curtici, Goina M., 2007)
Health problems are not only generated by precarious location and housing status, but also by
dangerous working conditions. The example of 3 of the researched communities is revealing: the former
(now unemployed) miners from Lupeni used to work in conditions with high risk of industrial illnesses;
but after the closing of the mines, they were left with no access to medical care – as most of them had
not been retired but fired. Another example of health issues associated with unqualified and precarious
work can be found in Slobozia village of Voineºti locality: pottery making, a frequent economic activity
in the area, carries some health risks such as lead poisoning, but the informal character of this work
leaves the practisers uncovered by health insurance. In addition, as Ami Oteanu notes for the case of the
Glod Roma community, collecting construction stones from the rivers or seasonal work in the forest,
picking fruit and mushrooms, are activities associated with very poor hygiene conditions (Oteanu 2007).
These examples show that these precarious, unqualified and informal jobs are associated with
risk of illness and, at the same time, lack of difficult access to medical insurance and services.
The researchers also gathered information on life expectancy in Roma communities. The data
offered by the medical staff, social assistance offices or by the mediation structures showed that –
at least in the studied localities – the life expectancy of the Roma seems to be 10 years lower than
that of the non-Roma. For example, in Racoº, 50 is considered old age and there are only very few
Roma over 60 (Gãtin 2007).
96
HEALTH CARE ISSUES
Quote 6-3. Low life expectancy in Oºorhei Roma community

We found no family without having at least one child dead at an early age, just as we have
not found any aged person who benefits from a decent pension. (Oºorhei, Pantea 2007)
We can get an impression of the differences in life expectancy if we take a look at the table
below, listing the distribution of all members in the surveyed households across age categories. For
example, of a total of 5400 household members about whom we have age information in the Roma
sample, a total of 1786 persons are aged between 30 and 59 years, and 336 are 60 years or over. If
we take the age category 30-59 as the comparison unit, we can see that:
– For each Roma household member aged 30-59, there are 0.2 elderly members, while for
each non-Roma household member aged 30-59, there are 0.5 elderly members.
– The situation is reversed when analyzing the younger family members: each Roma
household member aged 30-59 is accompanied by an average of 0.4 pre-school children,
0.8 children aged 7-17 and 0.7 young adults aged 18-29. Corresponding proportions in
the comparative sample are about half in size.
Table 6-1. Distribution of household members across age categories

in the Roma and the comparative sample (frequencies and percentages)
As a proportion of the
Age categories Number of individuals
age group 30-59
Roma Comparative Roma Comparative
Less than 7 758 214 0.4 0.2
Aged 7-13 820 255 0.5 0.2
Aged 14-17 471 160 0.3 0.1
Aged 18-29 1229 572 0.7 0.4
Aged 30-59 1786 1391 1.0 1.0
Aged 60 or over 336 713 0.2 0.5
Total 5400 3305 - -
Of course, this distribution does not only reflect mortality rates – it also reflects different fertility
rates, which lead to a higher proportion of younger to older people. Even so, lacking more relevant
data, we can conclude that Roma communities have significantly lower numbers of elderly people
than the non-Roma.
Looking only at absolute numbers, in 1142 households in the Roma sample there were only 31
persons over 80 years and 121 aged between 70 and 80. In the comparative sample, in fewer
households (1013) there were 114 persons over 80 years and 276 persons between 70 and 80 years.
With this background of low life expectancy and poverty illness characterizing most of the poor
Roma communities, it is interesting to observe how health can become a status symbol – good health
conditions as a differentiation from the poor and from the marginalized “other Roma”.
Quote 6-4. Health as a status symbol, in Sîntana de Mureº

Very interesting is the information provided by the doctor about his rich Gabor and
Cãldãrari Roma who are his “clients”, but are not from the village. They come from
long distances to his consulting room because they do not want their community to
know about the fact they are ill. The illness is thus seen as shameful, and has to be kept
secret; the doctor has to assure them of his confidentiality, and he is asked to cure them
so as to avoid going and staying in the hospital. (Sîntana de Mureº, Troc 2007)
97
QUALITY OF LIFE
6.1.2 Health Problems Linked to Precarious Resource Management

We discussed before (see section 0) about the theory of “living in the present” and the specific resource
management that it implies, specific to poor and excluded communities. Thus, the combination of
precarious conditions for cooking fresh food, with the desire to consume what the better-off “others”
consume, together with the management of resources from one day to the next – creates the premises
for bad nutrition, which is an indicator of poverty and exclusion from certain resources.
Quote 6-5. The case of Glod: lack of water and precarious food supply
Food is also a risk factor, as most food products are carbonated soft drinks, sweets, and
chips, and very few products provide the daily necessary doses of protein and
carbohydrates. Therefore, recent years have seen cases of gastritis, ulcers and other
diseases of the gastro-intestinal apparatus, resulting exclusively from unhealthy
eating habits. This is outlined by the declarations of village physicians and shop
assistants and parents of children inclined to such conditions:
“What can they buy, Miss? Cigarettes, soft drinks... everybody buys soft drinks
especially since we don’t have water...and sometimes one of them comes and buys 2 or
3 slices of salami, cheaper salami, because salami is expensive. Miss... what can we do?
Stones sell badly, there’ s no money...” (Shop assistant/owner) (Glod, Oteanu 2007)
The common opinion of the non-Roma (medical staff, social assistants, random observers) is that
many illnesses in Roma communities are due to the improper nutritional habits, especially with
youngsters and young adults. But it is worth exploring the fact that the nutrition is strongly linked
to consumerist behaviour, to symbols of status and to the general desire to have what “the others”
have and what makes “the others” happier or higher in status. Commercials and the visible/ apparent
popularity of certain products, the combination of good prices with small portions in the case of
snacks, all influence the nutritional habits in Roma (and also non-Roma) households.
Quote 6-6. Consumerist society and nutrition in Roma communities: the case of
Oºorhei
Children learn to prefer energisers and chips to healthy food. The consumption of
highly advertised products is a frequent practice, probably due to a need of recognition
and similarity with the majority population and the richest. Training on proper
nourishment is more than necessary. For example, instead of the traditional crescent-
roll all pupils get in school every day, children could be offered health food. However,
this problem does not affect only the Roma children, but all the children who live in
a media society but are still economically poor. (Oºorhei, Pantea 2007)
Smoking and drinking habits in Roma households are seen by outsiders to be one of the main
causes of the illnesses in Roma communities and an indicator of bad resource management (as an
irrational expenditure). But in order to improve public health policies, it is important to understand
the social functions of these practices for Roma and non-Roma people and to adjust policies
accordingly, without any tendency to moralize. It is not disputed that smoking creates serious health
problems as well as dependency, for Roma and Gadje alike, but equally there is no empirical evidence
to support singling it out as especially “irrational” for the Roma, in comparison to the Gadje.
98
HEALTH CARE ISSUES
Quote 6-7. A frequent critique: “coffee and cigarettes” behaviour, the case of M. Kogãlniceanu
Nevertheless, morning time is always inaugurated with coffee. There is no waking
up without coffee and cigarettes. Even if they are short of money, nearly all Roma
smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. (Mihail Kogãlniceanu, Marcu 2007)
There is another practice common in Romania – that of self-medication, or taking drugs without
professional medical advice, but rather on the hearsay of other patients. As one researcher noted,
this common Romanian practice (Goina C., 2007) has a direct link to people’ s access to medical
services, information, and education.
Quote 6-8. Improvised self-medication as defective information management,

example of Sântana
People would share their antibiotic pills with others, not only because they are expensive,
but simply because they ‘ helped’ them and therefore they might help others too, with
no consideration that one has to complete a treatment and that it simply cannot be
stopped when one feels better. They trusted all kinds of remedies, pharmaceutical or of
other nature (‘ magic’ mushrooms fermented in yoghurt good for anything from
asthma to lumbago) or ad hoc self-medication. (Sântana, Goina C., 2007)
Interviews with medical staff in the Mihail Kogãlniceanu locality revealed an improvement in
management of infant healthcare, as a result of increased access to more information on this topic.
Quote 6-9. Management of infant healthcare in precarious conditions:

the case of M. Kogãlniceanu
“Customarily, they are cooperating enough when it comes to their children, they buy
treatments even when it is not free. Even more, when it comes to children, they
inquire more than Romanians, come to the practice in threes or fours for one single
child, when it is ill.”
(...) A fact recently observed by the medical staff regarding the Roma is that they have started
using pampers on infants, even if they have no money, they manage to buy pampers and do
not present themselves as they used to, ragged up. (Mihail Kogãlniceanu, Marcu 2007)
6.1.3 The Roma Communities and the Health System

The locality reports show that the medical centres are either not well equipped or far away from
the Roma settlements – which usually are the poorest and most marginal settlements in the locality.
This shows, first of all, the difficulty of accessing the health services that characterizes certain
social groups, such as the Roma living in compact communities.
At the same time, it suggests that the wider medical system in Romania has worrying deficiencies
and that the medical centres are not able to cope with the demands on healthcare services.
Another aspect pointed out by the qualitative researchers is the difficulties of accessing the
medical system in Romania today, despite formal universal coverage. People without income
sources are covered if they are recipients of social aid. However, social aid is distributed according
to local priorities and policies, thus leaving entire communities without coverage. Formal coverage
does not automatically lead to access to quality medical care, due to the difficulty of actually getting
there, the corruption of medical staff, discriminatory practices, lack of information, previous
negative experiences that discourage access, and other such hindrances.
99
QUALITY OF LIFE
Quote 6-10. The heaviness of the medical system and informal arrangements in Sântana
In many cases the Gypsy do not know, or prefer to act as if they do not know, the way
the health system is organized in Romania (...) According to the Comlaus nurse I
talked to, most of the Gypsies would simply come to the dispensary and would go (and
expect to be consulted) to any doctor that is available, irrespective of whether that
person is the ‘ family doctor’ of the patient or not. (Sântana, Goina C., 2007)
The practice of bribing medical staff – is widely deployed by the patients and tacitly expected by
the recipients – becomes in practical terms a disadvantage for the poor: the probability of them
receiving less attention from medical staff is higher. This is therefore yet another form of exclusion
from the medical system, which is embedded in the way the system itself functions in the present.
Some of these exclusion factors can be partly alleviated by the intervention of a health mediator
(such as issues of information, discrimination, and the exercise of one’ s rights); others, though, are
systematically embedded either in the structure of the medical system (such as corruption) or in the
marginal position of Roma communities (such as spatial segregation and marginality).
Access to Health Services

The problem of physical access to medical services, described in almost all 36 community
reports, is related to 3 aspects:
– Firstly, the scarcity of medical centres in certain areas, illustrated by the example of Colþãu
where the medical centre is improvised in the house of the doctor;
– Secondly, the geographical segregation and greater distance to the closest medical centre
which characterizes most of the compact Roma settlements;
– Thirdly, but directly linked to the previous point, the bad condition of the roads and the
difficulty of entering/ leaving the compact Roma settlements; for example, in Curtici, the
Roma patients have to walk from their neighbourhood to the medical centre, because there
are no means of transport there. There are even some Roma settlements, such as Dolhasca,
where an ambulance could not go, because of the bad condition of the access roads.
On the other hand, opening a medical centre inside a Roma community would reinforce
segregation and could lead to indirect discrimination, if, for example, this separated centre was less
well equipped and had less qualified personnel (M. Goina 2007).
The communication gap between medical staff and the Roma patients is exacerbated by the
problem of physical access to medical services. Some of the interviewed doctors complained about
tensions between medical staff and Roma patients related to the release of subsidy drugs. The
researcher Veronica Lazãr found out that a doctor in the Dolhasca locality refuses to have Roma
registered on his list. In Cugir, neither the hospital director nor the doctor who collaborates with
the health mediator wanted to give assistance or information relevant for the health situation of
the Roma to our researcher, proving the lack of desire to assist policy-orientated research.
In a neighbouring village to Nuºfalãu, there was even a conflict between the Roma community
and the doctor who refused to treat them properly:
Quote 6-11. Conflict between Roma and doctor, in a neighbouring village to Nuºfalãu
“...she didn’t really examine the Gypsies, she didn’t give them prescriptions for
subsidized medicines, and the Gypsies finally wrote an article about her in the
newspaper. About 50 Gypsy people signed it, they were clever...I don’t know what
happened there (...) we didn’t have such...ok, sometimes they quarrel because of the
medicines...but... no...Anyway...it is good, we are ok with them, and they are ok with
us” (Health mediator, for Bakos community, quoted by Toma 2007)
100
HEALTH CARE ISSUES
Exclusion from normal health services, often leads patients to go to the emergency department of
bigger medical centres, mostly hospitals, as a final resort, when their situation becomes serious. Sometimes
they are not attended to if they come by themselves to the emergency department, so they either call the
ambulance to pick them up from home, claiming that they are insured, or they try to obtain a paper from
any doctor stating that they need emergency treatment. Some doctors do this, knowing that it is the only
way for the patients to be attended for free, even if they are unregistered and uninsured.
Quote 6-12. Strategies to access health services, recorded in Timiºoara

Recently a new regulation was drawn up, making it compulsory to register persons
with no health insurance on their lists of patients. This seems to take the burden
from the shoulder of the emergency services, to which people with no family doctors
and health insurances turned to, as its services were free. (Anca told me some days
before, people say they have insurance and a family doctor when they call for the
ambulance or go to the emergency, otherwise neither of these institutions would accept
them (discussion with family doctor, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Quote 6-13. Roma perception on medical emergency services, recorded in Zãbrãuþi

“We have no reason to complain about the hospital, they know you and help you
without humiliating you for the fact that you are Gypsy. They only have a problem
with the fact that some people are dirty, you know, this is actually what they pay
attention to. The ambulance comes by daily, they always come if there are sick people
here.” (F., man, 38 years old, Bucharest quoted by Tîrcã 2007)
In Curtici, during the winter, the families living in extreme poverty try not to take their children
out of hospital, once they get better. This is a coping strategy against the location problems but also
a rational prevention practice against the illnesses, as the children catch the diseases at home and
this could happen again. But the rules of the medical system do not allow this – instead, the children
are sent home, if their affections are not severe, which can actually lead to a worsening of their
situation. Interviews have also revealed cases of patients being sent home from hospital prematurely.
Quote 6-14. The hospital reaction to coping strategies of the poor Roma, in Curtici
“I understood from the health mediator that some Roma children, sent to hospital by
the family physician, were taken out of the hospital in Arad only a few days after
hospitalization even if their health had not improved. The medical doctor does not
confirm, although during the discussion she mentions, that “the hospital staff may
happen to get tired of them.” On the other hand, I understood that poor families
have made a habit of keeping their children in hospitals even after they have been
cured, because at home “they have no fire, no food and so they leave them in the
hospital as a last resort.” (G.P., 56, Curtici, quoted by M. Goina 2007)
The physical and social difficulty of access to the medical centres and their services transforms
them into unknown territory. Once entering this unknown territory, many Roma and other
excluded groups find themselves in a situation of uncertainty and lack of personal control over the
surrounding circumstances. For a person in such a situation, certain emotional reactions labelled
as strange, aggressive, ignorant and uncontrolled can be expected, while the person feels
disadvantaged or discriminated against – which is true, in the sense of not having access to an
understanding of what is going on and what kind of decisions are taken regarding her/him.
101
QUALITY OF LIFE
Quote 6-15. The feeling of being discriminated against by the medical staff
and the emotional reactions to this, in Dolhasca
According to Ns. F., Roma people resist attempts to persuade them to immunize their
children. This reticence can be explained by their lack of information concerning the
risks, by secondary effects of immunization (fever, pain, crying) but also by the
propagation and spread of fear from one parent to another. Moreover, Roma people
always believe that they are discriminated against and they claim preferential
treatment. (Dolhasca, Lazãr 2007)
Nevertheless, some Roma have better access to health services than others: in Oºorhei, the rich
Gabors are registered and treated by the most experienced doctor who, except for them, only treats
non-Roma; they were among the first “wave” of health insured and registered people in the locality
(Pantea 2007). This shows that the question of access to medical services is also a question of
economic level and access to information, besides an ethnic issue.
Having health mediators significantly improves the possibilities for the Roma communities to access
information about medical services and to actually receive these services. Not all Roma communities
or all localities with a Roma population in Romania have a mediator. But where they do exist, they
are often associated with a certain amount of voluntary work and with an improvement in the health
condition of the community members. Most of the community reports show this, in the analysis of
interviews with the inhabitants, with the mediators themselves, with other involved medical or social
assistance staff and with people/personnel from other mediation or leadership structures.
Quote 6-16. Health mediators and voluntary involvement in Timiºoara

“I also took them to my family doctor to get them a basic examination. When they
come to me, and I see they’ re poor, they have no money, no insurance, some can’t read
and speak Romanian... I go with them and help... I usually leave my home at 8, and
return between 6 and 7. I also help them with insurance and problems with finance.
It would be better to just explain to them where to go, and not actually seeing them
there, but they refuse to go without me, and when we are there, they shout after me,
saying‚ A. where are you?’ , because they are frightened, like little kids. 300-400
persons, I take care of have no insurance.” (Health mediator, Timiºoara, quoted by
Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Quote 6-17. Difficulties in health mediation, confessed in Zãbrãuþi

The hardest problem the health mediator had to tackle was people’ s unwillingness
to talk about their illness, to accept their problems and to go to hospital for treatment.
(Zãbrãuþi, Tîrcã 2007)
But the short-term visible, positive effects of the presence of health mediators in Roma
communities could be diminished in the long run by the negative effects, such as the communities’
dependency on mediation; the excessive reliance of the medical staff on mediators, leading to
confusion of responsibilities; the perpetuation of defective medical practices and self-diagnosis, and
public perception of excessive positive discrimination and focus on Roma. This last risk is the risk
involved in any policy that focuses explicitly or implicitly on a certain ethnic category of people.
The pros and cons of the introduction of health mediators are debated among policy makers,
social activists, and policy evaluators. At stake is not only the health condition of the disadvantaged
groups and the exclusion from the health system of the Roma communities, but also the overall
quality of the medical services.
102
HEALTH CARE ISSUES
Quote 6-18. Negative side effects of the health mediation, as in the case of Timiºoara
As it is women, who have higher responsibilities in taking care of family members,
taking children to doctors (for vaccination, or for treatment) – they are most exposed
to discriminatory treatment, and they also hold stronger positions towards the doctors
– so when health mediation institutions were founded at the proposal of Romani Criss,
it was proposed to choose women for the position of health mediators. Thus the Roma
women activists’ programme of health mediation followed, among many other things
- recognition of women’ s role in the community and the family, and to strengthen
their role in decision-making. Although elaboration and implementation of such
policies on health mediators was and still is considered a positive model in Europe -
represented by the Romanian government as an attempt at creating resources for
improving Roma health conditions - its implications, both positive and negative, are
subjects to debate. These controversies are related first of all to a secondary effect of
health mediation. On the one hand it produces a dependency among Roma
communities (people becoming accustomed to having other persons around, with their
duty to resolve the problems, as we could see in Timiºoara – the health mediator takes
them to the hospital, to the doctor, to the institution of health insurance, and takes their
children for vaccination. On the other hand, family doctors (after accepting these kinds
of patients with serious reservations) can take advantage of the health mediators by
handing over to them their own duty of keeping contacts with the communities and
visiting them in their houses. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Access to Healthcare Information

Speaking about information and the flow of information regarding health issues, we have to
bear in mind that the health mediator doesn’ t have all the necessary knowledge for all the medical
problems. This knowledge is restricted to that one shared by the family doctor(s) and, thus, beyond
all the good intentions of the health mediator, it can be incomplete.
From the community reports, we noticed that the responsibility for explaining different medical
treatments can be lost on the way from the doctor to the patients, through the mediation structures,
thus absolving the doctors of more effort in attending to some of their potential Roma patients.
These aspects add up to the generally poor information about the medical system, about the
rights of a patient and the responsibilities towards a patient, about necessary practices in order to
avoid certain illnesses or to stop the development of certain affections, and about dangers in
improvised medication or word-to-mouth diagnosis.
Quote 6-19. Obstacles to accessing family planning information,

registered in Timiºoara
Stereotypes saying that Roma women do not think about the future, and also gender
stereotypes and stereotypes on ethnicity can make medical nurses refuse services and
information on family planning, or to reduce such information to a certain type of
contraception. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
The role of Roma women in, and their relationship with, the health system can be analyzed on
a triple level: first, it is who are usually the ones responsible for the health of their household,
therefore their awareness and access to information is vital; secondly, the health mediators were
chosen mostly from the Roma women who were, or became, activists and started to be the bearers
of emancipation in their communities or among women in general; thirdly, women are the subject
of one of the most delicate health – pregnancy and family planning.
103
QUALITY OF LIFE
Quote 6-20. Previous studies on Roma women’ s health

Researchers and activists, who approached problems of Roma access to health services
underline – among high rates of diseases, low life expectation, and infant mortality
– that Roma women give birth to their children at an early age and have little access
to information and other services (gynaecological consultation, family- planning,
post-natal nursing) connected to preventative sexual health and reproduction
(Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Family-planning is usually a controversial topic, but even more controversial when associated
with the Roma – as the community reports show. There are different types of discourse linked to
this topic, which can be found in the case studies:
1. One level of discourse focuses on the early age of the first pregnancy for a number of
Roma women in Romania, and its possible cultural causes. The discourse usually attributes
this behaviour to Roma traditions, and evaluations range from blaming to protecting the
respective tradition.
2. Another discourse is the religious one, especially in Neo-protestant churches that oppose
family planning.
3. Another line of debate refers to the number of children in Roma households, which is on
average higher than the one in the non-Roma households. Perspectives are diverse: some
consider family-planning information and education necessary, in order to give parents an
informed choice and also for the emancipation of women. Others stress the fact that
decisions to have children are profoundly personal and, even in poor households, the birth
of children, especially boys, is a cause of pride and joy and therefore cannot be assessed
simply from the point of view of its implications at a social level. Still others consider that
family planning preoccupations come naturally from within the household, when a certain
level of welfare is reached, and therefore that it should not be addressed artificially.
On a pragmatic level, contraceptive methods are also debated from various perspectives – from
the feminist approach to emancipation, to the necessity for men to assume responsibility as well,
and having in view criteria related to costs, and risks.
For the purpose of our report, the most important debate is linked to contraceptive injections
that seem to be the most frequently used contraceptive method, in most of the studied
communities. Many Roma women receive contraceptive injections free of charge, every 3 months.
Interviews indicate that in some cases prescriptions do not take into account the specific medical
situation of the women, leading to potentially dangerous side effects.
Quote 6-21. Obstacles to accessing family planning information

and its dangers, registered in Timiºoara
“I took 5-6 women to injectable contraception. No one told me, it makes them bad, but
they have headaches, menstruation with intense bleedings, sometimes they have no
menstruation at all. Now I don’t take them for this kind of contraception. The doctor
said, women under 40 can’t have injections, so they are given free pills. Some can
manage it, and some forget the pills because they have small children. This method
isn’t a good one either, some put on weight because of it. I told them to try IUD, but
a previous treatment is needed in such cases, for not to have infection or something,
but they won’t have problems for five years long. Men don’t say anything about it ...
they don’t use condoms and women do not take them from the doctor as the men don’t
use them. Even so, it would be better for the women to take these medicines, poor
creatures.” (Health mediator, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
104
HEALTH CARE ISSUES
As the qualitative research showed, the level of access to information about health practices also
depends on the doctors. But there are cases in which the doctors fail to share information with the
patients or potential patients.
Quote 6-22. Refusal to explain the child’ s afflictions to the Roma parents,
in Dolhasca
Although she has spent most of her recent years in hospitals alongside the children,
the mother was never informed of diagnoses. Sometimes doctors would prefer to speak
to the father, but even this did not always happen. It even happened that, shortly
after the birth of her first-born, she discovered that he had a surgical intervention
on his head, but even now she does not know the reason why. (Dolhasca, Lazãr 2007)
6.1.4 Extreme Cases

The dimension of Roma exclusion from the health services and the vulnerability of marginalized
communities can be better understood if illustrated with some examples of extreme cases:
– in the last 2 years in Dolhasca, there were 2 cases of untreated pneumonia that led to child
death, and in Oºorhei children died of TBC – which shows the “poverty illness”
vulnerability of the marginalized communities;
– in the Arad hospital the Roma are usually hosted in separate rooms; there was a recent case
of a Roma woman who was left to give birth alone – the doctor who didn’ t want to assist
her was fined (C. Goina 2007).
6.1.5 Assuming Responsibility

The exclusion from health services and the high vulnerability to health problems of the poor and
segregated Roma (and also non-Roma) can be addressed only through the involvement and
coordination of all actors involved, from the people themselves to the policy and decision makers.
Considering this need to take responsibility, it is worth deconstructing (in a constructive
manner) certain stereotypical discourses that prove either a poor understanding of the overall
situation, or the desire to shift responsibility.
In the following, we will highlight the biases and errors of certain discourses generated in the
medical system. This does not mean an accusation against the doctors, nor that all doctors think
alike. The goal is to explain how biases appear and interfere with the distribution of responsibility.
Indeed, the community reports illustrated the voluntary practices of several doctors to improve the
health condition of the unregistered and excluded.
Sometimes, because of not knowing the real situation of the Roma communities, the doctors
tend to perceive wrong reasons for the most frequent afflictions. For example, in a village without
sources of water and with extremely poor housing conditions, the medical staff still considers the
lack of hygiene as a personal choice of the people.
Quote 6-23. “Blaming the victims” in the situation of Glod village

“...they are heavy smokers, Miss... especially the young under the age of 20... they develop
viral infections, bronchitis... it was understandable before, when they were working for
Comentul, for Steaua, but... (...) and they don’t wash, they don’t have the slightest idea
about optimal hygiene...” (Medical staff, Glod, quoted by Oteanu 2007)
Most of the time, the procedures, the outcomes, the side effects of vaccination and how to act
when such side effects appear are not explained. In such conditions it is not surprising that the
beneficiaries are suspicious of vaccination and ignore its real importance.
105
QUALITY OF LIFE
In certain cases, the doctors’ discourse about parents’ refusal of vaccination shows a superficial
understanding of this suspicion mechanism. This creates a double misunderstanding and a
communication gap between the two sides, who both, in fact, want the same thing: to do their job
well (as parent or doctor), so that the children are taken care of.
Quote 6-24. Minimization of the doctor’ s responsibility to explain

the vaccination procedure, in M. Kogãlniceanu
“I have a few Gypsy families that will not show up for anything in the world to get
their vaccine shots. They say we harm them. One had his fever go up once after such
a shot and they’ ve stopped coming ever since. We always try to explain them, keep
telling them to come, but if they don’t want to, what to do, bring them here by use
of force?” (Doctor, Mihail Kogãlniceanu, quoted by Marcu 2007)
The doctors’ personal choices, related for example to their beliefs or religion, may have an
important influence on the information that is shared with the patients and on the information
channels that are put in use while interacting with the patients. Sometimes, delicate issues collide
– such as family planning and the neo-Protestant religion of the doctor.
Quote 6-25. The doctor’ s religion and access to family planning information, in
Timiºoara
She says, she does not give family planning advice, as there is a kind of service in the city.
I knew from my research in Orastie, family planning belongs to the basic package of health
services. But maybe it does not, or not anymore, or not here. I thought, because of her Neo-
protestant religion she has a different opinion on contraception, but I didn’t push it,
observing her rapidity in passing over the issue. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
It was often mentioned in interviews from case study communities that in the ‘ 90s the health
condition of the respective Roma community was much worse. The first interventions at that time
came from civil society. Mé decins Sans Frontiè res20 (mentioned in Nuºfalãu and Zãbrãuþi) and other
foreign associations (for example, a German foundation pioneered the health mediator system in
Sântana, focusing on family planning and child protection) took responsibility for the extreme cases.
There are now some local Roma associations taking responsibility for the partnership with the
state structures, in order to improve the health condition of the communities. But there is still a
big gap between the goals of the NGOs together with the recently organized “mixed working
groups on health” in several Local Councils, and the visible results.
Quote 6-26. A critical view of the national strategy for health

These steps are far from being enough to bring to life the strategy “National politics of
health relevant for inclusion of minorities” elaborated by the Council of Ministry of
Public Health and represented by Romani Criss in 2005.This strategy aims for the
“100% implementation of a national programme on health in Roma communities,
with special attention on preventative programmes; the promotion of health for children
and families”, “guaranteeing a 100% access to health services and primary pharmacy
for Roma communities (services corresponding to UE standards);”, “the promotion of
intercultural education among all categories of medical stuff at a national level;” and
the inclusion in the social security system of those Roma, who for objective reasons do not
fulfil legal criteria (lack of identity cards, poverty). (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
20 Médecins Sans Frontières (fr.) = Doctors Without Borders
106
HEALTH CARE ISSUES
6.2 Registration with a Family Doctor in Survey Data

If we take into account all household members surveyed in the research, 9% of Roma and 4.5%
of people in the comparative sample are not registered with a family doctor. The RIB 2006
indicates that 8% of Romi românizaþi and 20% of other Roma people are not registered with family
doctors, compared to 4% of people of other ethnic affiliations (Bãdescu et al. 2007, p. 47).
There are significant differences of enrolment between age categories. The non-Roma sample
members display a “rational choice” pattern: children are enrolled, since they do not require any
proof of income; the highest rate of lack of enrolment is for adults, decreasing again for the elderly
– probably because most non-Roma elderly rely on pension benefits and they more often need
medical attention.
In the case of non-Roma we can find the same difference between children and adults, but the
elderly suffer from the same rate of non-enrolment as the younger people – probably because of
lack of entitlements.
Chart 6-1. Proportion of household members who are not registered with a family doctor,
by age category and sample
Two thirds of heads of household respondents declare that there is a health mediator charged
with assisting their community – in the Roma and in the comparative sample alike. There is no
significant difference in enrolment with a family doctor between the respondents who are aware
of a health mediator and those who are not.

Points to Highlight
• Roma communities have significantly fewer elderly people than the non-Roma. In 1142
households in the Roma sample there were only 31 people over 80 years and 121 aged
between 70 and 80. In the comparative sample, in fewer households (1013) there were 114
people over 80 years and 276 people between 70 and 80.
107
QUALITY OF LIFE
• Evidence of failures in health and safety at work was found in the Roma communities
• Around 10% of Roma people are not registered with a family doctor.
• The practice of health mediators explaining medical interventions to patients can affect
the doctor’ s assumption of responsibility
Case studies indicate that Roma families are often affected by poverty diseases. Lack of drinking
water, crowded housing and low incomes all increase health risks. Poor eating habits and smoking
addiction are both taking their toll on Roma and Gadje, probably more in the impoverished
households.
The Romanian health care system is still plagued by major systemic problems. Many patients
manage to successfully navigate the system using money, relationships, and additional information
from sources as different as friends, books, alternative doctors or the Internet. Roma patients are
burdened by multiple disadvantages in their interactions with medical staff and organizations:
many of them are poor, functionally illiterate in the field of medicine, with no useful connections
and bearing the locally-flavoured stigma of Þigani. All these disadvantages have visible
consequences on opportunities to access the medical system, the quality of medical care, and their
overall state of health.
While community reports illustrated the voluntary practice of several doctors to improve the
health of unregistered and excluded persons in some cases doctors fail to share persuasive
information with patients or potential patients. This is particularly the case with vaccinations.
The institution of health mediators has alleviated, to some extent, the access problems
confronted by Roma people – while at the same time raising concerns about patient dependency
and the confusion of responsibilities between doctors and mediators. It is also expected that their
intervention will also have indirect positive effects in terms of mutual understanding among Roma
patients and Gadje doctors, better information among the potential Roma patients, and the
production of relevant information and feed-back for policy-makers. Still, there is a long way to
go – at least until there is a significant proportion of Roma doctors in all localities, an indicator
that this professional glass-ceiling has been cracked.
108
7 Housing Issues
The experience of housing for people living in extreme poverty has been extensively
documented in previous research, such as Dan (2004) or Berescu and Celac (2006). This chapter
analyses several issues related to housing, as they emerge in community reports and in the database,
focusing on the most difficult housing problems and their consequences. Of course, housing is
not always a static experience, but can be a continuous challenge. As people strive to improve their
homes and they adapt them to their needs, as much as they adapt their needs to their de facto
possibilities for accommodation.
7.1 Housing Issues in the Qualitative Study

7.1.1 Living in an Urban Ghetto
Several urban case studies reported the presence of a compact Roma population in what is
usually called “ghettos” (ghetouri). In all such cases, the researchers mentioned that the ghetto
population is not entirely homogenous from an ethnic point of view, but it is from an economic
point of view. All of them share the stigma of the ghetto neighbourhood, and often an unwanted
intimacy. (See also discussions on socialization and Quote 3-24).
The living conditions in the studied ghetto environments had certain similarities: segregated
areas of blocks of social or public housing, small room flats usually poorly equipped ( lacking
facilities or only recently equipped with electricity, water or gas, or disconnected from the public
facilities because of unpaid debts), crowding, and difficulties in the functioning of the sewage or
garbage disposal system.
Quote 7-1. Intense crowding in a social housing ghetto, such as Zãbrãuþi

In Zãbrãuþi, people use hallways to deposit things and to socialize. During the night,
the hallways are very dynamic. Clothes are hung to dry there, children play there
during the winter, and people are sitting talking one with the other. It is a space one
uses and negotiates for at all costs. The hall represents for everybody, a second home,
shared by everybody. (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
The personal stories of individuals or households who end up living in a social housing ghetto
have similarities: the stories involve consecutive changes of residence, circles of evictions or selling
off the better apartments once owned, accumulation of debts, linked to lack of access to the well
paid jobs. But the stories also involve real hard work for improving housing conditions, through
small repairs and investment in cosiness.
There was a definite tendency for the interviewed subjects to assume responsibility themselves
for their living conditions. Their awareness of the “ghetto” environment and their dreams for a
better future indicate this fact.
Quote 7-2. Living in the ghetto of Zãbrãuþi and hoping

for a better housing situation
Concerning their plans for the future, most of my informers stated that they want
to leave the neighbourhood either for to the countryside or somewhere “more
civilized”. Most of them are aware of the fact that they are living in a ghetto, a term
109
QUALITY OF LIFE
that belongs to their daily vocabulary: “I live in a ghetto”, “wait for me, I’ ll be in
the ghetto in a minute”, “I left the ghetto”. Most of them share the desire to leave
the neighbourhood as soon as possible. (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
Some of the researchers observed two different aspects in parallel: on the one hand, the discourse
of the local authorities on the social history and the situation of the ghettos or poverty enclaves;
on the other hand, the actual stories of the inhabitants and their memories of how the ghettos
developed. The case of Lupeni is pertinent in showing the lack of correspondence between these
two parallel views; at the same time, it is illustrative for many other industrial towns in Romania,
in which the former workers’ blocks were abandoned after the Revolution and the fall of state
communism, and then re-occupied in the mid-‘ 90s.
The “social blocks as refugee communities” described by the researcher Reka Geambaºu in
Lupeni have a controversial history: one alternative states that the former workers’ blocks were
abandoned and left empty for a few years, when the entire town passed through bankruptcy. In the
mid ‘ 90s several poor families found refuge in these almost ruined blocks. The “occupiers” then
started refurbishing the interior of the inhabited rooms, in order to make it possible to live there
during the winter and the rainy seasons but they didn’ t have the resources to repair the exterior
or to perform serious restoration. The other alternative, preferred by the local authorities’
representatives, is the “occupation scenario”, which states that people actually occupied the already
repaired blocks of social housing and destroyed them in the meantime.
Quote 7-3. Contradictory opinions on the history of the Lupeni ghetto

In Lupeni, empty, deserted social housing buildings are not an unusual sight. Built
during Socialism, but abandoned by the owners – Local Authorities – some of these
places offer shelter to (Roma) families in need. Of course, the sometimes cynical
measures affecting people in no-escape situations are a reflection of the ambivalent
attitude of the authorities towards marginalised communities, as well as of the lack
of a coherent strategy to create a chance for them to escape poverty. Just as – ironic
as it is – people who are actually living at the waste dump under daily threat from
snakes, are actually paying for sanitation services – the families that move into the
flats that the Town Hall had long ago forgotten and make them inhabitable are
obliged to pay substantial rent fees from the very first day. In other words, the local
authorities forget about these buildings and the flats with no windows or doors –
actually nothing but bare concrete, but once a family in a crisis situation manages to
repair one, here comes the town hall to collect the rent fee.
Therefore, in reality, the situation is exactly the opposite of what the mayor describes,
relying on one of the most frequently seen preconceived ideas regarding the Roma –
their “incapacity” to live in a “civilised” manner and their inclination to “destroy
their surroundings”.
“It’ s even hard to help them. It’ s much easier to help those who know how to
maintain what they have – it’ s much harder with those who tidy up today and make
a greater mess tomorrow.”.
“- They are not used to... and it’ s going to be very hard, but it’ s something to think
about – we have to mobilise these people, make good citizens of them so that they look
after what they have. Because most of the times, where there is one or two Roma, they
just destroy a whole entrance, let’ s say, in a building.
- How is that?
- With their behaviour, with how they are, with how they speak. Because, you see, the
citizens – and at least older ones – don’t have the time to spend all day arguing with
110
HOUSING ISSUES
them and reintegrating them into society. This is something that every person should
understand inside themselves – that we have to integrate ourselves into society.”
(Lupeni, Viitorului neighbourhood, Geambaºu 2007)
7.1.2 History of Residence Changes and Evictions

As mentioned in the previous sub-chapter, there are several scenarios of residential trajectories,
which start from the last years of the communist period and end up in ghettos or in extreme living
conditions.
The story of Lupeni is representative for the situation in the Valea Jiului former mining area and
for other towns that depended on the state industry and communist factories/ plants. The families
that arrived in the “Viitorului” ghetto from Lupeni were conditioned by the need to leave their
previous locations, the information they had access to (about where to find a place to stay), and the
social capital represented by family networks. The need to leave the previous locations was, in its turn,
conditioned by the need to find sources of income in a different region, the need to find a cheaper
residence, the need to sell the property in order to pay debts or living costs.
Quote 7-4. Lodging trajectories, ending up in Viitorului ghetto

All the families I interviewed in these three buildings moved here in the last decade,
into empty flats. Also, in all the cases, the kinship relationships that I described in the
previous chapter prove to be what counts most in recruiting new inhabitants. One of
the men I interviewed says that they had taken shelter in Lupeni, hoping to find
cheaper homes here, after they had to sell their parental house in Sibiu following his
father’ s death. Three of the other flats are inhabited by their relatives – the mother
and two sisters – who helped them to move there 18 years ago. Another typical
scenario is the young married couple, finding out from relatives about these empty
flats and starting their lives together in these social housing buildings.
Each family’ s history seems to repeat the same events: a satisfying life in the country,
with an acceptable job at the farming association, then disappearance of the income
sources with the fall of Socialism. And since domestic migration takes place within
wide kinship networks, the whole family would leave the native village at once, so it’ s
impossible to go back to places they cut all type of contact with. (Lupeni, Viitorului
neighbourhood, Geambasu 2007)
In most of the field reports, it was noted that the housing solutions and the trajectories of
internal migration are dependent on family networks and the information that runs through this
network. Under such conditions, social capital is the only resource the ghetto dwellers have. With
the scarce material resources they have, they improvise the “occupied” apartments.
What characterizes the ghettoes and the social housing neighbourhoods is uncertainty and
instability: people do not own their houses; their status is one of semi-tolerance; if they cannot
afford to pay the rent to the local authorities they could be evacuated; if any investment is put into
the blocks, this automatically means a rent increase, and in addition, everyone dreams of better
housing conditions, somewhere else, outside the ghetto.
Quote 7-5. Instability and investments in social housing flats,

in Viitorului ghetto, Lupeni
The “cultural” explanation that the mayor had offered fits perfectly in the “blaming
the victim” type of views. Only, it does that by reversing the events, replacing the
cause and consequences and the sequence in time. As a matter of fact, it’ s not the
111
QUALITY OF LIFE
Roma who ‘ destroy the buildings and the flats’ – the Roma are those who, with
their work and investments, make these spaces something to live in, after having
moved in most of the times in flats with huge debts attached, to pay to the state and
public utilities. A family with five children spends two winters with cellophane
windows and sleeps for some weeks on the concrete covered with some cardboard sheets,
and after this while they manage to get wooden floors and windows. Roma women
are those who paint the flats every summer, decorate the kitchens, wash away the
mould from the walls, repair the holes in the roof, replace the glass in the windows
and so on. And they pay the rent for these flats – to the owner: the town hall. Of
course, the shared space – the stairs and the entrance are still deteriorated, with the
walls not painted, no electricity, broken handrails... It’ s only that all the blocks of flats
in Lupeni look the same, for the reason mentioned above – that is, the inhabitants
do not own the buildings. Of course, in both cases, this is not the real reason – the real
reason is the scarcity of money, but in the Jiu Valley this is something that goes
without saying. (Lupeni, Viitorului neighbourhood, Geambasu 2007)
As the final point for housing trajectories, only the improvised shelters can be worse than the
social housing ghettos. Instability and stories of repeated evictions characterize them both. The
field reports showed how repeated evictions create a vicious circle of precarious living, leading to
increasingly worse forms of habitation.
Quote 7-6. Vicious circle of multiple evictions, in Timiºoara

During state communism many Roma lived in blocks or houses expropriated from
their previous owners, or living places that were then the local council’ s property.
Many people have these living places as their residences on their identity cards. If
they become unable to pay their bills, or the rent, or if the living places are given back
to their ex-owners, these Roma can be evacuated. Eviction is made upon a decision
of the local council, community police, gendarme and the public cleaning authorities
are also involved. The eviction usually happens suddenly and without warning.
“Evacuated people” move to their relatives’ apartments (becoming a “too large
family” who provoke anxiety from the neighbours, a usual motif for eviction), and
then leave for villages, making shelters for night and day from any accessible
materials (nylon, paper, wood, etc.) at the towns’ margins. It’ s obvious, eviction
does not solve Roma problems: sometimes evacuated apartments remain unoccupied,
while evacuated people have to live in hard conditions, generating new conflicts,
usually among neighbours, local administration, etc. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze
2007)
7.1.3 Housing and Conflicts

Housing means space, visibility, access, and welfare – disputed resources in any society. As any
scarce and vital resources, they generate competition and conflict – such as the ones observed by
the field researchers.
Firstly, the conflict related to assuming responsibility for the improvement of housing conditions
for the poor and assuring housing for the homeless and the ones living in improvised shelters. From
the point of view of the local authorities, reflected in interviews or collected from the media, this
responsibility is actually a political and economic choice. From the point of view of the people – who
place requests for social housing at the town hall location department and have to face the lack of
112
HOUSING ISSUES
space and the years of waiting for an uncertain answer – the responsibility belongs entirely to the
local authorities, who are perceived with suspicion and suspected of corruption and lack of interest.
Quote 7-7. The responsibility to build social housing in Bucharest

“I do not want to transform Bucharest into a social town but to increase living
standards there. Bucharest needs a certain living standard and I will permanently
resist the idea of building social housing in Bucharest.” (Mayor of Bucharest, from
the newspaper “Gîndul”, 2 November 2007, quoted by Tîrcã 2007)
Quote 7-8. Evictions as a situation of conflict, in Timiºoara

Last year the police and the local cleaning companies visited them, and during their
action of “making clean” they put shacks to fire and documents were burned. They
appeared at 5 a.m. woke them up, made them to leave the shacks and put them to
fire. As I was told there, shacks were re-built with difficulty, they have no place to
go and have identity cards issued in Timiºoara. (E.L. ºi L.L., neighbourhood
Blascovics, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Another conflict is related to visibility and the symbols of social status represented in the public
space around Roma houses. For example, the controversial adorned tin roofs of the rich Roma
houses: the Romanian intellectual elite condemn the un-aesthetic, kitsch roofs, while all the
interview subjects (both Roma and non-Roma) in Curtici and Sântana appreciate them as a great
proof of the welfare and diligence of the rich Roma.
Conflicts come up when the symbols of status, expressed through the houses, interfere with the
symbols of status of other people or with other forms of social symbols and representations (such
as the historic values of another ethnic group or of the majority, shown in patrimonial buildings).
Quote 7-9. Status symbols generating conflict in Timiºoara

“Other Roma, “with a statute” are the ones who build and modify houses without
authorizations, and Mayor’ s Office comes and pulls them down. He tells about a
recent case: the owner had authorization but the roof “did not respect certain norms,
it wasn’t in harmony with other constructions in the area as it was much higher and
decorated.” The owner was told to pull it down, and at his refusal the authorities
(local council and the gendarme) came and did it. “It wasn’t a big conflict - the man
forbade the authorities to enter the courtyard, but in the end he could do nothing.”
(R.S., ANR, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Another aspect is linked to inter-ethnic conflicts, the “not in my back yard” rejection. The
example of Mihail Kogãlniceanu, where the Roma houses were burned and demolished in such an
inter-ethnic conflict in the ’90s, is an extreme case in which conflicts escalate to the extent that
sharing the same space becomes unimaginable.
Quote 7-10. Housing, proximity and inter-ethnic conflicts in M. Kogãlniceanu

In 1990 there was a conflict among the Romanians, Macedonians, and Gypsies.
Romanian and Macedonians, also called Turks, wanted to ban the Roma community.
No one can remember exactly what the real reason was, what is certain is that both
communities were not very much liked in the locality, as there were frequent fights,
mostly with ethnic pretexts. As a result, one night, people set fire to the Roma houses,
rammed them with bulldozers, tearing them down. The Roma were left with no homes,
and one year after the incident, a German foundation for Roma protection initiated
113
QUALITY OF LIFE
and financed the rebuilding of each of the demolished or burned up houses; on that
occasion, the Town Hall issued ownership certificates to all the Roma. The houses were
built entirely from the money donated by Roma families in Germany. (Mihail
In the aftermath of the conflict, the legal situation of house ownership was clarified by local
authorities, thus decreasing the chance of future violent actions against residents, and
acknowledging their status as citizens of the locality.
While in Mihail Kogãlniceanu houses were burned down as part of a violent escalation of conflict
between neighbours, in Timiºoara improvised shacks were put on fire by local authorities, as part
of a plan for “cleaning” the area. Since this plan amounted to nothing more, the situation reversed
gradually back to square one, as people had no other option but to rebuild their precarious shelters.
Quote 7-11. Burning down shacks and democratic exercises

in the Blascovics neighborhood of Timiºoara
Two women participate in the workshop organized within the project “Timiºoara –
a City of Social Inclusion”. L.M. invited them because she was a group facilitator.
Before returning to our groups, we take part in the official inauguration of the event.
They don’t quite understand what they are supposed to do there. It is explained to
them, in French and Romanian, that it is a democratic exercise: citizens express their
opinions on how they feel in their city. E.L. has done many such democratic exercises:
she wrote to the President of Romania that she comes often to the Town Hall, she
explains her major problem and then nothing happens. Last year the Police and the
Sanitation Company came to their neighbourhood to “clean it up”: they burned down
the shacks and also the documents inside. They came there at 5 AM, they took the
people out of the shacks and they started to put them on fire. As they have already told
me when I was there, they have gradually rebuilt their shacks, they have no other
place to go, and anyway they have a formal residence on their ID card in Timiºoara.
(...) They, as well as the other “citizens” invited for discussions, are supposed to answer
the question “what does it mean to live well in Timiºoara?” In order to do this, the
Roma group (which I am joining) goes in one of the seminar rooms. We have to write
our answers to this question on colourful pieces of paper, and then the answers to
“which are the obstacles...?” and “what do we want to do in order to live well?”. (...)
It comes out, of course, that there are people in Timiºoara for which living well means
not to live under the open sky, on the meadows. E.L. writes that on her paper (“not
to sleep in the meadows”). (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
7.1.4 Property Rights

The case studies illustrate a multiplicity of legal ownership situations of Roma people. Most of
them are typical at community level, as they are the result of the historical development of the
respective community.
Quote 7-12. History of formal exclusion and evictions, in Timiºoara

EP was staying there for some time with her parents. It was a house made of dry brick
in the period of the war. There was a time when a man, a ”Sir” took the ground and
people made bricks from it, then he left and people covered the pits and made their
houses. Later the garbage pit was made. During Ceauºescu some “cards” were given,
114
HOUSING ISSUES
but these were not fully identical with certificates of property. A factory of washing
powder, Perla, was also created, and it works even today, black and very toxic clouds
were just leaving the chimneys “they put them to work at the evening and night-time”.
Roma from Kuntz may have to face forced eviction. I see new buildings of
international companies that might need land. Or wealthy people, she told me, who
want to build small detached houses in order to make a suburb here. The Mayor is
about to make a “cleaning” in this part of the city. (EP, Timiºoara, Kuntz
neighbourhood quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Many Roma households do not have proper ownership papers for the land or house they live
in; their residence is therefore justified only by a temporary consensus that they are entitled to live
there. This consensus can be very thin – as in the case of the Blascovics neighbourhood of
Timiºoara (see Quote 7-1), or the urban ghettoes where residents are at any time at risk of forced
eviction. In other cases, such as in Coltãu (see Quote 7-13) or the Kuntz neighbourhood of
Timiºoara (see Quote 7-14), there is a combination of legal and informal agreements that supports
the development of the Roma community.
Informal local consensus is often not enough to allow residents to obtain ID cards on their de
facto addresses. Despite significant changes in the legislation that facilitate the registration of
residents with no ownership contracts, it is not possible to obtain legal recognition of one’ s de facto
address when ownership problems are serious – for example, when the house or shack does not
even have a postal address, or when it already has a different owner (who may be abroad, dead etc).
A series of conditions have to be met in order to lead from long-term, unformalized possession of
a house to a legal document (see a detailed presentation of sociological and legal issues in Florea
et al. 2007). Difficulties in obtaining an ID card lead to problems of accessing all social services or
of entering any contractual relationship, and they also lead to serious difficulties in obtaining birth
certificates for children.
Residents with no ownership contracts, especially those living in illegal buildings, often find
that it is impossible to finalise a contract with the electricity company or other utility providers.
This affects the quality of housing and may lead to risky or illegal behaviour, such as improvised
connections to the electrical network (without paying for electricity, such as in Zãbrãuþi, or by
paying, such as in Coltãu).
Lacking a legal basis for arbitration, land disputes against neighbours can escalate. Last but not
least, residents with no legal rights over the land have a marginal citizenship status at local level.
They are at any time subject to forced evictions or other interventions of local authorities, and they
may be discriminated against – on the basis of their precarious housing status – when it comes to
accessing services such as schooling, employment, social assistance etc.
Quote 7-13. Uncertain legal status of new constructions in Ladioº neighborhood of

Coltãu
The territorial isolation is obvious: the two older streets (Arieºului and Poºta),
arranged in a V shape, extend towards the extreme limit of the Coltãu village and
they enter the village pastures. The new neighbourhood or Ladioº (...) develops
between them chaotically and without any type of systematization. Here problems
are complicated and manifold:
- Nobody knows for sure who the owner is of the land they build on, although there
is a legal document by which the Local Notary grants rights of use to the Roma
community for an undetermined period;
115
QUALITY OF LIFE
- There is no General Urban Plan to include this new neighbourhood, and no Land
Register. This is the source for a series of problems: it is impossible to obtain ownership
contracts, all building lacks authorization, ID cards must give a different address, etc;
- As there is no systematization, people start to fight over the position of their houses;
- There is no legal electricity network. Electricity is taken informally from
neighbours, using improvised cables. The entire neighbourhood is covered with cables
which are supported by wooden poles – leading to a danger of electrocution and fires;
(...) The Roma community is developing rapidly. New constructions appear all the
time. (Coltãu, Iorga 2007).
Last but not least, all communities with no clear legal status are subject to the risk of eviction –
depending on factors which are largely outside their control, such as the political climate in the
locality, the commercial value of the land they occupy.
Quote 7-14. Vague property rights and the vulnerability to evictions, in Timiºoara
Some, staying in their houses inherited by parents or grandparents, built or bought by
the latter, in some cases even before the period of state communism, may not have the
necessary certificates, but some handwritten, unofficial documents from the period the
house was built or bought. Lack of legal documents and concession of the land the houses
are built on may lead to eviction (...). The city’ s urban and economic development
plans can follow aims different from the interests of those marginalized (especially in
case of estates built in the peripheral areas). These regions can be turned into new
suburbs or headquarters for international companies. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze
2007)
Quote 7-15. The contradiction of discourses upon property rights, in M. Kogãlniceanu

Concerning plots of land, some Roma allegedly own, as far back as they can
remember, lots of land or forest passed on from generation to generation, that they
have been toiling on for years, but once a new mayor came into office, their ownership
rights were no longer acknowledged as there was no deed to justify the claim. From
discussions with the local mayor, it emerged that there is a shortage in agrarian or
construction land, and that this is one of the reasons why the local Roma do not get
a lot of land to build a home. (Mihail Kogãlniceanu, Marcu 2007)
Quote 7-16. Vulnerability to evictions in Timiºoara

L.M. also remembered the discourse of the vice-mayor on social affairs held in a
union of the local council about solutions to “cleaning” the city. As she proposed, people
without residence and identity cards should be gathered, especially those from other
places, put in trains and sent back home. To an observation reminding him that
“moving freely is a human right” he replied: “Don’t push me madam with human
rights!” (Expert on Roma issues, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
7.2 Housing Issues in Survey Research

This section discusses several dimensions of housing, such as housing density, comfort as measured
by access to utilities and long-term consumer goods, and residential segregation. Two other issues
are discussed above: the experience of cold (see section 5.2) and sleeping conditions (see section 5.3).
116
HOUSING ISSUES
7.2.1 Property Rights

The rate of respondents who live in houses which are owned by themselves or other household
members is around 85% in the Roma and 90% in the comparative sample. Another 5% of the
respondents in both samples live in houses which belong to other (non-resident) family members
(see Table 7-1).
The specificity of the Roma sample is that 2% of the respondents live in unregistered homes, while
4% live in public housing (compared to 2% in the comparative sample). To this we should add another
13% of Roma respondents who live in (presumably registered) houses whose de facto owner has no
contract whatsoever documenting their ownership (15% in rural areas and 11% in urban areas).
In addition to these unregistered de facto owners, if we analyse the privately-owned houses of our
Roma respondents, a proportion of 70% of their de facto owners in rural areas and 79% in urban
areas have a legal ownership contract (73% in the total Roma sample). 16% of rural owners and 11%
of urban owners have handwritten contracts (chitanþã de mânã) or other papers (14% of the total
Roma owners). (See Chart 7-1).
This distribution of home ownership should not be generalized for the entire Roma population,
because it is to a large extent dependent on the sampling methodology. It is useful, thought, in
order to interpret the subsequent analyses.
Chart 7-1. Distribution of home ownership contracts in the Roma

and the comparative sample (percentage)
The RIB 2006 indicates that 74% of Roma residents in urban areas and 67% of the residents in
rural areas have legal ownership or a rental contract for their houses (Bãdescu et al. 2007, p. 45).
117
QUALITY OF LIFE
Table 7-1. Who is the owner of the residence you currently occupy? (percentage)
Who is the owner of the residence you currently occupy? Ethnicity
Non-Roma Roma
You or another member of the household 90.0 85.1
A relative of yours or of another member of the household 4.8 4.8
Another person 2.2 3.1
The Local Authority or the state 1.5 3.6
A firm or other landlord 1.5 1.2
Unregistered dwelling with no official owner 0.0 2.3
Total 100.0 100.0
A multivariate analysis21 indicates that the risk of living in a house with no contracts whatsoever
is higher for heads of household in the age group 18-60 and lower for older respondents, for those
with low education, living in poverty (without any long-term consumer goods), living in
predominantly Roma neighbourhoods but without speaking Romani. The type of locality
(urban/rural) exerts no influence (see Table 16-24.).
Age differences (see Chart 7-2) probably indicate the disruptions that have occurred after 1989,
as younger households have become more at risk of living in precarious conditions – either due to
migration, or to leaving the parental house.
Chart 7-2. Legality of house ownership by age category of the head of the household
– Roma sample (percentage)
There is a direct relationship between the educational level of the head of the household and
the legality of house ownership (see below).
21 Multivariate analysis = ~ in statistics describes a collection of procedures which involve observation and
analysis of more than one statistical variable at a time.
118
HOUSING ISSUES
Chart 7-3. Legality of house ownership by education category of the head of the household
– Roma sample (percentage)
Households who have no long-term consumer goods are significantly more at risk of being in
a precarious legal situation with their house (see below) – indicating that this situation is correlated
with economic vulnerability, which probably reinforce each other in a vicious circle.
Chart 7-4. Legality of house ownership by number of long-term consumer goods

in the household – Roma sample (percentage)
Legality of home ownership is positively influenced by a concordance between the type of

neighbourhood (dominantly Roma/non-Roma) and the language spoken at home. In Roma
neighbourhoods, households speaking Romani are more likely to have legal ownership status, while
the reverse is true in non-Roma neighbourhoods. It is possible that the “discordant” households are
more frequently newcomers, having migrated to the neighbourhood after 1989, when building and
selling houses without formal contracts increased due, at least in part, to fewer constraints.
119
QUALITY OF LIFE
Chart 7-5. Legality of house ownership by ethnic composition of the neighbourhood

and language spoken in house – Roma sample (percentage)
7.2.2 Housing Density

The density of housing is more than double for Roma households. There is an average of 0.8
persons per room in the case of non-Roma and 1.98 persons for Roma. In the Roma sample the
housing density is higher for houses built after 1989.
Table 7-2. Housing density by sample type (percentage)

Number of people per room Non-Roma Roma
0-1.00 83 38
1.01-2.00 14 31
2.01-3.00 2 16
3.01-4.00 1 8
4.01-5.00 0 3
5.01-6.00 - 2
Over 6.01 0 2
Total 100.0 100.0
7.2.3 Access to Main Utilities

Electricity is present in over 98% of households from the non-Roma sample and in almost 84%
households from the Roma sample. A large number of Roma households have no access to an
electricity supply, either because their houses are not connected (almost 15%) or are switched off
(1%). There are no differences between rural and urban households.
The Roma Inclusion Barometer (RIB 2006) also indicates that 13% of Roma people and 2% of
people of other ethnicities have no electricity in their homes (Bãdescu et al. 2007, p. 33).
A gas supply system works only in 46 localities (Bucharest included) from the 104 selected in the
sample. One third of households from the non-Roma sample and 17% from the Roma sample
have access to a gas supply.
120
HOUSING ISSUES
Access to water is a critical issue for rural areas, where the source of water is outside the house
(fountain, well) both for Roma and non-Roma households. Significantly more Roma households have
access to water sources outside their yard, most of them at a distance of more than 100 meters from the
household. As is to be expected, there are significant differences between rural and urban households.
Table 7-3. In the dwelling where you presently live is there water? – by sample type (percentage)
Comparative Roma
Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total
1 Water pipe in the house 23 61 39 8 30 17
2 Water pipe in the yard 15 17 16 14 26 19
3 Fountain in the yard 50 17 36 33 16 26
4 Water out of the yard, but closer than 100 ms 8 2 5 20 14 18
5 Further than 100 ms 4 3 4 25 14 20
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
The RIB 2006 indicates that only 27% of Roma in urban localities and 5% in rural localities
have water pipes in the house (14% of the total Roma population), compared to 90% of non-
Roma in urban areas and 16% of non-Roma in rural areas (a total of 56% of non-Roma from the
total non-Roma population). (Bãdescu et al. 2007, p. 33).
There are significant differences between the two samples in access to sewage in urban and in
rural areas (see below).
Chart 7-6. Access to sewer, by type of locality and sample (percentage)
7.2.4 Long-term Consumer Goods

Proportion of households with less long-term consumer goods22 is significantly higher for the
Roma sample than the non-Roma sample.
22 The list includes: refrigerator, colour TV, automatic washing machine, car, mobile phone, CD player and
computer.
121
QUALITY OF LIFE
Chart 7-7. Number of long-term consumer goods per household (percentage)
Table 7-4. Proportion of households in possession of various long-term consumer goods, by sample;
comparative presentation of Social Inclusion 2007, and RIB 2006 results (percentage)
Phare - Social Inclusion 2007 RIB 2006
Ratio Ratio
National
Roma Comparative Comparative/ Roma National/
sample
Roma Roma
Colour TV 68 90 1.3 64 91 1.4
Mobile telephone 43 58 1.3 28 57 2.0
Satellite dish 26 37 1.4 - -
Refrigerator 53 92 1.7 37 88 2.4
CD player 12 24 2.0 - -
Car 12 30 2.5 6 36 6.0
Automatic washing machine 14 40 2.9 9 50 5.6
Computer 8 24 3.0 4 29 7.3
Land fixed telephone 10 40 4.0 8 47 5.9
RIB 2006 results are presented in Bãdescu et al. 2007, p. 41
If we rank long-term consumer goods according to the ration of non-Roma ownership to Roma
ownership, the resulting pattern is similar in the survey with RIB 2006. Colour TVs and mobile
phones are the most equally distributed, and so we can propose, at least as a hypothesis, that these
technological means of information and communication may be an important factor in narrowing
inequalities of quality of life between the Roma and the Gadje. At the other end of the spectrum,
automatic washing machines and computers are among the most unequally distributed.
A very small number of households, 8.6% from the comparative and 5% from the Roma sample,
have bought a long-term consumer goods in the last 12 months.
122
HOUSING ISSUES
About one fifth of the variation of household wealth, as indicated by the number of long-term
consumer goods, can be statistically accounted for by the influence of several socio-demographic
variables (see Table 16-25.).
The most powerful predictor is the education level of the head of the household. In order to
have a more intuitive understanding of this influence, we can say that on average a difference of 4
years of schooling is reflected in the possession of 0.5 goods. Migration is the next best predictor:
we can see that households in which there is experience of migration own, on average, 0.9 more
household goods when all other influences are controlled for. The next predictors, in descending
order, are: the status of employees of the head of the household, living in an urban locality; the
number of household members (negative influence), and (also a negative influence) the household
use of Romani language.
7.3 Residential Ethnic Segregation

Residential ethnic segregation is a crucial variable in understanding the lack of interaction and
familiarity across various communities. Social distance and geographical separation are mutually
reinforcing.
Quote 7-17. Residential segregation in Curtici

A second dimension of the inclusion/exclusion situation in Curtici is represented by
daily interaction practices, as they have resulted from the historical coexistence of the
two communities. It is obvious that, traditionally, both the Roma and Romanian
community, and especially the Romanian one, have developed, maintained and
reinforced a set of values, stereotypes and interaction practices aimed at maintaining
the least contact between the two communities. As a result, Romanians and Roma
have coexisted peacefully in Curtici with a very high level of segregation. Romanians
are very often surprised to see that a Romanian woman has the courage to go into
the Roma community. I can see the same surprise at a Cãldãrari woman when she
finds out that a researcher goes alone to the Gropeni’ community. This lack of
contact, as well as the reciprocal prejudices (although fundamentally asymmetrical,
to the disadvantage of the Roma) are the basis of a pattern of exclusion practised on
a daily basis, which, until recently, excluded the Roma from any participation in
public affairs. In fact, it is these practices which place the ‘ Gypsy in the position of a
subhuman creature. (Curtici, Mariana Goina 2007)
Many of the communities included in case studies were residentially segregated: they were
separated from the rest of the locality by a visible border, such as a street (Ladioº in Coltãu, Valea
Rece in Târgu Mureº ) or a river (Nuºfalãu) or even an altitude differential (Õrkõ in Sfântu
Gheorghe). They were clearly identified as the Roma neighbourhood in the collective mental
map, and as such they were considered off limits. In many of the same localities there are also
mixed neighbourhoods (Bakos in Nuºfalãu, Remetea in Târgu Mureº ) or Roma communities who
live amongst non-Roma (such as the Gabors in Târgu Mureº ).
In some cases, such as the Bendea Muslim Roma community in Babadag, the process of
expansion pushes Roma households towards the city centre, and thus decreases segregation. At the
same time, in the case of Coltãu, the very same process pushes the new Roma households away
from the locality centre.
123
QUALITY OF LIFE
Why (and how) does residential segregation matter? In order to answer this question, we have
used several indicators related to the ethnic and economic situation of the neighbourhood in the
database (see the table below).
Table 7-5. Indicators of economic and ethnic residential segregation

Variable Questionnaire question Respondent Variable used in analysis
Which of the following statements describes the district

(cartier) where you presently live? Dichotomy for
1 Everybody or almost everybody is poor “Everybody... is poor”
Head of the
Poor district 2 Majority of the people are poor Indicates (perception of)
household
3 There are poor and not poor people on the same rate economic segregation at
4 Majority are not poor district level
5 Nobody or almost nobody is poor
Dichotomy for “Roma”
People of which ethnic group mostly live in the district where Head of the Indicates (perception of)
Roma district
you presently live? household ethnic segregation at
district level
In the neighbourhood of respondent' s house... Dichotomy for “only...
1 only or almost only Roma families are living Roma families”.
Roma
2 there are Roma and non-Roma families in the same rate Operator Indicates (perception of)
neighbourhood
3 there are some Roma families, but the majority is non-Roma economic segregation at
4 there are no Roma families near neighbourhood level
Dichotomy for “a very
The neighbourhood of respondent’ s house is...
poor, unkempt area”
1 a very poor, unkempt area (zona foarte saraca, neingrijita)
Unkempt Indicates (perception) of
2 a poor, but relatively ordered area Operator
neighbourhood ethnic and economic
3 average
segregation at
4 better than average
neighbourhood level
Of course, all four indicators are subjective, as they reflect either the perception of the head of
the household or the perception of the operator. However, lacking a better alternative, we shall
use them as indicators of segregation, although they are affected both by random and systematic
errors of estimation.
The last variable, unkempt neighbourhood, is an indicator of both ethnic and economic
segregation of the neighbourhood. Although in theory it could apply both to Roma and non-
Roma vicinities, in practice the operators apply the label of “unkempt” neighbourhood to 42% of
Roma households and to only 6% of non-Roma households.
We cannot use these indicators to estimate the degree of residential segregation, because the
sampling methodology requires operators to select Roma respondents who live in Roma
neighbourhoods or districts, and therefore Roma residents of non-Roma districts are
underestimated. Still, we can investigate the influence that segregation has on other aspects of
life. We chose two types of areas of exploration:
1. The influence of spatial segregation on access to utilities and social services: ethnic
segregation in education, and households’ connection to electricity and water;
2. The influence of residential segregation on individual coping strategies such as openness
across ethnic boundaries, or migration. Openness refers to variables such as having
ethnically diverse friends, and accepting Romanian people as family members.
For each dependent variable we computed a binary logistic regression model including all four
indicators of segregation23, indicators of ethnic affiliation and other socio-demographic variables.
23 For models in which no indicators had an influence, we have also tested models with only one or two
indicators of segregation to see whether any of them would prove to be a statistically relevant predictor, but this
was useful only for the model on migration intention.
124
HOUSING ISSUES
The models are presented in the annex (for the Roma sample), while details of statistically
significant influences are discussed below.
Access to electricity is only influenced by living in an “unkempt” neighbourhood, household
wealth and age of the head of the household. A proportion of 29% of the Roma households in
“unkempt” areas have no electricity, compared to 7% of the others. On the contrary, access to a
water source in the residence or in the yard is influenced significantly by all indicators of
segregation. The probability of not having water in one’ s house or yard is increased by economic
and ethnic segregation at district and neighbourhood level and it is decreased by personal
characteristics such as traditional ethnic affiliation, household wealth, urban residence and
education of head of the household.
Chart 7-8. Lack of access to water, by type of neighbourhood and other variables (percentage)
The probability of having a Romanian or a Hungarian friend is not influenced by any indicator
of segregation, but only, in this model, by traditional affiliation and age (see Table 16-16). Along
the same lines, the regression model indicates no influence of segregation indicators on acceptance
of Romanian people as family members.
Migration experience is also not influenced by any of the four indicators. The intention of
migration for a couple of months is increased by residence in an “unkempt” area, but not by the
other indicators.
Poor districts and “unkempt” neighbourhoods are more likely to have a majority of Roma
children in their schools. The same is true of access to electricity. Access to water is equally
influenced by ethnic and by economic homogeneity of the residential area. We can therefore infer
that residential segregation influences the access that Roma people have to quality education and
to utilities. It is interesting that the probability of educational ethnic segregation is not increased
by ethnic residential segregation, but by the combination of economic and ethnic homogeneity.
Concerning personal strategies such as friendship networks or migration, these do not seem to
be influenced by the ethnic or economic composition of the household. It appears that individuals
find ways to overcome such barriers in their personal choices, but they are unable to compensate
for the institutional deficiencies induced by segregation.
125
QUALITY OF LIFE

Points to Highlight
• Housing density is more than double for Roma households. The average number of
persons per room in case of non-Roma is 0.8 persons and for Roma is 1.98 persons.
• 15% of Roma households live without electricity, compared to 2% of the non-Roma.
• 36% of Roma households have to bring water from outside their yards, compared to 9%
of the non-Roma.
• 53% of the Roma have a refrigerator in their house, compared to 92% of the non-Roma.
• 43% of the Roma have a mobile telephone, compared to 58% of the non-Roma – one of
the smallest differences in ownership.
• 8% of the Roma have a computer, compared to 24% of the non-Roma – one of the largest
differences in ownership.
• Residential segregation, as measured by indicators of "living in a poor district" and "living
in an unkempt neighbourhood", has a significant influence on risks of educational
segregation. Children living in such districts are more likely to study in classrooms where
a majority of pupils are Roma. Also, households living in such districts are more likely to
have no electricity.
• Access to water is equally influenced by the ethnic and economic homogeneity of the
residential area.
Housing conditions are a powerful force that reflects and then structures personal and
community lives. They convert a person’ s resources and social position into tangible comfort or
hardship, and it turns social distance into geographical distance. The reverse is not necessarily
true, because distance may be overcome by various means when communication is really sought
after. But for unwanted people who live at the margins, even a four km road may remain forever
unpaved (see for example the case of Veseuº, in Quote 4-28).
Many Roma households do not have proper ownership papers for the land or the house in which
they live; their residence is therefore justified by a temporary consensus that they are entitled to
live there. No clear legal status means they are subject to the risk of eviction.
Housing can be a framework for interethnic violence – be it private or public, in the case of
forced evictions. Residential segregation has a statistically significant effect on quality education
and access to utilities – an effect which is clearly visible in the case studies, too.
126
8 Employment
Employment is one of the most mentioned issues when analyzing the consequences of the
political-economic transition of the post-socialist countries. Most Roma in Romania during the
socialist period worked as unskilled and semi-skilled workers, and also had jobs in factories or in
public services in urban areas and in socialist agricultural cooperatives in the villages. After the
state-socialist heavy industry and agriculture had collapsed, the first to lose their jobs were those
who had no qualifications. The unemployment rate in the country increased dramatically in the
early 90s. In recent years, the economy has been undergoing restructuring and new possibilities
are just appearing. Everyone is trying to find their new place in this new and unprecedented
situation. Those who have less economic, political and decision-making power, as well as less
information and less ability to enforce their interests, also have the fewest opportunities. As our
data shows, most Roma people seem to be in this situation. As a consequence of this race for
resources, under these socio-economic circumstances of scarcity, many people are forced to find
alternative ways for survival, outside the formal labour market.
8.1 Employment Issues Reflected

in Community Reports
8.1.1 Who is Unemployed?
National statistics show that the level of employment is far lower for Roma than it is for non-
Roma. The statistics, though, are based on data for formal occupation and therefore completely
mask the deeper phenomena behind the facts: the unequal chances of accessing work, the
discrimination in the labour market.
Quote 8-1. Reasons for being “unemployed” in Timiºoara

The question is what kinds of jobs are available to them, how are they regarded, and
what symbolic and economic prestige can they bring for their communities and among
non-Roma? What kind of work is excluded due to many factors, among them negative
stereotypes among employers, who – categorising people by their skin colour – prefer to
hire non-Roma. Then it is also important to mention the impact of all these on their
perceptions, reinforcing their beliefs that “they” by their nature are only capable of doing
these kind of jobs, or of coping without working.” (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Education and professional background are the main conditions for accessing qualified jobs,
but these are strongly conditioned by economic and symbolic capitals; from this standpoint, most
Roma are in a worse condition than others.
Quote 8-2. Influence of educational background on employment

As abandoning school leads to lack of a professional background and a drastic decrease of
the possibilities of being employed, day shifts, unskilled work and jobs on the black market,
are the most accessible for these people. This kind of work doesn’t bring a stable or
sufficient income, and – as they can only be sure of day-by-day-living – it also cannot
bring any security for the future or planning for a longer period of time. Besides, these
aspects only reinforce perceptions of Roma in accordance with they are able only for these
127
kinds of jobs. Never being employed, or being out of work for a longer period, these people
didn’t benefit from allowances for unemployed. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
8.1.2 Gender Issue in Employment

As observed in the studied Roma communities, the women’ s responsibility is to carry out the
domestic work and to take care of the children. Depending on the financial situation of the family,
they can also have unqualified work in the local administration as cleaning women or they can
work for other members of the community. Mostly, women work informally and try to make
money from wandering around the locality, collecting different things (for example recyclable
materials), and trying to sell small things such as used clothes. Women with official regular jobs
represented quite isolated cases in all the observed Roma communities.
Quote 8-3. Division of labour in Roma families in Coltau

Women work at home with children and picking forest fruits. (...) Men are the
workers and those who bring money and food for home. (Coltau, Iorga 2007)
Quote 8-4. Women’ s responsibilities in Roma households in Sântana de Mureº

Women, for their part, are generally wandering in the town of Târgu Mureº, often
together with their children, looking for food and small recyclable materials in the garbage
piles and begging around the stores and churches. (Sântana de Mureº, Troc 2007)
Quote 8-5. Roma women’ s earning strategies in Oºorhei

A family who has a financial breakdown makes women sell their clothes and gold
received as dowry. Women may trade their dresses and the money they earn is entirely
theirs. Old skirts are sold to poorer Roma or Gabors. (Oºorhei, Pantea, 2007)
8.1.3 Commuting Versus Social Benefits

Roma are economically bound to a very limited area which makes the employment in other
regions (regions with more jobs to offer – such as industrial regions or larger localities) more
difficult or even impossible. The high transportation costs and other costs involved by living away
from the family, as well as the dependency on informal connections (necessary to get daily work)
stop them from moving from one region to another. In some cases, the social benefit, which is not
even sufficient for the basic needs of a large family, can be higher than the salary earned in another
locality, after paying the transportation costs.
Quote 8-6. Costs of commuting in Lupeni

(...) “The offer is most of the time quite poor, and most of the time the companies are
from different parts of the country, which, in financial terms, is not an efficient
strategy, considering the high transportation costs and living expenses far from the
family.” (Social assistant, Lupeni, quoted by Geambasu 2007)
8.1.4 Influences of Roma Projects on Employment

The role of mediators and experts who could improve the employment possibilities of Roma is
crucial. Unfortunately, the reality is far from ideal. The place of mediators in the everyday life of
the community is formal, rather than effective and efficient . The job mediators, due to the lack
of opportunity of being hired legally, will have worked as volunteers, or they may manage to get
involved in new projects, very often without their officially aimed long-term results.
128
EMPLOYMENT
Quote 8-7. Inefficiency of Roma labour projects in Timiºoara

An increasing attention towards having a workplace in strategies for improving Roma
condition was embodied in programs of forming experts. Unfortunately these persons
could not be hired; they remained in the status of consultancy for projects and/or
volunteers. It would of course be desired that National Agency for Labour Force should
support strategies for hiring such qualified persons and create positions for job mediators
(similar with those of school and health mediators). (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Without managing to do more than solve a few individual cases, the labour programmes haven’ t
really begun to make an impact on Roma unemployment levels.
Quote 8-8. Courses and labour practice in Timiºoara

“A new course on training facilitators was launched, but how many courses should I
keep doing? Without having any certainty of having a job I keep doing courses and
I lose working experience in the meantime, without any practice.” (M.P. in
Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
8.1.5 Work and Social Benefits

There is a dialectic relationship between social aid and informal incomes. On the one hand,
sometimes the authorities refuse to grant social aid to a family, because on of its members already
has an informal income. On the other hand, most Roma can only get an informal job. At the same
time, both incomes (social aid and informal work) can be insufficient for the needs of a large family.
In this system, disadvantaged people depend increasingly on the Local Government’ s mercy,
which only reinforces their vulnerability in an already strongly hierarchical local society.
Moreover, community jobs offered by the Local Authorities (street cleaners, park cleaners,
maintenance, etc.) are strongly stigmatized activities and further reinforce this unfavourable
position. These measures are often categorized as active instruments which intentions are to
reintegrate unemployed people to formal labour market; but, as the information from the
community studies shows, they rather belong to the category of insufficient social benefits without
any long-term results in reintegration or in helping people not to be long-term unemployed
without having work experience.
Quote 8-9. Local Authorities’ perception of work and the Roma people, in Bucharest
(...) “I might say that the issue with this ethnic group is that they don’t like work
and do not want to work in order to cater for themselves. They’ d rather have the
assistance of the state, let the state help them, if they could get this support for life it
would be wonderful. Some might have a lot of children for whom they receive
allowances and they still come to the Child’ s Protection and say ‘ what does the state
do for me, look I have 5 children, what do you do for me?’ But the perspective on
things, this mentality that the state should assist them permanently without their
doing anything is not right, and this goes for one’ s workplace up to you name it.”
(Executive Manager of General Board for Social Work and Child’ s Protection,
Town Hall, Sector 5, Bucharest, quoted by Tirca 2007)
129
QUALITY OF LIFE
Quote 8-10. Circles of dependency, from the Local Authorities’ perspective, in

Bucharest
“If one does not have the means to live in Bucharest one should move somewhere else
where life is cheaper, to a village for instance. Not everybody has to live in Bucharest.
This is the solution, we can draw up thousands of projects, but if these projects make
them dependent on us, they amount to nothing”. (Head of the Social Assistance
Department, Sector 5, Bucharest, quoted by Tirca 2007)
The fear of dependency and the conception that Roma families are willing to trick the state
into obtaining undeserved benefits leads to social aid (Minimum Guaranteed Income) not being
given in all eligible cases. Since the MGI is means-tested, social workers/inspectors tend to
sanction in fact those social aid applicants who, instead of relying solely on the minimum
guaranteed income, also have informal work (see Quote 8-11).
This strict application of legal criteria paradoxically, reinforces the structure of motivations that
sanction individual economic initiatives and thus favour dependency.
Quote 8-11. Social aid for households with informal incomes in Modelu
A great number of families have complained about the fact that, although by law they
are entitled to social benefits (payments), they do not get them, because the social worker
thinks that, if any member of the family earns any other income from any other
external (informal) sources, they shouldn' t get the social payments. Thus - in their
opinion - the social worker treats the cases in a very biased way, sometimes suspending
the social payments with no evidence for sustaining such action. (Modelu, Feraru 2007)
8.1.6 Past and Future of “Traditional Professions”

Nowadays we can notice a structural transformation of the “traditional professions”. For
example, the “nomadic lifestyle” associated with trade and horse-rearing is not profitable and even
a few decades ago became very difficult.
On the other hand, the traditional skills are still passed down through the family, from father
to sons, but the future of these professions is doubtful, due to the general transformation of the
national economy. These family professions can not be learned in any vocational school – there
are no diplomas for the new generation for these abilities.
Quote 8-12. Nomadic life as a source of local conflict in Oºorhei

Nomads today own one horse at the most. As they do not have agricultural land,
they face problems in feeding the horses. Animals are left grazing on the peasants’
hayfields, which generates conflicts and successive arrests. Today transportation by
cart has become an unproductive activity. (Oºorhei, Pantea, 2007)
The case of Gabors is relevant, because tinsmith is more than just a profession; it is an important
part of their community identity. But the demand for this skill has been reduced due to the
modernization of construction techniques and the Gabors cannot afford to buy the expensive materials
and tools now needed by the up to date technology (such as machines for crafting plastic and large-
size tin and copper drainpipes). Moreover, because they are not trusted by the banks, they cannot get
a loan, and therefore cannot set up firms in order to offer their services legally.
130
EMPLOYMENT
Quote 8-13. The impossibility of legalization of “traditional professions” in Oºorhei

Tinsmithing is inherited from one generation to another – young boys begin working at
14 years old and are encouraged to continue the tradition. In recent years they have
established family associations, but they still do not get any diplomas certifying their crafts.
And tinsmithing is not easy. Generally tinsmiths cover an extended geographic area (a
number of counties) where they look for jobs. [...] But the request for tin pipes has been
significantly decreasing and they do not have the technology required for making plastic
pipes. Because they do not have a stable income the banks won’t grant them loans for
purchasing the tools. Therefore, their situation becomes more and more serious. For now
they travel to rural areas, to families who only afford tin works. (Oºorhei, Pantea 2007)
The employment situation of the Gabors is illustrative also for the case of other Roma groups,
living off traditional professions.
Quote 8-14. The problem of legalization of traditional professions in Timiºoara

In presenting the Roma communities from Timiºoara, their traditional occupations
were also mentioned - jobs that in present conditions of market economy and
competition among big companies are harder to carry on than in state communist
period. Many would be happy to apply for the new authorization for these old jobs
(such as the Gabors for drain making), but lack of education marks this difficult for
them. Without authorization all their jobs (such as collecting and storing iron) are
declared illegal and punished by penalties.” (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Most Roma performing traditional professions don’ t have enough information about the legal
framework for such an enterprise. On the one hand, lack of education affects the access to, and the
understanding of, legal means; on the other hand, the relevant information is itself not clear
enough, requiring juridical assistance or advice.
Quote 8-15. Lack of education as impediment to obtain authorization in Timiºoara

“I discussed with Gabors who traditionally work with metals, among whom many have
no licenses and many of them are punished as they work on the black market. They would
like to have a firm, but lack of education is a problem, as local councils cannot issue an
authorization when there are no qualifications. So they practice the job, it is transmitted
from father to son, but they have no qualifications. It is a vicious circle. If Roma would
realize qualification helps to give them a status in life, they would get qualifications. They
should have seen that qualification leads them to better jobs. I found a community of 46
people; they all wanted to have qualifications, all in constructions. By now they should
have been sent to courses. (MP, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
8.1.7 A Special Case: The Former Miners

Quote 8-16. Story of a former miner after the transition, in Lupeni
Besides a number of personal reasons (such as law infringement, incapacity to work
underground, conflicts with management etc), the so-called “ordinance” is a
significant structural factor, which has influenced the lives of a lot of families in
Lupeni – both Roma and non-Roma. The Ordinance is actually the Emergency
Ordinance passed in 1997, according to which miners who give up their jobs willingly
would get a severance payment representing the salary accumulated for a longer
period (6-9 months), without being entitled to any other unemployment benefits
131
QUALITY OF LIFE
later. Many people ‘ filed for the ordinance’ , which at that time they saw as a major
benefit from the government, considering the significant amount they would receive
– around 13 million old lei, in that time. On the other hand, in the miners’ opinion,
it was the best way of dealing with the hardships that were to challenge the mining
industry in the future: it was known that there were going to be massive lay-offs,
there were rumours that people would be fired anyway for unacceptable behaviour or
on age-related grounds, without then being entitled to cash this amount of money.
Most of the time this money was perceived as ’ticket money’ for those who, seeing the
deterioration of their living standards in the city, were planning to go back to their
native villages. We don’t know how many people actually managed to rebuild their
lives in the countryside or elsewhere – we can only estimate. But those who, after a
failure, had to come back to Lupeni, those are the real losers of the Ordinance. Here
is how the people to whom the ordinance has ruined the next ten years of life
reconstruct the history of the changes in their lives:
[...] Man: I was a miner for 21 years, and I was fooled, too, as I wasn’t told about
this amount of pension I have to raise my kids from. I find it very hard to make ends
meet. But I don’t beat and steal.
Woman: My husband was working in the mine, and it wasn’t bad on those times,
not at all.
Man: yes, it was good.
Woman: We had a good life than, as we had money and children were in school.
Cause there was a school made for children not to become vagabonds, as they can
become today. We send them to school, telling them to learn to make a better life. But
now it is hard for us.
M: Communists, these country burglars, made many factories in the whole country,
and than all were sold out.
Question: How much time had you spent in the mine?
M: 18 years and 9 month.
Q: And then you used the benefits of the Ordonanþa? When was that?
M: In 97, when I was 37. I had 8 years to go to 45, but I hadn’t worked in that time
as I couldn’t know what was going to happen. Because all leaders told me: don’t be a
fool, you’ ll come back in a year. Take the money and come back.
Q: How much did you take?
M: 18 millions and 500.
Q: What happened to this money?
M: It’ s all gone. Some was stolen; some was spent on silly things, as man could not
know in those times. You know, we miners were given salaries twice a month, and
not those millions you only feel once in your hand. Money was given twice a month.
And many, many of us left and were killed, all with Ordonanþa. The young and
family men don’t know what it was like.
Q: Didn’t you manage to buy anything at that time?
W: Clothes. We bought pigs for slaughter and sell...
M: All money had gone.
Q: And nothing left?
M: No.
Q: What would you do if you got that sum now?
W: I would know different...
M: Today we couldn’t think what we thought in 97. Now I can make something with 100
thousands in my pocket, but I couldn’t do it then with 18 millions. Nowadays I go and buy
132
EMPLOYMENT
some palinka and cigarettes and have fun. (Laughing.) In those times the sum was a huge
one, not like the millions today. (Man and woman, 53 and 49, Lupeni, Geambaºu 2007)
8.2 Employment Issues in Survey Research

8.2.1 Ethnic Inequalities in Economic Activity
Analysing the jobs of Roma and non-Roma in our sample, we can see differences in the structure
of different kind of activities (see Chart 3-5). While there is a very big difference in having regular
work (more than half the non-Roma has this kind of employment, while less than a quarter of the
Roma do, so the difference is more than double), the situation is more balanced when analysing
data about those do not work (24.1 versus 36.5%). Casual work is much more frequent among
Roma (almost four times the rate of Roma have casual work than the non-Roma), and housework
is also more typical, but the difference is not as great. There are a relatively small proportion of
school population (pupils and students) as we analysed just those older than 18, but among non-
Roma school population’ s rate is almost three times bigger than among Roma adults. When it
comes to school population the level for non-Roma is almost three times higher than it is for
Roma, but it should be noted that we only included adults over 18 as subjects for our analysis.
Chart 8-1. Economic activity by ethnicity (respondents between 18-59 years, percentage)
There are several factors that can influence economic activity. Gender has more or less the same
effect on both kinds of ethnic group (see Chart 3-5). Regular and casual work is more frequent
among men, while housework is far more typical among women. In the Roma sample the latter
difference is greater: four times the rate of women work at home than do men, while this difference
is less than three times amongst non-Roma.
There is no strong gender-specific difference in case of school population, but rate of them among
female in comparison with male is a bit higher in the non-Roma, and a little bit smaller in the Roma
sample. Women are more often economically non-active in the non-Roma sample, while in the Roma
sample there is no difference between men and women when it comes to lack of job possibilities.
133
QUALITY OF LIFE
Chart 8-2. Influence of gender on economic activity by ethnicity

(respondents between 18-59 years, percentage)
Age generates more or less the same tendencies both in the non-Roma and the Roma sample,
with a few important differences. In the case of those who have regular work, the three middle age-
categories are the most active in both samples.
Casual work is most frequent among younger job hunters, but the highest rate of casual work
is under 7% for non-Roma, while it is 19.1% for Roma.
Age leads to the opposite tendency when it comes to housework which is much more typical for
the older age categories in both of our samples.
The rate of school population is generally relatively low, but while more than one third of non-
Roma between 18 and 24 years old are in this category, only 8.8% among young adult Roma are
high school pupils or students.
The rate of those who do not work is the highest in the oldest and youngest age categories,
both in the Roma and the non-Roma sample.
Chart 8-3. Influence of age of respondent on economic activity by ethnicity

EMPLOYMENT
There are strong regional inequalities in opportunities to access regular jobs, both for Roma and non-
Roma, but, in the case of the Roma, the region has an even stronger influence (Chart 8-4). The capital
and its surroundings is the best area for getting a permanent job both for Roma and non-Roma. The
lowest rate of regular workers is in the East and the South for the non-Roma, and in the East for the Roma.
The data shows that the Eastern region presents the greatest inequality in the chances of getting
a job, between the two ethnic groups. But at the same time, the highest rate of casual work among
the Roma is to be found here. As a consequence, ethnic inequality in being inactive is not stronger
in this region than the country average. As a result of these two simultaneous phenomena, in the
category of those having no any work less ethnic inequality is actually in force in this region than
the average for the country.
The highest rate of inactive Roma and non-Roma is in the South, but the greatest inequality
between the two ethnic groups is in Bucharest-Ilfov.
Chart 8-4. Economic activity by regions and by ethnicity

In the case of the non-Roma there is a clear tendency: the smaller the location, the lower the
rate of those having permanent work. It is almost the same in the case of Roma, with an exception:
the highest rate of Roma without permanent work is in the smaller cities. The rate of those who
do not work is highest in the smaller villages in the case of the non-Roma, but in the smaller cities
in case of the Roma. It seems that smaller cities are the most problematic locations for Roma,
considering their formal position in the labour market. But, at the same time, smaller cities provide
the best chance of casual work for Roma.
135
QUALITY OF LIFE
Chart 8-5. Economic activity by type of location and by ethnicity

8.2.2 Distribution of Economic Sectors

Almost a third of economically active Roma work in agriculture and forestry, compared to only
13.4% of non-Roma. Almost a quarter of non-Roma work in services compared with 18.1% of
Roma working in this sector. (See Table 8-1)
After agriculture, the second greatest difference between Roma and non-Roma workers rates is
seen in education, science, health and culture: in this category, almost one tenth of non-Roma
work, compared with less than 2% of members of Roma households.
Construction is also a sector with a higher rate of Roma workers, while all the other sectors
offer more job opportunities for non-Roma.
Table 8-1. Distribution of economic sectors by ethnicity (respondents aged 18-59, percentage)
Roma Non-Roma
Education, science, health, culture 1.8 9.9
Transport 3.7 8.8
Other 6.3 7.5
Industry, mining 7.3 10.5
Trade 11.5 13.9
Construction 18.8 11.4
Services 18.1 24.7
Agriculture, forestry 32.4 13.4
Total 100.0 100.0
8.2.3 Effect of Spatial Segregation

The social and ethnic composition of the locality and neighbourhood only had an influence on
the economic activity of the members of Roma households (see Table 8-2 and Table 8-3 ).
When it comes to regular work, the most favourable settlements and neighbourhoods for the
Roma are those where poor and better-off people are living together. While social segregation in
EMPLOYMENT
the locality has no significant influence on having casual work, the rate of those trying to live from
casual work is highest in socially segregated neighbourhoods.
The situation is more or less the same with housework, where the social segregation of the
locality has the same effect.
The proportion of school population among Roma is highest in socially segregated localities,
but from this point ethnically mixed neighbourhoods are more favourable for them.
When Roma live with a majority of non-Roma in one locality they are more likely to be
economically non-active. While ethnic segregation of the locality has a slightly positive effect on
Roma having any kind of work (those with no work at all is lower in ethnically segregated
localities), living in segregated Roma neighbourhoods is a disadvantage in this respect.
Table 8-2. Economic activity of Roma by social composition of the locality and the neighbourhood
(Roma respondents aged 18-59, percentage)
Pupils or
Regular work Casual work House-work Do not work Total
students
Total 22.0 17.5 21.3 2.6 36.5 100.0
Social composition of the locality
Majority is poor 19.9 17.7 23.9 3.5 34.9 100.0
Mixed 25.1 17.1 19.8 1.9 36.1 100.0
Majority is non-poor 19.2 19.6 17.8 1.4 42.0 100.0
Social composition of the neighbourhood
Majority is poor 21.0 19.0 21.8 2.6 35.6 100.0
Mixed 28.4 9.6 19.8 2.9 39.3 100.0
Majority is non-poor 25.5 13.5 14.9 2.1 44.0 100.0
Table 8-3. Economic activity of Roma by ethnic composition of the locality and the neighbourhood
(Roma respondents aged 18-59, percentage)
Pupils or
Regular work Casual work House-work Do not work Total
student
Total 22.0 17.5 21.3 2.6 36.5 100.0
Ethnic composition of the locality
Majority is Roma 18.4 20.3 26.6 3.2 31.5 100.0
Majority is Non-Roma 23.3 16.7 20.1 2.4 37.4 100.0
Ethnic composition of the neighbourhood
Majority is Roma 19.6 17.7 22.1 2.4 38.3 100.0
Majority is Non-Roma 36.4 10.6 15.9 3.5 33.6 100.0

Points to Highlight
• There is a very wide ethnic difference in having regular work - more than half of the non-
Roma compared to less than a quarter of the Roma, so the difference is more than double.
• The situation is a little bit more balanced when analysing data about those who do not
work: 24.1% of non-Roma compared to 36.5% of Roma.
137
QUALITY OF LIFE
• Casual work is much more frequent among Roma (the rate of Roma with casual work is
almost four times that of the non-Roma). Among young job hunters (between 18 and 24
years old) the highest rate of casual work performance is under 7% for the non-Roma,
while it is 19.1% for the Roma.
• Women are more frequently economically non-active in the non-Roma sample, while in
the Roma sample there is no difference between men and women who do not have any
working possibilities.
• The proportion of school population is generally relatively low, but while more than one
third of non-Roma between 18 and 24 years old are in this category, only 8.8% of young
adult Roma are enrolled in school institutions (pupils, students, etc)
• The capital and its surrounding is the best place to get a permanent job both for Roma and
non-Roma.
• The lowest rate of regular workers is in the East and the South in the case of non-Roma,
and in the East in the case of Roma.
• In the case of the non-Roma there is a clear tendency: the smaller the location, the lower
the rate of those having permanent work. It is almost the same in the case of the Roma, with
one exception: the highest rate of Roma without permanent work is in the smaller cities.
• The economically active Roma people are most likely to have work in agriculture and
forestry (almost one third of them are working in this sector), while the rate of non-Roma
working in agriculture and forestry is 13.4%.
• Almost one tenth of non-Roma work in the sectors of education, science, health and
culture, compared with less than 2% of members of Roma households.
• For having regular work, the most favourable settlements and neighbourhoods for the
Roma are those where poor and better-off people are living together.
• The rate of Roma trying to live from casual work is the highest in socially segregated
neighbourhoods, where the majority of inhabitants are poor.
• The proportion of school population among Roma adults is the highest in socially
segregated localities, but from this point ethnically mixed neighbourhood is more
favourable for them.
• When Roma live with a majority of non-Roma in one locality they are more likely to be
economically non-active. While ethnic segregation of the locality has a slightly positive effect
on Roma having any kind of work (those with no work at all is lower in ethnically segregated
localities), living in segregated Roma neighbourhoods is a disadvantage in this respect.
After the political and economic transition the labour market can be characterized as a race for
resources causing strain. Under these socio-economic circumstances of scarcity, many people
living in a disadvantaged situation are forced to find alternative ways for survival, outside the formal
labour market. Most Roma people are confronted with this situation. Education and professional
backgrounds are pre-conditions for being hired for qualified jobs; from this point of view most
Roma are worse off than non-Roma. Some people survive only from the social benefit (which is
not sufficient for the basic needs of a large family), which can be higher in some cases than the
salary earned in another village minus the transportation costs and the living costs of being away
from home. Some labour training could be crucial, but due to the lack of opportunity for being
hired legally afterwards, they may manage to get involved in another project. Without real long-
term results in getting formal jobs, these labour training programmes are just postponing the
unemployment of some Roma people by some months, and only in a few individual cases.
Nowadays we can see a structural transformation of the “traditional professions”. In a modern,
globalized economy, these forms of pre-modern economic activities are unprofitable and in most
cases are more important as part of the identity of the group than real sources of income. The need
138
EMPLOYMENT
for such works had been reduced due to the effects of modernization which are everywhere. There
is a lack of information offered by Local Authorities and the lack of education hinders access to
legal and profitable opportunities.
The disadvantaged population (especially Roma, who can be easily stigmatized) is more and
more dependant on the Local Authorities since their main income sources (such as social benefits
and community work) stem from local (from point of view of Roma also Gadjo) institutions. This
situation reinforces their defenceless position in local society which is anyway strongly hierarchical.
139
9 Income and Expenditure
This chapter explores data on income and expenditures from the survey research, using a
comparative perspective.
9.1 Access to Income

Data on income was obtained from heads of Roma households, who enumerated the incomes
of all family members for the previous month (July). In order to eliminate any problems associated
with the different age structure of the two populations only the incomes of adults were compared.
The proportion of those who did not have any income in the reference-month was more than
two times higher for the Roma than for the non-Roma: 41,9% of the Roma compared to the
20,2% of non-Roma.
Chart 9-1. Access to at least one type of income by ethnicity of the respondent
(respondents over 18 years, percentage)
Access to income is determined by a series of factors. Among them we will focus on age, gender,
type of residential locality, region, and ethnic residential segregation inside the locality.
Age has a considerable effect on income-access, acting in different ways on both populations (Table
9-1). At the start of adulthood both Roma and non-Roma have equal access to income sources, but
from then on differences increase rapidly with age: in the 25-34 age-group more than 20% less Roma
have some kind of income compared to non-Roma in the same age bracket. In older age the difference
remains roughly constant, with the greatest difference being apparent in the age-group 55-64.
Gender also has a significant effect on access to income. In both cases its effect is negative for
women, but for the Roma, the difference between the proportion of men and women with income
is greater than for the non-Roma.
Linkage between type of location and access to income seems to be linear: the smaller the
locality, the lower the proportion of those with income. As could be expected, with the Roma this
connection is stronger. In the capital the difference between proportion of Roma and non-Roma
earners is significantly smaller than in the villages.
Linkage between size of locality and access to incomes seems to be linear: the smallest the
locality, the lowest the proportion of those with income. As it could be expected, in case of the
Roma population this connection is stronger. In the capital the difference between proportion of
Roma and non-Roma earners is significantly smaller than in villages.
140
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
Looking at the proportion of those with at least one type of income, a far greater proportion of
Roma have an income in Bucharest and Ilfov county compared to other regions of the country. In
the eastern and southern regions both Roma and non-Roma have the most difficult access to
incomes. In the western region the proportion of non-Roma with income is the same as non-
Roma earners from Bucharest. However, despite the likely greater income possibilities for this
region, the proportion of Roma earners here is not significantly higher than in other regions.
Table 9-1. Effects of different socio-economic factors on access to at least one type of income
(affirmative responses, percentage)
Roma Non-Roma
Total 55.8 77.8
Age
18 – 24 41.3 40.3
25 – 34 54.9 76.3
35 – 44 58.3 80.3
45 – 54 61.9 78.1
55 – 64 61.5 88.2
over 65 80.5 93.6
Gender
Male 63.3 82
Female 48.4 73.9
Type of location
Bucharest 76.2 84.7
Other cities 58.6 79.1
Rural 51.9 76.4
Region
East 54.9 74.3
South 53.8 71.9
West 55.3 82.9
Bucharest + Ilfov 67.9 80.7
For the Roma respondents the effect of residential segregation on access to income seems to be
obvious: those living in segregated districts have a significantly lower proportion with at least one
type of income compared to those living in non-Roma neighbourhoods.
Chart 9-2. Effect of residential segregation on access of Roma

to at least one type of income (percentage)
141
QUALITY OF LIFE
If the Roma population constitutes the majority of a locality, their chance of having some income
is lower than in localities with majority of non-Roma.
Chart 9-3. Effect of ethnic composition of the settlement on access of Roma

to at least one type of income (percentage)
Put into a single linear-regression model, we can make some conclusions regarding the relative
importance of the above discussed factors and their effect on the access of the Roma to at least one
type of income.
The strongest influence on income access is age (the older the respondent the greater the chance
of having an income), followed by gender (males have a greater chance of earning) followed by type
of locality (bigger settlements have better income access).
Taking only the Roma, segregation inside the location proved to have the weakest effect on
income access, and the ethnic composition of the settlement has no significance at all.
Chart 9-4. Linear-regression model of the effect of different factors on the probability
of having at least one type of income (Roma population, respondents over 18 years)
9.2 Types of Income

The most important source of incomes for the Roma population proved to be the maternity
leave, child benefit, family allowance and other social benefits (for 26.1% of the Roma population).
Next in importance is social benefit (guaranteed minimal income), for the 14.4% of those who
formed our Roma-sample.
The situation is significantly different when it comes to members of non-Roma households:
pensions (including disability pension, state benefit for handicapped and war veterans) are the
most frequently mentioned sources of income.
142
Table 9-2. Main income sources by ethnicity (percentage)

Types of main income sources Roma Non-Roma
Maternity leave, child benefit, family allowance and other social benefits 26.1 11.6
Social benefit 14.4 2.0
Pension, including disability pension, state aid for handicapped 13.0 38.6
Remunerative work for neighbours, friends 12.2 2.4
Regular income from private company, organization 11.8 19.0
Regular income from state or municipal institution, company 6.2 17.4
Payment for casual work in private company, organization 2.7 1.0
Income from goods sold at fairs, markets, flea markets 2.4 0.1
Remittances from abroad 2.3 0.6
Profit from own enterprise 1.7 2.2
Other 1.7 1.0
Other social benefits from government or local government 1.3 0.3
Unemployment benefit 1.1 0.7
Money from selling collected recyclable materials 0.9 0.0
Stipends, scholarships 0.8 0.9
Income from sale of home-grown agricultural products 0.4 1.0
Money from informal personal activities such as gambling, begging 0.2 0.0
Aid from civil organizations, support from foundations 0.2 0.0
Remittances from relatives 0.2 0.1
Payment for casual work in governmental institution, company 0.2 0.6
Salary, payment for work in civil organization, NGO 0.1 0.3
Loan 0.1 0.0
Heritage 0.1 0.0
Income from rent or interest 0.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0
After categorization of income sources differences are even more obvious between the two samples.
The highest proportion of income for non-Roma is from formal activities (40.5%) and pension
(38.6%), while Roma households live mostly from non-active sources (43%) and non-formal activities
(22.7%). We can rightly suppose that most Roma in our sample are outside the formal economy,
while the main income of almost 80% of non-Roma is either from formal activities or from pensions.
Chart 9-5. Categories of main income sources by ethnicity (percentage)
143
QUALITY OF LIFE
Differences in the age-structure of the two populations must also be taken into account in this
case, because the higher percentage of Roma children increases the number of certain state-
allowances/amount of state allowance for the Roma. For this reason, in the following, we have
separated the income structure of those under 18 years old from that of the adults (over 18 ).
Comparing the income structure of the children (see Table 9-3), a clear difference can be seen
when it comes to work for neighbours or friends for money, probably covering widespread day-
labouring. This way of earning money is unknown for young non-Roma.
Regarding access to stipends and scholarships non-Roma children proved to have an advantage
over Roma children, and the situation is the same with disability pensions.
Table 9-3. Proportion of main income sources for children, by ethnicity

(respondents under 18 years, percentage)
Types of main income sources Roma Non-Roma
Maternity leave, child benefit, family allowance and other social benefits 79.3 85.0
Stipends, scholarships 2.7 3.9
Other 5.0 3.0
Total 100.0 100.0
Among the adult population there are evident differences in the income-structure of Roma and
non-Roma (see Table 9-4). While for adult Roma the most important source of income is the social
benefit, pension and disability pension, regular salaries from private companies, and also informal
work (probably day-labouring); for non-Roma the three most important income sources are
pensions (including disability pensions) and regular salaries from private- and state-sector.
Despite the fact that pensions are very important sources of income for both Roma and non-
Roma, here we also find the greatest difference between the two populations: while pensions
constitute the most important sources of income for 42.6% of the non-Roma population, that is
true for only 16.7% of the Roma.
There is also a significant difference in the frequency of regular earnings from state or municipal
institutions; access to this sector is being difficult for Roma. In other words, the private sector seems
to increase the chances of access to income sources from formal economy for the Roma.
Working for neighbours or friends for money seems to be again characteristic for the Roma, and
being insignificant for the non-Roma. We can suppose a strongly hierarchical and unequal
relationship between poor Roma families and their non-Roma neighbours in local societies.
Table 9-4. Main income sources for adults, by ethnicity (respondents over 18 years, percentage)
Roma Non-Roma
Maternity leave, child benefit, family allowance and others 8.4 3.2
144
Roma Non-Roma
Payment for casual work from private company, organization 3.5 1.1
Profit from own enterprise 2.3 2.4
Income from sale of home-grown agricultural products 0.6 1.1
Other 2.6 2.5
Total 100.0 100.0
The importance of different types of income is determined by a series of factors. In the following
we will discuss two of them – the effect of locality-type and of gender. The type of locality has a
significant effect on the opportunity of accessing regular jobs in the private sector: in the capital,
regular incomes from private companies become the most important income source, state
allowances losing their importance. In the villages the situation is the opposite – income from the
private sector is rare, while social benefit is more important. Pensions are also more important in
the villages, probably due to the massive employment of Roma workers on the cooperative farms
during the period of socialism. Informal work is again less important in the capital, but more
important in villages and in other towns.
Regular income from state or municipal institutions proved to be equally unimportant in each
type of locality.
Table 9-5. Main income sources of Roma adults by type of locality (percentage)
Bucharest Other cities Rural
Regular income from a private company, organization 36.0 18.1 9.8
Social benefit 14.5 13.6 23.0
Maternity leave, child benefit, family allowance and others 11.4 6.4 9.3
Pension, including disability pension, state aid for handicapped 10.1 16.3 18.1
Regular income from state or municipal institution, company 7.0 8.7 8.1
Other social benefits from government or local government 5.7 0.1 0.5
Remunerative work for neighbours, friends 5.1 14.1 15.5
Money from selling collected recyclable materials 1.9 1.4 1.0
Profit from own enterprise 1.3 3.6 1.6
Unemployment benefit 1.3 0.4 2.4
Income from goods sold at fairs, markets, flea markets 1.3 3.3 3.2
Remittances from abroad 1.3 4.4 2.2
Payment for casual work from private company, organization 0.6 6.3 1.9
Payment for casual work from government institution company 0.6 0.1 0.2
Other (detail) 1.9 3.2 3.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
The structure of income sources seems to be different for Roma men and women as twice the
number of men have informal work than women. Access to regular incomes from the private
sector depends much less on gender.
145
QUALITY OF LIFE
Work-related earnings being more common for men, state benefits/allowances are the most
important sources of income for women.
Money transfers received from family members who are working abroad are more frequently
the most important income-source for women than for men. Probably the phenomenon of single
male migrants working abroad and sending money home is behind this figure.
Table 9-6. Main income sources of Roma adults by gender (percentage)

Male Female
Maternity leave, child benefit, family allowance and others 5.1 12.7
Payment for casual work from private company, organization 4.3 2.3
Profit of own enterprise 3.1 1.2
Other 2.6 4.0
Total 100.0 100.0
9.3 Amount of Income

Collecting data on monthly income creates some methodological problems, as the respondents
tend to report lower incomes than they really have. This data therefore has less certain) informative
value but can be used to analyze the relative differences of income level between types of income
source as well as for comparisons between ethnic groups.
The average income of non-Roma is approximately 40% higher than that of the Roma (see
Table 9-7). This great difference can partially be explained by the differences in the age-structure
of the two populations, as the greater number of Roma children with low income decreases the
average value of income per person in the Roma population. To get a clear picture of disadvantage
that the Roma have when it comes to the amount of income we have to limit the analyses to adults.
Table 9-7. Average monthly income by ethnicity (total sample, RON, Euro)
Average income Average income
RON Euro*
Non-Roma sample 532 170
Roma sample 327 104
* Based on July 2007 currency rate, 1 EURO = 3,133 RON.
From now on we will use this currency rate for calculating incomes in EURO.
146
For adults the difference between Roma and non-Roma income level is smaller, but still
significant as Roma adults earn 27% less than non-Roma adults.
Table 9-8. Average monthly income by ethnicity (respondents over 18 years, RON, Euro)
RON Euro
Non-Roma sample 593 189
Roma sample 432 138
At all ages income level is different for Roma and non-Roma (see Chart 9-6). As Roma people
start working at a younger age, in the under 18 age group Roma income is slightly higher than that
of the non-Roma. But in early adulthood the income level of non-Roma increases fast and in the
age group 25-34 years the income-level of the Roma is lower than 60% of the income level of the
non-Roma. The difference decreases in the next age group, but in middle-age it becomes even
higher (the average income for Roma being only 54.4% of the non-Roma average income). In
older age this disparity decreases, almost evening out in the oldest age group.
Chart 9-6. Average monthly income by age groups (total sample, RON)
9.3.1 Influences on Income Level

Based on the level of income, there seem to be three main sources of income for the Roma (in
descending order of importance):
– The profit from own enterprises and from remittances received from family members
working abroad;
– Regular salaries (from the private or state sector) and the selling of goods in markets
ensures that Roma income is close to the average for Romanians in general;
– Informal work and different state allowances bring in the lowest income. In this category
casual work for private companies ensures the highest income level, but this is still
significantly lower than regular salaries. The income from informal work for neighbours
and friends is lower than the average for pensions.
Table 9-9. Average monthly income for Roma by type of income sources (RON, Euro)
N
RON EURO
Profit from own enterprise 1231 393 20
Remittances from abroad 916 293 21
Regular income from state or municipal institutions, companies 756 241 112
Income from goods sold at fairs, markets, flea markets 718 229 37
Types of income are only included, where the number of cases is higher than 10.
147
QUALITY OF LIFE

N
RON EURO
Regular income from private company, organization 687 219 267
Payment for casual work from private company, organization 408 130 58
Pension, including disability pension, state aid for handicapped 321 102 261
Work for neighbours, friends for money 255 82 202
Unemployment benefit 204 65 24
Social benefit 194 62 273
Stipends, scholarships 165 53 13
Money from selling collected recyclable materials 145 46 11
Other social benefits from government or local government 127 40 21
Maternity leave, child benefit, family allowance and others 68 22 550
As Chart 9-7 shows, the type of economic activity has no influence on ethnic inequalities in
income, except in the category of pupils and students, where the differences disappear. In all other
sectors non-Roma has around one and a half times higher monthly income than Roma – including
the economically inactive respondents.
Chart 9-7. Monthly income by economic activity and by ethnicity

(respondents between 18-59 years, Euro)24
Inequalities between the two samples are strongly influenced by economic sectors (Table 9-
10). In construction, the second most frequent sector for Roma, income difference is the widest,
while in transport and trade incomes are on the same level. Those Roma who work in “education,
science, health, culture” have the chance to earn more than non-Roma. We could suppose that this
situation has been influenced by education: namely, that with a higher level of education the Roma
have better chance of avoiding ethnic inequalities in income.
Table 9-10. Monthly income by economic sectors and by ethnicity

Inequality-
Non-Roma Roma
index
Industry, mining 237 177 1.3
Construction 344 203 1.7
Transport 259 257 1.0
24 July 2007 currency rate: 1 EURO = 3.133 RON

25 See footnote 24
148
Inequality-
Non-Roma Roma
index
Trade 268 259 1.0
Agriculture, forestry 147 97 1.5
Services 274 179 1.5
Education, science, health, culture 287 304 0.9
Other 242 154 1.6
Total 264 175 1.5
As Table 9-11 makes clear the higher the level of education, the higher the level of income for
both Roma and non-Roma. But a difference emerges when we look at school examination level.
The greatest difference can be seen in the category of those who have less than 4 grades, where
non-Roma have 1.8 times higher income than Roma. In the following categories inequalities are
not as big. In the next category up to incomplete gymnasium Roma have a slightly better chance
to earn more, while in the three higher categories non-Roma have a bit of advantage.
Table 9-11. Monthly income by level of education and by ethnicity

Inequality
Non-Roma Roma
index
None or incomplete elementary 168 91 1.8
Elementary, incomplete gymnasium or special school 111 135 0.8
Gymnasium, or incomplete high school 174 154 1.1
High school 226 211 1.1
Post-liceal, student, university 338 292 1.2
Total 228 145 1.6
Income level, just as access to incomes, is determined by various factors. Using a linear-
regression model we can see that income level is mainly determined by four variables. The most
important is level of education (those who finish school later earn more), followed by the social
composition of the neighbourhood (Roma living in neighbourhoods with majority of non-Roma
have better chance to earn more). Then, gender (men earn more than women) and type of locality
(smaller localities mean lower incomes).
Chart 9-8. Linear-regression model of the effect of different factors on Roma income level
(respondents over 18 years)
26 See footnote 24
149
QUALITY OF LIFE

Points to Highlight
• 41,9% of Roma had no income in the reference month compared to 20,2% of non-Roma
– in other words, almost twice the number of Roma had no income in this period.
• The smaller the locality, the higher the proportion of Roma and non-Roma without any
income and for the Roma this connection is stronger. In Bucharest the difference between
the proportion of Roma and non-Roma earners is significantly smaller than in the villages.
• Roma who live in Bucharest and Ilfov County have at least one type of income in a far
greater proportion than in other regions of the country. Access to income is most difficult
in the eastern and southern regions, for both Roma and non-Roma.
• The effect of residential segregation on the Roma’ s access to income seems to be obvious:
those living in ethnic segregated districts have significantly lower chance to access at least
one type of income than those living in non-Roma neighbourhoods.
• The most important source of income for the Roma proved to be maternity leave, the child
benefit, the family allowance and other social benefits (for 26.1% of the Roma population).
After this in importance is social benefit (guaranteed minimal income), for the 14.4% of
those who formed our Roma sample.
• The highest proportion of income for non-Roma is from formal activities (40.5%) and
pension (38.6%), while Roma get their living mostly from non-active sources (43%) and
non-formal activities (22.7%). Based on the main income sources we can rightly suppose
that most Roma in our sample are outside the formal economy. Almost two thirds of them
get their living from non-active sources and non-formal activities, while almost 80% of
non-Roma main income is either from formal activities or from pensions.
• While pensions are the most important source of income for 42.6% of the non-Roma, that
is true for only 16.7% of Roma.
• Remunerative work for neighbours or friends seems to be characteristic for Roma while it
is insignificant for non-Roma. We can therefore suppose that there is a strongly
hierarchical and unequal relationship between poor Roma families and their non-Roma
neighbours in the local society.
• On average, Roma adults earn 27% less than non-Roma adults.
• Inequalities in income level between the two samples are strongly influenced by economic
sectors. In construction, the second most important sector of employment for Roma,
income difference between Roma and non-Roma is the greatest, while in transport and
trade incomes are on the same level. Roma who work in “education, science, health,
culture” have the chance to earn more than non-Roma.
• Education level strongly influences income level. For both Roma and non-Roma the higher
the level of education, the higher the level of income. The effect of ethnic inequalities on
income differs according to the level of education. The highest difference is in the lowest
school categories (those who have less than 4 grades), where non-Roma have 1.8 times
higher income than Roma.
150
PART IV
AGENTS OF CHANGE
10 Education Issues
Education is generally considered a key factor for social inclusion of the Roma population into
Romanian society – but this is where the consensus ends. While some practical measures have
been taken to improve school participation of the Roma pupils, to decrease school segregation
and to increase the visibility of Roma culture, these measures have not yet led to a substantial
change in the risk of school failure for Roma pupils.
Beyond the individual practices and achievements in school, we must also bear in mind that education
is a right for all children, enshrined in Romanian legislation, and that from the perspective of the citizen
and taxpayer the educational system is responsible for providing the right conditions for learning.
There are two main questions related to education and Roma pupils, from the point of view of
the policy maker:
1. Why are schools unable to provide efficient educational services for Roma children and
their families?
2. How can this situation be improved?
Community research and quantitative data supports the common knowledge that, in many
communities, there is a high likelihood of educational failure for Roma pupils, and that level of
education is a powerful force in shaping one' s path of life and in moving out of extreme poverty.
At the same time, several other observations frame, in a broader context, these two conclusions:
1. Educational participation and success for Roma pupils can be achieved by adjusting the
organization of educational services to the needs and conditions of the community;
2. Access to education can be no silver bullet for the stigma and discrimination confronting
the Þigani, and the multiple mechanisms that lead to social exclusion.
Even so, data indicates that changes in the Romanian educational system that would make it
more appealing to Roma parents and children would probably be met with resistance. For example,
we have seen that only one third of non-Roma respondents agree to teaching issues of Roma
history and culture to all pupils (see Table 3-1). Affirmative action is still a disputed topic among
the non-Roma: almost 80% of the Roma respondents favour reserved places for Roma in high
school, compared to one half of the non-Roma respondents.
Quote 10-1. The debated role of education

Finally, what should be boldly underlined is that education is not the ultimate solution
for the Roma problems, as is often asserted by different officials. This old paradigm
of the Enlightenment, that equates formal education with social emancipation as the
sole solution, is not necessarily applicable for a group that has been historically and
structurally marginalized, like the Roma. Education would work only if other forms
of emancipation (political, economic etc.) were provided for the Roma by society at
large. (Sîntana de Mureº, Troc 2007)
In order to find solutions, the issue of school failure should probably be interpreted as a broader question
about the meaning of school experience for Roma pupils and parents, as compared to its significance for
non-Roma families. Connections between living conditions, values, expectations and school activity are
more complex than the simple equation of poverty with short-term goals/limited horizons. School
experience is just a fragment of overall daily life and the social involvement of both Roma and non-Roma
- it is not an isolated reality. The significance of school, its school career and its achievements and failures,
are all influenced by, and interconnected with, the other realities of everyday life.
153
AGENTS OF CHANGE
Quote 10-2. Caught between two worlds in the Zãbrãuþi schools, Bucharest
An additional problem is that children seem to get caught between two different
worlds: school on the one hand, where they are educated along certain guidelines,
and their daily lives which are characterized by different social codes and values.
Children are often hindered from having a harmonious personal development,
precisely because of their belonging to two different social realities which hardly
communicate at the moment. (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
10.1 Education Issues Reflected

in Community Reports
Community reports reflect the different school career of Roma and non-Roma children; the
relationships between children, parents and institutions, and also explore the significance itself of
school and education.
Another interesting aspect of the collected data concerns the history of education: the personal
histories of education in different households and the history of education in the respective
localities. This is important for an understanding of the situation today and its causes, but also for
a wider perspective on the processes and outcomes of education.
The community reports revealed a discrepancy between two general points of view: one stating
that the younger generations have a lower level of education and that educational achievements
have been lower in the last two decades; the other, maintained by older teachers (such as those from
Sântana), that school attendance level was no higher during the communist period.
Some of the respondents interviewed (of different ages, from different communities, both Roma
and non-Roma) expressed the opinion that school used to be better, that teachers used to be more
qualified and more respected, that school used to have a more important role in the community
and that everybody learned at least basic reading and writing skills. Other interviews reveal that
there is a “hidden” lack of education on the part of the Roma elders: even if the elders used to have
a higher level of school attendance, it was only a formal attendance, as they really didn’ t learn
anything and were just left, sitting in the back of the class, drawing by themselves.
The example of Sântana also reveals something of the methods and achievements of the
education system: the generation born in the 40’ s had good results, many Roma going to college
and getting good jobs, and also migrating to the big cities; after this “boom”, the education level
decreased, and now there are only two young Roma adults with college degrees, obtained through
special programmes for Roma (see Sântana, C. Goina 2007).
The history of education for the Roma in Nuºfalãu is relevant to other Roma communities: during
Communism, many Roma had no permanent residence in a locality. Children attended different
schools (when they did), at different ages, and were very often in the situation of having a change of
teaching language, depending on the majority population in the locality. They are now the parents’
generation who, even if they are open to participating in the educational process of their children, have
difficulties themselves in reading and writing, turning them into outsiders (see Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007).
10.1.1 Educational Failure

The communities studied have in common stories about a very few children who took the
“Capacitate” test (after 8 years of school) but then gave up school after the 10th grade. For
example, in the whole city of Curtici, in the last few years, only one Roma girl took the exam, but
she, as well, stopped after the 10th grade.
154
EDUCATION ISSUES
The researchers agree that school failure and school abandonment generate low social mobility
in the Roma communities and bring about a series of negative effects, leading to a vicious circle
of other failures and economic traps.
The decision to leave school early has a complex mixture of causes, which reveal the nature of
the educational situation if they are considered together.
Quote 10-3. The complex cause for the decision to leave school, in Dolhasca
If we think about school failure, the main reasons can be found in the precarious
physical situation, the difficulty of walking daily the four kilometres to the school
(teachers believe that a transportation means would significantly improve attendance),
marriage, the need for a workforce in the household, and the lack of motivation for
pursuing education (many find it difficult to imagine themselves in a completely
different situation than the one of the other community members - they do not know
the tangible benefits of education, while the better informed believe that anyway their
ethnicity would prevent them from getting good jobs). (Dolhasca, Lazãr 2007)
The researchers could identify two general types of causes leading to school abandonment and
failure: the formal ones, embedded in the education system itself, and the structural ones that
affect the everyday lives of the Roma communities and, implicitly, the children’ s lives.
Formal Failures in Education

The formal failures in education refer to the gaps in the education system and to the failures
registered by the education institutions themselves. These are “external” failures that affect Roma
as well as non-Roma communities, and the general level of inclusion in education.
Equipment and infrastructure shortages, together with the crisis of teacher numbers, are the
general problems facing the education system in Romania. The rural areas suffer most from this
shortage – the poorest and most vulnerable communities (including most of the Roma
communities) being particularly affected, especially the geographically marginal ones.
The example of Gulia community in Dolhasca is relevant to other Roma communities:
kindergartens are improvised in private houses, through the effort of the teachers; classes are
overcrowded, with children of different ages mixed together; the learning materials are personal
contributions from the teachers; and the teachers are young, with little experience and only a post
high school degree, and therefore overwhelmed by the situation they have to manage.
Such conditions lead to a paradox: when more children are brought into the educational system,
the quality of education suffers.
Quote 10-4. Higher school attendance leading to lower quality of education, in Nuºfalãu
“Yes, fewer parents enrol their children in the Hungarian classes, although that would
be better for them. They could learn more easily there, than in the Romanian language
classes which are generally smaller, speaking about the Romanian children, and thus
the Roma children represents the majority in these classes. Poor teacher hardly can
maintain the discipline among them, because they are not attentive. They have to
work hard as well, because they have nine Roma children and three or four Romanian
children. And they have to practice separately with each of them, on different levels,
because the Romanian parent maybe expects a higher level from his child...” (Teacher
at the Hungarian secondary school, 7th grade, Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
Another generally known and much debated factor is the distance to the educational institutions
and the lack of public transport in many rural settlements. This also affects the rural Roma communities.
155
AGENTS OF CHANGE
For example, the children from Gulia would have to walk 4 km to school, on a bad road, or pay 4 Ron
(approximately 1.3 Euros) each day to the local drivers (car owners using their cars as a taxi).
The case study in Curtici reveals another important institutional gap: many Roma children from
Curtici had experiences of living abroad, where they were registered in the host country schools
and received school records. But these records are not valid/cannot be used for re-registration in
Romania. So these children would have to repeat classes, as if they didn’ t know anything, even if
they were already past the normal age for the class.
In recent years, the fact that most Roma children have not been attending kindergarten has
generated much debate. Lack of pre-school education is perceived as one of the main causes of
school failure, early abandonment and poor school performance of Roma children.
To complete the data from the Survey, the community reports indeed showed (from interviews with
school staff and with data collected from the local authorities) that pre-school attendance is low in the
Roma communities, especially for the reasons given above – inadequate materials and geographical
distance to these institutions. To illustrate: in Nuºfalãu, the director of the kindergarten stated that a
maximum 10% of Roma children enrol every year, mostly from Romanian speaking groups.
The research in Cluj (Byron street community) highlighted an important phenomenon, which is
partly the result of formal failures in the educational system: the registration of Roma children in
special schools (schools for children with special needs), although they are not mentally challenged.
Considering the educational methods and the formal character of these methods (as opposed to
the new interactive and socially stimulating methods), the researchers showed that there is a gap
between them and the children’ s needs, especially the children living in precarious and crowded
conditions and they stressed the advantages of a more flexible way of teaching and learning.
Quote 10-5. Advantages of new learning techniques

The more recent methods show that in an efficient educational process, the graduation
level and the grades obtained by the pupils should be compliant with the Gauss curve,
namely the 7.5 average. From this point of view, the educational system is to be blamed
for the failure of the Roma pupils in graduating at least from the first four classes. It
is clear that there is discrimination against the Roma children. There is no doubt that
non-Roma parents continue to avoid the mixed classes. (Oºorhei, Pantea 2007)
The “repeaters” (repetenþi) are another issue related to formal failure. The teachers confessed
to the researchers that they don’ t know which is better: to give strict marks and to promote only
the deserving children, leading to a higher risk of the “repeaters” abandoning school altogether;
or to promote all the pupils, with the risk of some not learning properly.
Teaching the Romani language in school is yet another complex issue, as the first chapters of this
report showed. It is also associated with technical difficulties, such as the heterogeneity of Romani
dialects in different communities – a heterogeneity that is not considered at all in the curriculum.
Quote 10-6. Romani language in school – the case of Dolhasca

The Romani language that children learn in school is different from the language they
speak in various communities, so it is often learned as a foreign language. The most difficult
part is grammar, which is quite abstract and theoretical for the children. School learning
can also interfere with the natural language use. Also, the children who have spoken Romani
when young mistake often Romani with Romanian words. (Dolhasca, Lazãr 2007)
School Attendance and Educational Failure

There are many factors that contribute, with overlapping or alternative influences, to this systematic
school failure of the Roma pupils. Complementing the formal failures, community researchers indicate
156
EDUCATION ISSUES
the influence of language, communication problems and lack of familiarity, marriage practices,
household child labour, and also the difficult choice one must make between urgent needs and future
investments. In the case of very poor families, this choice is often biased towards the first option.
Quote 10-7. Problems of school attendance in Sfântu Gheorghe

The gravest problems for the school are high number of absences and school
abandoning; Roma children usually have to help their parents in many business
(housework: nursing children, cleaning, bringing water and wood, working by day
alongside their parents in agriculture - GK), so they don’ t come to school. School
presence is rather high in wintertime, due to the heating and the food offered. (1 lunch
per student for the whole school year provided by Caritas Sfântu Gheorghe - GK)
Abandoning school is also a major problem. “About 20 pupils start the 5th form, but
only ten graduate it.” (AK, teacher). They get married in the meantime; have to go
to work inside or outside the country, some got bored, some fail to pass the class. As
KA (teacher) says: “...marriage prevents children in carrying on their education, as
they are stopped to do it by their spouses. Although there are some guaranteed places
in high schools for Roma, they fail to take them as being afraid of requirements or
having no material. (Sfântu Gheorghe, Kalamár 2007)
Early marriage as a reason for school abandonment was mentioned in all interviews with school
staff. It is interesting that in Ploieºti the researcher actually had the role of teacher in the Mimiu
community (one of the studied communities from Ploieºti) and she was also a Roma, giving her a
broader perspective on this subject. The pupils trusted her with more personal discussions, in which
the girls explained their reasons for getting married and giving up school. Mimiu is not a traditional
community, but a very poor and marginalized one, and for the young girls marriage offers an escape
from their family households, where they have to take care of younger brothers and sisters – quite
hard work – and where they live in crowded rooms, with no privacy. They get married hoping to
have a room of their own or at least a bed of their own and to do less work at home.
School cannot offer this immediate escape, and so, given such conditions, it does not warrant
effort, from the Mimiu girls’ point of view. In fact, in the long run, most of the young girls from
Mimiu end up living in the same state as they did before marriage, as their husbands have equally
precarious living conditions.
School – as any investment – becomes valuable only if it can offer something in return for the
effort of attending it, such as the certainty of better economic status, or the opportunity to move
into a better location. In poverty enclaves such as Mimiu, or in poor rural areas, the effort of
attending school is sometimes reckoned as too high in comparison to the benefits it could offer –
from the perspective of both parents and children. This view is sustained by the fact that well paid
job opportunities and better housing conditions are a distant reality.
Quote 10-8. High costs and low rewards of education,

perceived by both Roma and non-Roma in Coltãu
The level of education in Coltãu is fairly low both for Hungarians and Roma. It
happens very seldom that either leaves the locality in order to graduate secondary
school in the town. Arguments are: expensive passes, lack of interest, a less favourable
start of school career that cannot be recovered later. Those who succeed are guided to
vocational or trade schools. “From this year – as I understand – one or two pupils
were continuing their education, if they hadn’ t changed their minds. They didn’ t
decide to go to high schools but to trade ones. I don’ t know if they did the matriculation,
because – as I understand – passes are too expensive, and they think it has no use as
157
AGENTS OF CHANGE
they won’ t gain anything. But in my opinion they should do this (meant the
Hungarians). It is a question of the Romanian language, an important issue for
Hungarians.” (G. A., Hungarian woman aged 21, Coltãu, quoted by Iorga 2007)
It is often argued that the lack of education of the parents is an impediment for the children’ s
educational development: either because they do not perceive the value of education and don’ t
encourage their children to attend school, or because they cannot share knowledge or help with
their children’ s homework.
From the policy makers’ point of view, the constructive approach is to remember that both parents
and school staff have the same goal, even if the perspectives, knowledge and methods are different:
they all want the best for the children. Therefore, developing the parents-school partnership approach
would be the most efficient way to stimulate educational improvement in Roma communities.
Quote 10-9. The parents’ attitude towards education in Cetate

“The Roma and Romanian school abandonment rates are not very different; but the
Roma parents tend to be passive-aggressive when it comes to the education of their
children.” (Teacher in Cetate, quoted by Isan 2007)
Quote 10-10. School careers for Roma pupils in Mihail Kogãlniceanu

When it comes to the quality of education given to the Roma children, all parents agree
that they benefit from a fine education given by their teachers. (...) Specific problems
of Roma students can be observed notably from the 5th grade on, when there is no one
teacher to tutor them all the time. Because Roma children do not go to kindergarten,
in the first four grades they stay far behind the other children, learn with more difficulty
and do not master foreign languages. One of the causes would be that, once they arrive
home, Roma children are not helped by their parents who are illiterate. For this reason,
in 5th grade when they have more than one teacher/tutor, they cannot cope anymore,
they fail to progress and quit school. (Mihail Kogãlniceanu, Marcu 2007)
10.1.2 The Value of Schooling

As already discussed, the balance between effort and reward of a school career can be perceived as
negative from a short-term perspective. This means that education can have different values for different
groups of people (parents, children, teachers, poor families, or better-off families). At the same time, it
can also have different symbolic meanings, socially constructed, for different groups of people.
School and education is a social arena, where social interactions occur, where information is
transmitted through specific communication means, and where social symbols and meanings are
shared and negotiated. For example, for very poor children school can be a social space entirely
different from home or from the social space of the “neighbourhood”. Space is simply more
abundant, while at the same time rules of behaviour are different and usually more restrictive.
Quote 10-11. Social problems reflected in school behaviour in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

The school Principal made an interesting observation concerning these children’ s
behaviour at school: “They explore the space as much as they can by running along the
corridors, because at home they are crammed in a small space.” (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
158
EDUCATION ISSUES
Discrepancies Between Practice and Theory

Because of different practices and theories that meet up here, school often becomes an arena for
conflicts – between pupils, between parents and teachers, or between different educators. The
biggest problems seem to be between parents and teachers.
For many parents school is an unknown space, conducted by social rules that they are not
familiar with – a situation which puts them, from the start, in a position of inferiority. After all,
education means knowledge and knowledge means power.
Quote 10-12. Parents’ relationship with the school, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

Insofar as the perspective of the Roma families is concerned, as far as we could observe,
the school remains unknown to them, a place they do not master and which they
perceive as completely foreign to them. For them, it is an unfamiliar place which
they did not have time to grow used to. Many parents never even attended school
and did not go through the formative experience of living within a school
environment. I could realize this thing better when I accompanied one of my
informers, S.V. at a parents meeting in school. It was maybe the second time that she
attended such a meeting. Her husband is in jail now and he was the one who handled
such duties. Once we entered the school, I noticed that Vandana felt insecure and did
not know how to behave. It was obvious she was in a completely unfamiliar place for
her and she defended herself by using aggressive language. (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
The lack of communication between parents and teachers often leads to parents being viewed as
inferior and the teachers perceiving themselves as superior. This situation reinforces even more
the communication gap and blocks constructive negotiations between, in fact, complementary roles.
At the same time, lack of communication brings reciprocal suspicion: teachers suspect the
parents of using school just for the material help that their children can get, while parents suspect
the teachers of discriminatory practices.
Quote 10-13. Communication problems between teachers and parents,

in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest
“(...) one should go to their homes and speak to their parents to see why they are
skipping classes. Some of them talk to you and you really have to speak their
language... For instance, the children have to pass their second examination in the
autumn. The child does not come and I have to go fetch him from home. Am I the
only one with an interest in this matter?” (E.D., teacher)
The problem this teacher mentions is extremely important and reflects the frailty of
the relationship between schools and the Roma communities: “We are not ready to
communicate, to relate to people. We are trained to perform our jobs well-this is
something else”. (Teacher, quoted by Tîrcã, Bucharest 2007)
Quote 10-14. Teacher-parent reciprocal suspicions in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

Mrs. E.D., teacher (4th grade) asserts: “They don’ t care. I have the feeling that these
children are rather sent to school so that they can get they allowance or the bun and the
milk and that’ s all” This is more or less confirmed by Mrs D.T., school principal:
“They know their rights very well. They seem to have only rights and no responsibility.
They make a fuss and use the word ‘ discrimination’ very often. So they have the
impression that it is only they who are being discriminated against although they may
be discriminating against others in various ways.” (Quoted by Tîrcã, Bucharest 2007)
159
AGENTS OF CHANGE
The discrepancies between different practices and theories employed by different actors
involved in the educational process don’ t stop at this level: even different educators – some
employing formal and others informal methods – come into conflict.
Quote 10-15. Relations between schools and NGOs/programmes in Bucharest

“School was a great obstacle, at least during the first years. We had to work with the
principals and the teachers, to have meetings with them and to make the most of any
event so as to get them involved, to make them understand that what we are doing
comes as a support for them and that it was in fact their problem and not ours... One
should know – schools only work after having received permission from higher forums
even though they are independent. When permission was granted, because this is how
they work, they started changing their attitude, when they came to understand that we
were there to solve their stupidity and ignorance. Because they discriminate against
people, they did not allow Roma children in schools and when they created that
phenomenon, which is very big in Romania (abandonment rate is 25%), and when one
comes with a solution, they should have kissed our feet and not the other way around.
The people from 134 came to us and asked us to pay for I don’ t know what in the school.
The problem is yours, you should have specialized people, trained to stop school
abandonment and paid by you; and when I come and offer everything to you ...you should
be ashamed ...that’ s outrageous.” (Jean Baptiste, specialized educator, Fundaþia FOC,
quoted by Tîrcã 2007)
In addition, certain discrepancies appear between teachers and pupils when it comes to social
representations, values and moral judgments.
Quote 10-16. Discrepancies between the values of language, registered in Dolhasca

“The study of the Romanian language is, from the perspective as a teacher, a
civilizing factor, a language of politeness which balances the use of the colloquial
mother tongue.” (Teacher in Dolhasca, quoted by Lazãr 2007)
Education Versus the Other Alternatives

Most of the community reports noted that education was more important for Roma men and
traders, who need specific knowledge for their economic activities. The observations revealed that
the value of school is usually perceived in economic terms – the possibility of reaching certain
economic goals through knowledge achieved in school. If this possibility is perceived as unlikely,
other alternatives are preferred and more valued.
Quote 10-17. Lack of examples of social mobility through education, in Curtici

Unfortunately, it seems that the people of Curtici still have no knowledge of the career
of a community member whose social mobility would be the result of education.
(Curtici, M. Goina 2007)
Quote 10-18. Alternatives to education perceived as more profitable, in Nuºfalãu

“In Nuºfalãu the Gypsies do not have jobs, they are used to work as day workers, they
participate in the black market, and they don’ t feel the need of continuing studies.”
(Professional high school, Romanian language school, quoted by Toma 2007)
After all, education is actually valued as a strategy towards welfare and a better life, by all of us,
Roma or non-Roma. The difference revealed by the community reports is that, for the moment,
160
EDUCATION ISSUES
this strategy does not offer the desired welfare to all individuals and that the balance between
expected welfare / obtained reward / investment costs affects in a different way the different social
groups, such as Roma / non-Roma, the poorer / the richer.
Quote 10-19. Life expectations and disappointments in education for the Roma in Curtici
“Now everybody wants to make a fortune... and you can only make a fortune
elsewhere. You only make a fortune in a different position. I’ m here studying and
the one went away... by his 20’ s he already has children, I can never get here what
he gets by his 20’ s; the ones that went abroad for 4-5 years, they already have
beautiful houses, cars... and somebody else, going to school doesn’ t have anything.”
(S.V., 52, Curtici, quoted by M. Goina 2007)
Quote 10-20. Education fails to secure welfare, in Timiºoara

Failures of educated persons in the labour market can rebuild lack of trust in formal
education. This concerns middle aged persons, who graduated from vocational schools
during Communism, or those young ones from universities, who graduate course
after course, but are still unable to become employed. Moreover “culture of living in
the present” is not suitable for long-term planning, thus education, seen as a long-
term process leading to a future and secure workplace, is impossible to imagine for
such people. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Premises for Educational Success

Apart from the obstacles and difficulties, some of the community reports also illustrated cases of
an improvement in social mobility, and a change of perspective towards the benefits of schooling.
For these cases, even in very poor households, the role of education is valued and efforts are
made to support the children through their school career. This positive trend can be put down to
certain models of success, seen by the Roma, and also with the “formal” accessibility of schooling
(distance, facilities, professionalism and communication with the staff).
Quote 10-21. Efforts to offer education to children in poor Roma households in Timiºoara
The efforts to ensure a day-to-day living become the model transmitted to the next
generation. On the other hand, for many persons I talked with, efforts for day-by-
day survival and education are both important. The former can bring an immediate
result; the latter represents a belief in long-term benefits. In fact living in the present
goes hand in hand with making plans for the future for anyone, independent of
ethnicity, education, gender or social position. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Quote 10-22. Importance of schooling in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest

Despite the problems mentioned by the teaching staff, I noticed that most of my informers
living in Zãbrãuþi have already started to become aware of the importance of their
children’ s education. They strive a lot to enable their children to go to school and to buy
all the necessary materials for school and to keep them clean and neat. School is gradually
becoming an important reference point for them, although it is still a fragile one. Another
proof supporting this argument could also be those who received cameras and used them
to take pictures of their children on their first day at school. Anyway, that was a day
people living in Zãbrãuþi granted importance to. (Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
161
AGENTS OF CHANGE
Quote 10-23. Change in perspectives about the value of education, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest
There are other significant examples which give an idea of the importance of school
for people: Simion Vandana (31 years old), an illiterate woman whose husband is in
jail and whose son attends the 4th grade at school no. 148, wants with all her might
for her little girl to also start school next year, although her means are minimal.
ªtefan Ion (59 years old) has already started saving money in order to buy his
daughter attending the 9th grade, a computer. He also wishes for his daughter to go
to university and claims that he does not have the least intention to get her married
or to sell her. Of course, these are isolated examples, however they are significant.
(Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
Looking back at section 3.3.3 about the children’ s dreams for the future, it can be emphasized
that many of them used the “Capacitate” exam as a reference point, according to which their
lifetime plans might change. Even though they had plans for the future based on passing or not
passing the exam, their plans as graduates were presented as generally more desirable and more
successful. The failure of their parents and the success of older brothers or peers were important
factors in building these future plans.
Quote 10-24. Short-term economic welfare versus professional careers

for young Roma people in Timiºoara
“I started a BA programme in law, I have already an MA, but I want to have a BA
in order to work as a lawyer. For my second degree I could not profit from places
allocated to Roma, but I entered anyway. My parents always supported me, and always
advised me to graduate from schools as they have not enough money - this would be my
chance, as I cannot inherit like those children whose parents run businesses. In these
times you cannot make a family of your own before 30, as you have to learn, to have a
job, to gain a status, security, family comes after. I don’ t want to go and work abroad,
forget all the schools I graduated and pick strawberries. I want to work in my field.
Otherwise I should have to go and earn my living after I graduated school, but now it’ s
too late for this.” (School councillor, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Quote 10-25. The educational failure of the parents and motivations

for a professional career for the musicians in Cugir
Unlike the rural environment, where usually a musician would finish eight classes in
school and then focus on work and music (mostly on the latter) things are somewhat
different in the city: Here, you shouldn’ t leave school too early, and if this has happened,
children should not repeat the mistakes of their parents. (Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
10.1.3 Finding Solutions

There are different visions of how to improve the education system in general and how to
strengthen the educational improvement of the Roma. The different actors involved assume
responsibility or choose to indirectly deny responsibility, by delegating it or imposing it on
someone else. As the qualitative research shows, assuming responsibility is more constructive than
blaming others or finding excuses.
162
EDUCATION ISSUES
Quote 10-26. Involved actors and assuming responsibility for education of the Roma
Education is, in the end, the task of the school, which should be interested to bring the
children in school. Therefore, the school officials should press the township officials to
provide the conditions needed for school attendance and to force the parents to send
their children to school. Instead, all the guilt for abandonment is put on the Roma
parents themselves, and it seems that after all the school officials tacitly agree with
this abandonment which exonerates them of responsibility [...] In fact, in his opinion
(the headmaster), the Roma children’ s school problems can be solved by the school
psychologist. Therefore, what has actually happened in the end is that the social,
economic and cultural difficulties of Roma in general, when they have to find their
place in a non-Roma environment, and of the children here, have been turned into
a medical problem. (Sîntana de Mureº, Troc 2007)
The school mediator is one of the actors who – as reflected in the interviews with both beneficiaries
and school representatives – assumes the most responsibility, sometimes even exceeding the formal
requirements of the post (as with the health mediator discussed in section 6.1.5). And, as can be seen
in this case, the negative aspects to this mediation structure slowly start to appear, such as the double
dependency on the health mediator – from the institutions and from the Roma parents – or the
complete lack of direct communication between the institution and the parents.
Quote 10-27. Key role of the school mediator as the best short-term/urgent solution
Under these circumstances, the school mediator’ s work is critical. His is a key position,
a sort of intermediary between school and community. (...)
Because he is of Roma origin, the school mediator is granted more trust from the
community itself as people consider him as one ‘ of theirs’ . The mediator’ s basic tasks
consist in the effort he deploys into making people of Roma origin understand the
necessity of their children’ s education and in convincing them to allow their offspring
to attend school. When it comes to real situations, he does much more than that as
he is often compelled to listen to people’ s problems and to advise them – it is a sort of
therapy he adds to his efforts of convincing parents about the importance of school.
(Bucharest, Tîrcã 2007)
Quote 10-28. School mediator exceeding duties, in the case of Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest
“Although the mediator is in charge only of Roma people’ s problems [...] if there
are four Romanians who need help more badly than Gypsy children, I’ ll choose the
former four as this is the correct thing to do, as I see it. If I confined myself only to
what my job chart says, then I would be the one accused of discrimination... Many
people snort at this, and they come from among the Roma group, the Gypsies
themselves” (school mediator, Bucharest, quoted by Tîrcã 2007)
In a different local context, specific measures proved to be efficient. One example is the primary
school in Dolhasca, where the graduation is 95% and the attendance is high. The researcher’ s
reasons for this achievement, synthesized from the interviews in the community, are the following:
the beginning and end of school semesters are correlated with the beginning and end of
agricultural work seasons, so that the children wouldn’ t have to skip classes in order to help their
families; although most of the children and teachers are Roma, the classes are mixed and the
Romani language classes are optional for any pupil, so that Romanian pupils also attend Romani
classes and none of the lessons are segregated (see Lazãr 2007).
163
AGENTS OF CHANGE
The researchers recorded various different experiences of efficient practice for better schooling
and a higher level of education.
Quote 10-29. Roma grand-parents’ proposals for how to improve literacy

among Roma children in Coltãu
“From what I see, there should be meetings and more meetings with parents”
“Parents have to wake up at 7 with a wand in their hands in order to send children
to school. Because school is near and no one cares who’ s poor, dirty. Parents usually
say they have no clothes for children, and they cannot send them to school in slippers.
And they have nothing to eat at home. But they have the daily milk and crescent in
school.” (Group interview, Coltãu, quoted by Iorga 2007)
Quote 10-30. Proposals from experienced teachers, in Oºorhei and Timiºoara

“The solutions related to the improvement of the school attendance rate proposed by
CA are the following: 1. to oblige the children to also attend the kindergarten, in
order to acquire the social behaviour required for the 1st class; 2. the introduction of
a preparatory month before the commencement of the 1st class so that these children
become familiar with the rules regarding the sitting down at their desks, keeping
the silence in the classroom, etc.; 3. preferential aid by granting them free school
supplies and books; 4. obliging the Roma girls to attend the school even after starting
to wear traditional skirts; 5. the social responsibility awareness and special trainings
for the teaching staff; 6. a more attentive corporal hygiene for the optimal integration
of the children in the community; 7. establishment of special recuperation classes for
Roma children.” (CA, retired teacher from Oºorhei, quoted by Pantea 2007)
She tells me about a project focusing on integration of Roma children through special
programmes: a programme after school schedule, meant to help them cope with school
tasks. “A change in the teacher’ s mentality would be needed in order to become able
to know the Roma. We need programmes for it.” “Children learn from adults what
to believe and think about Roma, they don’ t have prejudices from themselves, but
parents came and tell them whom to stay in the same bench with, and whom to play
with. (Teacher, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Quote 10-31. Benefits of mixed classes, from the experience of teachers in Lupeni
Based on a long experience, the primary school teacher sustains the work with mixed
classes with children from any ethnic group, and underlines all the negative
consequences that segregated education brings upon the socialization of children and
upon prejudice perpetuation, in the conditions of lack of interaction among other
ethnic groups. (Lupeni, Geambaºu 2007)
The discussion mixed versus segregated classes is a key issue for the topic of education in the
Roma communities, thus it will be granted an entire section, below (see sections 10.6 and 10.7).
10.2 Education Issues in Survey Research

There is a significant difference between the age structures of the Roma and the non-Roma
(see Chart 10-1). The school age population (6-18) is more than a quarter of the Roma sample,
but only 14% in the comparative sample.
164
EDUCATION ISSUES
Chart 10-1. Age structures of the Roma and the comparative sample
(all household members) (percentage)
10.3 Level of Education

We can track significant changes in educational attainment for different generations. For the
purpose of this analysis we can basically distinguish between the following age groups:
– Children aged 7-13, who should currently attend primary school or gymnasium;
– Adolescents aged 14-17, who should currently be enrolled in vocational school or high
school; they were born after the collapse of the communist regime;
– Young adults aged 18-29, who could be students or graduates; they were born in the period
1977 – 1989, an interval of intense assimilation policies targeting the Roma27;
– Adults aged 30-59, who were born in the period 1947-1977, when communist social
policies did not target the Roma as a special group;
– The elderly, aged 60 or more, born before 1947.
In Table 10-1 we can see that the age group 30-59 has the highest proportion of high school
graduates, for both the Roma and the comparative sample. Even so, there are significant
differences between the two samples regarding the younger group, aged 18-29. In the Roma
sample their educational level has decreased: instead of high school education, a larger proportion
of pupils only obtain gymnasium or lower schooling. In the comparative sample, the decrease in
high school graduates is due to enrolment in higher education: there is a significant increase for
post-liceal graduates, students and university graduates.
Table 10-1. Educational level, by age category and sample type

(all household members included) (percentage)
Most recent Aged Aged Aged Aged Aged 60 Aged Aged Aged Aged Aged 60
graduated school: 7-13 14-17 18-29 30-59 or over 7-13 14-17 18-29 30-59 or over
Did not go to school 14.6 11.0 19.0 16.4 26.7 8.3 3.2 1.8 1.7 2.8
Incomplete elementary 40.2 12.3 12.0 12.2 16.6 34.4 2.5 1.1 1.2 5.7
Elementary 19.7 12.1 14.1 16.7 24.8 22.0 7.6 2.1 3.2 24.9
Incomplete gymnasium 21.4 28.4 15.7 15.4 12.3 25.7 19.7 4.8 3.8 19.5
27 In 1977 the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist party launched a special programme for the social
assimilation of the Gypsy population, with actions such as compulsory sedentarization, employment, legalization of
marriages or even linking child allowances to school attendance and parental employment (Achim 1998, pp. 162).
165
AGENTS OF CHANGE

Most recent Aged Aged Aged Aged Aged 60 Aged Aged Aged Aged Aged 60
graduated school: 7-13 14-17 18-29 30-59 or over 7-13 14-17 18-29 30-59 or over
Special school for
1.3 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.1
disabled
Gymnasium 2.7 23.7 22.1 18.5 10.7 8.3 31.8 14.3 15.1 20.2
Incomplete high school 7.5 5.8 5.4 21.7 6.9 7.3 2.3
Vocational / technical /
2.2 7.5 12.4 5.5 8.3 28.6 41.2 13.9
arts high school
Theoretical high school 1.3 1.5 1.9 0.6 3.2 12.7 13.5 4.0
College, post-liceal
0.3 0.3 0.3 4.8 4.8 2.3
school (2 years)
Incomplete university 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 13.6 1.6 0.8
University and higher 0.9 0.4 1.5 8.3 6.7 3.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total cases 752 455 1194 1718 326 241 157 566 1382 707
As to be expected, the older age group (60 and above) has the lowest formal education level
within the adult population, in both the Roma and the comparative sample, so the relationship
between age and education level is not linear.
The educational levels of young and middle-age adult Roma (the age groups 18-29 and 30-59)
seem to be similar in the two surveys – although comparison is made difficult by the different
classification of educational levels.
Table 10-2. Educational level, by age category and sample type,

for respondents in RIB 2006 (percentage)
Most recent graduated school: RIB 2006 Roma sample RIB 2006 National sample
Aged Aged Aged 60 Aged Aged Aged 60
RIB 2006 educational categories
18-29 30-59 or over 18-29 30-59 or over
No schooling 21.0 19.7 38.1 0.9 0.3 3.0
Primary 25.8 25.1 41.6 1.3 2.1 31.2
Gymnasium 35.0 37.5 13.7 22.4 18.7 29.0
Apprentice school ( coal de ucenici) 1.9 1.6 3.0 0.4 1.1 2.8
First two years of high school (treapta I) 6.5 6.3 2.0 9.9 11.2 5.8
Professional school 3.4 4.4 1.0 12.1 18.0 8.3
High school 4.1 3.7 40.4 28.9 9.9
Industrial master school (scoala de mai tri) 0.7 0.6 0.9 2.8 2.5
Post-lyceum school 0.2 3.1 4.9 1.7
Short-term university (college) 0.7 0.6 1.8 2.6 1.1
Long-term university 0.5 0.2 0.5 5.8 8.3 4.7
Post-graduate studies 0.2 0.9 1.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total cases 414 857 197 223 616 362
166
EDUCATION ISSUES
10.4 Determinants of Educational Level

Variables that have a statistically significant influence on educational achievement are mainly the
same for the Roma and the comparative sample, with some exceptions. We have included in the models
all adult household members (aged 18 and over) for whom we have information in the database.
The probability of a Roma being a high school graduate is increased significantly by being male,
belonging to the age group 30-60, having a traditional neam affiliation and by living in a better-
off household (as indicated by the number of long-term consumer goods); and it is decreased if
household members speak Romani in the home and if the person has failed at least one school year.
(see Table 16-19.)
The probability of having at least a gymnasium degree (8 years of schooling) is increased by
being male, belonging to a better-off household and not speaking Romani at home (see Table 16-
20.). The 30-60 age group does not differ significantly from the other adult group, but the elderly
have a significantly lower proportion of gymnasium graduates.
In the comparative sample, the probability of having graduated high school is increased by being
male, living in an urban locality and coming from a better-off household, and it is decreased by
being over 60 or having failed at least one school year. (See Table 16-21.)
Type of locality has no influence on Roma level of schooling, but is significant for the comparative
sample. This indicates that Roma pupils do not take advantage of the opportunities of the urban
environment – they face an equally adverse schooling challenge, irrespective of locality.
10.5 In the Classroom

10.5.1 Repeated School Years
Around 7% of adult Roma have repeated at least one year in school, compared to around 1%
of non-Roma. This discrepancy holds for the present situation too: out of the 756 Roma pupils
aged 6-18 who are currently attending school, 69 (9%) have repeated at least one school year,
while out of the 327 non-Roma pupils aged 6-18 who are currently attending school, only 3 have
repeated school years.
Roma boys are much more likely to repeat school years (11% of the 6-18 age group) compared
to Roma girls (7% of the same age group). Repeating school years is not influenced by the locality
(urban/rural), family wealth, family ethnic affiliation or language spoken, or the fact of a
predominantly Roma classroom. However, it has an adverse effect for the Roma on their chances
of graduating from high school, but not, interestingly, from the gymnasium.
10.5.2 Illiteracy
Illiteracy is a serious issue for the Roma population, as it affects one quarter of adults. It is
certainly not exclusively due to low school attendance – it also reflects what we may term invisible
segregation – the segregation that takes place inside the classroom. It can be seen in the fact that
Roma pupils sometimes graduate from elementary school without even the basics of education.
The reasons for this situation are complex, and may involve benevolence, indifference and
prejudice at the same time. But what is true is that this system perpetuates ignorance, with a
significant cost for the Roma pupils when it comes to their chances of succeeding in life.
For example, our interviews indicate that around 7% of people aged 14 or over who graduated
from elementary school are illiterate; 28% of people who attended elementary school but did not
167
AGENTS OF CHANGE
graduate are illiterate, and 88% of people who did not attend school at all are illiterate. Overall,
22% of all household members aged 14 or over in the Roma sample are illiterate, compared to 2%
in the comparative sample.
If we only look at heads of household, 4% declare that they are illiterate although they have
graduated elementary school. Gymnasium is the only guarantee for literacy for Roma pupils, as
virtually all respondents who have finished 8 grades or more know how to read and write.
Roma pupils in segregated classes have a significantly higher risk of illiteracy. By analyzing 671
Roma pupils aged 8-18 we can see that 15% of those in classes with a majority of Roma pupils are
illiterate compared to around 4% of the other pupils. The proportions are the same at the primary
and secondary levels.
The probability of being illiterate is also higher for pupils from poorer households and who
speak Romani at home. (See Table 16-23.)
10.6 Ethnic Segregation in Schools

The widespread practice of ethnic segregation has already been well documented by sociological
research (such as Surdu 2003 or Stanculescu 2004). Ethnic segregation is a complex concept thaThe
conceptt also provokes ambivalent emotions. It can be used to describe the processes that lead to
the appearance of creating homogenous Roma classrooms, for example, or it can describe refer to
the existence of such classrooms independently of the process through which they were created.
Segregation has often been evaluated positively or ambivalently by Gadje and also Roma respondents:
– it is seen as the cause of problems such as the high social distance between ethnic groups,
discrimination and school failure – but it can is also seen asalso be a short-term, inexpensive
solution to precisely those problems;
– Roma people condemn it but still appear to choose it or to accept it, especially in situations
where it seems, for an external observer, to produce the most damage (closed and / or very
poor Roma communities).
Still, qualitative and quantitative data as well present an unambiguous conclusion: school
segregation affects dramatically the quality of the educational and social experiences of children.
For example, M. Goina (2007) analyzes in detail the situation of the segregated Roma school in
Curtici, and the mixed opinions of the population. While it increases the probability of school
attendance, it also renders it meaningless as any proper educational content is missing. The Roma
school functions rather as a social institution and, at most, as a literacy-producing facility.
Quote 10-32. Mixed opinions on segregated school in Curtici

Roma have different opinions on their school. It is regarded as an accomplishment by all
members of the Roma community and sometimes with envy or rebuke by the Romanian
community, especially for the school infrastructure. Community leaders, the school
mediator, the counsellor, believe that it is beneficial for the Roma children to have a
good school, close to their houses. M.C., school mediator told me that regardless whether
the mother is at home or not, the child takes his school bag and comes to school, even if
he is dirty or poorly dressed, he' d still get a croissant and a glass of milk that “brings
him joy”. Nevertheless, if the school was in the centre, among Romanians, he' s probably
not go at all... (M.C., 34). And the truth is that the community is located a few good
kilometres away from the centre and there is no transportation means, which stands to
support what the school mediator says. (...) Unfortunately, the level of schooling and
teacher' s performance in School No. 2 seem deficient. It seems that purpose of the
teaching staff is to educate children only at a level of basic reading and writing. The
168
EDUCATION ISSUES
only evaluation criteria is related to how well they can read and write. This is present
both in the statements of Romanian speakers and Roma parents. According to the opinion
of one of the people I interviewed in relation to the school, whose name I cannot disclose,
In School No. 1 Curtici “the curricula can' t be observed, basic notions with us are
reading and writing... they are good children and we don' t want them to have the 8
grades graduation certificate and be illiterate.” It seems however that many children are
nearly illiterate up to the 5th grade. Some mothers, most likely not very honest, seem to
blame it on the low potential of children, to the fact that they are “a little more weak-
minded.” “My young daughter underwent a hernia surgery and now she' s not doing
so well in school, in the 5th grade she can write but she can' t read... but teachers are very
good, very good...” (O.C., 29). Other women more honestly admit that they are actually
not teaching anything in the school in the community. The fact seems to be common
place in the discourse of the Roma community: “the young ones don' t teach them much,
the older ones teach them more, but the young ones... when we went to school for
certificates we had to wait them for hours... they were sitting in their office having coffee,
while children are just playing in the classroom, when they had classes in the afternoon
they would get there at one (o' clock) and came at three, in the morning they go and at
11 they' re back home... they don' t get any homework, they don' t get anything, it' s only
a pretence that they' re going to school...” Other parents also complain of the fact that
children are left in the classrooms under the surveillance of older children, while teachers
get together in their office, having coffee... (S.C., 33 Some younger ones regret the
segregation of the school: “(...) it would have been better if they were together, then
Gypsy and Gropeni children would study better, I noticed that Romanians... are more
educated... while Gypsy some study and some don' t, but if they were together in the
same school they would study together, because teachers here don' t really mind the
children, to teach them, and to... but there, in the centre they are forced to study, while
here, in School No. 2 they' re footloose. Teachers say that if children don' t study they
can' t do anything to make them study. But teachers are not really interested, they' re
not really concerned...” (Curtici, M. Goina 2007)
“Temporary segregation” or “unintended homogeneity” are the situations which are most likely
to be approved of, by Roma and non-Roma alike.
Quote 10-33. The new legal frame and the issue of equal chances
Segregation as a mechanism of social exclusion – in education – leads to a higher level
of abandoning school or a refusal to be educated. It also reinforces majority prejudices
on Roma and also influences the level of education for Roma classes/schools. In 2007
Ministry of Education issued Order 1540 with its objective of “prevention, stop and
elimination of segregation seen as a serious form of discrimination with negative
consequences on children’ s legal access to an education of high quality.” Order forbids
the creation of separate classes of 1st and 5th form having mostly Roma children in,
beginning with school year 2007-2008. This law regards “segregation as a serious
form of discrimination, leading to an unequal access of children to a high quality
education, affecting equal conditions for access to education and human pride.” Beyond
discriminatory practices and treatment towards Roma children, who – of course –
would not eliminate themselves after the law is issued, (the law that accepts, rebuilds
and legitimizes inequality between majority and Roma), we have to deal with cultural
conceptions on equality and difference or guarantees of equal chances for individuals
in different socio-economic conditions. (Timiºoara, Magyari-Vincze 2007)
169
AGENTS OF CHANGE
10.6.1 Ambivalence of Segregation in Public Opinion

While segregation is generally condemned by both Roma and non-Roma in public, and
considered, at least at a discursive level, to be a policy priority (see also Quote 10-33) it is enforced
in practice by individual choice: Roma try to avoid expected stigma and higher disadvantages, while
non-Roma try to avoid what they see as potentially risky school-mates for their pupils. Segregated
classrooms bring short-term benefits to parents, teachers and pupils – especially for the Gadje, but
also for the Roma. The long-term negative effects are often overlooked.
For example, in the case of the segregated school in Mihail Kogãlniceanu, the evaluation
proposed by teachers, as it appears in the report, is quite positive. The school is known for its
good performance of Roma pupils and good inter-ethnic relations. Under these circumstances, it
is difficult to understand why segregation is ever considered necessary.
Quote 10-34. A rosy view of a segregated school in Mihail Kogãlniceanu

Classes are homogenous, and there are no problems with racism or theft. There was
an isolated case two years ago when two Roma pupils were waiting for younger
children at the entrance to the school and they were beating them. When minor
conflicts appear, which is normal for a certain age, Roma parents do not come to
school when they are called, and, if they do, they do not admit the behaviour of the
children, maintaining that it is impossible that their child did this.
In the first four grades the problems of Roma children are similar to those of any other
child of another ethnic group, in their age. Relationships between Roma children and
other children in school is good, and in most cases the Roma children seek to adopt
habits of the children of other ethnic groups.
Also, in the primary grades there are some Roma pupils who have very good results
in mathematics, in the 1st and 3rd grade, and they were awarded diplomas.
The benefits of the ethnic homogeneity in the classroom are:
- Children are better acquainted with each other;
- Inter-ethnic conflicts are diminished;
- Children adapt faster, and it is said to be easier to interact with other ethnic groups
at a higher age. (Mihail Kogãlniceanu, Marcu 2007).
This comfort has high costs for the development of Roma children’ s school careers and for the
mutual knowledge of the future adults in the two ethnic groups. It is indeed difficult to see how inter-
ethnic relationships become easier later in life – as Roma people sometimes see in their own experience.
Quote 10-35. School as a basis for subsequent relationships in Coltãu

“Hungarians are now separate from the Gypsies...it isn’ t good. Because I know each of
my colleagues, Hungarians, I was in the same school with them, they greet me in the
street. But if children are separated, you can imagine how this would be. It would be
better to leave it as it was, because children got along well, they did not quarrel. In my
time we weren’ t arguing either.” (T.P. Roma man, 33, Coltãu, quoted by Iorga 2007)
Quote 10-36. Attitudes towards mixed schooling in Cugir

However, non-Roma parents are quite reluctant to register their children in the
school, and they prefer to take their children to other schools. On the other hand,
there is a shared perception that, from an administrative point of view, the ethnic
homogeneity of a classroom is an advantage, as the risk of being avoided by parents
is smaller. Of course, such atmosphere is also beneficial for Roma pupils, especially that
170
EDUCATION ISSUES
when they come to school first time they are ‘ shy’ and ‘ introvert’ , but then they
integrate with the group easily. (Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
Quote 10-37. Segregation as an unintended effect of individual choices in Glod

“Why should I go to high school? To hear the others saying look, here’ s that Gypsy
from Glod? I rather stay at home and... with my father... he has a shop, it will be
mine because I’ m the oldest... like this, people respect me and say Hello when they
meet me because I am the son of Oaie... but over there?” (S. O., has finished the 8th
grade and works in his father’ s grocery shop in Glod, quoted by Oteanu 2007)
10.6.2 Experimenting with segregation

In the past and also now school authorities feel the need to experiment with segregation, which
promises educational improvements for the completely excluded Roma pupils, without imposing any
discomfort on non-Roma parents. Community reports point to a multiplicity of such initiatives.
Quote 10-38. Segregated education in the 50s in Nuºfalãu

One of the envisaged tasks of school reform was to reach the 100% enrolment of school-
aged children. By declaring education as compulsory the school administration could not
reach this dream partially due to the growing number of Roma children in the village.
Thus they developed a differentiated programme special created for the Roma children.
In 1949 was established a Roma school in Brazilia community with four grades. One
teacher was employed to teach the Roma pupils. There did not remain any documents
about the 17 years of activity of this school. We could only rebuild from interviews the story
of this school. It was mostly considered as a “black point” in the eyes of the officialdom, thus
the local organizations tried to better the situation of this school. The local women’ s
association organized charity events to gather clothes for the Roma children. They also
cooked. The Roma school was closed in 1966. (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
Quote 10-39. Segregated education in the 90s in Nuºfalãu

At the beginning of the 90’ s the director board of the school decided that it was worth
trying segregated education for the Roma children. They prepared a four-year
programme, but the overall conclusion at the end of the programme was that it is not
efficient from the point of view neither of the pupils nor for the teachers. They did
not have any special curricula. The classes were held in Romanian or Hungarian
language. Only one teacher was of Roma ethnicity, the others were Romanians or
Hungarians without any specialization on teaching Roma children.
Even the Roma parents were suspicious about the organization of the school in this
way. They tried to enrol their children in the Hungarian classes (...) The teachers had
to accept the situation because if the parents declared themselves as Hungarians, they
had the right to enrol the child in the Hungarian classes. (...) After this failed
experiment, the director’ s board has decided to try another way to better the efficiency
of teaching. Another four years the children were chosen to continue their studies in
the secondary school in accordance of their previous level. The children with better
learning results were enrolled in one class, and the “weaker” pupils were enrolled in
another class. According to the head of school it wasn’ t specified that one class is the
“elite” class, but in the imaginary of the parents and later in the pupils’ this
separation meant that some of the pupils are elites and the others are the worst. After
171
AGENTS OF CHANGE
a generation of pupils the project was dropped because there were more conflicts than
results. (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
Quote 10-40. Segregated education in the 50s in Õrkõ

Till 1950 Õrkõ Roma children were attending “Tö rö k Sándor school” close to the
Orthodox Church, near the district. “So as not be taken as a Roma segregation school
was closed and Roma children sent to different schools in the 60’ s” mostly in School
nr.1. After a while “in the end of 70’ s till 1989 almost no Roma children from the
district were sent to school.” (Sfântu Gheorghe, Kalamár 2007)
In Sfîntu Gheorghe, a school and a kindergarten were built for the Õrkõ community, on the
initiative of the local Romano-Catholic priest. Up until then the vast majority of Õrkõ children had
been completely illiterate. The new school gradually developed, but it remains a homogenous
educational institution, due to its proximity to the neighbourhood.
Such situations of segregated education as a result of residential segregation are common,
especially in rural communities. In larger towns, where there is the possibility of mixed schooling,
segregation may be a combined process of residential homogeneity, Gadje parents’ withdrawal
from predominantly Roma classrooms or schools, and Roma leaders and parents’ acceptance or
even preference for such arrangements.
Quote 10-41. Emergence of segregated education in Curtici

After 1980, Roma ethnic inhabitants began extending from the outskirts towards the
centre, by buying houses from the Romanians. The number of Roma children grew in the
neighbourhood school and Romanian students start to represent a minority. The answer
to the situation was that Romanians started moving their children to the school in the
centre, in the beginning individually, for various reasons, by changing their residence, for
example, changing their residence to the constituency of the school in the centre.
Gradually, because of the increasing demand, they reached a compromise. M.C. says
that it was because of the aggressions of the Roma children on the Romanian children
that they were transferred illegally to the school in the centre. “It was a mixed school, it
was mixed, both Romanian and Gypsy... Why do you think the Romanians left?! This
ethnic group (Roma, note MG) is not keen on working. Since they are not working, what
do you expect the child to live on? So he was charging the Romanian, when he came to
school he had to have an extra sandwich, - ‘ there’ s a sandwich, there’ s one Lei, and
let me go.’ Then (parents) went to the school inspectorate, and they accepted that children
in this sector go to the school in the centre, under provision that they are registered with
us. Starting around 1981-1982, or 1982-1983... why do you think Romanians ran
away from them, it wasn' t the Romanian that went to beat up the Gypsy, to take their...
to take their scalp of, possibly some lice” (...) After the revolution the informal
arrangements during the last communist years was institutionalised: the school in the
Roma community officially became the Roma School, while the school in the centre, the
Romanian school. There were some Romanian children who went to the Roma school,
because they were “chucked out” (chased away) from the centre, for not belonging there.”
(Sanitary mediator in Curtici, quoted by M. Goina 2007)
In Babadag, the kindergarten founded by the Pentecostal church, also homogenous, has
definitely improved the schooling situation for the Roma pupils. When ethnic homogeneity is
part of the solution, it is not seen as part of the problem.
172
EDUCATION ISSUES
Quote 10-42. Segregation as a solution in Babadag

Partly, the education process is slower also due to the fact that the Horahai children only
speak the Romani language they speak in the family when they come to I grade in school,
and they have no discipline routines whatsoever. The results of the Horahai children
who attended the Babadag Children’ s Club before school (an organisation of the
Pentecostal denomination, having missionary purposes in the Muslim Gypsy community)
are evidence for that. The Club’ s activities have a sharp religious hue, focused on
Catechism preaching and Christian missionary work, but they follow the structure of the
curriculum and teaching methods used in public kindergartens. The results obtained
are significant – both the teachers from the schools in the city and the mayor or ordinary
members of the community mention the results above the average that children from this
Club had achieved in school. What is amazing is that the differences are obvious not only
in relation to those children who hadn’ t been included in any form of the pre-school
education system, but also in relation to those who had attended the public kindergarten.
As we were discussing about this with the teachers in schools 1 and 2, but also with the
teachers in the public kindergarten and the volunteers at the Children’ s Club, the
conclusion emerged that the source of these differences was in the ethnic homogeneity of
the children at the ‘ Pentecostal kindergarten’ , working exclusively with Muslim Roma
children, in the specific manner of the Club’ s volunteers (two very energetic and
committed young ladies) in interacting with the children, and last but not least, in the
final goal that is envisaged in this project. (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)
There is only one report of local attempts at desegregation – in Nuºfalãu. It is interesting to see
that this has come about as a result of competition for the enrolment of Roma pupils, since the
demographic gap poses a risk of unemployment for teachers.
Quote 10-43. Economic incentives for desegregation in Nuºfalãu

“There are more Roma children in the Romanian section, because the pre-school
teachers have this propaganda to have their job. Because if they don’ t ...they won’ t
have the four classes, they lose their jobs. These are the problems. When we have
problems, we also fight for children. We have to fight for them... So, to have the
four classes. When I came here, there were two teachers. After a while have come one
more, now we have four. This happened in 15 years, let’ s say. And because of the
Roma children they have their jobs. And to be honest, we are in the same situation.
Next year we will have two first grades, but after that only one. The number of
children is decreasing, so for years now on we will have only one first grade, if we
cannot gather the Roma children...and we can’ t...” (Nuºfalãu, teacher at the
Hungarian language class, 3rd grade, quoted by Toma 2007)
The integration policies in Nuºfalãu come after two failed attempts at segregated education,
but even so may still be fragile and dependent on circumstances. Homogenous classrooms are
often useful for specific purposes and this usefulness may easily lead to a more general segregation
project or, at least, to the lack of any effective de-segregation policy.
Quote 10-44. Integrationist attitudes in Nuºfalãu

We could easily see a strong agreement among the teachers that the segregated form
of education is not efficient at all. Less strong – but still significant – was the
agreement of the parents - Roma and Hungarians – that it is best for the Roma
child and the community itself if the children are taught together with the
173
AGENTS OF CHANGE
Hungarians and Romanians. We could not identify signs of intolerance or

segregationist tendencies when speaking with parents; moreover they strongly support
the integration of the Roma children in the majority school. (Nuºfalãu, Toma 2007)
10.6.3 Invisible Segregation in the Classroom

It is also important to see that classroom segregation or homogeneity may be replaced by an
invisible, within-the-classroom segregation if Roma pupils are treated de facto differently from
non-Roma ones.
An increased tolerance of failure for the Roma pupils, and less attention given to their
educational progress, may lead to school becoming little more than a residential facility. Survey
data on illiteracy among the graduates of primary education supports this contention (see section
10.5.2). Of course, there are other factors involved besides neglect – such as concern for the pupil’ s
future if s/he has no schooling, a hope that literacy may improve after all, and others.
Quote 10-45. Unequal attention in the classroom in Coltãu

If not, one graduates 8 classes and knows nothing. The teacher gave you something
to draw, you do what you’ re wanted, and teachers let you pass the class because
otherwise they’ ve lost their salaries. You could be a Roma without speaking any
Hungarian – it was compulsory to study, teachers were shouting at you and you were
afraid. (Group interview, Coltãu, quoted by Iorga 2007)
10.7 Educational Segregation in Numbers

25% of Roma pupils learn in classrooms with a majority of Roma children, and 28% learn in
classes which have around half Roma children, according to estimates given by the adult heads of
their household. The remaining 47% learn in classrooms with a majority of non-Roma pupils.
Probability of educational segregation is increased by residence in a poor district and in an
“unkempt” neighbourhood, but not by residence in Roma districts or neighbourhoods. It is also
increased by urban residence and decreased by household wealth.
Chart 10-2. Ethnic segregation of pupils by type of neighbourhood (percentage)
174
EDUCATION ISSUES
Ethnic segregation of Roma pupils is aggravated by economic segregation since it is more likely
to affect children from poor households. “Roma” classrooms are also poor classrooms. Around one
third of pupils aged 6-18 from households that own no long-term consumer goods are included
in majority-Roma classrooms, compared to around one quarter of the other pupils.
Girls are also significantly more likely to study in Roma classrooms: 29% of girls compared to
21% of boys aged 6-18 and attending school study with a majority of Roma peers.
10.7.1 Public Opinion on School Segregation

One of the most debated topics regarding educational reform is that of ethnic segregation. In
public discourse it has been consistently denied and condemned at the same time, while ethnic
segregation between classrooms or even within classrooms is still found in the Romanian education
system. Furthermore, public opinion on the subject is divided – among both Roma and non-Roma.
While Roma respondents are in general less tolerant of, or inclined towards, ethnic segregation
in schools, there were Roma and non-Roma respondents who believe that such educational
practices are legitimate, or at least that they should not be sanctioned.
Educational segregation may be tolerated because people believe that schooling and personal
development of children may be negatively affected by having Roma children in the classroom. For
example, around one quarter of non-Roma and 14% of Roma respondents believe that schooling
of Romanian children is made more difficult if they have Roma classmates. Moreover, around
12% of Roma and non-Roma alike believe that schooling of Roma pupils is adversely affected by
the presence of non-Roma pupils. Around 20% of both Roma and non-Roma respondents believe
that Roma students need different school curricula and methods to that of non-Roma pupils.
Overall, around 60% of Roma respondents think that the director of a segregated school should
be punished, compared to 47% of non-Roma respondents.
Table 10-3. Opinions on mixed schooling:

“To what degree do you agree with the following assertions?”
If a school has Roma only
Roma students need
If a Romanian child has If a Roma child has classrooms and Romanian
different curricula and
Roma classmates, his Romanian classmates, his only classrooms, the
methods in the school
schooling will be worse. schooling will be worse. director of the school
than non-Roma students.
should be punished
Roma Non-Roma Roma Non-Roma Roma Non-Roma Roma Non-Roma
Totally
54 47 55 58 51 47 19 29
disagree
Rather
32 29 32 32 28 31 19 23
disagree
Rather
10 15 9 7 13 14 25 23
agree
Totally
4 8 4 3 7 8 37 25
agree
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Differences of opinion between Roma and non-Roma respondents are statistically significant
for the first and last questions, (Chi Square test) for p=0.01, but not for the middle questions.
One third of non-Roma respondents agree with the assertion that friendship with a Roma person
is of no value to a Romanian, compared to 13% of the Roma respondents; around 17% of both
Roma and non-Roma believe that a Roma has nothing to gain from befriending a Romanian.
175
AGENTS OF CHANGE
Table 10-4. Opinions on ethnic segregation in personal relationships:

“To what extent do you agree with the following assertions...”
A Romanian has nothing to gain A Roma has nothing to gain by
by befriending a Roma. befriending a Romanian.
Roma Non-Roma Roma Non-Roma
Totally disagree 55 37 54 50
Rather disagree 32 33 30 32
Rather agree 8 17 8 11
Totally agree 5 13 8 7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Differences of opinion between Roma and non-Roma respondents are statistically significant
for the first and last questions, (Chi Square test) for p=0.01, but not for the middle questions.
In neither sample was the respondent’ s level of education an influence on his opinions regarding
school practices for Roma pupils.

Points to Highlight
• A proportion of 9% of young Roma adults (aged 18-30) are high school graduates, while
an additional 2% have pursued higher education. In contrast, 41% of non-Roma young
adults are high school graduates, while an additional 27% have pursued higher education.
• The age group 30-60 has the highest proportion of high school graduates, for both the
Roma and the comparative sample. But there are significant differences between the two
samples regarding the younger group, aged 18-30. In the Roma sample their educational
level decreases: instead of high school education, a larger proportion of pupils only achieve
gymnasium level or lower schooling. In the case of the comparative sample, the decrease
in number of high school graduates is due to enrolment in higher education: there is a
significant increase for post-liceal graduates, students and university graduates.
• Around 7% of adult Roma have repeated at least one year in school, compared to around
1% of the comparative sample. This discrepancy is maintained in the current pupil
population: out of the 756 Roma pupils aged 6-18 who are currently attending school, 69
(9%) have repeated at least one year in school, while out of the 327 pupils aged 6-18 who
are attending school in the comparative sample, only 3 have repeated school years.
• If we take into account all members of Roma households, around 7% of people aged 14 or
more who graduated from elementary school are illiterate. Furthermore, 28% of people
who attended school but did not graduate elementary level are illiterate, and so are 88%
of people who did not attend school at all. Overall, 22% of all household members aged
14 or more in the Roma sample are illiterate, compared to 2% in the comparative sample.
• Roma pupils in segregated classes have a significantly higher risk of illiteracy. Around 15%
of pupils in classes with a majority of Roma children are illiterate, compared to around 4%
of the other Roma pupils.
176
EDUCATION ISSUES
• 25% of Roma pupils learn in classrooms with a majority of Roma children, and an
additional 28% learn in classes which have around half Roma children, according to
estimates of adult members of their household. The remaining 47% learn in classrooms
with a majority of non-Roma pupils.
• 62% of Roma respondents believe that directors of schools with segregated classrooms
should be punished, compared to 48% of the non-Roma respondents.
There is not so much to conclude on education as an agent of change in the social situation of
the Roma, except to say that this is not the case. The Romanian school system has not yet
succeeded in ensuring the right to education for Roma pupils. One can also say that Romanian
schools are not yet able to “sell” education to Roma pupils and parents.
While the general economic situation of the Roma is improving, it is unclear to what extent this
will lead automatically to an improvement in their educational situation in the next few years.
Without programmes that can convert improved standards of living into school performance, it
is likely that the gap between average Roma and non-Roma pupils will continue to grow, at the
same time that the gap between the average European and the average Romanian continues to
grow (see Miclea et al. 2007).
It is also clear that poverty per se is not the only, and maybe not even a major, factor that hinders
the school careers of Roma children. While it is undisputed that lack of material resources is a
significant problem, it is important to see that most Roma children do not become de facto pupils,
in the strict meaning of the word. Even when physically present in school, their engagement in the
actual learning process as well as in the school atmosphere in general is significantly less than it is
for other children – this is particularly the case in schools with predominantly Roma students,
where their educational experience is often simply focused on literacy. This situation can also be
seen in communities which live below subsistence level.
Segregation in education is a debated subject. It is still either experimented with as an intentional
solution, or tolerated as a side effect of residential segregation and the flight of non-Roma parents
– all for short-term comfort but long-term negative effect. Ethnic homogeneity is evaluated
ambivalently by both Roma and non-Roma stakeholders and this perpetuates a system that
operates visibly to the disadvantage of Roma children.
177
11 Financial Coping Strategies
This chapter discusses two coping strategies used to improve standards of living: migration and
credit. Both are discussed using survey data.
11.1 Migration
Migration is one of the most sensitive issues concerning the Roma situation in Eastern Europe,
especially after Romania’ s accession to the European Union in 2007. This chapter aims to address
the question of whether the migration potential for Roma actually differs from that of other poor
non-Roma citizens in Romania. It also examines the different factors that may have an impact on
planned migration.
In this section we will use three different measurements for analysis of the migration potential:
1. The gross migration potential indicates the proportion of the population being sampled
who plan to work abroad on a regular basis (short-term: daily or weekly, medium –term:
for weeks or months, and long–term: a number of years) or plan to emigrate on a
permanent basis (Sik and Simonovits 2002).
2. The combined migration potential is a composite indicator, covering all instances of
intention to work abroad, be it short-term, medium-term and long-term, as well as
emigration on a permanent basis.
3. The net migration potential is based on the gross migration potential, filtered with another
indicator – the date of the planned migration. This net indicator only covers the migration
potential of those who could name the exact date of migration and therefore shows more
precise migration plans.
As Chart 11-1 shows, the migration potential of the Roma is generally higher than that of the
non-Roma in Romania. This is in fact the case for all regions in the country. For both, the Roma
and non-Roma, migration potential is highest in the West and in Bucharest-Ilfov, with the
difference between these two samples being more striking in the Western counties, where the
Roma migration potential almost doubles the potential of the non-Roma. The lowest levels can
be found in the Eastern counties and in case of the non-Roma also in the South.
Chart 11-1 Combined migration potential of the respondent

by ethnicity and by region (percentage)
178
FINANCIAL COPING STRATEGIES
Asking about the date of departure for intended migration helps to reveal the seriousness of these
migration plans. According to Chart 11-2, the intentions of Roma seem generally more serious. A
higher rate of Roma would go abroad as soon as possible this year. Together with those who gave
precise answers on migrating next year, the rate for the Roma is around 74 percent, while for the
non-Roma it is 63%. Meaning that non-Roma respondents were less sure of their exact departure.
Chart 11-2 Departure time for the planned migration, by ethnicity (percentage)
Analysing net migration potential28, reveals that it is generally lower, yet the difference according
to ethnicity is practically the same as for the combined gross migration potential (see Chart 11-3).
In all regions though, the intention to migrate is higher for the Roma than for the non-Roma and
the filtering did not radically change the regional differences (compare with Chart 11-1).
Chart 11-3 Net migration potential of the respondent by ethnicity and by region (percentage)
As for the net migration potential, the number of cases for a more detailed analysis is relatively
low. This is why in most cases we will use the gross potential during the course of analysis.
We asked our respondents about their planned migration (see Chart 11-4). For medium-term
and long-term migration, as well as emigration, potential of Roma is around twice as high, while
for short-term migration it is more than three times as high, meaning that the Roma are more
prepared to commute daily or weekly. This shows that the Roma in our sample are prepared to
migrate under much harder conditions than their non-Roma counterparts.
28 Based on the migration intentions of respondents who answered the question about when they plan to go
abroad for work.
179
AGENTS OF CHANGE
Chart 11-4 Period of the planned migration, by ethnicity (percentage)
As Table 11-1 and Table 11-2 also reveal, both Roma and non-Roma prefer a medium-term
period of migration. The highest rates of a combined migration potential among the Roma
respondents prevail in the West and in the Bucharest-Ilfov region, while for the non-Roma only
the capital and its surrounding areas are salient. The rate of those contemplating possible
emigration is almost twice as high among the Roma, however, with the rates being comparatively
low in the South and East.
For the Roma, the combined migration potential is lowest in county capitals, higher in “other
villages” and highest in the “main villages”, albeit with minimal differences. The type of location has
different effects on different types of migration: The rate of those planning short-term migration is
highest in “other villages” and lowest in county capitals, with differences being almost quadruple.
With respect to long-term migration the tendency is the same but there are no strong differences
between the different locations. Emigration is highest in the “main villages” and lowest in county
capitals, with a huge difference between the locations. The type of location has no significant effect
on medium-term migration. Among the non-Roma respondents differences are rather insignificant.
Age has a significant effect on migration potential. It can generally be concluded that younger
respondents, both Roma and non-Roma display a higher potential for migration. Education has
no significant effect on the Roma’ s migration potential, whereas data from the non-Roma
respondents reveals a very clear tendency: the more educated people are, the higher their migration
potential for all kinds of migration.
Our formulated hypothesis was that those who are in regular employment would display the
lowest migration potential due to their more established links with the formal labour market, while
those unemployed and hence least integrated, would display much stronger motivation levels to
work abroad. Our data shows, however, that this hypothesis neither holds true for the Roma nor
the non-Roma respondents. With respect to Roma adult school population, they have the highest
potential for all types of migration except for emigration, while non-Roma students and those
who engage in casual work are mostly prepared to migrate (it is imperative to mention that the
number of students is very low among those who are planning to work abroad, both for our Roma
and non-Roma sample). So what is very clear, and indeed far from our original hypothesis, is the
fact that those Roma and non-Roma respondents who do not work reveal the lowest potential.
180
Table 11-1. Effects of different socio-economic factors on gross migration potential

of Roma respondents (percentage)
Combined
Socio-demographic variables Short-term Medium-term Long-term Emigration migration
potential
Total Roma population 8.5 22.1 18.2 7.7 30.9
Region
East 5.6 13.7 9.2 1.1 17.6
South 13.4 22.2 22.4 2.4 28.8
West 76.8 24.3 17.8 11.9 35.2
Bucharest + Ilfov (7.1) (22.5) (21.4) (9.8) (34.7)
Chi-square significance1 0.006 0.057 0.009 0.000 0.000
Type of location
Bucharest (8.0) (23.5) (14.0) (14.6) (30.8)
County capitals 3.6 14.3 10.9 2.9 20.9
Other cities 8.7 23.8 16.7 9.6 32.8
Main villages 7.7 23.2 20.7 11.3 35.6
Other villages 13.6 24.4 22.4 2.7 29.0
Chi-square significance 0.013 0.107 0.024 0.001 0.008
Age
18 - 24 8.3 28.3 24.8 8.8 41.5
25 - 34 10.1 28.5 23.0 10.6 39.8
35 - 44 12.2 27.8 23.7 10.7 37.1
45 - 54 8.4 15.4 14.6 5.0 21.1
55 - 64 3.8 9.4 8.6 (2.4) 11.6
65 and older (1.3) (5.0) (1.3) (1.5) (6.1)
Highest completed level of education
No schooling 9.3 24.1 17.3 6.4 31.4
Incomplete primary 8.2 21.1 17.3 8.4 29.0
Complete primary 7.5 20.7 19.0 6.1 31.8
Complete secondary or higher 9.6 24.3 20.6 8.5 35.3
Economic activity
Regular work 7.8 18.4 15.5 6.7 26.7
Casual work 12.6 28.5 23.4 10.4 39.4
Housework 10.8 30.7 22.5 9.8 38.3
Student ((15.4)) ((50.0)) ((38.5)) ((0.0)) ((64.3))
Do not work 6.2 15.6 14.6 6.6 25.0
( ) Number of cases is between 50 and 100
(( )) Number of cases is between 20 and 50
181
AGENTS OF CHANGE
Table 11-2. Effects of different socio-economic factors on gross migration potential

of non-Roma respondents (percentage)
Combined
Socio-demographic variables Short-term Medium-term Long-term Emigration migration
potential
Total Non-Roma population 2.3 11.1 9.6 4.4 18.3
Region
East 3.2 6.3 11.4 3.9 16.2
South 2.5 9.1 9.7 1.9 15.8
West 1.7 13.4 8.3 6.0 19.6
Bucharest + Ilfov (3.1) (15.6) (14.1) ((6.5)) (26.6)
Type of location
Bucharest ((4.1)) ((12.2)) ((10.2)) ((9.4)) ((20.4))
County capitals 2.1 15.9 10.5 5.5 24.8
Other cities 1.3 9.8 9.3 5.7 16.9
Main villages 3.5 11.6 9.3 4.0 17.9
Other villages 0.6 7.4 9.7 1.7 14.5
Age
18 - 24 (8.6) (22.9) (19.1) (13.2) (36.0)
25 - 34 1.4 17.6 15.3 8.0 29.8
35 - 44 3.7 18.5 15.3 6.9 28.5
45 - 54 3.2 11.0 7.8 1.9 16.3
55 - 64 0.7 5.1 5.8 3.7 9.9
65 and older 0.8 2.0 1.2 1.5 3.4
Highest completed level of education
No schooling ((0.0)) ((18.8)) ((12.5)) ((6.7)) ((18.8))
Incomplete primary 1.3 4.3 3.0 2.1 6.3
Completed primary 2.5 10.4 10.0 4.3 18.3
Completed secondary or higher 2.7 14.3 12.3 5.4 23.6
Economic activity
Regular work 2.9 15.0 13.6 7.0 26.1
Casual work ((5.3)) ((15.8)) ((21.6)) ((6.5)) ((31.6))
Housework 1.9 13.4 8.8 4.7 19.1
Student ((5.7)) ((22.9)) ((20.0)) ((0.0)) ((28.9))
Do not work 1.4 4.9 3.3 2.3 7.6
( ) Number of cases is between 50 and 100
(( )) Number of cases is between 20 and 50
It should be mentioned that in the course of this research only informants currently living in the
country could be targeted and so the data does not reveal any information about past migration.
The only thing that actually gives some insight into this issue is account of past migration
182
experiences by members of the respondent’ s household. As Chart 11-5 shows, the general level
of previous migration experience is exactly the same for both ethnic categories, yet there are
significant regional differences. While this rate is highest in the South and in the Bucharest-Ilfov
region and lowest in the East among the Roma, higher rates of non-Roma who have already
worked abroad can be found in the West and the East, with the rate being lowest in the capital and
its surrounding areas.
Chart 11-5 Migration experience of any member of the household

by ethnicity and by region (percentage)
We can rightly suppose that previous migration experiences of the respondents have strongly
influenced their migration potential, on the assumption that those who have already worked abroad
are indeed more likely than not to repeat this experience.
Chart 11-6 Migration experiences of the respondent by ethnicity and by region (percentage)
As Table 11-3 shows, our hypothesis is validated: migration experience has a strong effect on
migration potential. In case of the Roma, those who have already worked abroad tend to plan to
go abroad again (combined migration potential) – 2.2 times more likely than those without any
previous migration experience. In the case of the non-Roma, this difference is even more striking
– 2.7 times higher than those without any previous migration experience. For the Roma, the
shorter the period of planned migration, the stronger the effect of previous experience, while for
the non-Roma the opposite is true.
183
AGENTS OF CHANGE
Table 11-3 Gross* migration potential, by previous migration experience of the respondents
and by ethnicity (percentage)
Combined
Medium-
Short- term Long- term Emigration migration
term
potential**
Roma
Total 8.6 22.4 18.2 7.9 31.4
With migration experience of the respondent 21.9 52.9 41.7 16.0 68.4
Correlation index 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.2
Non-Roma
Total 2.4 10.9 8.9 3.9 17.5
With migration experience of the respondent 1.3 28.6 26.7 14.3 48.0
*The gross migration potential indicates what proportion of the population questioned plans to work abroad
**The combined migration potential is a composite indicator containing all instances of intention to work abroad, be it
short-term, medium-term, long-term, or emigration.
As an important factor of migration, we asked respondents about their migration-specific

network. By ‘ network’ , we understand a circle of relatives or friends who are in a position to help
them in the target country, or still in Romania, when setting up migration plans. As Chart 11-7
shows, non-Roma respondents tend to rely much more on these networks either in Romania or
in the target country. We can suppose again that those respondents who were able to answer our
questions more precisely, and who had saved some “network capital” for their pending migration
would indeed be more serious about their migration plans.
Chart 11-7 Rate of respondents who have migration specific network, by ethnicity (percentage)
As Chart 11-8 shows, both Roma and non-Roma respondents would prefer to migrate with
relatives, friends, neighbours or acquaintances rather than on their own. Among the Roma sample,
there was a higher tendency to go with a relative rather than among non-Roma (53 and 47 percent,
respectively). At the same time, fewer Roma would go abroad to work with others (non-relatives)
than non-Roma. The level of those planning to migrate alone does not show any significant
differences according to ethnicity, including those who do not know who they would go with.
Again, our hypothesis is that those who do not know with whom they intend to migrate are less
serious about migration than those who provided clear answers to our inquiry.
184
Chart 11-8. With whom the respondents plan to migrate, by ethnicity (percentage)
We asked our respondents whether they had ever been treated worse than others because of
their ethnicity. As Table 11-4 shows, lived experiences of ethnic discrimination have had quite a
strong impact on migration potential. In the case of the Roma this effect is around 1.3 times higher
than those without such experiences, for all kinds of migration (for short and long-term migration
the effect is even greater), while in the case of the non-Roma the rate is above 2 for all categories,
being highest among those who are planning short-term migration (4.1), or emigration (3.7).
Table 11-4 Gross migration potential, by experience of ethnic discrimination

and by ethnicity (percentage)
Combined
Medium-
Short-term Long- term Emigration migration
term
potential
Roma
Total 7.2 20.8 16.5 8.0 29.6
With experience of ethnic discrimination 13.0 27.0 26.6 10.1 39.1
Non-Roma
Total 1.9 10.2 8.4 4.7 16.9
With experience of ethnic discrimination 7.8 23.5 21.6 17.5 38.2
Those who keep better track of their financial situation (concerning the previous year), display
a higher migration potential among both groups, Roma and non-Roma. For the non-Roma
respondents, the lowest rate can be found among those who feel that their situation has not
changed, while for the Roma there is no significant difference between those living in stagnant
financial conditions and those whose financial situation has actually deteriorated.
185
AGENTS OF CHANGE
Chart 11-9 Combined migration potential, by effect of the development of the household’ s
financial situation and by ethnicity (percentage)
It can be expected that changes in a household’ s financial situation come about as the result of
migration by members of the household. As Table 11-5 shows, the experience of migration has a
stronger correlation with the financial situation in Roma households than in non-Roma ones.
Those Roma who have worked abroad are 2.4 times more likely to find themselves in better living
conditions than they were a year ago, compared to those who have never worked abroad. This
difference for the non-Roma households is only 1.6 times.
Table 11-5 Development of the household’ s financial situation, by migration experience of any
members of the household and by ethnicity (percentage)
Better Same Worse
Roma
Total 13.8 38.4 47.8
With migration experience 33.1 21.3 15.6
Correlation index 2.4 0.6 0.3
Non-Roma
Total 17.8 52.9 29.3
With migration experience 29.2 18.1 18.6
Correlation index 1.6 0.3 0.6
An expected improvement in the household’ s future financial situation can be another

important factor for migration plans. As Chart 11-10 shows that this is clearly the case for the
non-Roma: those who believe in better financial conditions after migration show the highest
migration potential, while those who are not convinced show the lowest migration potential.
Although there is no such clear tendency for the Roma, those with optimistic expectations are
more likely to display a higher migration potential. Interestingly though, even those who do not
expect to have a better financial situation as a result of migration, still display the same level of
migration intentions. For those who believe in no changes of their financial situation after
migration, migration potential remains below the average.
186
Chart 11-10 Combined migration potential, by expectation of the household’ s future financial
situation and by ethnicity (percentage)
We asked respondents what the minimum amount of monthly income would be for them, for
migration to be worthwhile. In general, non-Roma people are only prepared to migrate for 1.3
times the level of monthly income than their Roma counterparts would accept (Chart 11-11). The
biggest difference between both ethnicities can be found with respect to emigration (1.5 times).
While non-Roma display the highest financial motivation for emigration, the Roma, on the other
hand, are financially driven only in the case of short-term migration, while at the same time
displaying the lowest financial motivation levels in the case of emigration.
Chart 11-11 Average level of monthly income considered worthwhile to work abroad for,
by ethnicity (RON)
11.2 Work Abroad in Community Reports

Romanian citizens of all ethnic identities have improved their material standing through work
abroad, and this is a common practice in Roma communities too. Most community reports indicate
migration for work as one of the main “bootstrapping” strategies of the Roma.
Quote 11-1. Work abroad for Roma people in Timiºoara

Working abroad (especially in Italy and Spain) was mentioned as a way of adaptation
to living conditions for almost every person and his/her relatives I talked with. Today
Roma from Timiºoara work abroad, they are helped by informal networks of migrants,
which has facilitated transnational temporary migration since 1990. Women take care
187
AGENTS OF CHANGE
of children and old people, men work in construction and do business in the “grey
market” (e.g. buying and selling used motor-cycles).(...) [G.L.] is 46, being married
since 16 with two sons staying in the house and a girl left for Spain. One of the sons
has a daughter raised up by her. She lives together with her husband and mother-in-
law, who do not help her in household troubles. The house has six rooms, we' re talking
near a table set in a small corridor, entrance hall, extremely long, for about 30 meters,
where 10 scooters are put as his husband deals with selling them. After they returned
from working in Germany and France (four years) in the early 1990’ s, they renovated
the house. (GL, Timiºoara, quoted by Magyari-Vincze 2007)
Quote 11-2. Work abroad for people in Cugir

Some of the former members of the band left abroad to work – which is a very
widespread habit among the Cugir population. (Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
The dramas of migration are also the same for all people – especially the family members left
behind, or children that should follow a school career. Families are torn apart, and bureaucratic
problems related to school and other papers are exacerbated.
Quote 11-3. Work abroad for people in Mihail Kogãlniceanu

Most of the young people in the village prefer looking abroad for work, due to better
working conditions and a higher salary they can benefit from. They do not typically
stay in a foreign country more than several months, whereby an average is of 3-4
months; they then return with the earned money, used for house decorations or
insulation. From all communities present in the locality, the ones who migrate most
often are the Roma. (...) They say this is good. Much better than home, but they are
compelled to come back, because this is where the family and the house is. (Mihail
Quote 11-4. Work abroad for the Chinari Roma in Sântana de Mureº :
In the last two years they have started to go to Hungary for seasonal work in agriculture.
At the time of the research (June 2007) large groups of Roma were in Hungary leaving
at home the very young mothers and the older people. (Sântana de Mureº, Troc 2007)
Working abroad can be seen as a financial coping strategy, as it significantly improves the chances
for the family to have a decent standard of living. However, it does not seem to have direct positive
effects on education – at least according to our qualitative information. In theory, it is to be expected
that a higher standard of living will reduce at least some of the factors that negatively affect the
school careers of Roma pupils. On the other hand, migration is a disorganizing force for pupils’
school tracks, and it is also a factor that may decrease motivation for spending time in classrooms.
Quote 11-5. Family and educational problems due to migration in Curtici

The Roma are around 20% of the total 8500 residents in Curtici (A.N., Mayor of
Curtici). Because of migration a large part of the Roma population is abroad. “During
the winter, they leave as much as they can! As many as want to work! Curtici has 8500
residents, in the summer it has 7500, and of those who leave, the Roma are about half.”
(A.N., Mayor of Curtici) “France is the most sympathetic country – but there are many
tears there” – tells me Simona, aged 38. The tears are because the family back home is
missing, she explains. (...) Another problem that leads to the lack of identity papers,
especially for children, is migration. Children go abroad, where they most frequently
attend school, but only rarely do they bring back papers to prove this. Even more, parents
188
travel independently of the school programmes. All of these factors increase the tendency
for school abandonment. Even though in Curtici it was made possible to re-register
children, without papers, on the basis of an exam which they pass in the school, girls only
rarely come to this exam. For boys they even make more compromises because they know
that once they fail they will completely give up school.” (Curtici, M. Goina 2007)
11.3 Credit
A look at data on household credit illustrates a facet of social exclusion that confronts Roma
people. A total of 40% of Roma households have borrowed money, and so have around 30% of
households in the comparative sample. Among the Roma sample, 17% of the households are
indebted to private creditors, compared to 3% of the households in the comparative sample. The
level of access to bank credit is lower – 12% of Roma households have borrowed money from
banks, compared to one fifth of the comparative sample. The Roma also rely heavily on family and
relatives for financial help, unlike the non-Roma. Credit in the formal sector is still a daring choice
for the Roma (see for example Quote 3-27) – due at least in part to their lower incomes and lack
of stable jobs in the formal labour market.
Chart 11-12. Household credit by source, in Roma and comparative samples

(multiple answers were possible)
The majority of Roma households who use credit borrow small amounts (less than 500 RON),
while households in the comparative sample make use of substantially more credit (see below).
Chart 11-13. Credit size, by sample (RON)
189
AGENTS OF CHANGE
Households that have borrowed money from banks have a significantly higher level of debt than
households that use private creditors or family members. This relationship is the same for Roma
and comparative samples (see Chart 11-14).
Chart 11-14. Average sum of borrowed money, by main credit source (RON)
Credit destinations also vary considerably between the Roma and the comparative samples:
more than one quarter of Roma households have used credit to cover their daily expenses,
compared to only 6% of the comparative sample.
Chart 11-15. Destination of credit, in Roma and comparative samples

(multiple answers were possible) (percentage)
If we analyse all credits that Roma households took from private creditors, 90% of these were
used to cover daily expenses; 83% of credits from family and relatives were also used for daily
expenses. Credits from banks are usually taken out for more significant expenses, such as household
appliances or house repairs.
190
Chart 11-16. Uses of borrowed money from different sources in the Roma sample (percentage)
Overall, the better off and the worse off Roma households have a similar probability of
borrowing money – around 40% of Roma households with and without a refrigerator in the
household have a credit. The better off are more likely to borrow from a bank, while the poorer
households are more likely to borrow from private creditors.
Chart 11-17. Credit source by household financial situation, in the Roma sample (percentage)
191
AGENTS OF CHANGE

Points to Highlight
• In all regions of Romania the migration potential of the Roma is generally higher than
that of the non-Roma.
• Taking all those who gave precise answers a higher rate of Roma – 74% – compared to
non-Roma – 63% – would go abroad as soon as possible this year.
• Twice the rate of Roma compared to non-Roma are prepared to undertake medium and
long-term migration, while three times the rate of Roma compared to non-Roma are
prepared to undertake short-term migration, meaning also that they are more prepared to
commute daily or weekly..
• The rate of those contemplating about possible emigration is almost twice as high among
the Roma.
• The general level of previous migration experiences is exactly the same with both ethnic
categories, yet there are significant regional differences. While this rate is highest in the
South and lowest in the East among the Roma, higher rates of non-Roma who have already
worked abroad can be found in the West and the East.
• Migration experience has a strong effect on migration potential. In the case of the Roma,
those who have already worked abroad tend to plan to go abroad again – 2.2 times more
likely than those without any previous migration experience. In the case of the non-Roma,
this difference is even more striking – 2.7 times higher than those without any previous
migration experience.
• When making migration plans non-Roma respondents tend to rely much more on a
migration-specific network (a circle of relatives or friends that are in a position to help
them) either in Romania or in the target country.
• Both Roma and non-Roma respondents would prefer to migrate with relatives, friends,
neighbours or acquaintances rather than on their own. Among the Roma sample, there
was a higher tendency to go with a relative rather than among the non-Roma (53 and 47
percent, respectively).
• Experiences of ethnic discrimination are positively correlated with short, middle and long-
term migration and emigration potential.
• Those who have already worked abroad are 2.4 times more likely to find themselves in
better living conditions than a year ago. This difference among the non-Roma households
is 1.6 times.
• In general non-Roma are only prepared to migrate for 1.3 times more monthly income
than their Roma counterparts would accept. The biggest difference between both
ethnicities can be found with respect to emigration (1.5 times).
• A total of 40% of Roma households have borrowed money, and so have around 30% of
households in the comparative sample. Within the Roma sample, 17% of the households
are indebted to private creditors, compared to 3% of the households in the comparative
sample. Level of accessing credit from banks is lower – 12% of the Roma households have
borrowed money from banks, compared to 21% of the comparative sample.
• Roma rely heavily on family and relatives for financial help unlike non-Roma households.
• More than 25% of Roma households have used credit to cover daily expenses compared
to only 6% of non-Roma.
Most community reports indicate migration for work is one of the main “bootstrapping”
strategies of the Roma. Romanian citizens improve their material standing by working abroad.
The experience of working abroad seems to be similar across ethnic borders, while migration
192
intention is more frequent among the Roma. Several factors influence the realization of migration
plans, such as migration-related network capital, experience of discrimination or financial situation.
Another factor is that ethnic distinctions are strongly dependent on a national and local context.
Roma stories of work abroad are indistinct from Gadje accounts. At the same time, the experience
of credit is drastically different, with Roma households limited to informal networks, mostly for
small scale purchases. Low income and the lack of stable, formal jobs are probably the main two
causes that restrict the access of Roma households to bank credit.
193
PART V
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
AND ROMA CITIZENS
12 Local Mediation Structures
Local mediation structures reflected in community reports include:
– Roma experts in town halls and county councils;
– Health and school mediators;
– Other formal structures of representation (Roma local councilors, special offices for the
Roma, NGOs);
– Other informal leaders who have systematic contact with local authorities, mediating
between them and Roma citizens.
Mediation structures have increased the visibility of Roma people for local authorities, and they
have facilitated communication between the two. This solution has been evaluated as functional.
However, this solution seems to be reaching its limits, especially regarding the informal leaders
of Roma communities, who are not held accountable in any official way. The main grounds for
suspicion of these informal leaders are related to corruption. At the same time, case studies in
localities where there is no representation point to the low bargaining power of the Roma residents
and their dependency on local authorities. As is the case with all citizens with impoverished lives
and little education, Roma people have little power over their elected representatives, and their
votes have yet to have value, at local and national level.
Quote 12-1. Interactions with the Mayor in a locality

without representation in Modelu
The majority of Roma families perceive their relationship with the mayor as good and
the mayor as being “a good man”. However, they were unable to describe how the
mayoralty had contributed to improving their standards of living. My personal
observation alongside the discussions with the mayor and while I was at the mayor‘ s
office (I happened to be there when he was receiving people in his office) is that the
mayor had a flexible approach to people and was trying to earn their sympathy and
confidence; he would “solve” problems tactfully by promising people solutions that were
obviously impossible (for instance, he would promise them a piece of land to build a
home). Although there is quite a big number of Roma families in the community, the
Local Authority does not have an adviser on Roma issues - but the mayor does have
the intent to open such a position within the office. (Modelu, Feraru 2007)
The lack of communication between Local Authorities and Roma citizens has been solved, to
a certain extent, by the introduction of multiple mediation agencies – such as local experts,
educational and health mediators, special departments in Town Halls, and also informal mediation
structures based on informal leaders. There is often a strong connection between formal and
informal leaders – either through their collaboration and partnership, or because the same person
has occupied, at times, different positions.
For example, in Târgu Mureº there are two main mediation structures: the street-leaders
structure, on the one hand, and the Department for Roma Support within the Town Hall. Both
of them have their advantages and disadvantages, as discussed below.
These intermediate structures are praised for easing the interactions between authorities and
citizens. Besides this, or in relation to this, they also have other involvement in the community,
which may range from economic to religious, charitable or political.
Quote 12-2. Local leadership and mediation in Gradinari

There is a necessity to have a formal leader in solving problems of Roma. The local
expert here has both formal and informal power among the community members,
197
LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND ROMA CITIZENS
representing Roma towards the local council and being at the same time member of
each “Gypsy law council” (Romani Cris). He is seen as a wise man, he is said to have
no local problems he isn’ t involved in.
“Yes, he helps us a lot, it’ s a kind of God for us. He gives us many things, although
he has a family. He lends us money, and we give it back when we can, but he gives
us” (Roma respondent, Gradinari)
“They come and curse you, promising they will kill you. After he comes and explains the
things to them, he checks the files and says I was right. They don’ t believe me. When he
comes they accept I’ m right” (Social assistant, Gradinari, OR team 2007)
Local leaders and mediators are part of a community and part of an organizational system that
allocates rights and responsibilities, together with systems of monitoring and sanctions. The
function of filtering and aggregating the demands and problems of Roma citizens is seen as key to
such intermediate agents. At the same time, this very same filtering procedure deprives them and
their beneficiaries of the political influence which comes with numbers. The multiplicity of Roma
voices and the intensity of their problems are reduced by the process of translation into the
administrative language.
Quote 12-3. Formal and informal leadership in Târgu Mureº

Since the very first days of the research, I came in contact with the person called the
representative of the Roma at the Town Hall – wording which, apparently, was
describing a formal position. Moreover, the representative had subordinated street
representatives (street chiefs), which were people assigned from all the six Mureº
communities. Further on, I was to find out that the structure appeared in the 90es
and was organised by the Roma Party; it had become very useful to the authorities,
mainly due to its central leader, accepted as a representative of the communities.
On an ascending axis, the street chiefs have attributions in many different fields. First
of all, they represent the community; they collect the requests that the inhabitants write
to the authorities and submit them on their behalf, defending this situation through a
viewpoint of “usefulness” (the inhabitants may be illiterate, they may spell the
applications wrong or come up with illogical wordings). The relationship is even more
formalised, as the requests are signed exclusively by the street chiefs. From the
information gathered, the authorities only accept requests from these people – the
situation has not been proved, but it was confirmed by many different sources. At the
same time, the street chiefs perform a control function, acting as mediators between the
police and the community; they are those who inform the police in exceptional situations,
provide information regarding the issues that may occur and even take responsibility
towards the authorities. It is the place to emphasise that these people are accepted by the
representatives of public institutions as partners; the list of people holding this position
is available to all authorities that have contact with these communities.
Another important role of the street chiefs is to be informative. They alone have the
duty to inform the central leader (the Roma representative) about all issues in the
community, if the seriousness of such issues requires communication to authorities
through the central leader. The Roma representative to the Mayoralty – as this
“function” is called – was extremely important in the period when the authorities
were trying to solve documentation problems; this person would ‘ guarantee’ that the
people to whom Identity documents were to be released were indeed inhabitants of the
locality. Moreover, the person holding this position was also an adviser on how various
problems were to be solved. (...) Regarding their relationship with the authorities, the
Roma Assistance Department at the Târgu-Mureº Mayoralty is the local
198
LOCAL MEDIATION STRUCTURES
administration office that deals with the issues of this community. At least in the
first stage, after the office had been established, the community accepted this
preferential treatment, as the employee was speaking Roma language. However,
beyond this direct usefulness, no long-term effects had been taken into consideration,
of the fact that an ethnic minority has to address a special office, located not in the
Town Hall, but in the city’ s medieval fortress. (Târgu Mureº, Cengher 2007)
At the same time this mediation also affects the political connection between local authorities
and Roma citizens, as responsibilities are blurred.
Quote 12-4. Political accountability in Sfântu Gheorghe

Community problems are solved by its representatives, who have a good relationship
with local authorities. Therefore, the other community members do not have their own
experiences with local authorities and this is why, in a crisis situation, when failure or
unsolved problems persist, the locals blame authorities without understanding the
limiting factors that condition their activity. (Sfântu Gheorghe, Kalamár 2007)
12.1 The Formal – Informal Partnership

One significant issue confronting Roma communities is the confusion between formal and informal
leadership. In many communities formal, elected leaders – such as local authorities – rely on informal
leaders to communicate with the Roma citizens and to help implement policies. This assistance is
two-sided. On the one hand, informal leaders provide vital organizational support to local authorities,
and in this way they help to solve urgent issues. On the other hand, informal leaders accumulate
significant power due to their connection to local authorities – power which is not constrained by the
accountability requirements of any public office, since local leaders are usually private individuals.
This power may, in some cases, be used against the interests of the local citizens. Even when this is
not the case, the proximity of these informal leaders to the centre of decision making without
transparency of decision-making procedures gives rise to significant public suspicion which, even
when it is not warranted by the facts, may hinder local development efforts.
A second problem related to this partnership of formal and informal authorities is the fact that,
while public authorities operate on the principle of the division of power (legislative, executive,
judiciary), local leaders may represent the community in its relationship with all of these
authorities. These leaders may acquire, therefore, decision-making power or influence in all areas
of community life, without any significant counterbalance.
12.2 Popular Suspicion

Most community reports discuss cases of suspicion of the Roma people, addressing the interests
and actions of local authorities, NGO activists, informal leaders etc. The field researchers do not
have the available means to decide whether such accusations are ever true or false – this is for the
justice system. Even so, independently of whether these accusations are justified or not in a given
case, we can look at the social conditions that lead to their persistence. Among these we may
indicate, as hypotheses, the following:
– Personal experiences with cases of abuse or discrimination in relations with informal or
formal leaders, or NGO’ s;
– Other reasons for dissatisfaction, which are misinterpreted as abuse or discrimination;
199
– The lack of transparency in the decision-making processes of local authorities or NGO’ s

regarding policies and benefits for the Roma people;
– The low “policy literacy” of many Roma people, leading to difficulties in understanding
the decision-making process and its constraints.
Quote 12-5. Leadership and suspicion in Târgu Mureº

What is very suggestive here is the perception of the foreigner, the intruder, regarded
with suspicion inside the community. More than once I’ ve seen Roma who express their
suspicions about the real intents of the organisations that do charity in the community:
“Even though they grant financial support, the Brits do make a living on us” (R.V., 31
y.o., Roma). This type of perception may be the cause of the problems that can be identified
even in the attitude leading to a refusal to send their children to the community school:
”The foreign foundation that has built the school does have some interests, if they come
here in the Gypsy colony... they do swirl around with some cash. Maybe they drop a plate
of food and some rags here and there... but it’ s sure they don’ t come for nothing.”
(Discussion with a Roma person, 43 y.o., Târgu Mureº, Cengher 2007)
While public policies and administrators may discriminate against Roma – and especially against
the poorer Roma - the local leaders themselves are also seen in several reports to be rather
ineffectual and sometimes surrounded by popular suspicion.
Quote 12-6. Leadership and suspicion in Cetãþeni

As is also the case with the majority of the Roma residents in the locality, people in this
area are disappointed and they have an ironical attitude towards the activities of Roma
organizations that only contact them before the elections and promise a solution to
their problems, and then abandon them after the elections. (Cetãþeni, Isan 2007)
Quote 12-7. Leadership and suspicion in Cugir

As I wanted to learn more about the various associations of the Roma, I was referred
to the ‘ expert for Roma issues in Cugir’ at the City Hall, who was the president of
a ‘ initiative group’ . The communication was not very smooth – probably because I
was suspected for having a hidden agenda, other than the one I had declared. (All the
conversations took place within the perimeter of the ‘ Social Bathing Facility’ ). As
a matter of fact, all the respondents outside the institution were of more help, as
people who hold certain positions (Roma or non-Roma) were very slow in making a
decision about how to support my research. And then, the ‘ internal regulations’ at
the City Hall require every employee to inform or ask the mayor’ s permission for any
type of collaboration with anyone from outside (interview, delivery of official
information of any kind, etc.). This aspect somewhat hindered my research at local
level, especially because some of the people at the City Hall were missing - especially
the mayor, who was out of the country when I got to Cugir.
(Later on I learned about the attitude of great distrust towards the representatives
of the Roma, to be more general; it seems that certain people have obtained their
influence in rather obscure ways; usurers are mentioned... but at the same time, I am
being told that those people are not bad, they are just... somehow different; one obvious
thing is the difference between the financial possibilities of the majority and those of
some of the ‘ representatives’ . (Cugir, Stoianovici 2007)
200
LOCAL MEDIATION STRUCTURES
Quote 12-8. Leadership failure in a community project

There is a large number of people who are not registered and have no Identity
documents, which makes them formally excluded. There has been an attempt – a
programme launched by the Tulcea Prefect’ s office and co-ordinated by the Babadag
Local Authority, to identify people in this situation in order to be given Identity
documents – but it ended in a failure. The person in charge of this project from the
Local Authority was Regep Mustafa, adviser on Roma issues at that time and
member of the community, who is also responsible for the failure of the project.
Regep (“Monoloi”, by his nick name) is a very active, entrepreneur-like individual.
For him, being appointed as adviser on Roma issues at the Babadag Local Authority,
on the one hand, was the confirmation of his status as a leader in the community, and
on the other hand, it led to a considerable decrease of his incomes, as the 3.5 million
lei salary was obviously insufficient to support his large family. Thus, as naturally
as he could, he asked the assisted individuals to pay amounts between 200 – 500
thousands lei in exchange for the support to get their Identity documents. This led to
him being replaced in the public position he was holding, but at the same time, the
project was abandoned for an indefinite period.
Monoloi, however, is not the only one responsible for the whole situation; on the
contrary, we may actually say that his help could have contributed decisively to solving
the problem. Later on, it was discovered that those who were in the situation of
having no Identity documents didn’ t really want to have any – some arguments
that were revealed to us were that having Identity documents would also mean being
obliged to pay taxes, fees, fines, etc. (Babadag, Gãtin 2007)

Special representation and mediation institutions for the Roma people and communities are by
design temporary arrangements. Their mission will be accomplished only when increased social
equality and integration of the Roma people makes them obsolete. This time has not yet come.
Meanwhile, these institutions run the risk of becoming communication channels themselves
instead of facilitators for communication, in this way replicating and replacing the mainstream
institutions but with downgraded responsibilities.
201
13 A Survey of Local Authorities’
Information on Roma
Communities
The Local Authority Survey (LA survey) Questionnaire asked public officials in all Local
Authorities in Romania to provide estimates for various indicators of social inclusion related to
Roma communities. The survey had a double purpose:
1. Gathering information at locality level concerning the situation of Roma communities;
2. Complementing available official information, such as that included in the 2002 census,
with unofficial estimates that are used to inform the policy-making process at local levels.
People in all social positions, including local authorities, use multiple sources of information to
make decisions, while official information is restricted to verifiable, objective indicators. For this
reason the survey respondents were asked to provide unofficial information, relying on their own
perceptions and experiences, where official information was missing or felt to be inadequate. In
this way the survey hoped to throw light on the data which informs, officially and unofficially, the
policy-making process at local level.
It is expected that the information offered by respondents would be, to a certain extent, subject
to error – random (due to misinformation, for example) and systematic (due to mis-representations
of the Roma situation, for example). This is why the data from the LA Survey database is best
understood from a statistical, aggregated perspective (in order to minimize random errors) and as
partially subjective, rather that purely objective, data. Subjective estimates are nevertheless valid
indicators of the gravity of social problems at local level, and can be used as starting points for
development projects and for further data collection.
The type of information included in the LA database does not allow any answer to be construed as
to the question of the total number of Roma-ethnic citizens in Romania, since it is probable that some
estimates are at least partially based on hetero-identification of Roma people by the respondents. Hetero-
identification as Roma cannot be used as an indicator of ethnicity; however, it is an indicator of social
exclusion and poverty, since attributions of Roma ethnicity correlate with a disadvantaged social situation.
13.1 Estimates of Rates and Numbers

Data from the 2002 Census indicates that 70% of Romanian localities have Roma-ethnic
residents. In the LA survey 61% of the returned questionnaires indicated the presence of Roma
population in the locality, which is about 10% lower than the national distribution. (Table 13-1)
Table 13-1. Existence of Roma population in localities in Census and LA survey data
(number of cases, percentage)
Census data (2002) LA survey (2007)*
N % N %
There are no Roma 963 30 673 39
There are Roma 2211 70 1100 61
Total valid cases (localities) 3174 100 1773 100
* The LA dataset does not include data from Bucharest local authorities
202
A SURVEY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES’ …
Because the LA survey answers rely on subjective estimates, there are discrepancies between the
2002 census data and the LA database. While some of these discrepancies may be due to objective
demographic developments, most of them probably reflect the differences in sources of information
instead of changes in the social situation. For example, respondents in around 13% of localities
that had no Roma residents in the 2002 Census have submitted information about Roma people in
the LA survey, while respondents in around 17% of localities that have Roma residents in the 2002
Census declared in the LA questionnaire that they have no Roma residents. (Table 13-2)
Table 13-2. Comparison of existence of Roma population in localities

in Census and LA survey data (percentage)
In Census data (2002)
No Yes Total
No 87 17 39
In LA dataset (2007)* Yes 13 83 61
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
If the data is organized by regions, the result shows that in some regions the local authorities
estimated the number of Roma to be significantly higher than the census data revealed, and others
to be closer to the census indications (Chart 13-1). Although the rate of localities with Roma-
ethnic residents is lower in the LA survey than in the census, the overall rate of Roma people in
the LA dataset is almost double that of the 2002 census data. The total rate of inhabitants classified
as Roma by local authority representatives in Romania is almost 6%.
Chart 13-1. Rate of Roma people by regions in Census data (2002) and in LA dataset* (2007)
(percentage)
The LA dataset shows considerable differences between proportions of Roma inhabitants by

region. The lowest rate is in the North-East region with 3 percent, and the highest is in the Central
region with more than 11%.
203
Chart 13-2. Rate of Roma people by type of locations in Census data, 2002 and in LA dataset*,
2007 (percentage)
We expected that at regional level the rate of Roma people would be higher in the less developed
regions, areas, and localities, and also that Roma people would be overrepresented in rural
localities. The LA data does not confirm this. Based on the LA dataset one cannot speak about
regional concentration of poverty and ethnicity in Romania. Although there are some counties
where the rate of Roma population is higher (in Brasov and Mureº it is more than 14 percent, in
Sibiu it is over 12 percent, in Covasna, Bihor, Satu Mare and Calarasi the Roma rate is higher
than 8%)29, the map of ethnicity and the map of level of development of localities do not overlap.
There are many developed areas with a high proportion of Roma and also less developed ones
with a low proportion of Roma. 30
13.2 Information on Formal Exclusion

Since we cannot speak about strong regional concentration of Roma population in Romania, we
need to check other possible factors for social exclusion, such as formal exclusion (lack of personal
and property documents), spatial segregation inside localities, educational inequalities and the
presence of ethnic conflict. We will also control for some other possible indicators of inclusion,
such as the existence of Roma NGOs and Roma experts employed by Local Authorities, as well
as previous programmes involving Roma people.
13.2.1 Lack of Personal Documents

According to perceptions of local authorities, altogether 1.5% of Roma people have no birth
certificate (BC). Lack of BC can be due to lack of registration, or to lost certificates. From our data
we cannot know the precise reason for lacking a BC.
29 See Chart 16-2 in the Annex

30 See Map 16-1 - Map 16-4 in the Annex
204
Chart 13-3. Rate of Roma people without birth certificate compared to the total number of Roma,
by type of locations, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)
Data shows that lack of BC is more likely to occur in large cities (Municipiu), and that there is
no difference between small cities (oras) and villages (comuna).
The highest rate of Roma people without BC, as declared by local authorities, is in the North-
West region (2.2%), while South-Muntenia has the best situation of all regions (0.9%).
Chart 13-4. Rate of Roma people without birth certificate compared to the total number of Roma,
by regions, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)
Another important indicator of formal exclusion is the lack of identity documents (ID). Although
the total rate seems not to be very high (1.9%), lack of ID has a strong connection to access to
employment and different social services, such as health care and education. As with BC, the
problem seems more serious in large cities (Municipiu), where an estimated 4.2% of Roma people
have no ID card, while in villages this rate is around 1.6%.
Chart 13-5. Rate of Roma people without ID card compared to the total number of Roma, by type
of locations, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)
205
In the Eastern part of the country (both North- and South-East) the average estimated rate of
Roma people without ID is around 3%. There is considerable variation between county average
estimates: for example, in Neamt County the estimated rate is 9 percent, which is more than four
times higher than the country average.
Chart 13-6. Rate of Roma people without ID card compared to the total number of Roma,
by regions, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)
13.2.2 Lack of Property Papers

Another important factor for formal exclusion is lack of housing documents – such as property
titles or rental contracts for land and housing. Based on the perception of local authorities this
problem seems to be much more frequent than the lack of Identity documents. Answers indicate
that more than 40% of Roma households living in compact communities do not have land titles.
And the problem is more serious in smaller cities and villages than in big cities.
Chart 13-7. Rate of Roma households in communities without land title, by type of location,
LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)
There are also huge regional differences: in South-West Oltenia the average estimated rate is
around half the country-wide rate, whereas in Ilfov and the North-West region the authorities
declare that more than half of the Roma households living in compact communities have no land title.
206
Chart 13-8. Rate of Roma households in communities without land title, by regions, LA dataset,
2007* (percentage)
13.2.3 Other Factors for Social Exclusion

Education
One of the reasons Roma (and generally disadvantaged) children have unequal chances from the
very beginning of elementary school is that many of them do not attend kindergartens, while non-
Roma, or less poor children from their age group, usually start elementary school after two or
three years of pre-school.
As Chart 13-9 shows, an estimated 77% of the children aged 3-6 are attending kindergarten in
Romania31, compared to about 50% of Roma children in the same age group.
If we organize our data by type of locations the picture is really surprising. The average
estimated rate of children attending kindergarten is much lower in municipalities, a bit higher in
towns, and highest in rural communes. The rate of Roma children attending kindergarten
(computed from the relevant age group) is also lowest in municipalities. The difference between
the total population and Roma seems to be higher in urban localities compared to rural localities.
There are no strong differences between regions.
Chart 13-9. Rate of children attending kindergarten compared to the total number
of children aged 3-6, by type of location, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)
One of the most controversial types of educational segregation of Roma or disadvantaged

children is sending them to special (auxiliary) schools, which have a curricula adapted to children
31 The total number of children is a country-wide data, containing also Roma children.
207
with special needs. Roma children attend them for a variety of reasons – such as being considered
unable to learn in regular schools; or because parents want to provide them with a more supportive
educational environment (feeling that they are neglected in the regular schools), and also because
of the extended timetable and lower costs of these schools which try to support stretched family
budgets. But this type of segregation has long-term disadvantages, both for pupils and for the
general education system. Roma pupils who attend special schools implicitly give up the possibility
of higher education and are limited to a more basic curriculum - their school diploma may also be
a disadvantage in the labour market. This segregation also reinforces the general inability of the
regular schools to accommodate Roma children within ethnically integrated classrooms, and
therefore prolongs this educational crisis.
The average rate of pupils attending special schools in European countries is between 1.5-2%.
The LA dataset indicates that the total rate in Romania is around this number, but amongst Roma
it is higher (2.5% versus the total of 1.732). There are considerable regional differences (see Chart
13-10.). In North-East the estimated rate of pupils attending special schools compared to total
number of Roma children from the relevant age group (6-14) is almost 3 times higher than the
average of the region (6.2% compared to 2.1%). The rate is lowest in South-Muntenia, where the
Roma rate is no higher in this region than the regional average (0.9%).
Chart 13-10. Rate of children attending special (auxiliary) school compared to the total number of
children aged 6-14 years, by counties, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)
Data controlled by type of locality shows a really shocking picture (Chart 13-11). While in
towns (oras) and villages (comuna) the difference between the total and the Roma rates is minimal,
in larger municipalities (municipiu) the average estimated rate of children attending special schools
compared to the total number of Roma pupils is five times higher than the national average. A
probable explanation is that special schools are not available in smaller localities. In larger localities,
where there are such schools, they enrol a disproportionate number of Roma pupils, even if they
have no medical reasons for enrolment.
32 We need to note again that the total rate is a country-wide average including data about Roma. The difference
between Roma and non-Roma is consequently even higher.
208
Chart 13-11. Rate of children attending special (auxiliary) schools from the total number of chil-
dren aged 6-14 years, by type of locality, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)
Ethnic Conflicts
Out of the 1773 local authorities who submitted answers to the questionnaire, 1305 answered
the question Q13 33.
Among the 1100 local authorities declaring that there are Roma-ethnics in the locality, in 88 cases
the respondents stated that there were/are conflicts linked to the Roma presence. There were also two
special cases in which the authorities stated that there are only undeclared/unregistered Roma in the
locality, but even so there are conflicts linked to these Roma families.
In the remaining localities, the authorities specifically stated that there are no conflicts linked
to the Roma presence. It is possible that this was a socially desirable answer, or that they did not
have information about such conflicts (especially in larger localities). Even so, as the subsequent
analysis also suggests, it seems that at national level there are few violent social conflicts with an
explicit ethnic context.
In total, there are 90 cases of reported local conflicts linked to the Roma residents. Of these, only
38 contain information about the number of reported conflicts.
Analysis of the more detailed answers indicates that most of the conflicts linked by local authorities
to the presence of Roma people are actually different types of delinquent actions by individual Roma
with no explicit ethnic significance or motivation. Some of these incidents may rather still have been
caused, among other factors, by the precarious living conditions of the Roma.
– in 34 cases, the local authorities found that the main reasons for ethnic conflict were
property destruction and stealing;
– in 14 cases the conflicts involved “disturbing the public order”;
– in 11 localities the conflicts were produced by alcohol consumption;
– in 13 cases the conflicts were caused by what we term “precarious living conditions” – the
delay or refusal of the VMG34, lack of IDs, lack of property documents (followed by repeated
evacuations), “lack of education”, the specific living conditions of the Roma that angered the
33 This chapter is based on the analysis of Q13. and Q14. of the LA datasheet referring to the conflicts in the
locality, involving the Roma:
Q13. In the last year, were there any conflicts linked to the presence of the Roma in the locality?
If yes, how many?
Q14. If yes, please describe, briefly, the most important ones…
34 Minimum Guaranteed Income (Venitul Minim Garantat)
209
non-Roma neighbours, and fights over precarious resources and income sources (such as fights
over fruit-picking, mushroom-picking and other seasonal crop-picking). These conflicts actually
show the difficult conditions of the Roma in the respective localities, and the fact that resources are
so scarce (scarcity of income sources, information, housing, education) that they generate conflict;
– in 9 localities, the local authorities identified conflicts of a more inter-personal level – in
other words, family fights, scandals;
– the local authorities reported six cases of severe infractions of the law (murder and
attempted murder) committed by individual Roma.
Several cases reported by local authorities seem to have a more direct, explicit ethnic motivation
or significance for the parties involved:
– there are seven recognized cases of evident inter-ethnic conflicts – as we previously
stressed, this is just the number of cases for which the local authorities gave us information
– the actual number of inter-ethnic conflicts could be entirely different. All inter-ethnic
conflicts are worth studying in depth, as, for example, the inter-ethnic conflicts in the
village of Gãleºti (Mureº county), which ended up with a house set on fire;
– in another three cases, the conflicts were between teenagers and there were another three
localities in which minor conflicts, reported as solved at inter-personal level, were reported;
– there were six cases of open conflict between Roma and the local authorities, particularly
the police. Of these, one should be mentioned. In the city of Ploieºti a group of Roma set
the national flag on fire, in front of the police station – a symbolic gesture that shows the
real gulf between the police and the Roma population;
– there were two cases in Gratia village (Teleorman county) where the conflicts were caused
by severe traffic accidents - the fact that the local authorities link these to the Roma
presence in the locality is an indicator of the fact that the ethnic element can sometimes
be an escalating force, feeding the hatred that already exists;
– the data from the city of Sighetu Marmaþiei (Maramureº county) is fairly negative. A Roma
citizen got into a fight with a group of teenagers and died as a result. As there are no further
details or comments from the respondent, it is hard to analyze the exact role of the ethnic
issue in this incident. But this case raises the whole question of the public representation
of conflicts in which the Roma are the victims: how do the authorities react and how does
the mass-media and public opinion create the story? Is there a difference in representations
of the conflicts having Roma as victims versus Roma as perpetrators? A research and
monitoring grid covering this issue would be very useful for measuring an important and
hidden component of discrimination in Romania.
13.2.4 Information on Institutional Capacity

Among the 1100 local authorities declaring that there are ethnic Roma in the locality (out of the
1773 local authorities which submitted answers to the questionnaire), only 192 stated that there
are associations, initiative groups or NGOs that work or have worked in the Roma communities
in the locality.35
This information is worrying because, at a formal level, the total number of associations and
foundations in Romania claiming to cater for the Roma is larger. This could mean:
– either the local authorities do not have information about the activities of the NGOs –
revealing a communication problem or, even worse, lack of interest;
35 Analysis of Q15 and Q16, referring to the civil society initiatives for the benefit of the Roma communities:
Q15. In your locality, are there associations, initiative groups or NGOs working in the Roma communities?
Q16. If yes, please write their names and activities, as well as the contact details for persons responsible.
210
– or the local NGOs are not active or visible enough – revealing a communication problem
or, even worse, lack of resources or competence.
The questionnaire also required further information such as name, description of activities and
contact persons for the association/initiative group/NGO active in the local Roma community. 182
local authorities gave answers to this, but not all were complete: approximately half only gave the
name and the contact person for the association/initiative group.
Among the more complete answers some are typical:
– In some cases, the organizing of the “mixed work group” at the town hall level was
perceived by the respondent authority as local initiative for the Roma - a good sign of the
collaboration between local authorities and local civil society, at least at a formal level.
However, the concrete, pragmatic outcomes of this formal structure are not clearly stated,
probably because it is relatively new.
– The Pro-Europa Party of Roma was mentioned in at least 20 cases as the main representative
of the civil society in the respective localities. The typical description of the Roma Party’ s
activities, in different localities, is “representing and supporting the rights and interests of the
Roma minority, among the non-Roma and to the authorities”. The typical practical activities
that the Roma Party organizes at the local level are linked to registration for education and
re-qualification courses. Only in one case the Roma Party was described by the respondent
authorities as a structure involved in all kinds of activities and community issues.
– Most of the activities enumerated by the respondent authorities were linked to culture and
education. In a more general sense, there are the local initiatives to improve the Roma
public image, to support Roma culture and the development of Roma traditions, and to
further Roma “integration” and the public representation of the Roma (approximately 20
such responses). On a more practical level, kindergartens have been organized,
occupational re-conversion classes have been held and school mediators have been hired
(approximately 15 responses).
– Projects for improving the infrastructure in the Roma communities were also mentioned
by six respondents.
– Projects for solving the problem of ID papers were also mentioned in four localities.
– Collaboration with external partners and with PHARE structures were mentioned in four
localities.
– In only 15 cases the presence of other NGOs, working at the same time in the
communities, was mentioned. This fact – that in only 15 localities the authorities
mentioned the combined effort of more active civil society – means that in other localities,
problem solving has to rely on minimal sources and resources, and also that other localities
have difficulty in building a safety network, or that the local authorities don’ t have the
correct information.
– Through these questionnaires, for about 60 localities, we received contact details for
representatives of the civil society (informal or formal initiative groups representatives).
There were also some atypical answers:
– Some respondents stated that there used to be counselling programmes and info-
centers/information centres which functioned well but didn’ t continue. The question has
to be asked – why did they not continue? What mechanisms are there for prolonging “good
practices”/programmes that functioned well? And are such programmes really used as
“best examples” in other localities? The other question that has to be asked is what benefits
do the info-centres and counselling centres bring to the communities? And to what extent
do active social interventions need to be doubled, in the case of each community, by a
permanent counselling service?
– One case stated that the first Roma NGO is currently in the process of being established.
211
– Four cases gave unexpected answers: the employment of Roma as workers in a refuse-collecting
company was considered to be a social project; also, the fact that a transport company was
working with people from the Roma community was seen as a project worth mentioning.
– In the town of Piatra Olt (Olt county), the respondent states that a housing project and a
refusal-collecting project for the Roma community were “illegally rejected”. This raises
some questions. Why were two projects refused? Who refused them? Why the refusal was
illegal and, most important, how were people’ s needs satisfied if these projects were
refused? More detailed research on the situation in Piatra Olt might be
recommended/could be advantageous.
– In the case of Merei (Buzau county), in the village Izvoru Dulce, there is a current project
focused on the drinking water supply of the Roma community. On the one hand, the fact
that this project exists at all is positive – on the other hand, it is worrying, because it shows
that lack of drinking water is still a problem in some rural Roma communities.
– In the city of Gheorgheni (Harghita county), the social department in the Town Hall
organized, together with two NGOs, a special school for Roma. This might be a best
practice example of partnership between local authorities and civil initiative groups, in
education; on the other hand, the long-term impact should also be taken into account –
special schools for Roma often generate “integration” but, in fact, maintain segregation
(because these special schools for Roma children separate them from other children).
– In two cases, social assistance and social case inquiries – which should be a compulsory
service in the town hall – were presented as initiatives for the Roma citizens. The fact that
a social service delivered by the municipalities is presented as a social initiative is worrying
– showing that the municipality doesn’ t consider these services an obligation (as it should
be), but an initiative.
– In one case, in Cârþiºoara (Sibiu county), the conservation of the Peasant Museum was
presented as a social initiative for the Roma community – the fact that Roma workers were
involved is perceived as a social initiative.
– The terms “community”, “disadvantaged groups” and “marginalized groups” are used in only
one response. This could indicate a lack of interest in these topics for the majority of social
initiatives (which focus mostly on culture), a lack of knowledge of the terms and concepts
related to social exclusion, or a preference on the part of the respondents (representatives of
the local authorities) not to use these terms - something which has grave connotations.
Localities with Roma experts employed in the local administration have a greater probability of
having best practice programmes involving Roma (see Table 16-27. in the annex). However,
statistical data alone cannot indicate whether experts have had a real contribution to this outcome
or whether their employment is a result of such projects. Both variables could be the result of the
political will of the local authorities. Correlation data should not be automatically interpreted
from a causal perspective, unless clear information (for example, from qualitative case study
analyses or interviews) indicates a causal connection between the two variables.
Of all local authorities that answered the question, around 15% declared that they employed
Roma experts.
Table 13-3. If Roma experts employed in local administration, number of cases, percentage
N %
Roma expert(s) employed 191 14.6
No Roma expert 1115 85.4
Total answers 1306 100.0
212
In about 22% of localities there have been best practice programmes involving Roma.
Table 13-4. Best practice programmes involving Roma in the locality, number of cases, percentage
N %
There have been such programmes 282 22
No such programmes 1001 78
Total answers 1283 100
The larger the Roma community is, the less likely it is that either Roma experts are employed
by local authorities or that best practice programmes have been put in place: correlations are
significant and negative in outcome.
The Roma communities with a higher probability of best practice programmes involving Roma
people are (see Table 16-27.):
– the ones in which Roma experts are employed in the local administration (the most
powerful correlation);
– smaller Roma communities;
– Roma communities with no ethnic-related conflicts (a significant, but not very strong
correlation);
– Roma communities with a higher percentage of people without birth certificates and
households without land titles.
The Roma communities which suffer more from social exclusion problems, such as poor
infrastructure and illiteracy, do not have, on average, a higher probability of best practice
interventions than the others. The only two issues that seem to be an incentive for development
projects are lack of birth certificates and lack of land titles (“formal exclusion”).
However, lack of infrastructure (indicated by the high percentage of households who only have
a common water source) and low human resources (indicated by the estimated percentage of
illiterate people) are positively correlated with social assistance, in the form of Minimum
Guaranteed Income.

Points to Highlight
• Although the rate of localities with ethnic Roma residents is lower in the LA survey than
in the census, the overall estimated rate of Roma people in the LA dataset is almost double
that of the 2002 census. The total estimated rate of inhabitants classified as Roma by local
authority representatives in Romania is almost 6%.
• Based on the LA dataset one cannot speak about regional concentration of poverty and
ethnicity in Romania. Although there are some counties where the estimated rate of Roma
population is higher, the map of ethnicity and the map of level of development of localities
do not overlap.
• According to local authorities, an estimated 1.5% of Roma people have no birth certificate.
• Data shows that estimated rates for the lack of birth certificates are higher in large cities
(Municipiu).
213
• Lack of ID card, as with birth certificates, seems more serious in large cities (Municipiu),
where an estimated 4.2% of Roma population has no ID card, while in villages this rate is
around 1.6%.
• An estimated rate of more than 40% of Roma households living in compact communities
does not have land titles. The problem seems to be more serious in smaller cities and
villages than in big cities.
• An estimated 77% of the children aged 3- and 6 are attending kindergarten in Romania,
compared to about 50% of Roma children in the same age group.
• The estimated rate of Roma children attending kindergarten (computed from the relevant
age group) is lowest in the municipalities. The difference between the total population and
Roma seems to be higher in urban localities than in rural localities.
• The LA dataset indicates that the estimated total rate of pupils attending special schools
in Romania is around 1.5-2 percent, which is the European average rate, but for the Roma
this is higher (2.5% compared to the total of 1.7).
• While in towns (oras) and villages (comuna) the estimated difference between non-Roma
and Roma rates for special schools is minimal, in larger municipalities (municipiu) the
average estimated rate of Roma children attending special schools is five times higher than
the national average.
• Of the 1100 local authorities who declared that there are ethnic Roma in the locality, in 88
cases the respondents stated that there were, or are, conflicts linked to the Roma presence.
• Of the 1100 local authorities who declared that there are ethnic Roma in the locality (out
of the 1773 local authorities which submitted answers to the questionnaire), 192 stated
that there are associations, initiative groups or NGOs that work or have worked in the
Roma communities in the locality.
• Of all local authorities that answered the question, around 15% declared that Roma experts
were employed in the local administration.
• In about 22% of localities which provided data on Roma communities there have been
best practice programmes involving Roma.
• According to the LA database, the larger the Roma community is, the less likely it is that
either Roma experts are employed by local authorities, or that best practice programmes
have been put in place: correlations are significant and negative in outcome.
214
PART VI
CONCLUSIONS
14 Conclusions
In the following sections we shall take a look at the main empirical findings of the research,
reorganizing them from a different perspective. Namely, we ask: what information do we have on
the development opportunities for Roma people and communities? Romanian society changed
significantly after 1990, and now European accession has opened up new possibilities for wealth
creation, mobility and innovation. Of course, the costs and the benefits of these changes, such as
the transition process, the European integration and the transformations to come, are not
distributed evenly. Which Roma people have the resources to benefit from these developments,
and what might prevent them from doing so?
14.1 Constructing the “Average” and the “Middle”

Roma Subject
As with most pieces of sociological research on Roma issues, we have particularly highlighted
the indicators and processes of social exclusion. Of course, data indicates that there is a degree of
variation in the economic and social characteristics of the Roma. There are Roma people who
work in all sectors of employment, who live in all types of residences, and who have various degrees
of access to social services – from very low to very high. This report does not reveal a uniform
marginal condition, but a diversity of experiences and living trajectories. However, previous and
current research concur that personal and community development opportunities for Roma and,
for that matter, for all people defined as Þigani, are seriously diminished by processes of exclusion.
The risk of any diagnosis that points again and again to the marginal social position of the Roma
people, is that it may simply reinforce stereotypes about the impoverished Þigani who, allegedly,
will never change their ways. There are several reasons for the systematic highlighting of social
exclusion of the Roma in sociological research. On the one hand, since many sociological research
projects aim to contribute to policy debates, the general focus is on what is socially seen as
“problematic”, rather that on what is seen as “normal”. Even if survey data illustrates varied
situations of employment or, for example, education, the discussion is focused on the unemployed
and the under-educated. This tendency is reinforced by the persuasive power of averages and
majorities in statistics – since average Roma incomes are low and the majority of Roma are poor.
The average Roma person lives a life of hardship and social exclusion.
On the other hand, sampling is also a consideration. As we have discussed in the introduction
and methodology chapters, Roma respondents in Roma samples are usually selected from Roma
communities, leaving aside the Roma who live in non-Roma neighbourhoods and who may be
systematically different on issues such as employment, schooling, housing etc.
The distribution of various types of capital (human, financial) in the Roma population is biased
towards the lower extreme. Even so, as a consequence of policy programmes targeting Roma and
sampling methods of research projects on Roma, the sociological and public discussions on Roma
people are even more biased towards the “social problem” topics.
The richest Roma, as well as the richest non-Roma, are usually under-represented in surveys,
because of difficulties in applying a questionnaire to them, and because of a general public reluctance
to declare high incomes to a survey operator. At the same time, though, the rich Roma and Gadje
are extensively covered by the mass-media. The people living in the middle, in terms of wealth and
education, the ones who lead unspectacular lives, are the missing characters - both from sociological
217
CONCLUSIONS
discourse and from public representations. By the “middle” Roma we mean the ones whose living
conditions allow them to make choices which do not require any compromise on basic needs.
In order to balance out, even briefly, the representation of the Roma people which is biased
towards the average, we include here some of the same statistics presented earlier, highlighting the
life trajectories of the “middle” Roma – in comparison to “middle” non-Roma respondents.
• The more educated Roma respondents accept more often close relationships with the
Gadje. On the contrary, the more educated non-Roma accept less often close relationships
with the Roma.
• If we look at all children aged 1 to 14 years, we can see that 47% of Roma children live in
households that can afford a pair of winter shoes for all of them, compared to 85% of non-
Roma children.
• 47% of Roma children live in households who can afford a warm winter coat for all of
them, compared to 87% for non-Roma children.
• 90% of Roma people are registered with a family doctor.
• 43% of Roma have a mobile telephone, compared to 58% of non-Roma – one of the
smallest differences in ownership.
• 21%of Roma households own four or more long-term consumer goods, compared to 47%
of non-Roma households.
• 22% of Roma aged 18-59 have regular work, compared to 33% of non-Roma.
• 2% of the working Roma population work in education, science, health and culture,
compared to 10% of the non-Roma working population.
• 95% of young Roma adults (aged 18-30) are high school graduates, while an additional
2% have pursued higher education. In contrast, 41% of non-Roma young adults are high
school graduates, while an additional 27% have pursued higher education.
• 12% of Roma households have borrowed money from banks, compared to one fifth of the
comparative sample.
• 4% of Roma adult and working household members are business owners, compared to 6%
of non-Roma.
• The Roma respondents who have already worked abroad are 2.4 times more likely to find
themselves in better living conditions than a year ago. This difference for the non-Roma
respondents is only 1.6 times more likely.
14.2 The Two Vicious Circles

The metaphors of “vicious circle” and “trap” have often been used in relation to the Roma,
pointing out the mutual reinforcement of poverty, unemployment, school failure, negative
stereotyping and discrimination. For analytical purposes, it is useful to speak not of one, but of two
such vicious circles: the one of poverty and low education, and the other of social distance and
segregation. While in the case of the Roma both of them are linked – particularly due to residential
and school segregation – in he case of other social groups they may work rather more
independently. For example, social distance and segregation may separate local communities which
otherwise share similar living standards and styles – such as the Romanians and the Hungarians.
On the other hand, the vicious circle of poverty and low education also traps social groups such
as the residents of poor rural localities, who are not affected by negative stereotypes to the extent
that Þigani people are. But unlike these social categories, the Roma people live under the combined
constraints of both vicious circles, which in their case are mutually reinforcing.
218
CONCLUSIONS
14.2.1 The Vicious Circle of Poverty and Low Education

Data on income, employment, credit and consumption indicates that Roma people are very
often excluded from the core areas of economic markets. They have less formal employment, they
often have little, if any, stable income sources, they often do not own long-term consumer goods,
and they have less access to bank credit, depending rather on family loans or private creditors.
• 62% of Roma respondents declared that someone in their household has gone to bed
hungry in the last month, compared to 12% of non-Roma respondents.
• 53% of Roma have a refrigerator in their house, compared to 92% of non-Roma.
Access to better jobs is conditioned by education level – this is one of the most important areas
of disadvantage for the Roma population.
• 9% of young Roma adults (aged 18-30) are high school graduates, while an additional 2%
have pursued higher education. In contrast, 41% of non-Roma young adults are high
school graduates, while an additional 27% have pursued higher education.
• If we take into account all members of Roma households, around 7% of people aged 14 or
over who graduated from elementary school are illiterate. 28% of people who attended
elementary school but did not graduate are illiterate, and 88%of people who did not attend
elementary school at all are illiterate. Overall, 22% of all household members aged 14 or
over in the Roma sample are illiterate, compared to 2% in the comparative sample.
• 8% of Roma have a computer, compared to 24% of non-Roma – one of the largest
differences in ownership.
There are multiple exclusionary pressures that push Roma pupils away from schools in the
present-day education system. Poverty is one of them as impoverished housing decreases
dramatically the capacity of children to do any homework. Pupils who sleep in crowded rooms may
also have difficulties in concentrating during the day.
• Housing density is more than double for Roma households. The average number of
persons per room in case of non-Roma is 0.8 and for Roma is 1.98 persons.
• On average, during winter Roma households have to accommodate 3.1 members per
heated room (3.4 members in rural households and 2.8 members in urban households),
while households in the comparative sample have to accommodate 1.5 members per heated
room (1.7 in rural households and 1.3 in urban households). So housing density in heated
rooms during winter is exactly double in Roma households compared to non-Roma
households.
• Quality of sleep is also affected by crowding in Roma households, which have to
accommodate on average 1.9 persons per bed, compared to 1.4 persons in the comparative
sample.
Parental education levels are also a powerful influence: parents with low education levels cannot
guide their children’ s school career. Last, but not least, school segregation and inadequacy of
teaching for the needs of the Roma pupils play a significant part. Case studies and survey data show
that ethnically homogenous classrooms are pervasive for Roma pupils, often due to residential
segregation alone or in combination with school policies and pressures from non-Roma parents.
• 25% of Roma pupils learn in classrooms with a majority of Roma children, and an
additional 28% learn in classes which have around half Roma children, according to
estimates of adult members of their household. The remaining 47% learn in classrooms
with a majority of non-Roma pupils.
• 62% of Roma respondents believe that directors of schools with segregated classrooms
should be punished, compared to 48% of the non-Roma respondents.
219
CONCLUSIONS
• Roma pupils in segregated classes have a significantly higher risk of illiteracy. Around 15%
of pupils in classes with a majority of Roma children are illiterate, compared to around 4%
of the other Roma pupils.
Residential and ethnic segregation are forces in both vicious circles: they reinforce low-level
schooling and lack of working opportunities, and they contribute to social distance attitudes.
14.2.2 The Vicious Circle of Social Distance and Ethnic Segregation

Opportunities for meaningful social contact between Roma and non-Roma people of all ages are
rare, due to residential and school segregation, low employment of the Roma in formal
organizations, and opposition to intermarriage.
Qualitative case studies illustrate how even commercial relationships – for example, between
Roma day workers and Gadje villagers who hire them, or between Roma customers and Gadje
salespersons – maybe affected by negative stereotyping and discrimination.
• 18% of non-Roma would accept Roma family members, while 54% of Roma would accept
Romanian family members and 29% would accept Hungarian family members.
• 34% of Roma respondents have family members of Romanian ethnicity, 9% have
Hungarian family members. Overall, around 40% of Roma respondents have family
members of non-Roma ethnicity – in contrast to only 6% of respondents in the
comparative sample who have Roma family members.
• 25% of adult, working Roma household members are skilled workers, compared to 43%
of non-Roma; 30% of working Roma members are unskilled and 21% are agricultural
workers, compared to 11% and 3% of non-Roma members, respectively.
Moreover, because of low qualifications in the Roma working force, commercial relationships
between Roma and Gadje are often asymmetric, situations in which Roma people have less power
than the non-Roma. This type of relationship has a lower potential for leading to other, horizontal
types of communication – such as collegiality, friendship, romantic or family ties.
There are many points where the reinforcement processes in these vicious circles may be
weakened, but there is little indication, for now, that such structural change is happening.
14.3 Reflections on Research Data

All theoretical deconstructions of ethnic distinctions such as the Roma / Gadje, or Romanian/
Hungarian / Þigani, must face a difficult empirical challenge: the real-life conflicts of interests
between people who live together, but still apart. These conflicts shape, to some degree, the
process of ethnic differentiation and identification, as they make ethnic borders seem more relevant
and more impenetrable. When antagonistic feelings and resentment are involved, disputes that
originate in radically different path of life and chances become easily ethnicized, pushing people
to define themselves and others as different types of human beings – be it „Þigan“, „Gadje“,
„Romanian“ or „Hungarian“ – who have little to share. People affiliated with any ethnicity may
participate in these conflicts, may escalate or de-escalate them, and may thus share in the
responsibility for the damage. However, we should note that, more often than not, the non-Roma
have significantly greater access to resources of all kinds and thus more chance of shaping the
situation and interaction to a conflict-prone one.
Even when observers of such conflicts are aware of the powerful economic, social and
informational constraints faced by the Roma people, the interpretations are still centred on the
Gadje perspective, with all its blind spots. From this point of view, it is the Roma people who are
the problem, and “solutions” (such as programmes of various kinds) should be applied to them in
220
CONCLUSIONS
order to fix them. The Roma communities and individuals are to be repaired, patched and
transformed. Such a “problem and programme” view of Roma people can be found in many
discourses of local authorities and social professionals, and also in research reports. For example,
a case study on the current situation in Mihail Kogãlniceanu (affected by violent inter-ethnic
conflicts in 1990) concludes that: “On the one hand, a cause of all anti-social behaviour of the
Roma people is the fact that they do not have the necessary resources to provide them with a
decent living; on the other hand, they have certain personality traits that are represented, in the
collective mentality, as negative stereotypes. The Roma represent a social problem, and the case
of the Mihail Kogãlniceanu locality is an example. Solutions must be searched for and found. (…)
It is necessary to find medium and long-term programmes, instead of short-term measures which
do not, in fact, solve the grave social problems of this ethnic group, or the ones that this group may
generate” (Netedu and Drã guº 2005, p. 133).
The focus on Roma people as problems and the source of problems that need to be solved, be
it by the most sympathetic programmes possible, leaves in a blind spot the issue of the structural
changes that should be triggered in Romanian institutions. The need for change is not restricted
to the Roma people and communities. On the contrary, it is pervasive in the Romanian educational
system, in the medical system, in the public administration, in mass-media, in employment
practices and most probably in many other institutions. Of course, such change is not necessary
for the sake of the Roma alone – although they are entitled to benefit from it. Such change is
necessary for the sake of all Romanian citizens who are excluded or marginalized when interacting
with agents in these fields, for all people whose time is wasted in unprofitable or too few profitable
exchanges. The average Roma pupil fails in school more often and earlier than the average non-
Roma pupil. Hidden behind these average differences, though, there are many non-Roma pupils
who gain little from their time spent in school, or who cannot spend enough time in school.
Corruption in the medical system and poverty diseases are taking a high toll on impoverished
Roma people, but they are not the only ones to pay an undue price. It seems plausible that
reforming institutions so as to make them more responsive to people’ s needs, and to ensure
transparency and equal treatment, is a significant part of any solution for the conflicts between
non-Roma and Roma people, and for other visible and invisible conflicts of interests as well.
Roma issues have not yet been mainstreamed into social reform agendas. There are institutions,
such as the National Council for Combating Discrimination, or the universal social protection
measures (among which the Minimum Guaranteed Income and the child allowances are most
often analyzed) which integrates the problems experienced by Roma citizens with those
experienced by other people. Still, the dominant approach up until now has been to address Roma
problems by specifically-tailored solutions – such as Roma mediators and experts, legislative
initiatives directed against ethnic segregation of the Roma pupils, and special places for Roma
pupils in high schools and universities. Such measures are justified as short-term policies aimed at
addressing serious inequalities of opportunity of Roma-ethnic citizens. As surveys repeatedly show,
these inequalities persist, so such direct intervention measures are still necessary. However, there
is a risk that they may become and remain the only type of solution put in practice for the so-
called “Roma problem”. Without comprehensive changes that would encourage the meaningful
participation of all citizens in social institutions, irrespective of their position in social hierarchies,
specific measures cannot fully reach their goals. In addition to this, sectorial policies for the Roma
are subject to two risks:
1. On the one hand, public opinion may turn against them, perceiving them as undeserved
benefits (this seems to happen for the quotas of Roma pupils);
2. On the other hand, they may be appropriated by the privileged Roma people, as part of
the general social process by which people with access to resources gain access to even
more resources. This may happen to the reserved places for Roma pupils, when they are
221
CONCLUSIONS
occupied overwhelmingly by children from better-off families, or with local leadership structures
when they sometimes fail to become responsive to the needs of the communities.
Framing inter-ethnic conflicts and tensions as a problem of the Roma people, caused by their
poverty and “culture of poverty”, also leaves in a blind spot the issue of ethnic tensions that appear
as a result of processes of collective (self-)identification, community closure and ethnic politics.
However, the question is what happens if, and when, the significant majority of the Roma people
overcome their situation as outcasts and gain more access to resources. Will they “merge” with
their neighbour Gadje communities, and integrate themselves fully into their networks? For
example, will the non-Roma be willing to marry them, and will they be willing to marry a Gadje?
Will ethnic discrimination against the Roma (or, for that matter, the eventual ethnic discrimination
against the Gadje) subside?
The analysis on social distance and social closure in the chapters above indicate that, indeed, the
more educated Roma are more tolerant towards potential Romanian family members, and the
wealthier Roma experience less ethnic discrimination than the poor ones. Even so, wealth has no
influence on ethnic closure in family relations, and the effect of education seems to be entirely due
to its positive influence on opportunities for inter-ethnic relations in employment and in the
family. At the same time, in the case of the Roma, education does not influence entrenched
discrimination, while opportunities for inter-ethnic relations (the very same that increase
tolerance) also make ethnic discrimination more likely. On the other side of the divide, the more
educated Gadje display stronger rejection tendencies towards the Roma, as measured by social
distance attitudes. These divergent influences indicate that there is great potential for increasing
toleration between non-Roma and Roma people, bearing in mind that at present the Gadje are
significantly less tolerant than the Roma.
To conclude, this research joins the long tradition of reports that ask for the right policies to
prevent extreme-right politics.
222
PART VII
REFERENCES
AND ANNEXES
15 Bibliography
Ahmed, Patricia, Feliciano, Cynthia and Jean Emigh, Rebecca (2001). Ethnic Classification in Eastern Europe. Available
on the site of Centre for Comparate Social Analyse at: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/groups/ccsa/past.htm
Barth, Fredrik (1969). Introduction. In Frederik Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of
Culture Difference. London: Allen & Unwin.
Bãdescu, Gabriel et al. (2007). Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor (Roma Inclusion Barometer). Bucharest: Open Society
Foundation. Available online on the site of Open Society Foundation at URL:
http://www.osf.ro/en/publicatii.php?cat=16
Berescu, Catalin and Celac, Mariana (2006). Housing and extreme poverty. The case of Roma communities. Bucharest:
Ion Mincu University Press
Cace, Sorin and Vlãdescu, Cristian (2004). The Health Status of Rroma Population and Their Access to Health Care
Services. Bucharest: Expert.
Dan, Adrian Nicolae (ed.) (2004). Diganoza locuirii: lipsa unei locuinþe ºi locuirea în condiþii precare (Housing Diagnosis:
Lack of Housing and Precarious Housing). Report of Reseacrh Institute for Quality of Life, available at
URL http://www.iccv.ro/romana/articole/amtrans2004.htm
Day, S., Papataxiarchis, E. and Stewart, M. (eds.) (1999). Lilies of the Field. Marginal People Who Live for the Moment.
Westview Press.
Florea, Ioana et al. (2007). Metodologie pentru soluþionarea problemelor lipsei actelor de stare civilã, de identitate
ºi locative (Methodology for solving the issue of the lack of civil status, identity and residential papers). A
report of the Research Component of the Technical Assistance for the Phare Program 2004-2006
“ Strengthening Capacity and Partnership Building to Improve Roma Condition and Perception”.
Available on the site of the General Secretariate of the Romanian Government, at :
http://www.sgg.ro/docs/File/UIP/doc/Metodologie_lipsa_acte_(RO).pdf
Grigoraº, Vlad and Surdu, Mihai (2004). Primãria. In Manuela Sofia Stanculescu si Ionica Berevoescu, Sarac lipit,
caut alta viata! Bucharest: Nemira (pp. 369-375).
Jderu, Gabriel (2002). Românii despre Romi, romii despre români (Romanians on Roma people, Roma on
Romanian People). In Revista de Asistenþã Socialã, nr. 45/2002: pp. 111-116.
Kligman, Gail (2002). On the social construction of “otherness”: Identifying “the Roma” in postsocialist
communities. In Iván Szelényi (ed.), Poverty, Ethnicity, and Gender in Transitional Societies. Budapest:
Akadé miai Kiadó (pp. 61-78).
Kovács, Éva (2007). A közössé gtanulmányoktól a lokalitá s megismeré sé ig. (From the Community Studies to the
local landscapes). In Éva Kovács (ed.) Kö zö ssé gtanulmány. Mó dszertani jegyzet. (Community Studies. A
Handbook), Regio Könyvek, Budapest: Né prajzi Múzeum, PTE-BTK Kommunikáció- é s Médiatudományi
Tanszé k.
Kroeber, A. L. and C. Kluckhohn (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.
Ladányi, János and Szelényi, Iván (2002). The Social Construction of Roma Ethnicity in Bulgaria, Romania and
Hungary during Market Transition. In Iván Szelényi (ed.), Poverty, Ethnicity, and Gender in Transitional
Societies. Budapest: Akadé miai Kiadó (pp. 79-89).
Mãrginean Ioan (ed.), (2001). Cercetãri cu privire la minoritatea roma (Research on the Roma Minority). Bucharest:
Editura Expert.
Miclea, Mircea et al., Romania educaþiei, România cercetãrii (Education-focused Romania, Research-focused Romania).
Report of the Presidential Commission for Policy Analysis and Elaboration in the Fields of Education and
Research. Available on the Commission site at: http://edu.presidency.ro/edu/cv/raport.pdf
Netedu, Adrian and Drã guº, Cristina (2005). O realitate socialã multietnicã . Cazul comunei Mihail Kogãlniceanu,
Constanþa (A Multi-Ethnic Social Reality. Case Study of Mihail Kogãlniceanu Commune, Constanþa
County). In Gabriel Bãdescu, Mircea Kivu and Monica Robotin (eds.), Barometrul relaþiilor etnice 1994-2002.
Cluj: Ethnocultural Diveristy Resource Center. Available online at: http://www.edrc.ro/docs/docs/bare/118-
138.pdf
Power, Anne and Wilson, W. J. (2000). Social Exclusion and the Future of Cities. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.
London School of Economics. Available online at: http://www.viral.info/iod/iodpdf/CASEpaper35.pdf
Preda, Marian (2002). Caracteristici ale excluziunii sociale specifice pentru populaþia de romi din România (Social
Exclusion Traits that Are Specific for the Roma Population in Romania). In Zamfir, Cãtãlin ºi Preda, Marian
(eds.) Romii în România. Bucharest: Editura Expert.
Rughiniº, Cosima (2004). Cunoaºtere incomodã. Intervenþii sociale în comunitãþi defavorizate în România anilor 2000
(Unconfortable Knowledge. Social Interventions in Marginal Communities in Present-Day Romania). Bucharest:
Printech
Sandu, Dumitru (2003). Sociabilitatea în spaþiul dezvoltãrii (Sociability within the Development Space). Iaºi: Polirom.
Sandu, Dumitru (2004). Ideologii difuze în domeniul identitaretnic (Diffuse Ideologies in the Ethnic and Identity
Area). In Sociologie Româneascã, nr. 2/2004:5970.
Sandu, Dumitru (2005). O hartã socialã a comunitãþilor de romi (A Social Map of Roma Communities). Bucharest: The
World Bank
Sik, Endre and Simonovits, B. (2002) Migrációs potenciá l Magyarorszá gon, 1993–2001. (Migration Potential in
Hungary between 1993-2001) In Kolosi Tamá s, Tóth István György, Vukovich György (eds.) Társadalmi
Riport. Budapest: Tarki (pp. 207-219).
Stewart, Michael (2001). Conclusions: Spectres of the Underclass. In R. Jean Emigh ºi I. Szelényi (coord.), Poverty,
Ethnicity and Gender in Eastern Europe During the Market Transition. London: Praeger.
Stewart, Michael (2002). Deprivation, the Roma and ‘ the underclass’ . In Hann, C. M. (ed.) Postsocialism. Ideals,
ideologies and practices în Eurasia. Londra: Routledge
Trehan, Nidhi (2001). In the name of the Roma? The Role of Private Foundations and NGOs. In W. Guy (ed.)
Between Past and Future. The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire
Press (pp. 134-149).
225
REFERENCES AND ANNEXES
Voicu, Mãlina ºi ªerban, Monica (2002). Despre diferenþe: între toleranþã ºi prejudecãþi (On Differences: Between
Tolerance and Prejudice). In C. Zamfir ºi M. Preda (eds.), Romii în România. Bucharest: Expert.
Wimmer, Andreas (2007). How (not) to think about ethnicity in immigrant societies: A boundary making perspective.
ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society. Working Paper No. 44, University of Oxford. Available
online at: http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/Working%20papers/WP0744-Wimmer.pdf
Woodcock, Shannon (2007). Romania and EUrope: Roma, Roma and Þigani as sites for the contestation of ethno-
national identities. In Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 41, No 5, Dec. 2007, pp. 493 – 515.
Zamfir, Cãtãlin (2002). Istoria cercetãrii (History of the Research). In C. Zamfir ºi M. Preda (eds.), Romii în
România. Bucharest: Expert (pp. 7-10).
Zamfir, Cãtãlin ºi Preda, Marian (eds.) (2002). Romii în România (Roma in Romania). Bucharest: Editura Expert.
Zamfir, Elena ºi Zamfir, Cãtãlin (eds.) (1993). Þiganii – Între ignorare ºi îngrijorare (Gypsies – Between Ignoring Them
and Worrying over Them). Bucharest: Alternative.
15.1 List of Unpublished Community Reports

Cengher, Paul (2007). Romii de vatra din Targu-Mureº . Excluziune sau auto-izolare.
Feraru, Ionuþ (2007). Raport privind comunitatea romã din comuna Modelu.
Gãtin, Constantin (2007). Þiganii Horahai din Babadag. Actori raþionali ºi stat minimal.
Gãtin, Constantin (2007). Raport de prezentare ºi analizã a informaþiilor culese despre populaþia romã din
localitatea Racoº .
Geambaºu, Ré ka (2007). “Nu ne plângem de bani, cã chiar aºa sãraci-sãraci... (nu suntem)...”. Comunitãþile de romi
din municipiul Lupeni, judeþul Hunedoara.
Gheorghe, Ramona (2007). Raport privind studiul referitor la populaþia de etnie romã din localiatea Ploieºti.
Goina, Cãlin (2007). Final report: Sântana, Arad county.
Goina, Mariana (2007). Raport de cercetare a comunitãþilor rome din oraºul Curtici, Judeþul Arad.
Ionescu, Beti (2007). Raport privind comunitatea romã din Jilava.
Iorga, Alexandru (2007). Raport de cercetare Roadeº, comuna Viscri, Judeþul Braºov.
Iorga, Alexandru (2007). Raport de cercetare a comunitãþii rome din localitatea Coltãu, Judeþul Maramureº .
Iºan, Ovidiu (2007). Comuna ursarilor. Raport de cercetare a comunitãþii rome din comuna Bãrbuleºti, Judeþul
Ialomiþa.
Iºan, Ovidiu (2007). Þiganii sãseºti. Raport de cercetare a comunitãþii rome din Comuna Cetate, Judeþul Bistriþa.
Kalamár, Gá spár Gábor (2007). Rromii din cartierul Õrkõ. Sf. Gheorghe. Judeþul Covasna.
Kiss, Dénes ºi Kiss, Tamá s (2007). Romi ºi maghiari în Herculian.
Kiss, Dénes ºi Kiss, Tamá s (2007). Convieþuire interetnicã în Valea Criºului.
Lazãr, Veronica (2007). Raport privind comunitatea romã din satul Gulia, Judeþul Suceava.
Magyari-Vincze, Enikõ (2007). Excluziunea socialã a romilor. Studiu de caz din Timiºoara.
Marcu, Mihai (2007). Raport de cercetare a comunitãþii rome din localitatea Mihail Kogãlniceanu, judeþul
Constanta.
Oteanu, Ami (2007). Segregarea etnica, Borat si realitatea din Glod.
Pantea, Ana (2007). Identitãþi fragmentate.
Plainer, Zsuzsa (2007). Three Roma Communities from Iris.
Silian, Alina (2007). Cercetarea de teren în satul Veseuº, comuna Jidvei, judeþul Alba.
Silian, Alina (2007). Raport de cercetare – Sebeº, judeþul Alba.
Stancu, ªtefan (2007). Raport de cercetare a comunitãþii rome din comuna Prundu, Judeþul Giurgiu.
Stoianovici, Saºa-Liviu (2007). Cugir – Fanfara Transilvani vecinii lor. Excluziune ºi incluziune într-o comunitate
romã non-tradiþionalã .
Streza, Teodora (2007). Þiglari. Comunitate în tranziþie.
Tîrcã, Miruna (2007). Raport de cercetare. Aleea Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest.
Troc, Gabriel (2007). Report on the Roma community research in Sîntana de Mureº, Mureº county.
Toma, Stefánia (2007). Field Research Report. Nuºfalãu, Sãlaj county.
Turcitu, Luis Ciprian (2007). Valea Mare.
Vasilache, Maria Alexandra (2007). Comunitatea de romi din satul Slobozia, Comuna Voineºti, Judeþul Iaºi.
Operations Research (2007). Raport asupra comunitãþii rome – comuna Anisoana, Argeº .
Operations Research (2007). Raport asupra comunitãþii rome – comuna Buzescu, Teleorman.
Operations Research (2007). Raport asupra comunitãþii rome – comuna Dumitreºti, Vrancea.
Operations Research (2007). Raport asupra comunitãþii rome – comuna Grãdinari, Olt.
16 Annexes
16.1 List of Tables
Table 1–1. Index of poverty in Roma communities (IPRC). ........................................................................6
Table 1-2. Distribution of poor Roma communities and estimated Roma residents....................................7
Table 1–3. Relationships between self-identification as Roma in private and public contexts ....................9
Table 1–4. Number of Roma people in Romania according to census data, 1930-2002 ..............................9
226
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Table 1–5. Inconsistencies between blind screening classification and informed survey classification......10
Table 1-6. Inclusion of Roma respondents in several Romanian samples ..................................................11
Table 1-7. Errors in hetero-identification sampling the Roma population ................................................11
Table 2-1. Distribution of individual survey respondents by ethnicity and sample type ............................16
Table 3-1. Operational definitions of variables in the study of ethnic affiliation........................................49
Table 3-2. Affiliation to Roma/Gypsy sub-groups ......................................................................................50
Table 3-3. Exploratory classification of sub-groups (neamuri)....................................................................51
Table 3-4. What are the main languages your household members use…(percentage) ..............................52
Table 3-5. Experience of ethnic discrimination by individual respondent category (percentage)..............59
Table 3-6. Where have you been treated worse than another person, because you are Roma? (percentage
from the total of 326 Roma respondents in the Roma sample that answered “Yes” to the
question …). Multiple answers were possible. ................................................................................59
Table 3-7. Summary of influences on ethnic affiliation ..............................................................................61
Table 4-1. Opinions on educational reform (percentage)............................................................................69
Table 4-2. Social distance of Roma and non-Roma respondents towards various ethnic categories,
including a fictitious one (percentage)............................................................................................72
Table 4-3. Comparison with other social distance information of non-Roma respondents from the Roma
Inclusion Barometer, Open Society Foundation (2007) (percentage) ..........................................73
Table 4-4. Social distance of Roma respondents to various ethnic groups, by mother tongue of the
respondents, percentage..................................................................................................................74
Table 4-5. The average social distance to different ethnic groups, by ethnicity and the level of education
of respondents, mean score ............................................................................................................75
Table 4-6. Social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma, by the ethnicity of majority in
respondent’ s neighbourhood, percentage......................................................................................75
Table 4-7. Social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma by the type of location (percentage) ......76
Table 4-8. Social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma by regions (percentage)............................77
Table 4-9. “I have Roma/Romanian relatives”. Source: RIB 2006 database (percentage)..........................82
Table 4-10. Family members of non-Roma ethnicity for households in the Roma sample, by subjective
standard of living (percentage)........................................................................................................82
Table 4-11. Type of occupation for adult, working members of the households, by sample type
(percentage) ....................................................................................................................................84
Table 5-1. Experience of hunger for Roma and non-Roma respondents. ..................................................89
Table 5-2 Average number of people per bed, by subjective standard of living..........................................91
Table 6-1. Distribution of household members across age categories in the Roma and the comparative
sample (frequencies and percentages) ............................................................................................97
Table 7-1. Who is the owner of the residence you currently occupy? (percentage) ................................118
Table 7-2. Housing density by sample type (percentage) ..........................................................................120
Table 7-3. In the dwelling where you presently live is there water? – by sample type (percentage) ......121
Table 7-4. Proportion of households in possession of various long-term consumer goods, by sample;
comparative presentation of Social Inclusion 2007, and RIB 2006 results (percentage) ............122
Table 7-5. Indicators of economic and ethnic residential segregation ......................................................124
Table 8-1. Distribution of economic sectors by ethnicity (respondents aged 18-59, percentage)............136
Table 8-2. Economic activity of Roma by social composition of the locality and the neighbourhood
(Roma respondents aged 18-59, percentage)................................................................................137
Table 8-3. Economic activity of Roma by ethnic composition of the locality and the neighbourhood
(Roma respondents aged 18-59, percentage)................................................................................137
Table 9-1. Effects of different socio-economic factors on access to at least one type of income (affirmative
responses, percentage) ..................................................................................................................141
Table 9-2. Main income sources by ethnicity (percentage) ......................................................................143
Table 9-3. Proportion of main income sources for children, by ethnicity (respondents under 18 years,
percentage) ....................................................................................................................................144
Table 9-4. Main income sources for adults, by ethnicity (respondents over 18 years, percentage)..........144
Table 9-5. Main income sources of Roma adults by type of locality (percentage)....................................145
Table 9-6. Main income sources of Roma adults by gender (percentage) ................................................146
Table 9-7. Average monthly income by ethnicity (total sample, RON, Euro)..........................................146
Table 9-8. Average monthly income by ethnicity (respondents over 18 years, RON, Euro) ..................147
Table 9-9. Average monthly income for Roma by type of income sources (RON, Euro)........................147
Table 9-10. Monthly income by economic sectors and by ethnicity (respondents between 18-59 years,
Euro)..............................................................................................................................................148
Table 9-11. Monthly income by level of education and by ethnicity (respondents between 18-59 years,
Euro)26..........................................................................................................................................149
Table 10-1. Educational level, by age category and sample type (all household members included)
(percentage) ..................................................................................................................................165
Table 10-2. Educational level, by age category and sample type, for respondents in RIB 2006 (percentage)
166
Table 10-3. Opinions on mixed schooling: “To what degree do you agree with the following assertions?”
175
227
Table 10-4. Opinions on ethnic segregation in personal relationships: “To what extent do you agree with
the following assertions…” ............................................................................................................176
Table 11-1. Effects of different socio-economic factors on gross migration potential of Roma respondents
(percentage) ..................................................................................................................................181
Table 11-2. Effects of different socio-economic factors on gross migration potential of non-Roma
respondents (percentage) ..............................................................................................................182
Table 11-3 Gross* migration potential, by previous migration experience of the respondents and by
ethnicity (percentage)....................................................................................................................184
Table 11-4 Gross migration potential, by experience of ethnic discrimination and by ethnicity
(percentage) ..................................................................................................................................185
Table 11-5 Development of the household’ s financial situation, by migration experience of any members
of the household and by ethnicity (percentage) ..........................................................................186
Table 13-1. Existence of Roma population in localities in Census and LA survey data (number of cases,
percentage) ....................................................................................................................................202
Table 13-2. Comparison of existence of Roma population in localities in Census and LA survey data
(percentage) ..................................................................................................................................203
Table 13-3. If Roma experts employed in local administration, number of cases, percentage ................212
Table 13-4. Best practice programmes involving Roma in the locality, number of cases, percentage ....213
Table 16-1. List of communities for Community Studies ........................................................................235
Table 16-2. Exploratory recodification of sub-group affiliation................................................................236
Table 16-3. Binary logistic regression model for neoprotestant affiliation; analysis for all household
members ........................................................................................................................................237
Table 16-4. Binary logistic regression for ethnic affiliation to traditional sub-groups ............................237
Table 16-5. Binary logistic regression model for Romani language use at home ....................................237
Table 16-6. Binary logistic regression for being “very proud” of Roma/Gypsy ethnicity ......................238
Table 16-7. Binary logistic regression model for teaching Romani language in schools for all Roma pupils
(“totally disagree”) ........................................................................................................................238
Table 16-8. Binary logistic model for teaching Roma history and culture in schools for all pupils ........238
Table 16-9. Binary logistic regression model for experience of ethnic discrimination: socio-demographic
variables ........................................................................................................................................238
Table 16-10. Binary logistic regression model for experience of ethnic discrimination: social interaction
variables ........................................................................................................................................239
Table 16-11. Binary logistic regression model for accepting Romanian-ethnic persons as family members:
socio-demographic variables ........................................................................................................239
Table 16-12. Binary logistic regression model for accepting Romanian-ethnic persons as family members:
social interaction variables ............................................................................................................239
Table 16-13. Binary logistic regression model for educational segregation..............................................239
Table 16-14. Binary logistic regression model for electricity in the household........................................240
Table 16-15. Binary regression logistic model for access to water outside the house or yard..................240
Table 16-16. Binary regression logistic model for having Romanian or Hungarian friends ....................240
Table 16-17. Binary logistic regression model for migration experience..................................................241
Table 16-18. Binary logistic regression model for short-term migration intentions ................................241
Table 16-19. Binary logistic regression model for high school graduation, Roma sample ......................241
Table 16-20. Binary logistic regression model for gymnasium graduation, Roma sample ......................241
Table 16-21. Binary logistic regression model for high school graduation, comparative sample ............242
Table 16-22. Educational level by sub-group affiliation ............................................................................242
Table 16-23. Binary logistic regression model for pupil literacy (ability to read and write); Roma pupils
aged 6-18 ......................................................................................................................................242
Table 16-24. Binary logistic regression model for living in a house with no contracts whatsoever – Roma
sample ............................................................................................................................................242
Table 16-25. Linear regression model for the number of long-term consumer goods in the household –
Roma sample ................................................................................................................................243
Table 16-26. Linear regression model for age at first birth – all women in the Roma and in the
comparative sample ......................................................................................................................243
Table 16-27. Distribution of public assistance and development interventions in Roma communities,
Pearson correlation coefficients (LA dataset) ..............................................................................245
16.2 List of Charts

Chart 3-1. Distribution of religious affiliations, by sample type (percentage) ............................................46
Chart 3-2. Neo-protestant affiliation by type of household and education (percentage) ..........................46
Chart 3-3. Distribution of second ethnic affiliations....................................................................................50
Chart 3-4. Proportion of people who speak Romani, who graduated from high school
and who accept Romanians as family members (percentage within affiliation category) ............52
Chart 3-5. Household and public use of Romani language by education categories (percentage) ............53
Chart 3-6. Home and public use of Romani language by locality type (percentage) ..................................53
228
ANNEXES
Chart 3-7. Household appliances by main language spoken within the household (percentage) ..............54
Chart 3-8. Use of Romani language by subjective standard of living (percentage) ....................................54
Chart 3-9. Evaluation of living standard by type of language use, Roma sample
(percentage of language categories)................................................................................................55
Chart 3-10. Access to resources by type of language use, Roma sample
(percentage of language categories)................................................................................................55
Chart 3-11. Pride of ethnic affiliation, by type of ethnic sub-group affiliation (percentage)......................58
Chart 3-12. Pride and use of Romani language at home (percentage) ........................................................58
Chart 3-13. Experience of ethnic discrimination by employment status,
type of neighbourhood, residence and wealth (percentage) ..........................................................60
Chart 4-1. Opinions on learning Romani in school, by ethnic affiliation (RIB 2006) (percentage) ..........70
Chart 4-2. Distribution of answers to the question about teaching Romani language
to all Roma pupils, by neighbourhood composition (percentage) ................................................70
Chart 4-3. Average social distance from various ethnic groups, for Roma and non-Roma respondents,
mean score (1=would accept as family member, 7= would prefer to ban them from the country,
or would not let them in) ................................................................................................................73
Chart 4-4. Average social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma,
by type of location, mean score ......................................................................................................76
Chart 4-5. Average social distance of non-Roma respondents to Roma, by regions, mean score ..............77
Chart 4-6. Acceptance of Romanian ethnic persons in the family, by language use,
family composition and employment status ..................................................................................83
Chart 5-1. Comparative analysis of exposure to hunger (percentage) ........................................................90
Chart 5-2. “Do all children (under 14) in the household have...” (percentage) ..........................................90
Chart 5-3. Age at first birth by sample (percentage) ....................................................................................91
Chart 6-1. Proportion of household members who are not registered with a family doctor,
by age category and sample ..........................................................................................................107
Chart 7-1. Distribution of home ownership contracts in the Roma and the comparative sample
(percentage) ..................................................................................................................................117
Chart 7-2. Legality of house ownership by age category of the head of the household
– Roma sample (percentage) ........................................................................................................118
Chart 7-3. Legality of house ownership by education category of the head of the household
Chart 7-4. Legality of house ownership by number of long-term consumer goods in the household
Chart 7-5. Legality of house ownership by ethnic composition of the neighbourhood
and language spoken in house – Roma sample (percentage) ......................................................120
Chart 7-6. Access to sewer, by type of locality and sample (percentage) ..................................................121
Chart 7-7. Number of long-term consumer goods per household (percentage) ......................................122
Chart 7-8. Lack of access to water, by type of neighbourhood and other variables (percentage) ............125
Chart 8-1. Economic activity by ethnicity (respondents between 18-59 years, percentage) ....................133
Chart 8-2. Influence of gender on economic activity by ethnicity
(respondents between 18-59 years, percentage) ..........................................................................134
Chart 8-3. Influence of age of respondent on economic activity by ethnicity
Chart 8-4. Economic activity by regions and by ethnicity
Chart 8-5. Economic activity by type of location and by ethnicity
Chart 9-1. Access to at least one type of income by ethnicity of the respondent
(respondents over 18 years, percentage) ......................................................................................140
Chart 9-2. Effect of residential segregation on access of Roma
to at least one type of income (percentage) ..................................................................................141
Chart 9-3. Effect of ethnic composition of the settlement on access of Roma
to at least one type of income (percentage) ..................................................................................142
Chart 9-4. Linear-regression model of the effect of different factors on the probability of having
at least one type of income (Roma population, respondents over 18 years)................................142
Chart 9-5. Categories of main income sources by ethnicity (percentage) ................................................143
Chart 9-6. Average monthly income by age groups (total sample, RON) ................................................147
Chart 9-7. Monthly income by economic activity and by ethnicity
(respondents between 18-59 years, Euro) ....................................................................................148
Chart 9-8. Linear-regression model of the effect of different factors on Roma income level
(respondents over 18 years) ..........................................................................................................149
Chart 10-1. Age structures of the Roma and the comparative sample (all household members)
(percentage) ..................................................................................................................................165
Chart 10-2. Ethnic segregation of pupils by type of neighbourhood (percentage) ..................................174
Chart 11-1 Combined migration potential of the respondent by ethnicity
and by region (percentage)............................................................................................................178
Chart 11-2 Departure time for the planned migration, by ethnicity (percentage)....................................179
229
Chart 11-3 Net migration potential of the respondent by ethnicity and by region (percentage) ............179
Chart 11-4 Period of the planned migration, by ethnicity (percentage)....................................................180
Chart 11-5 Migration experience of any member of the household
by ethnicity and by region (percentage) ......................................................................................183
Chart 11-6 Migration experiences of the respondent by ethnicity and by region (percentage) ..............183
Chart 11-7 Rate of respondents who have migration specific network, by ethnicity (percentage) ..........184
Chart 11-8. With whom the respondents plan to migrate, by ethnicity (percentage) ..............................185
Chart 11-9 Combined migration potential, by effect of the development
of the household’ s financial situation and by ethnicity (percentage) ..........................................186
Chart 11-10 Combined migration potential, by expectation of the household’ s
future financial situation and by ethnicity (percentage) ..............................................................187
Chart 11-11 Average level of monthly income considered worthwhile to work abroad for,
by ethnicity (RON) ......................................................................................................................187
Chart 11-12. Household credit by source, in Roma and comparative samples
(multiple answers were possible) ..................................................................................................189
Chart 11-13. Credit size, by sample (RON) ..............................................................................................189
Chart 11-14. Average sum of borrowed money, by main credit source (RON)........................................190
Chart 11-15. Destination of credit, in Roma and comparative samples
(multiple answers were possible) (percentage) ............................................................................190
Chart 11-16. Uses of borrowed money from different sources in the Roma sample (percentage) ..........191
Chart 11-17. Credit source by household financial situation, in the Roma sample (percentage) ............191
Chart 13-1. Rate of Roma people by regions in Census data (2002)
and in LA dataset* (2007) (percentage) ........................................................................................203
Chart 13-2. Rate of Roma people by type of locations in Census data, 2002
and in LA dataset*, 2007 (percentage)..........................................................................................204
Chart 13-3. Rate of Roma people without birth certificate compared to the total
number of Roma, by type of locations, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage) ....................................205
Chart 13-4. Rate of Roma people without birth certificate compared to the total
number of Roma, by regions, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage) ....................................................205
by type of locations, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage) ..................................................................205
by regions, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage) ..................................................................................206
Chart 13-7. Rate of Roma households in communities without land title, by type of location,
LA dataset, 2007* (percentage) ....................................................................................................206
Chart 13-8. Rate of Roma households in communities without land title, by regions,
LA dataset, 2007* (percentage) ....................................................................................................207
Chart 13-9. Rate of children attending kindergarten compared to the total number
of children aged 3-6, by type of location, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)..................................207
Chart 13-10. Rate of children attending special (auxiliary) school compared to the total
number of children aged 6-14 years, by counties, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage) ....................208
Chart 13-11. Rate of children attending special (auxiliary) schools from the total number
of children aged 6-14 years, by type of locality, LA dataset, 2007* (percentage)........................209
Chart 16-1. Feelings of pride for various identities (percentage) ..............................................................236
Chart 16-2. Rate of Roma people by counties in Census data (2002) and
in LA dataset* (2007), percentage ................................................................................................244
Map 16-1. Number of employed people per 1000 residents (NIS data, 2005)..........................................245
Map 16-2. Number of public doctors per 1000 residents (NIS data, 2005) ..............................................246
Map 16-3. Number of Roma-ethnic residents in locality (number of people, Census data, 2002) ..........246
Map 16-4. Proportion of Roma-ethnic residents in locality (percentage, Census data, 2002) ................247
16.3 List of Quotes

Quote 1-1. Ambiguous attitudes to ethnic statistics in Timiºoara ..............................................................13
Quote 1-2. Political correctness in Local Authorities in Oºorhei................................................................14
Quote 1-3. Prejudiced discourse versus empathetic action in public professionals in Curtici....................14
Quote 3-1. Researcher’ s categorizations of Roma in M. Kogãlniceanu ....................................................26
Quote 3-2. Status and the period of settlement in Cugir ............................................................................27
Quote 3-3. Status differentiations and the position of the houses in Curtici ..............................................27
Quote 3-4. Child care and “community behavior” in Dolhasca..................................................................27
Quote 3-5. Children as reasons for conflicts in a Roma “pseudo-community” in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ....28
Quote 3-6. The “community” as a resource – the social capital, in Lupeni ..............................................28
Quote 3-7. Temporary social networks of a “pseudo-community”, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ......................29
Quote 3-8. Strong family ties versus weak community networks in the “Viitorului” neighbourhood,
Lupeni ................................................................................................................................................29
Quote 3-9. Reseacher’ s categorisation and moral judgments, in M. Kogãlniceanu ..................................30
230
ANNEXES
Quote 3-10. Social representations of Roma, according to cultural patterns, in Timiºoara ......................31
Quote 3-11. Being the oldest inhabitants in the locality: Sântana, Cetate and Coltãu ..............................31
Quote 3-12. Memory and celebration of a romantic past in Curtici ..........................................................32
Quote 3-13. Memory of past traditions in Dolhasca....................................................................................32
Quote 3-14. Collective memory in Oºorhei clan ........................................................................................32
Quote 3-15. Romani language as a mark of Roma authenticity, in Curtici ................................................32
Quote 3-16. The lower status of non-Romani speakers in Curtici and Sântana ........................................33
Quote 3-17. Romani mother tongue and the risk of exclusion, in Nuºfalãu and Timiºoara ......................33
Quote 3-18. Early marriage as an indicator of precarious opportunities, in Curtici ..................................34
Quote 3-19. Change of pattern in the young families, in Dolhasca and Sântana........................................34
Quote 3-20. Traditional marriages in Babadag ............................................................................................34
Quote 3-21. Endogamy rules in Curtici Cãldãrari community ..................................................................35
Quote 3-22. The traditional Gabors’ vulnerability ....................................................................................36
Quote 3-23. Customs and self-esteem of the poor Roma ............................................................................36
Quote 3-24. Forced socialization in an urban ghetto, such as Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ....................................37
Quote 3-25. Socialization as a negative influence, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ..................................................37
Quote 3-26. Extended family dependency in Lupeni ..................................................................................37
Quote 3-27. Entertainment items which make living cosier, in Lupeni......................................................38
Quote 3-28. Children reproducing adult advice about marriage and family, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ........39
Quote 3-29. Children reproducing adult talk about policemen and unemployment, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest......39
Quote 3-30. Brothers’ failure as reference point in structuring the youngsters’ dreams, in Veseuº ........39
Quote 3-31. Parents’ life as reference point, in Veseuº ..............................................................................39
Quote 3-32. National exams as reference point in structuring the future, in Veseuº ................................40
Quote 3-33. Dreaming of an un-material happiness, in Veseuº ..................................................................40
Quote 3-34. Distance between dreams and means to access them, in Veseuº ............................................40
Quote 3-35. Gap between children’ s dreams and teachers’ understanding, in Veseuº ............................40
Quote 3-36. Suspicion towards social interventions, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ..............................................41
Quote 3-37. The lack of social balance in media representations, in Timiºoara ........................................41
Quote 3-38. Awareness of the negative media stereotypes, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest....................................42
Quote 3-39. Expectations of support from external actors, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest....................................42
Quote 3-40. “Inferior” work perceived as laziness, in Coltãu ....................................................................43
Quote 3-41. “Inferior” work perceived as non-work, in Nuºfalãu ..............................................................43
Quote 3-42. External and internal contradictory views about work, in M. Kogãlniceanu ........................43
Quote 3-43. Work as a source of pride and self-esteem, in Cugir ..............................................................44
Quote 3-44. Work as a source of pride and self-esteem, in Curtici ............................................................44
Quote 3-45. Nostalgia and change in occupation patterns, in Oºorhei ......................................................44
Quote 3-46. Communist nostalgia in a mining community, Lupeni ..........................................................45
Quote 3-47. Memories of communism through a woman-worker’ s eyes, in Iris ......................................45
Quote 3-48. Awareness of the communist violent assimilation policy, in Curtici ......................................45
Quote 3-49. Awareness of the segregation policy before 1990, in Curtici ..................................................45
Quote 3-50. Pentecostal affiliation among the Babadag Roma ..................................................................47
Quote 3-51. Baptist affiliation in Nuºfalãu ..................................................................................................47
Quote 3-52. Pentecostal influences on local life in Curtici..........................................................................48
Quote 3-53. Strength and limits of Pentecostal influences on family practices in Oºorhei........................48
Quote 3-54. Segregation of two neamuri in Pentecostal communities in Curtici ......................................48
Quote 3-55. “A þigãni” – a lexical innovation in Veseuº ............................................................................56
Quote 3-56. Rom/Þigan affiliation ..............................................................................................................56
Quote 3-57. Public acceptance and rejection of Þigani affiliation in various neamuri ..............................57
Quote 3-58. On “Rudari” identification ......................................................................................................57
Quote 4-1. Uses of the Þigani stereotype in Nuºfalãu ................................................................................63
Quote 4-2. The Þigani label ........................................................................................................................64
Quote 4-3. The Romantic Gypsy in Nuºfalãu..............................................................................................64
Quote 4-4. Perceptions of discriminatory assistance in Coltãu ..................................................................64
Quote 4-5. The “Baia socialã pentru romi” (“Social Bathroom for Roma”) in Cugir ..............................64
Quote 4-6. Definitions of Þigani and Þigãnie in Veseuº ............................................................................65
Quote 4-7. Face-value neutrality in ethnic stereotyping..............................................................................65
Quote 4-8. Local authority view of Roma people ........................................................................................66
Quote 4-9. Economic and cultural explanations of school failure in Cugir ................................................66
Quote 4-10. “Culture of poverty” explanations for school failure, Nuºfalãu..............................................66
Quote 4-11. “Demand side” and “supply side” explanations for school failure in Nuºfalãu ....................67
Quote 4-12. Payments for electricity - Coltãu ............................................................................................67
Quote 4-13. Infrastructure necessities and cleaning practices in Coltãu ....................................................67
Quote 4-14. Attitudes towards aid in Târgu Mureº ....................................................................................68
Quote 4-15. The poverty-focused definition of Roma in Veseuº ..............................................................68
Quote 4-16. The Gypsy culture in school festivities in Veseuº ..................................................................68
Quote 4-17. Roma children in “Gypsy” disguise in Veseuº ........................................................................69
Quote 4-18. “My Roma”, “our Roma” and the “other Roma” in Nuºfalãu ..............................................71
Quote 4-19. Perceptions of Rudari people in Modelu ................................................................................71
231
Quote 4-20. Prejudiced discourse against Þigani in Coltãu ........................................................................71

Quote 4-21. Asymmetric contact in Coltãu..................................................................................................77
Quote 4-22. Social exclusion and social contact in Babadag........................................................................78
Quote 4-23. Discrimination in commercial relationships in Babadag ........................................................78
Quote 4-24. Economic vs. ethnic discrimination in Cugir ..........................................................................78
Quote 4-25. Discrimination in labour relationships in Coltãu ....................................................................79
Quote 4-26. Evaluating ethnic discrimination in Cetateni ........................................................................79
Quote 4-27. Strategies for equal treatment in Babadag ..............................................................................79
Quote 4-28. Confinement strategies in Veseuº ..........................................................................................80
Quote 4-29. Closure of family relations in Coltãu ......................................................................................80
Quote 4-30. Inter-ethnic marriages in Valea Mare......................................................................................80
Quote 4-31. Informal relations in Nuºfalãu ................................................................................................80
Quote 4-32. Opinions on exogamy in Veseuº ..............................................................................................81
Quote 4-33. Power in commercial relationships in Nuºfalãu ......................................................................83
Quote 4-34. Unemployment and social segregation in Babadag ................................................................84
Quote 4-35. Driving licenses in Babadag ....................................................................................................84
Quote 4-36. Emotions and commercial relationships in Babadag ..............................................................85
Quote 4-37. Trade and trust in Nuºfalãu......................................................................................................85
Quote 5-1. Living in extreme poverty in Timiºoara ....................................................................................89
Quote 5-2. Subsistence-related crime in Cugir ............................................................................................92
Quote 5-3. Subsistence-related crime in Glod ............................................................................................92
Quote 5-4. Scrap iron as business and theft oppportunity in Curtici ..........................................................92
Quote 5-5. Alternatives to subsistence theft in Lupeni ................................................................................93
Quote 5-6. Begging and working abroad for Roma people in Curtici ........................................................93
Quote 6-1. The vicious circle of the lack of health insurance......................................................................95
Quote 6-2. Water sources – the main problem affecting health in Roma communities, such as Curtici ..96
Quote 6-3. Low life expectancy in Oºorhei Roma community....................................................................97
Quote 6-4. Health as a status symbol, in Sîntana de Mureº ........................................................................97
Quote 6-5. The case of Glod: lack of water and precarious food supply ....................................................98
Quote 6-6. Consumerist society and nutrition in Roma communities: the case of Oºorhei ......................98
Quote 6-7. A frequent critique: “coffee and cigarettes” behaviour, the case of M. Kogãlniceanu ............98
Quote 6-8. Improvised self-medication as defective information management, example of Sântana ........99
Quote 6-9. Management of infant healthcare in precarious conditions: the case of M. Kogãlniceanu......99
Quote 6-10. The heaviness of the medical system and informal arrangements in Sântana ........................99
Quote 6-11. Conflict between Roma and doctor, in a neighbouring village to Nuºfalãu ........................100
Quote 6-12. Strategies to access health services, recorded in Timiºoara ..................................................101
Quote 6-13. Roma perception on medical emergency services, recorded in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ..........101
Quote 6-14. The hospital reaction to coping strategies of the poor Roma, in Curtici ............................101
Quote 6-15. The feeling of being discriminated against by the medical staff and the emotional reactions
to this, in Dolhasca ..........................................................................................................................101
Quote 6-16. Health mediators and voluntary involvement in Timiºoara..................................................102
Quote 6-17. Difficulties in health mediation, confessed in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ......................................102
Quote 6-18. Negative side effects of the health mediation, as in the case of Timiºoara ..........................102
Quote 6-19. Obstacles to accessing family planning information, registered in Timiºoara ....................103
Quote 6-20. Previous studies on Roma women’ s health ..........................................................................103
Quote 6-21. Obstacles to accessing family planning information and its dangers,
registered in Timiºoara ....................................................................................................................104
Quote 6-22. Refusal to explain the child’ s afflictions to the Roma parents, in Dolhasca ........................104
Quote 6-23. “Blaming the victims” in the situation of Glod village ........................................................105
Quote 6-24. Minimization of the doctor’ s responsibility to explain the vaccination procedure,
in M. Kogãlniceanu..........................................................................................................................106
Quote 6-25. The doctor’ s religion and access to family planning information, in Timiºoara ................106
Quote 6-26. A critical view of the national strategy for health ..................................................................106
Quote 7-1. Intense crowding in a social housing ghetto, such as Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ............................109
Quote 7-2. Living in the ghetto of Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest and hoping for a better housing situation ........109
Quote 7-3. Contradictory opinions on the history of the Lupeni ghetto..................................................110
Quote 7-4. Lodging trajectories, ending up in Viitorului ghetto ..............................................................111
Quote 7-5. Instability and investments in social housing flats, in Viitorului ghetto, Lupeni ..................111
Quote 7-6. Vicious circle of multiple evictions, in Timiºoara ..................................................................112
Quote 7-7. The responsibility to build social housing in Bucharest..........................................................113
Quote 7-8. Evictions as a situation of conflict, in Timiºoara ....................................................................113
Quote 7-9. Status symbols generating conflict in Timiºoara ....................................................................113
Quote 7-10. Housing, proximity and inter-ethnic conflicts in M. Kogãlniceanu ....................................113
Quote 7-11. Burning down shacks and democratic exercises in the Blascovics neighborhood
of Timiºoara ....................................................................................................................................114
Quote 7-12. History of formal exclusion and evictions, in Timiºoara ......................................................114
Quote 7-13. Uncertain legal status of new constructions in Ladioº neighborhood of Coltãu ................115
Quote 7-14. Vague property rights and the vulnerability to evictions, in Timiºoara ..............................116
232
ANNEXES
Quote 7-15. The contradiction of discourses upon property rights, in M. Kogãlniceanu........................116

Quote 7-16. Vulnerability to evictions in Timiºoara ................................................................................116
Quote 7-17. Residential segregation in Curtici..........................................................................................123
Quote 8-1. Reasons for being “unemployed” in Timiºoara ......................................................................127
Quote 8-2. Influence of educational background on employment ............................................................127
Quote 8-3. Division of labour in Roma families in Coltau ........................................................................128
Quote 8-4. Women’ s responsibilities in Roma households in Sântana de Mureº ..................................128
Quote 8-5. Roma women’ s earning strategies in Oºorhei ........................................................................128
Quote 8-6. Costs of commuting in Lupeni ................................................................................................128
Quote 8-7. Inefficiency of Roma labour projects in Timiºoara ................................................................129
Quote 8-8. Courses and labour practice in Timiºoara ..............................................................................129
Quote 8-9. Local Authorities’ perception of work and the Roma people, in Bucharest ..........................129
Quote 8-10. Circles of dependency, from the Local Authorities’ perspective, in Bucharest ..................130
Quote 8-11. Social aid for households with informal incomes in Modelu ................................................130
Quote 8-12. Nomadic life as a source of local conflict in Oºorhei ............................................................130
Quote 8-13. The impossibility of legalization of “traditional professions” in Oºorhei ............................131
Quote 8-14. The problem of legalization of traditional professions in Timiºoara ..................................131
Quote 8-15. Lack of education as impediment to obtain authorization in Timiºoara ..............................131
Quote 8-16. Story of a former miner after the transition, in Lupeni ........................................................131
Quote 10-1. The debated role of education ..............................................................................................153
Quote 10-2. Caught between two worlds in the Zãbrãuþi schools, Bucharest ..........................................154
Quote 10-3. The complex cause for the decision to leave school, in Dolhasca ........................................155
Quote 10-4. Higher school attendance leading to lower quality of education, in Nuºfalãu ....................155
Quote 10-5. Advantages of new learning techniques ................................................................................156
Quote 10-6. Romani language in school – the case of Dolhasca ..............................................................156
Quote 10-7. Problems of school attendance in Sfântu Gheorghe ............................................................157
Quote 10-8. High costs and low rewards of education, perceived by both Roma and non-Roma
in Coltãu ..........................................................................................................................................157
Quote 10-9. The parents’ attitude towards education in Cetate ..............................................................158
Quote 10-10. School careers for Roma pupils in Mihail Kogãlniceanu ....................................................158
Quote 10-11. Social problems reflected in school behaviour in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ..............................158
Quote 10-12. Parents’ relationship with the school, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest............................................159
Quote 10-13. Communication problems between teachers and parents, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ............159
Quote 10-14. Teacher-parent reciprocal suspicions in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ............................................159
Quote 10-15. Relations between schools and NGOs/programmes in Bucharest ....................................160
Quote 10-16. Discrepancies between the values of language, registered in Dolhasca ..............................160
Quote 10-17. Lack of examples of social mobility through education, in Curtici ....................................160
Quote 10-18. Alternatives to education perceived as more profitable, in Nuºfalãu..................................160
Quote 10-19. Life expectations and disappointments in education for the Roma in Curtici ..................161
Quote 10-20. Education fails to secure welfare, in Timiºoara ..................................................................161
Quote 10-21. Efforts to offer education to children in poor Roma households in Timiºoara ................161
Quote 10-22. Importance of schooling in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ................................................................161
Quote 10-23. Change in perspectives about the value of education, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ..................162
Quote 10-24. Short-term economic welfare versus professional careers for young Roma people
in Timiºoara ....................................................................................................................................162
Quote 10-25. The educational failure of the parents and motivations for a professional career
for the musicians in Cugir................................................................................................................162
Quote 10-26. Involved actors and assuming responsibility for education of the Roma ..........................163
Quote 10-27. Key role of the school mediator as the best short-term/urgent solution............................163
Quote 10-28. School mediator exceeding duties, in the case of Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest ..............................163
Quote 10-29. Roma grand-parents’ proposals for how to improve literacy among Roma children
in Coltãu ..........................................................................................................................................164
Quote 10-30. Proposals from experienced teachers, in Oºorhei and Timiºoara ......................................164
Quote 10-31. Benefits of mixed classes, from the experience of teachers in Lupeni ................................164
Quote 10-32. Mixed opinions on segregated school in Curtici ................................................................168
Quote 10-33. The new legal frame and the issue of equal chances ..........................................................169
Quote 10-34. A rosy view of a segregated school in Mihail Kogãlniceanu ..............................................170
Quote 10-35. School as a basis for subsequent relationships in Coltãu ....................................................170
Quote 10-36. Attitudes towards mixed schooling in Cugir........................................................................170
Quote 10-37. Segregation as an unintended effect of individual choices ..................................................171
Quote 10-38. Segregated education in the 50s in Nuºfalãu ......................................................................171
Quote 10-39. Segregated education in the 90s in Nuºfalãu ......................................................................171
Quote 10-40. Segregated education in the 50s in Örkõ ..............................................................................172
Quote 10-41. Emergence of segregated education in Curtici....................................................................172
Quote 10-42. Segregation as a solution in Babadag ..................................................................................173
Quote 10-43. Economic incentives for desegregation in Nuºfalãu ..........................................................173
Quote 10-44. Integrationist attitudes in Nuºfalãu......................................................................................173
Quote 10-45. Unequal attention in the classroom in Coltãu ....................................................................174
233
Quote 11-1. Work abroad for Roma people in Timiºoara ........................................................................187

Quote 11-2. Work abroad for people in Cugir ..........................................................................................188
Quote 11-3. Work abroad for people in Mihail Kogãlniceanu..................................................................188
Quote 11-4. Work abroad for the Chinari Roma in Sântana de Mureº : ..................................................188
Quote 11-5. Family and educational problems due to migration in Curtici ............................................188
Quote 12-1. Interactions with the Mayor in a locality without representation ........................................197
Quote 12-2. Local leadership and mediation in Gradinari ........................................................................197
Quote 12-3. Formal and informal leadership in Târgu Mureº ..................................................................198
Quote 12-4. Political accountability in Sfântu Gheorghe..........................................................................199
Quote 12-5. Leadership and suspicion in Târgu Mureº ............................................................................200
Quote 12-6. Leadership and suspicion in Cetãþeni ....................................................................................200
Quote 12-7. Leadership and suspicion in Cugir ........................................................................................200
Quote 12-8. Leadership failure in a community project ............................................................................201
16.4 List of Pictures

Picture 1. Community photo in Sântana de Mureº (Mureº county), taken by Gabriel Troc ......................1
Picture 2. Community photo in Oºorhei (Bihor County), taken by Gábor Fleck ......................................21
Picture 3. From a family album, Ploieºti (Prahova county), collected by Ramona Gheorghe....................23
Picture 4. Community photo in Babadag (Tulcea county), taken by Constantin Gãtin ............................62
Picture 5. Community photo in Voineºti (Iaºi county), taken by a member of the community ................87
Picture 6. Community photo in Veseuº (Alba County), taken by Alina Silian ..........................................89
Picture 7. From a family album, Sfântu Gheorghe (Covasna county), collected by Gábor Kalamár ........96
Picture 8. Community photo in Bãrbuleºti (Ialomiþa county), taken by a member of the community....110
Picture 9. Community photo in Sfântu Gheorghe (Covasna county), taken by Gábor Kalamár ............128
Picture 10. Community photo in Veseuº (Alba County), taken by Alina Silian ......................................141
Picture 11. Community photo in Ploieºti (Prahova county), taken by Ramona Gheorghe......................153
Picture 12. Community photo in Ferentari (Bucureºti), taken by a member of the community..............179
Picture 13. Community photo in Babadag (Tulcea county), taken by Constantin Gãtin ........................195
Picture 14. Community photo in Sfântu Gheorghe (Covasna county), taken by Gábor Kalamár ..........197
Picture 15. Community photo in Babadag (Tulcea county), taken by Constantin Gãtin ........................203
Picture 16. From a family album, Veseuº (Alba County), collected by Alina Silian ................................216
Picture 17. Community photo in Prundu (Giurgiu county), taken by a member of the community ......225
234
ANNEXES
16.5 Tables and Charts
16.5.1 Methodological Information
Table 16-1. List of communities for Community Studies

Location County Researcher Fieldwork period
ANINOASA Argeº OR Team July – August, 2007.
BABADAG Tulcea Constantin Gãtin August – September, 2007.
BÃRBULEªTI Ialomiþa Ovidiu Isan September, 2007.
BATANI / Herculian community Covasna Dénes Kiss July – August, 2007.
BUNEªTI / Viscri community Braºov Ana Bleahu August, 2007.
BUZESCU Teleorman OR Team August – September, 2007.
CETATE Bistriþa-Nasãud Ovidiu Isan July – August, 2007.
CLUJ NAPOCA / Iris neighbourhood Cluj Plainer Zsuzsa August – September, 2007.
COLTÃU Maramureº Iorga Alexandru July – August, 2007.
CUGIR Alba Sasha Liviu August – September, 2007.
CURTICI Arad Mariana Goina July – August, 2007.
DOLHASCA / Gulia community Suceava Veronica Lazar August – September, 2007.
DUMITREªTI Vrancea OR Team July – August, 2007.
BUCUREªTI, FERENTARI, Aleea Zãbrãuþi Bucureºti Miruna Tîrcã September, 2007.
GLOD Dâmboviþa Ami Oteanu August – September, 2007.
GRÃDINARI Olt OR Team August – September, 2007.
JIDVEI / Veseuº community Alba Alina Silian July – August, 2007.
JILAVA Ilfov Elisabeta Ionescu July – August, 2007.
LUPENI Hunedoara Geambasu Reka August, 2007.
MIHAIL KOGÃLNICEANU Constanþa Mihai Marcu August – September, 2007.
MODELU Cãlaraºi Ionut Feraru July – August, 2007.
NUªFALÃU Sãlaj Toma Stefánia August – September, 2007.
OªORHEI Bihor Ana Pantea July – August, 2007.
PLOIEªTI Prahova Ramona Gheorghe October, 2007.
PRUNDU Giurgiu Stefan Stancu September, 2007.
RACOª Braºov Constantin Gãtin July – August, 2007.
SÂNTANA DE MUREª Mureº Gabriel Troc June – July, 2007.
SEBEª Alba Alina Silian July – August, 2007.
SF GHEORGHE Covasna Gábor Kalamár June – July, 2007.
SIBIU Sibiu Streza Teodora Cristina August – September, 2007.
SÂNTANA Arad Calin Goina July – August, 2007.
TIMIªOARA Timiº Enikõ Magyari-Vincze August – September, 2007.
TÂRGU MUREª Mureº Paul Cengher July – August, 2007.
VALEA CRIªULUI Covasna Tamá s Kiss July – August, 2007.
VALEA MARE Vaslui Luis Ciprian Turcitu September, 2007
VOINEªTI / Slobozia community Iaºi Alexandra Vasilache July – August, 2007.
235
16.5.2 Charts and Tables for Ethnic Affiliation

Chart 16-1. Feelings of pride for various identities (percentage)
Table 16-2. Exploratory recodification of sub-group affiliation

ciurari and other
frequent romi
caldarari de vatra romanizati romanesti rudari spoitori ursari other Total
affiliations maghiari
(recoded)
caldarari 28 28
ciurari 5
cortorari 13 13
de vatra 31 31
gabori cu
18 18
palarie
geambas 11 11
lingurari 9 9
romanizati 48 48
romanesti 35 35
de matase 11 11
domnesti 6 6
Romi
29 29
maghiari
rostas 9 9
rudari 32 32
spoitori 36 36
ursari 85 85
other 42 42
Total 28 77 31 48 35 29 32 36 85 42 443
236
ANNEXES
16.5.3 Binary Logistic Regression Models for Ethnic Affiliation
Table 16-3. Binary logistic regression model for neoprotestant affiliation;

analysis for all household members
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Roma neighbourhood 0.12 0.14 0.70 1.00 0.40 1.12
Use of Romani at home 0.10 0.13 0.65 1.00 0.42 1.11
Somebody in the household has
-0.49 0.17 8.17 1.00 0.00 0.61
migration experience
Has bought long-term consumer goods
0.61 0.15 15.57 1.00 0.00 1.84
in the last year
Has an automobile in the household 0.79 0.17 22.14 1.00 0.00 2.20
Has a mobile phone in the household -0.40 0.14 8.41 1.00 0.00 0.67
Urban residence -0.37 0.13 8.58 1.00 0.00 0.69
Age 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.00 0.33 1.00
High school graduate -0.46 0.22 4.46 1.00 0.03 0.63
Gender -0.16 0.12 1.86 1.00 0.17 0.85
Table 16-4. Binary logistic regression for ethnic affiliation to traditional sub-groups
High school graduate 0.04 0.53 0.01 1.00 0.93 1.05
Employee in an organization -0.65 0.57 1.30 1.00 0.25 0.52
Has Romanian or Hungarian friends -1.41 0.63 5.02 1.00 0.03 0.24
Urban residence 0.26 0.34 0.61 1.00 0.43 1.30
Uses Romani at home 1.28 0.34 13.95 1.00 0.00 3.59

Long-term consumer goods 0.12 0.11 1.18 1.00 0.28 1.13
Age 0.02 0.01 3.25 1.00 0.07 1.02
Gender -0.48 0.33 2.09 1.00 0.15 0.62
Table 16-5. Binary logistic regression model for Romani language use at home
Traditional affiliation 1.36 0.17 64.66 1.00 0.00 3.91
Urban residence -0.16 0.16 1.07 1.00 0.30 0.85
Has Romanian or Hungarian family
-1.08 0.17 40.33 1.00 0.00 0.34
members
Long-term consumer goods -0.05 0.05 1.18 1.00 0.28 0.95
Age 0.01 0.01 1.30 1.00 0.25 1.01
Gender 0.30 0.16 3.56 1.00 0.06 1.35
Table 16-6. Binary logistic regression for being “very proud” of Roma/Gypsy ethnicity
Urban residence -0.01 0.15 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.99
Age -0.01 0.01 3.18 1.00 0.07 0.99
Gender 0.21 0.15 1.93 1.00 0.17 1.23
Constant -0.83 0.26 9.78 1.00 0.00 0.44
Table 16-7. Binary logistic regression model for teaching Romani language in schools
for all Roma pupils (“totally disagree”)
Traditional affiliation -0.71 0.21 11.12 1.00 0.00 0.49
Uses Romani at home -0.39 0.20 3.75 1.00 0.05 0.68
Homogenous Roma neighbourhood 0.79 0.24 11.19 1.00 0.00 2.21
Urban residence -0.06 0.19 0.11 1.00 0.74 0.94
-0.37 0.22 3.01 1.00 0.08 0.69
members
Age 0.00 0.01 0.44 1.00 0.51 1.00
Table 16-8. Binary logistic model for teaching Roma history and culture in schools for all pupils
Homogenous Roma neighbourhood 1.01 0.28 12.72 1.00 0.00 2.75
Urban residence 0.16 0.21 0.57 1.00 0.45 1.17
-0.15 0.24 0.39 1.00 0.53 0.86
members
Age 0.01 0.01 0.70 1.00 0.40 1.01
Gender -0.17 0.21 0.65 1.00 0.42 0.84
Table 16-9. Binary logistic regression model for experience of ethnic discrimination: socio-demo-
graphic variables
Gymnasium graduate 0.14 0.15 0.86 1.00 0.35 1.15
Urban residence 0.27 0.14 3.87 1.00 0.05 1.31
238
ANNEXES
Table 16-10. Binary logistic regression model for experience of ethnic discrimination: social inter-
action variables
Employee in an organization 0.61 0.21 8.29 1.00 0.00 1.84
Homogenous Roma neighbourhood -0.46 0.16 8.78 1.00 0.00 0.63
Table 16-11. Binary logistic regression model for accepting Romanian-ethnic persons as family
members: socio-demographic variables
Gymnasium graduate 0.32 0.14 4.93 1.00 0.03 1.38
Long-term consumer goods (nr.) 0.04 0.04 0.92 1.00 0.34 1.04
Urban residence 0.30 0.13 5.20 1.00 0.02 1.35
Table 16-12. Binary logistic regression model for accepting Romanian-ethnic persons as family
members: social interaction variables
Employee in an organization 1.13 0.24 21.85 1.00 0.00 3.10
1.04 0.15 50.14 1.00 0.00 2.83
members
16.5.4 Binary Logistic Regression Models for Influences of Residential

Segregation
Table 16-13. Binary logistic regression model for educational segregation
Roma district 0.32 0.33 0.96 1.00 0.33 1.38
Poor district 0.48 0.22 4.92 1.00 0.03 1.62
Roma neighbourhood -0.28 0.30 0.85 1.00 0.36 0.76
Unkempt neighbourhood 0.93 0.23 15.56 1.00 0.00 2.53
Use of Romani at home -0.14 0.21 0.47 1.00 0.49 0.87
No. of consumer goods -0.14 0.07 3.82 1.00 0.05 0.87
Urban residence 0.63 0.21 9.08 1.00 0.00 1.87
239
Table 16-14. Binary logistic regression model for electricity in the household
Roma district -0.49 0.41 1.38 1.00 0.24 0.61
Poor district -0.20 0.26 0.55 1.00 0.46 0.82
Unkempt neighbourhood -1.46 0.29 25.91 1.00 0.00 0.23
No. of consumer goods 1.55 0.17 83.58 1.00 0.00 4.73
Urban residence -0.44 0.27 2.80 1.00 0.09 0.64
Age 0.02 0.01 5.22 1.00 0.02 1.02
Table 16-15. Binary regression logistic model for access to water outside the house or yard
Roma district 0.54 0.26 4.20 1.00 0.04 1.71
Poor district 0.44 0.19 5.20 1.00 0.02 1.55
Unkempt neighbourhood 1.02 0.19 30.03 1.00 0.00 2.77
No. of consumer goods -0.36 0.07 29.06 1.00 0.00 0.70
Urban residence -0.73 0.18 16.29 1.00 0.00 0.48
Age -0.01 0.01 2.60 1.00 0.11 0.99
Table 16-16. Binary regression logistic model for having Romanian or Hungarian friends
Roma district -1.35 1.18 1.31 1.00 0.25 0.26
Poor district 0.02 0.74 0.00 1.00 0.98 1.02
Roma neighbourhood -0.81 0.99 0.68 1.00 0.41 0.44
Urban residence -0.12 0.73 0.03 1.00 0.86 0.88
Age 0.08 0.03 5.53 1.00 0.02 1.08
240
ANNEXES
Table 16-17. Binary logistic regression model for migration experience

Roma district 0.06 0.35 0.03 1.00 0.86 1.06
Poor district -0.29 0.32 0.79 1.00 0.37 0.75
Urban residence 0.17 0.25 0.45 1.00 0.50 1.18
Age -0.02 0.01 5.01 1.00 0.03 0.98
Table 16-18. Binary logistic regression model for short-term migration intentions
Urban residence 0.02 0.19 0.01 1.00 0.93 1.02
Age -0.04 0.01 27.46 1.00 0.00 0.96
16.5.5 Education Level

Table 16-19. Binary logistic regression model for high school graduation, Roma sample
Gender 0.64 0.16 16.03 1.00 0.00 1.90
Aged 30-60 0.32 0.16 3.93 1.00 0.05 1.37
Urban residence 0.09 0.16 0.31 1.00 0.58 1.09
Affiliation to traditional neamuri 0.39 0.17 5.12 1.00 0.02 1.48
No. of long-term consumer goods 0.38 0.04 73.36 1.00 0.00 1.46
Use of Romani language at home -1.32 0.18 51.55 1.00 0.00 0.27
Has repeated at least one school year -1.24 0.52 5.79 1.00 0.02 0.29
Table 16-20. Binary logistic regression model for gymnasium graduation, Roma sample
Gender 0.41 0.09 19.89 1.00 0.00 1.50
Aged 60 or over -1.32 0.22 34.63 1.00 0.00 0.27
Urban residence 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 0.32 1.10
Affiliation to traditional neamuri -0.02 0.10 0.05 1.00 0.83 0.98
241
Table 16-21. Binary logistic regression model for high school graduation, comparative sample
Gender 0.55 0.09 34.02 1.00 0.00 1.73
Aged 60 or more -1.64 0.11 228.65 1.00 0.00 0.19
Urban residence 0.58 0.10 36.72 1.00 0.00 1.79
Table 16-22. Educational level by sub-group affiliation

No Assimilated Traditional
Rudari
affiliation affiliation affiliation
(percent)
(percent) (percent) (percent)
None or incomplete elementary 31 29 38 12
Elementary, incomplete gymnasium or
34 39 32 25
special school
Gymnasium, or incomplete high school 28 23 22 37
High school or more 7 9 8 25
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
No. of cases 1121 326 997 106
Table 16-23. Binary logistic regression model for pupil literacy (ability to read and write);
Roma pupils aged 6-18
Gender -0.21 0.35 0.36 1.00 0.55 0.81
Urban residence -0.43 0.35 1.54 1.00 0.21 0.65
Affiliation to traditional neamuri 0.78 0.40 3.89 1.00 0.05 2.19
No. of consumer goods in the
-1.28 0.35 13.40 1.00 0.00 0.28
household
The majority of class pupils are Roma -1.62 0.36 20.49 1.00 0.00 0.20
16.5.6 Housing
Table 16-24. Binary logistic regression model for living in a house with no contracts whatsoever –
Roma sample
Urban residence -0.30 0.23 1.74 1.00 0.19 0.74
Gymnasium graduate -0.63 0.26 5.80 1.00 0.02 0.53
No consumer goods in the household 1.12 0.23 23.25 1.00 0.00 3.08
Aged 60 or over -1.02 0.36 8.10 1.00 0.00 0.36
Constant -2.21 0.31 49.82 1.00 0.00 0.11
242
ANNEXES
Table 16-25. Linear regression model for the number of long-term consumer goods in the house-
hold – Roma sample
Unstandardized Standardized
t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
No of educational cycles attended (from 0 to 5) by
0.56 0.05 0.34 11.22 0.00
the head of household
“Does any member of your household have
0.89 0.12 0.20 7.30 0.00
experience in working/living in abroad?”
Head of household is employee in an organization 0.58 0.15 0.11 3.89 0.00
Urban locality 0.30 0.10 0.08 3.00 0.00
Number of household members 0.05 0.02 0.08 2.82 0.00
Household use of Romani language -0.19 0.10 -0.05 -1.82 0.07
Age of head of household -0.01 0.00 -0.06 -2.23 0.03
16.5.7 Health
Table 16-26. Linear regression model for age at first birth – all women in the Roma and in the
comparative sample
B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Exp(B)
Education categories 0.69 0.10 0.19 7.05 0.00 1.68
Number of long-term consumer goods
0.18 0.05 0.08 3.25 0.00 0.96
in the household
Roma ethnicity -1.98 0.21 -0.23 -9.24 0.00 1.35
243
16.5.8 Local Authorities Survey
Chart 16-2. Rate of Roma people by counties in Census data (2002)

and in LA dataset* (2007), percentage
244
ANNEXES
Table 16-27. Distribution of public assistance and development interventions in Roma communi-
ties, Pearson correlation coefficients (LA dataset)
First community -
Have there been
Roma experts % households with
best-practice
employed in Local Minimum
programs involving
Authority Guaranteed
Roma?
Income
Roma experts employed in Local Authority 1 0.295
Have there been best-practice programs involving
0.295 1
Roma?
First community - household number -0.207 -0.177
In the last year have there been conflicts related to
-0.091
Roma people?
% households connected to electricity
% households with access to own water source -0.144
% households without land titles 0.144 0.155
% households with access to common water source 0.114 0.128
% people without birth certificates 0.119
First community - % illiterate people aged 16 and over 0.161
First community - % households with Minimum
Guaranteed Income
All coefficients included in the table are statistically significant for p=0.05.
Coefficients that were not statistically different from zero have been deleted, for greater legibility
Map 16-1. Number of employed people per 1000 residents (NIS data, 2005)
245
Map 16-2. Number of public doctors per 1000 residents (NIS data, 2005)
Map 16-3. Number of Roma-ethnic residents in locality (number of people, Census data, 2002)
246
ANNEXES
Map 16-4. Proportion of Roma-ethnic residents in locality (percentage, Census data, 2002)
247
NOTICES
NOTICES
Tipãrire ºi legare la SC Arta Grafica SA, Bucureºti, www.artagrafica.eu

DIFFICULT To Appreciate The Real Number of Roma PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIFFICULT To Appreciate The Real Number of Roma PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DIFFICULT To Appreciate The Real Number of Roma PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preface

“Nothing for the Roma without the Roma”

Gruia Ioan BUMBU

Dr. Michael Stewart

Part II. Ethnic Affiliation and Classification ..................................................................23

3.3.2 Entertainment ......................................................................................................37

Part III. Quality of Life....................................................................................................87

7.2 Housing Issues in Survey Research ............................................................................116

Part IV. Agents of Change ............................................................................................151

Part V. Local Authorities and Roma Citizens ..............................................................195

12.1 The Formal – Informal Partnership..........................................................................199

Part VI. Conclusions......................................................................................................215

Part VII. References and Annexes ................................................................................223

To this aim, we used three different kinds of research methods:

1.1 Research Perspectives

1.2 Research Subjects

1.3 Agents of Change

1.4 Definitions of Poverty and Exclusion

1.4.1 Indicators of Poverty and Exclusion

Table 1–1. Index of poverty in Roma communities (IPRC).

1 Based on December 2002 currency rate, 1 EURO = 33330 ROL.

1.4.2 Defining “Roma Issues” as Ethnic or Social Issues

3 Hetero-identification = to be identified by “the others”, cf. auto-identification (self-defined identity)

1.5 Strategies of Roma Identification

Source: National Statistical Institute

1.5.1 Hetero-identification of Roma People

– almost all people who self-identify as Roma are hetero-identified as Roma;

1.6 Finding the Roma People: Sampling Issues

Table 1-6. Inclusion of Roma respondents in several Romanian samples

Table 1-7. Errors in hetero-identification sampling the Roma population

1.6.1 Sampling Roma Communities Versus Roma Individuals

1.6.2 Comparability of Roma Samples

1.7 Political Correctness and Public Definition of

Quote 1-1. Ambiguous attitudes to ethnic statistics in Timiºoara*

Quote 1-2. Political correctness in Local Authorities in Oºorhei

2.1.1 The Questionnaire

2.1.2 The Samples

2.1.3 Categories for Analysis

2.2 The Qualitative Research

2.2.1 Community Studies

The criteria used for the selection of the 36 localities were:

– Format and instructions for the field diary;

Research targets were:

The focus points of the qualitative fieldwork were the following:

Researchers conducted an average of 15-20 interviews, which were distributed as follows:

2.2.2 Data Types in Community Studies

2.3 The Local Authorities Survey

2.4 The Report

2.4.1 Ethnonyms Used in The Report

2.4.2 Presentation of Statistical Information

3.1 Diversity of Roma Communities

3.1.1 Levels of Differentiation

Quote 3-1. Researcher’ s categorizations of Roma in M. Kogãlniceanu

3.1.2 Self-differentiation Strategies

Quote 3-2. Status and the period of settlement in Cugir

Quote 3-4. Child care and “community behavior” in Dolhasca

3.1.4 Different Community Patterns

Quote 3-6. The “community” as a resource – the social capital, in Lupeni

Quote 3-7. Temporary social networks of a “pseudo-community”, in Zãbrãuþi, Bucharest