roumanie tourism

ROMANIAN TOURISM IN THEPOST-COMMUNIST PERIOD

Duncan LightLiverpool Hope University College, UK

Daniela DumbraÆveanuUniversity of Bucharest, Romania

Abstract: This paper examines tourism development in post-communist Romania. It ®rstexamines tourism trends between 1989 and 1997. International arrivals are faltering, due topolitical/economic instability since 1989, the legacy of a decaying tourism infrastructure, andpoor standards of service. Post-communist economic restructuring has signi®cantly depresseddomestic tourism, with the accommodation sector also declining. This leads to a discussionon tourism restructuring, particularly the privatization of accommodation, the introductionand regulation of standards for it, and the training/education of tourism personnel. Next,future prospects are considered, specially rural, heritage and cultural tourism. The paperconcludes that, despite Romania's considerable tourism potential, the immediate futureprospects are not encouraging. Keywords: Romania, post-communist period, transition,restructuring, privatization. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

ReÂsumeÂ: Le tourisme roumain aÁ l'eÂpoque post-communiste. Cet article traite dudeÂveloppement du tourisme dans la Roumanie post-communiste. On analyse d'abord lestendances entre 1989 et 1997. Les arriveÂes internationales se font incertaines, enconseÂquence de l'instabiliteÂ politique et eÂconomique d'une infrastructure touristique endeÂclin et de niveaux de service meÂdiocres. En plus, la restructuration eÂconomique post-communiste a sensiblement affaibli le tourisme domestique, avec la capaciteÂ d'heÂbergementen baisse. Ceci meÃne aÁ une discussion de la restructuration de l'industrie touristique, enparticulier la privatisation de l'heÂbergement, l'introduction et la reÂglementation de normeset la formation du personnel. Ensuite, les perspectives d'avenir sont consideÂreÂes, enparticulier pour le tourisme rural et culturel. On conclut que, malgreÂ le potentiel touristiquede la Roumanie, dans l'immeÂdiat le pronostic n'est pas encourageant. Mots-cleÂs: Roumanie,peÂriode post-communiste, transition, restructuration, privatisation. # 1999 Elsevier ScienceLtd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Since 1989 the former communist countries of Central andEastern Europe (CEE) have been experiencing fundamental politi-cal and economic restructuring as they seek to replace centrally-planned economies and one-party states with market economies andmulti-party democracies. Such a change cannot take place over-

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 898±927, 1999# 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0160-7383/99/$20.00+0.00

Pergamon

PII: S0160-7383(99)00033-Xwww.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Duncan Light lectures in Geography at Liverpool Hope University College (Department ofEnvironmental and Biological Studies, Hope Park, Liverpool L16 9JD, UK. Email< [email protected] >). His research interests include the relationships between tourism,heritage, and identities in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe. DanielaDumbraÆveanu is Assistant Lecturer in Human Geography, University of Bucharest,Romania.

898

night, and these countries are currently acknowledged to be in aperiod of transition. However, while the nature, processes, andimpacts of political and economic transition in CEE have generatedconsiderable academic interest (Bate 1991; Buckley and Ghauri1994; Estrin 1994; Henderson and Robinson 1997; Karp 1994; KoÈves1992; Lavigne 1995; Richter 1992; Turnock 1997; VasÏko 1992), thechanging nature of tourism in the region is a more neglected topic.Yet, tourism in CEE cannot be isolated from these wider processesof transition, and as Hall (1995a) argues tourism is itself an el-ement ofÐand is strongly in¯uenced byÐthe processes of restruc-turing.

However, the academic study of tourism in CEE has been bothslow to develop and inconsistent in its coverage. Two publicationsmade a signi®cant contribution to understanding the nature of tour-ism development in the region during the period of state socialism:a special edition of the Annals of Tourism Research dealing with tour-ism in centrally-planned economies; and a collection edited by Hall(1991a) which included a detailed examination of the evolution oftourism in CEE, along with individual country studies (whichincluded an analysis of the situation in early 1990). Subsequenttourism research in post-communist CEE has focused on two broadthemes. The ®rst is emerging trends in the region as a whole (withparticular emphasis on trends in arrivals of foreign tourists andreceipts), and the challenges and problems for tourism developmentin the future (Hall 1990, 1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b, 1995b;Lockwood 1993; Medlik 1990; Smeral 1993; SÏtetic 1991; Witt 1994).A more detailed regional analysis of how tourism is both an elementof, and is in¯uenced by, economic, political and social restructuringis provided by Hall (1995a). The second focus is the emergingtrends and the changing nature of tourism in individual countries,including Bulgaria (Bachvarov 1997; Harrison 1993; Koulov 1996;Vodenska 1992); the Czech/Slovak Republics (BalaÂz 1995; Johnson1995; Jordan 1992); Estonia (Jaakson 1996; Unwin 1996); Hungary(Fletcher and Cooper 1996; Johnson 1997) and Poland (Airey 1994).Such studies have been inconsistent in their coverage, with mostattention having been paid to the countries of Central Europe,while those of South Eastern Europe have been more neglected(Hall 1998). Other themes include investment potential in theregion (Franck 1990), the implications for transport systems ofchanging tourism development (Hall 1993c), the privatization andrestructuring of hotel accommodation (Lennon 1995), Japanesetourists in the countries of Central Europe (BalaÂz and Mitsutake1998), and issues relating to sustainable tourism in south eastEurope (Hall 1998).

This paper focuses on tourism development in post-communistRomania. Within the English-language academic literature,Romanian tourism has received only sporadic attention. Turnock(1991) has produced an overview up to early 1990, and has alsofocused in more detail on tourism development in the RomanianCarpathians (Turnock 1973, 1990). Studies in the post-communist

LIGHT AND DUMBRAÆVEANU 899

period have tended to focus on speci®c themes. These include tour-ism development and environmental protection in the DanubeDelta (Hall 1993d), the problems facing Romania's spa resorts(Cooper, Fletcher, Noble and Westlake 1995), the need for edu-cation and training for personnel (Burns 1995), the relationshipsbetween tourism conservation and agriculture in the transitionperiod (Ploaie 1996), and geographical changes in the nature ofdomestic and international demand (Light and Andone 1996).Within the Romanian academic literature tourism has been a sub-ject of considerable interest, particularly among academic geogra-phers (Turnock 1977). There is a long tradition of interest inidentifying and evaluating the country's tourism potential (CaÃndea1993; Cocean 1996; Cristescu 1996; Erdeli and Istrate 1996), butwith isolated exceptions (Erdeli and MaÆnescu 1997) there has beenlittle interest in post-communist developments or the restructuringof the tourism industry. This paper assembles data from a range ofsources (both English and Romanian) to study and thus contributeto this research theme.

TOURISM IN POST-COMMUNIST ROMANIA

In order to understand tourism development in post-communistRomania it is ®rst necessary to examine brie¯y the nature and evol-ution of the industry during the state socialist period (1948±89).Before the Second World War Romanian tourism had experiencedslow but steady growth (with the formation of a National TourismOf®ce in 1936). However, progress was halted by the war and thesubsequent seizure of power by the Communist Party. Thereafter,tourism development in Romania was strongly in¯uenced by theideology and personality of its Communist leaders. In the immedi-ate post-war period there was little interest in developing tourism,so that when the package tour sector began to prosper Romaniahad little to offer. In 1961 the country received only 134,000 foreigntourist (Turnock 1974, 1991).

By the late 60s, however, Romania had emergedÐsuper®cially atleastÐas one of the more open and liberal of the East Europeansocialist republics with a Westward-looking foreign policy, measuresto allow small-scale private enterprise, and openness within culturaland academic life (Georgescu 1991). Tourism development re¯ectedthis climate. A Ministry of Tourism and Sports was established in1971, and during the 60s and 70s Romania made substantial invest-ments in tourism infrastructure, mostly on the Black Sea coast. Bythe early 70s two-thirds of the country's tourism was focused on thecoast which was particularly popular with the nationals of otherCentral/Eastern European states (particularly Czechoslovaks).Romania was also a reasonably accessible country for WesternEuropeans: border formalities were minimal and visas easily obtain-able; there were no compulsory currency exchange requirementsnor controls on hotel accommodation; and incentives were offeredto encourage tourists to visit out of season (Hale 1971; Turnock

ROMANIAN TOURISM IN THE POST-COMMUNIST PERIOD900

1974, 1989). For Western Europeans Romania offered an inexpen-sive alternative to Greece and the Spanish Coasts (New MarketsMonthly 1996) and 0.6 million Western tourists (of a total of 2.9million foreign) visited in 1972. At this time tourism accounted forabout 0.5% of employment (Turnock 1991).

Domestic tourism also increased rapidly during the socialistperiod. Romanians were strongly encouraged to travel within theircountry and did so extensively (Turnock 1991). The Communiststate actively supported social tourism: trades unions arranged low-cost holidays to the Black Sea and medical visits to spa and moun-tain resorts, while other organizations arranged educational tripsfor students and school children. Monuments of historical import-ance were widely promoted, while Romanians were also encouragedto visit contemporary monuments of socialist achievement.Although the Black Sea coast was again a popular destination, dom-estic tourism was developed throughout the country at many sparesorts and towns. Central planning ensured the development of anextensive network of hotels, some exclusively for Communist Partymembers.

During the mid 70s, however, the climate in Romania changed.The regime of Nicolae Ceaus° escu became increasingly repressivewhich had concomitant implications for international tourism. Alaw passed in 1974 required tourists to exchange a minimumamount of hard currency for each day of their visit. The followingyear Romanians were forbidden to accommodate tourists in theirown homes, and subsequently they were required to report all con-tact with foreigners to Securitate (the internal security services).These developments limited contact between Romanians and tour-ists, by concentrating the latter activity on ``of®cial'' accommodation(mostly at the Black Sea), and restricted the opportunities for inde-pendent tourists (Turnock 1989, 1991).

During the 80s tourism declined rapidly. Driven by an isolationistideology to reduce dependence upon Western Europe, Ceaus° escuintroduced severe austerity measures in order to pay off Romania'sforeign debt (which was achieved in 1989). This involved reducingdomestic consumption and investment, rationing energy supplies,and the export of almost all the country's agricultural produce(Stan 1995). The result was a marked decline in living standards forRomanians with rationing of food, electricity, and fuel. These cir-cumstances could hardly have been less propitious for tourism.Standards of accommodation declined to below those expected byWestern tourists, and food was in short supply. Infrastructure andtransport links were of low quality. Energy shortages meant thatbars and nightclubs in cities were forced to close early to save elec-tricity. Standards of service were often low, and Romanians unre-sponsive to complaints from holiday operators. The increasinglyparanoiac regime viewed foreigners with suspicion and the Securitatesubjected them to close surveillance, while tourist guides wereinstructed to write detailed reports of the activities of Westernersin their charge (Elliott 1993; Hall 1991b; Turnock 1989, 1991).


Consequently, by the late 80s, while tourism in neighboringBulgaria, Hungary, and Yugoslavia was booming, tourism inRomania was in decline, despite the country's considerable tourismpotential. Table 1 indicates that tourist arrivals in Romania werewell below those of the neighboring countries. Similarly, by 1988 thecountry was last among the CEE countries (except Albania) interms of income from tourism (Buckley and Witt 1990; Hall 1991c).

Tourism Development in the Post-Communist Period

Following Ceaus° escu's violent overthrow in December 1989, agroup (dominated by former communists) called the NationalSalvation Front assumed control, and thus began Romania's hesi-tant transition to democracy and a market economy. However, sinceunder communism Romania's economy was so highly centralized, itstransition has been more dif®cult and erratic than that of some ofthe other CEE countries (Popescu 1993; Smith 1994). The NationalSalvation Front convincingly won elections in 1990 and Ion Iliescu(a former communist of®cial) was elected president. Iliescu was re-elected in 1992, and this organization, later renamed the Party ofSocial Democracy of Romania, formed a government with the sup-port of extreme nationalist parties. The administration pursued acourse of extreme gradualism, and its commitment to both reformand democracy was repeatedly questioned by Western governments.Moreover, the party was implicated in numerous corruption scan-dals. In the 1996 elections, the former communists were defeated bythe center-right Democratic Convention of Romania which hadcampaigned on a rapid-reform and anti-corruption manifesto, andthe reformist Emil Constantinescu was elected president. The newgovernment (itself a coalition of three parties) committed itself torapid reform (particularly privatization) and ``macro-economicstabilization''. Hence, Romania's transition period to date falls intotwo clear stages: the ®rst was dominated by the former ruling eliteand characterized by dilatory reform; the second is led by a govern-ment determined to make a break with the former regime, andwith a commitment to rapid reform.

Table 1. International Arrivals (in Millions)a

Country 1975 1980 1985 1988

Bulgaria 4.0 5.5 7.3 8.3Hungary 5.0 9.4 9.7 10.6Romania 3.2 6.7 4.8 5.5Yugoslavia 5.8 6.4 8.4 9.0

a Source: Hall (1991c).


Trends in International Tourism. On assuming power the NationalSalvation Front rapidly revoked laws from the Communist era, withimmediate consequences for tourism. For example, the Securitatewas abolished on January 1, 1990, and surveillance of foreignersceased, along with the harassment of tourists arriving at borders.The law forbidding Romanians to accommodate foreigners in theirhomes was similarly abolished (Turnock 1991). Foreign arrivals forthe period 1985±97 are presented in Figure 1. In the year followingthe ``revolution'' arrivals increased signi®cantly (by 1.6 million). Notall of them were tourists: many were journalists, charity workers,the residents of neighboring states who traveled to Romania for thepurposes of petty trading, or returning expatriate Romanians.However, there was undoubtedly an increase in genuine tourists,some part of a trend known as ``dark tourism'' (Foley and Lennon1996). The violent Romanian ``revolution'', which was reportedwidely throughout the world, generated immense curiosity andmany people visited Bucharest to see the sites of Ceaus° escu's over-throw. Other Westerners took the opportunity to visit Romaniaonce the climate of repression was removed and the country wasnominally ``free'' (Murphy 1993). Since 1990, however, trends inforeign tourist arrivals have been more erratic. Overall, the numberhas increased by only 6% between 1989 and 1997 (and the totalnumber in 1997 were the lowest for any year of the post-communistperiod).

Simple ®gures of tourist arrivals can, however, be misleadingÐin-deed Hall (1991c) has emphasized the problems in interpreting

Figure 1. Visitor Arrivals in Romania, 1980±97. Source: Comisia Nat° ionalaÆPentru StatisticaÆ (1995, 1997a, 1998)


data for CEE tourism. Figure 2 presents data, which have beenavailable since 1990, for arrivals differentiated by purpose of visit.Those for the purpose of leisure, holidays, and tourism compriseonly around half of all arrivals, and absolute numbers have fallensince 1990. Around one-third come to Romania only for the purposeof transit to another country, much of which resulted from the in-ternational embargo imposed on neighboring Serbia/formerYugoslavia between 1991 and 1995. This left Romania as the onlyoverland route between south east Europe (Greece, Turkey, andBulgaria) and Western Europe. The remaining arrivals are businesstravelers, staff accompanying airplanes/ships, and localized bordertraf®c.

In addition, the origin of foreign tourists to Romania has changedsigni®cantly in the post-communist period (Light and Andone1996). During the state socialist era tourists from the countries ofthe Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (the Soviet Union andits Eastern European allies) accounted for up to 95% of all arrivals(Hall 1991b). The Black Sea littoral had particular attraction forcitizens of Poland and Czechoslovakia (Turnock 1991), and in 1989Poles accounted for 18.8% and Czechoslovaks 9.8% of foreign visi-tors to Romania (ICTVM 1995). Since 1989 these markets have col-lapsed: many of the citizens of the former ``Eastern Bloc'' countriesare now choosing to visit Western Europe. Between 1989 and 1997

Figure 2. Foreign Arrivals by Purpose of Visit, 1990±97. Source: ComisiaNat° ionalaÆ Pentru StatisticaÆ (1996, 1997b, Data Supplied by Ministry of

Tourism)


Polish tourists to Romania declined by 88% (Poles accounted forjust 2.2% of arrivals in 1997), and Czech/Slovak arrivals decreasedby 63% (Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ pentru StatisticaÆ 1998; ICTVM 1995).

While Romania's main tourism market has declined rapidly noreplacement has yet emerged. The country has experienced a largeincrease in visitors from neighboring countries. Those fromHungary, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bulgaria, andYugoslavia accounted for 63% of arrivals in 1997, and explain thehigh proportion (75%) by road (Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ pentru StatisticaÆ1997b, 1998). However, many of these are for the purposes ofbusiness, petty trading, or visiting friends and relatives. The econ-omic impact of these visitors is limited since they make little use ofdesignated commercial accommodation. Conversely, Romania hashad limited success at attracting tourists from the European Unionand America who accounted for only 16% of arrivals in 1997(Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ pentru StatisticaÆ 1998).

The evidence for arrivals indicates unequivocally that tourism inpost-communist Romania is in a state of stagnation and decline. Asimilar situation is apparent in neighboring Bulgaria where arrivalswere virtually unchanged over the period 1989±95 (Bachvarov 1997;Harrison 1993). The situation in Romania can be placed in contextby comparison with the other former CEE communist states. In themore prosperous states of Central Europe, the liberation from com-munist hegemony has dramatically rejuvenated international tour-ism, and these countries have been particularly successful atattracting large numbers of tourists. For example, between 1989and 1992 arrivals in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland increasedby +35%, +182%, and +461%, respectively (Hall 1995a; Johnson1995). Clear spatial inequalities are emerging in tourism develop-ment in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe: the moreaf¯uent central European countries have experienced rapid growth,while the poorer countries of south east Europe are experiencingstagnation and decline (Hall 1992a, 1993a). With the exception ofYugoslavia (where the industry collapsed during the con¯ict inBosnia Hercegovina) and Albania (where tourism development wasalways at a low level), Romania is still last among the Central andEastern European countries in terms of attracting foreign tourists,a situation which is little changed from the communist period.Clearly the argument that the collapse of totalitarian communisminevitably produces a surge in tourism demand is unsustainable, asthe experience of both Romania (along with Bulgaria and many ofthe former Soviet Republics) demonstrates. Instead, other expla-nations must be sought for tourism trends in post-communistRomania.

To some extent the under-performance of tourism in post-com-munist Romania may result from the country's geographical lo-cation. Those countries in the region which have experienced thebiggest increases in arrivalsÐthe Czech Republic, Hungary, andPolandÐall border ``Western'' European countries (particularlyGermany and Austria). The easy accessibility of these former com-


munist countries by car from Germany (and conversely the relativedif®culty of access of Romania and Bulgaria) may account for thedifferential tourism development in this case. Equally, the recentaccessibility of Western Europe for Czechs, Hungarians, and Poleshas caused them to desert traditional destinations in EasternEurope for new ones in the West. In terms of tourism development,those countries which bordered the ``iron curtain'' have bene®tedmost from the collapse of communism. However, proximity toWestern Europe need not be essential for tourism development asthe experience of Greece and Turkey shows.

Instead, the fundamental problem in post-communist Romania isthe country's image among potential tourists, particularly inWestern Europe. By the late 80s, Romania was regarded as an iso-lated, repressive and under-developed country with poor qualitytourism services. In many ways, events since 1989 have done littleto dispel this image. In the early post-communist period, Romania'shumanitarian problems came to light and were extensively publi-cized in Western Europe. As such, the country rapidly becamesynonymous with orphans and poverty. Moreover, Popescu (1993)argues that the fall of communism was followed by a hiatus periodcharacterized by political, economic, and social instability, whichfurther damaged Romania's image abroad, and had a powerfulrepulsion effect on potential tourists (Hall 1994). For example, civilunrest in Bucharest in 1990 resulted in widespread violence, and sixdeaths, while similar disturbances the following year caused the col-lapse of the government: both events were widely reported inWestern Europe. Similarly, con¯ict between Romanians andHungarians in Transylvania, the country's mixed human rightsrecord, and the rise of extreme nationalism caused suspicion amongWestern governments about its direction (Gallagher 1994).Reported attacks (attributed to gypsies) on Western tourists travel-

Figure 3. Romanians Staying in Tourist Accommodation, 1985±97. Source:Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ Pentru StatisticaÆ (1995, 1997a, 1998)


ing on trains, and of well-organized street crime directed at them incities also contributed to the negative image of Romania as a desti-nation. Furthermore, the dominance of former communists in thegovernment created suspicion that little had changed since the fallof Ceaus° escu. Cumulatively, these events have been a major deter-rent to tourism, particularly when such problems were not so appar-ent in other former communist countries (for example, Hungary,Czechoslovakia and Poland). Romania's image abroad improvedrapidly following the 1996 elections (Gallagher 1998), but frequentdisputes between the members of the government coalition in 1998have blunted the pace of reform, and mean that Romania is stillcharacterized by political and economic uncertainty.

Trends in Domestic Tourism. Mirroring international trends, dom-estic tourism in Romania has experienced a signi®cant decline.Figure 3 presents the numbers of Romanians staying in hotel ac-commodation between 1985 and 1997. During the later years of thecommunist regime, when Romanians had few opportunities to travelabroad, domestic tourism boomed and the accommodation sectorwas extensively used. Since 1989 demand for accommodation hasslumped by 58%, a situation which is apparent elsewhere in Centraland Eastern Europe (BalaÂz 1995). The decline was particularlyrapid in the early years of the transition period. Although demandstabilized slightly in 1995, it continued to decline in the followingyears.

Many factors have contributed to the decline of domestic tourismin post-communist Romania. First, the various processes of econ-omic restructuring at the start of the transition period could hardlyhave been less conducive to this domestic demand. Economicreforms in the early 90s resulted in severe economic decline andrecession (Smith 1994). Successive rounds of price liberalization in1990, 1991, and 1993 caused the prices of many basic commoditiesto rise by up to 300%, and by 1993 in¯ation had reached 296%.Moreover, income tax was introduced, along with value-added tax(at a rate of 18%). At the same time wages failed to keep pace within¯ation, so that by 1993 real wage levels had fallen by 45%.Moreover, unemployment reached 14.5% in 1995 (Turnock 1997).Purchasing power was considerably depressed at a time of fallingliving standards, so that most Romanians were simply unable toafford a holiday. The introduction of more sweeping economicreforms (including further price liberalization) by the governmentelected in 1996, along with rising in¯ation and unemployment hasfurther depressed domestic demand in recent years.

Second, as prices are liberalized, hotels have to increase their tar-iffs and charge market rates. In addition, the pricing system of dualtariffs which operated under communismÐwhereby foreignerswould pay up to four times the amount paid by RomaniansÐwasrevoked in 1997. Although the government's intention was thatprices would move downwards to the lower rate (Wingrove 1997),the opposite is more likely as hotels seek to maximize income. The


effect is again to depress further domestic demand. Prices inRomanian hotels have risen to such an extent that an inclusive holi-day in Greece (costing $124) is more affordable for Romanians thanone at the Black Sea (costing $140 excluding meals) (Ion-Tudor1997a; Wingrove 1997). Third, state-sponsored social tourism, whichCooper et al (1995) estimate accounted for 30% of the domesticmarket, has declined abruptly since 1989. Romania's post-commu-nist governments have been unable to provide the necessary ®nan-cial support for this activity. Those Romanians formerly dependentupon subsidized trips to spa resorts now have few opportunities totake a holiday.

Fourth, Romanians' increased opportunities for foreign desti-nations have signi®cantly reduced domestic tourism demand.During the 80s most Romanians were denied passports and conse-quently they had few opportunities to go abroad. Since 1989, on theoccasions when they are able to afford a holiday, many Romaniansare choosing to visit other countries to which they were long deniedaccess. Hence, between 1989 and 1997 departures abroad ofRomanian citizens increased by 595%, from 898,000 to 6,243,147(Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ pentru StatisticaÆ 1995, 1998). Most of thesetrips are to neighboring countries (especially Hungary), and fewRomanians can afford to visit Western Europe. However, not alldepartures are for the purposes of holidays, and many go to contigu-ous countries for the purposes of petty trading (particularly withYugoslavia during the period of the UN embargo).

The restructuring of agriculture has also contributed indirectly tothe decline of domestic tourism. Most agricultural land was collecti-vized during the early communist period. A land reform law of early

Table 2. Accommodation Units and Capacity in Romania

AccommodationType

Numberof Accommodation Units

AccommodationCapacity

(bedspaces)

1989 1997 %change 1989±97

1989 1997 %change 1989±97

Hotelsand Motels

828 935 +11% 168,895 169,479 +0.3%

Tourist Chalets 229 174 ÿ24% 12,325 7,805 ÿ37%Campsites 219 86 ÿ61% 47,212a 26,760 ÿ43%TouristVillas and Bungalows

1,525 1,275 ÿ16% 49,009 28,965 ÿ41%

Pensions 160 1899Farms (agroturism) 159 783Other 689 260 ÿ62% 141,503 52,252 ÿ34%Total 3,490 3,049 ÿ13% 418,944 287,943 ÿ31%

a Including houselet units. Source: Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ pentru StatisticaÆ (1996,1998).


1991 returned between 0.5 and 10 ha of land to its former ownersor their families, and many Romanians have subsequently returnedto agriculture in order to weather the economic hardships of theearly transition period. Others have practiced part-time or ``week-end'' agriculture to supplement their declining regular incomes(Stan 1995). In these circumstances, time which might have pre-viously been spent on a holiday is used instead tending and harvest-ing agricultural land.

Trends in Accommodation Provision. In the same way that thedemand for tourism in Romania has experienced stagnation anddecline, the provision of accommodation has experienced similarproblems. As Table 2 shows, the number fell by 13% and capacityfell by 31% in 1989 and 1997. The decline is most severe for thoseaccommodation types catering primarily for domestic tourism (par-ticularly chalets, campsites, and villas). Hotels and motels (the typemost frequently used by foreign visitors) have experienced a modestgrowth, although the number of bedspaces available to tourists hasbarely increased since 1989. In addition new forms of accommo-dation (pensions and places within farms) have emerged, aimed pri-marily at independent travelers.

A number of other developments in post-communist Romaniahave also contributed to the decline of tourism accommodation(ICTVM 1995). First, the decline in domestic tourism demand hashad obvious implications for the accommodation sector. In someareas, particularly those removed from the main tourism circuits,up to 95% of demand is from the domestic market. With the slumpin this demand many units have had little option but to close.Second, around 5% of all tourism assets have been requisitioned bythe army, various state organizations, and government ministries.Some of these are now used as state ``protocol'' accommodation(Ministerul Turismului 1998). Third, under legislation of 1991 tode-nationalize land and property, some accommodation (particularlyvillas in spas and mountain resorts) has been reclaimed by its for-mer owners, and is no longer available to tourists. Fourth, sometourist facilities, particularly in Bucharest, have been sold for theirreal estate value and converted into of®ces (Richardson and Burford1995). Fifth, some rooms in Bucharest and the Black Sea coast havebeen removed from tourism circulation while refurbishment andupgrading are taking place. Sixth, many of the Communist Partyhotels have been appropriated by Romania's post-communist politi-cal parties. Finally, other accommodation has closed (or is being``mothballed'' pending privatization) due to being in a conditionthat is un®t or unsafe for tourist use.

Much of Romania's accommodation is currently in a poor con-dition, the legacy of a general lack of investment in infrastructureduring the last decade of communism. Many units (particularlyhotels) are over 20 years old and are in urgent need of moderniz-ation and upgrading. For example, Poiana Bras° ov, Romania's pre-mier ski resort, is reported to require $40 million worth of


investment (Ion-Tudor 1997b, 1997c). Moreover, as Table 3 indi-cates, the majority of Romania's accommodation is at the lower endof the market (64% of all accommodation and 79% of hotels areclassed as one or two stars) and is intended to cater more for theless-demanding domestic market. Standards, facilities, and servicein many hotels fall below the expectations of Western tourists, sothat many Western European tour operators have withdrawn fromRomania, and charter ¯ights to the Black Sea have virtually ceased(New Markets Monthly 1996). The outcome of these trends is thathotel occupancy rates have steadily fallen, from 73.0% in 1989 to41.2% in 1997 (Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ pentru StatisticaÆ 1997a, 1998),while the ``tourism season'' at Black Sea resorts is now just twomonths in length (Dimofte 1997).

The prospects for much of Romania's accommodation sectorappear bleak. In a context of rising prices, and falling internationaland domestic demand, many hotels have had little choice but toraise prices, in order to maintain cash ¯ows and cover operatingcosts (Dimofte 1997). For example, in 1998, hotel prices on theBlack Sea coast were expected to be 35% higher than in 1997(Marchidanu and Rabbitte 1998). Those hotels formerly dependenton the domestic market, and those located by central planners inareas where there is little tourism demand are particularly badlyhit. Many hotels are unable to generate surpluses for investmentand refurbishment, so that low standards will persist and demand isunlikely to recover. Moreover, the extent of investment required inmany hotels is so great so as to be of marginal viability. An econ-omic analysis by Cooper et al (1995) of Romanian spa resorts indi-cated that investment could not be recovered within an acceptabletime period. In these circumstances further decline and closure ofhotel accommodation is inevitable.

Table 3. Tourist Accommodation in Romania by Category of Comfort in1997a

CategoryTotal Tourism

AccommodationHotels

No. of Units No. of Places No. of Units No. of Places

5 Stars < 1% < 1% 0% 0%4 Stars 3% 2% 2% 2%3 Stars 9% 7% 10% 11%2 Stars 28% 37% 46% 56%1 Star 36% 29% 33% 27%Unclassi®ed 23% 25% 8% 4%N= 3,049 287,943 817 163,357

a Source: Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ pentru StatisticaÆ (1998).


Tourism Reform in Post-Communist Romania

Tourism has clearly been affected (mostly adversely) by broaderprocesses of political and economic change in post-communistRomania. However, the tourist industry is itself undergoing restruc-turing to enable it to function effectively in a market economy.Three key themes are examined here: privatization of hotel accom-modation, regulation and enforcement of standards, and educationand training of tourism personnel.

Privatization. One of the central processes of the transition to amarket economy is the transfer of economic enterprises from stateto private ownership; a process which underpins many other pro-cesses of transition. Within the industry, the privatization of hotelsis considered essential for the relaunch of tourism in the country(Richardson and Burford 1995). Earlier, post-communist Romaniaembarked on a seemingly ambitious program of privatization (Ben-Ner and Montias 1994; Lindsay 1992; Stan 1995, 1997; Turnock1997). A 1990 law established the National Agency for Privatizationand converted some 6,300 state-owned enterprises into autonomousjoint-stock companies or societaÄt° i comerciale (commercial companies)owned fully by the state. Those commercial companies operating instrategic areas of the economy (such as transport and energy) wereto remain in state ownership, while the remaining 3,304 companieswere to be privatized. A second law of 1991 established the StateOwnership Fund, and ®ve Private Ownership Funds which assumedcontrol of 70% and 30% respectively of the total state capital (andsubsequently each individual commercial company). The 30% shareof state capital held by the Private Ownership Funds was to be dis-tributed free of charge to the adult Romanian population. This tookthe form of ownership certi®cates (issued in 1992), and coupons(issued in 1995) which could be freely exchanged for up to 30% ofshares in any commercial company. The 70% of shares in each com-mercial company owned by the State Ownership Fund were to besold to individuals or ®rms (either Romanian or foreign) whooffered an acceptable price for them. The 30:70 ratio of state capitalto be given away and to be sold was later changed to a 60:40 ratio.

Although super®cially straightforward, Romanian privatizationproved to be an erratic, complicated, and slow process, which wasfrequently frustrated by corruption. Hence, by 1995 only around1,000 state-owned companies had been privatized (Enea 1997). Themajority of the transfer activity up to 1996 affected small and med-ium sized commercial companies, while large-scale enterprisesremained in state ownership, prompting frequent questions aboutthe government's commitment to reform. The administrationelected in late 1996 has made rapid privatization a priority, and hasattempted to privatize (or liquidate) the large, loss-making state-owned enterprises. However, it has frequently failed to achieve itsprivatization targets. Tourism was one of the ®rst economic activi-ties to be affected by privatization. In an attempt to gain experience


of the process, and to generate support and understanding of it, theNational Agency for Privatization undertook a pilot project of a lim-ited number of economically viable small and medium sized compa-nies (Ben-Ner and Montias 1994). Three of the 22 companiesprivatized this way were directly concerned with tourism: theNational Tourist Of®ce; the youth tourism organization; andLitoral, a coastal tourism organization (Lindsay 1992).

Subsequently, other parts of the industry have been subject to pri-vatization. As part of the 1990 legislation, individual hotels, orgroups of hotels within a resort, were converted into societaÄt° i comer-ciale prior to privatization. A strategy was prepared in 1993, andthe then Minister of Tourism suggested that privatization could becompleted by early 1996 (Matei 1994). However, these targets werenot met (Table 4). By 1997 only 22% of all accommodation (and15% of hotels) was in fully private ownership. The reformist govern-ment elected in 1996 attempted to accelerate the privatization ofthe accommodation sector but this was only partially successful. Forexample, the State Ownership Fund succeeded in privatizing only111 of a planned 272 accommodation units in 1997 (RomanianBusiness Journal 1998), and by early 1998 only 15% of hotels at theBlack Sea had been privatized (Marchidanu and Rabbitte 1998).

Much of the early privatization of hotels has been through thecomplete, or partial, management and employee buy-out method,the preferred approach for privatization as a whole up to 1995(Enea 1997). This method works in several ways. The most commonprocedure is for managers and employees to subscribe their owner-ship certi®cates or coupons for shares in the commercial companyin which they work. Alternatively, or additionally, employees canpay the State Ownership Fund the value of the building, in install-ments, over a negotiated time period. The buy-out plan has the ad-vantage of creating immediate core investors, with potentially astrong interest in the business and its future (Ben-Ner and Montias1994; Stan 1997). However, this buy-out method also has its pro-blems (Dimofte 1997; Turnock 1997). Employee-owners may be pri-marily concerned with protecting jobs and wages (and the method

Table 4. Ownership of Tourist Accommodation in 1997

Type All accommodation Hotels

Public 64% 70%Mixed 4% 5%Privatea 22% 15%Co-operative 7% 7%Community 4% 4%N= 3049 817

a Note that these ®gures do not differentiate between the very small number ofprivately built hotels, and those former state-owned hotels which have been priva-tized. Source: Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ pentru StatisticaÆ (1998).


can be somewhat halfhearted, being regarded by employees as theonly way to safeguard their jobs). Privatization through the sub-scription of couponsÐwhich accounted for almost all of the privati-zation of tourism-related commercial companies up to 1997(Birtalan 1997)Ðfails to inject actual capital into a business, sothat employee-owners continue to lack resources to make necessaryinvestments. Employee-owners may also lack marketing expertiseand contacts. Overall, the buyout privatization method of accommo-dation units has made little contribution to an improvement in stan-dards and facilities. Hence, the government elected in 1996 haslargely abandoned this method, preferring to privatize hotels byauction and negotiation with potential buyers (Enea 1997).

In addition to the buy-out method Romania has also adopted asystem of ``semi'' privatization of state-owned enterprises known asLocat° ie de Gestiune. This process involves leasing hotels and restau-rants to managers and employees who lack the capital to purchasethem outright, on the condition that the leaseholders undertakeinvestments and improvements of the property. At the end of theleasing period the employees have the option to purchase the build-ing (although they were not compelled to do so). A total of 1,308such contracts had been negotiated by the end of 1992 (MinisterulTurismului 1998). Although intended as an alternative means oftransferring hotels into private ownership, the system is widelyrecognized as unsuccessful (and may even have frustrated the priva-tization process). Indeed, one Romanian publication has describedleasing as ``an entirely useless initiative'' (Ion-Tudor 1997d). Theconfusion surrounding the process has resulted, in some cases, in ahotel and its associated restaurant being leased to different compa-nies (Burns 1995). The recurrent problem of lack of capital andexpertise has meant that many leaseholders have been unableto make necessary investments. Other leaseholders have declinedto make investments in the pursuit of short-term pro®ts.Consequently, by 1994, 153 leasing contracts had been canceled dueto the failure of the leaseholder to observe the provisions of thelease, and 248 leaseholders gave up the contract through beingunable to meet payments (Dumitrescu 1994).

Privatization within the tourism sector has been frustrated by cor-ruption and the in¯uence of the nomenklatura (former communistelite), many of whom were active in the government between 1990and 1996. Through in¯uence and contacts within the State OwnedFund, members of the nomenklatura have been able to distort the pri-vatization process, by securing for themselves the most attractiveassets at well below their market value. For example, good qualityhotels in popular destinations have been acquired at less than theprice of a one-room ¯at (Dimofte 1997). Such owners are concernedmore with immediate pro®ts than longer-term investments.Nomenklatura privatization can also create a situation whereby allthe hotels in a resort are owned by the same company, thus repla-cing a state monopoly with a private one.


Privatization of the accommodation sector through direct invest-ment (particularly by foreign companies) has been very limited. In1998 there were only 47 joint-ventures between Romanian andforeign companies (Ministerul Turismului 1998). Foreign investorshave shown most interest in some of the larger and more presti-gious hotels, in the major resorts and cities. Almost all the hotels inBucharest have attracted foreign investors (IordaÆnescu 1994). Forexample, the Athenee Palace in Bucharest was bought and restoredby the Hilton chain at a cost of $21 million (Richardson andBurford 1995). However, foreign investment in hotels has beenoriented at the lucrative business sector, rather than the holidaymarket (Flint 1993). Those decaying hotels at the lower end of themarket, or those removed from main tourism circuits have littleattraction to foreign investors. Some Western hotel groups havealso built new hotels, instead of investing in existing structures,such as the So®tel in Bucharest, part of the French Accor chain.Direct investment in this sector by Romanian companies has alsobeen very limited, although there are isolated instances of success-ful companies purchasing pro®table hotels as business assets. Forexample ANA electronics of Bucharest has purchased a luxury hotelin Bucharest and several hotels in Poiana Bras° ov, and has investedin their refurbishment and upgrading.

Regulating Standards of Tourist Accommodation. During the commu-nist era there was little concern for monitoring or regulating thequality of the accommodation sector. Since the state owned all of it,there was no need to regulate or implement standards in its ownproperties. Although hotels were graded as deluxe, ®rst class, andsecond class (Richardson and Burford 1995), there was littleattempt to de®ne minimum standards or requirements. In the post-communist period, issues of the ``quality'' of hotels and serviceshave been identi®ed as one of the major deterrents to foreign tour-ists, particularly from Western Europe. The transition to decentra-lized, and ultimately private, ownership and managementnecessitates some monitoring and regulation by the state to ensurethat acceptable standards are being offered, and that further de-terioration does not occur.

The absence of adequate legislation dating from the communistperiod to ensure and enforce quality within the industry meant thatnew and purpose-designed legislation was needed. However, facedwith more pressing issues of economic reform, tourism legislationwas a low priority. Draft legislation was passed in 1992 to establisha legal framework to ensure appropriate standards, although it wasnot implemented until 1995 (Revista RomaÃnaÆ de Turism 1994;Monitorul O®cial 1998). This legislation required businesses operat-ing within tourism to be licensed by the Ministry of Tourism forquality and safety in accordance with domestic and internationalstandards. Hotel managers were similarly required to hold a licensecertifying their competence. Failure to provide appropriate services


(or operating without a license) would leave the operators liable to®nes, and the possible cancellation of their license.

The process of inspecting and accrediting accommodation beganin summer 1993, and 946 licenses and 1,025 certi®cates had beenawarded by early 1995 (Matei 1995). Later in 1995, a governmentordinance introduced a revised ®ve-star system for classi®cation.This speci®ed in detail the basic requirements for all accommo-dation, the minimum standards required for a hotel to be awardeda particular grade, and speci®ed limits on this prices which could becharged by hotels of a particular grade. Properties were alsorequired to display their star rating on the outside of the building(Monitorul O®cial 1998). The reformist government elected in late1996 introduced a further law which established an Of®ce forLicensing and Control in Tourism as an autonomous unit within theMinistry of Tourism and introduced further minimum accommo-dation standards, including a minimum temperature of 188C in win-ter, and appropriate ®re safety (Mazuru 1997a). The governmentalso announced that accommodation classi®cations were to berenewed every three years by the Of®ce for Licensing and Controlin Tourism, and the names of those units whose classi®cation hadbeen suspended or withdrawn would be published (Mazuru 1997b).

Although intended to bring about improvements in the qualityand management of the accommodation sector, attempts at regu-lation and licensing have only been partially successful. Since, bysummer 1998, the issuing of licenses had not been completed, unli-censed or inadequate quality accommodation was still legally oper-ating. The licensing of managers/owners has proved easy to side-step, and has failed in some cases to eliminate inadequate owners.The establishment of minimum standards does not necessarily guar-antee improvements since, in some cases, managers may undertakeonly the minimum improvements necessary to obtain a license.Moreover, standards are only effective if they are enforced. Forinstance, in the summer of 1997 only 120 of the 1,000 economic op-erators at the coastal resort of Mamaia held a license (Ion-Tudor1997e). Further, even if regulation and licensing contribute to theimprovement of hotels, they make little contribution to theimprovement of the surrounding environment (beaches, pavementsand so on).

Training and Education. In a centrally-planned economy workershad little incentive for hard work, since payment by the state wasunrelated to the quantity or quality of their work. The failure ofcommunist systems to bring about economic prosperity, coupledwith the irrationality of some central planning decisions and anobstructive bureaucracy created frustration and low motivation, sothat the effect of communist systems in Central and EasternEurope (and their most enduring legacy) was a depreciation in thevalue of work (Jung 1995). In communist Romania, particularlyduring the austerity of the 80s, Romanians took little interest intheir work, since hard work produced little material bene®t and for


many people their priorities were obtaining suf®cient food. Thisapproach was summarized by the maxim ``the state pretends to payus, so we pretend to work'' (Hall 1995b) Inevitably such deeplyembedded attitudes were also found in the tourism industry. Staffin hotels and restaurants took little interest in the welfare of theirguests, since their payment was unrelated to the quality of servicethey provided. The concept of ``service delivery'', and a concern forthe satisfaction of consumers was not recognized in Romania(Burns 1995). Moreover, Western tourists were regarded more asobjects of suspicion than guests whose welfare was important. WhileRomanians were used to poor service and tolerated it, theirWestern counterparts found standards of service below their expec-tations, leading to disenchantment among Western tour operators(Turnock 1991).

Consequently, if post-communist Romania is to succeed in rejuve-nating its tourism industry, a radical change in service deliveryÐparticularly customer contact and management skillsÐis necessary.Many personnel and managers have limited experience or under-standing of a market economy and have little awareness of the ex-pectations of Western tourists (even in private sector businessesstandards of service can be poor), so that improved education andtraining opportunities are essential (Witt 1994). Burns (1995)argues that this task is so great that it can only be successful if con-ducted as a national awareness campaign. The legacy of the man-agement culture of the command economyÐwhich emphasized themaintenance of the status quo rather than the achievement ofresultsÐis managers who are reluctant to be creative and innova-tive. Hence, the training of managers to operate successfully withina market environment is a priority. Such managers then play an im-portant role in training the remainder of the workforce (Burns1995).

The Romanian Ministry of Tourism regards the improvement ofstaff trainingÐof both existing and new staffÐas a major objectiveof the development strategy (Matei 1994). This process has beenassisted by the European Community/Union. In January 1993Romania received ECU4.5 million from the PHARE fund (for assist-ance and economic reconstruction in Central and Eastern Europe)for restructuring and modernization in its tourism industry. Onepart of this project was concerned with identifying the trainingneeds of tourism workers, and basic professional training for hoteland restaurant employees was provided (by Romanian and foreignspecialists) at seven locations in Romania (Florian 1994).

Subsequently, increasing numbers of public and private sector or-ganizations have become involved in tourism training. In 1997 theNational Institute for Tourism Training and Management (orig-inally established in 1968) was relaunched as an autonomous unitwithin the Ministry of Tourism. In collaboration with the Ministryof Education, tourism training was introduced into schools, withthree high schools (teaching pupils aged 14±18) being dedicatedentirely to training people to work in the industry. Higher education


institutions are increasingly offering courses on tourism whichrecruit large numbers of students (for example in 1997 theUniversity of Bucharest introduced a combined degree in tourismwith English/ French). However, there is a lack of expertise in mar-keting and management within Higher Education institutions sothat the new courses tend to emphasize a long-standing concernwith identifying tourism potential. Training in foreign languageskills is also in demand, with English being the most popular secondlanguage among young Romanians.

Future Prospects

Tourism trends in Central and Eastern Europe are likely toremain volatile for some considerable time (Hall 1995a) and futuredevelopment paths in Romania is dif®cult to predict. Nevertheless,prospects resulting both from the overall progress of political andeconomic transition, and from the speci®c restructuring of the tour-ism industry can be identi®ed. First, the 1996 election of a center-right government marked a decisive break with Romania's commu-nist past. The current administration enjoys the support of Westerngovernments, and has brought about a signi®cant change in thenature and pace of reform in Romania (Gallagher 1998). There isincreasing interest in Romania among foreign investors and, inorder to attract such investors the new government overturned alaw from the previous administration banning these companiesfrom owning land in Romania. There is thus potential for moredirect foreign investment in the hotel sector. Improvements intransport infrastructure which are being facilitated by loans fromthe International Monetary Fund will also indirectly bene®t tour-ism. Overall such developments can only be bene®cial for its imageabroad and, now that the over-publicized ``orphan problem'' hasreceded, the country is likely to gradually emerge as a more attrac-tive destination in future years. Although Romania is a ``poor''nation, such countries are not inherently unattractive to Westerntourists if the country is perceived as stable, and if tourism servicesmeet expectations.

The current government has also shown more interest in reform-ing tourism than the previous administrations. The rapid privatiza-tion of hotels is regarded as a priority with ®nancial incentives toaccelerate the process. The government has demonstrated that it isprepared to liquidate unpro®table state-owned enterprises, so thatthose for which no buyer can be found are likely to be closed andput to an alternative use. Financial incentives to stimulate theindustry have also been introduced. In August 1997 the governmentinstalled exemption from Value Added Tax for economic agentsworking in international tourism, while rural pensions with a ca-pacity of up to 10 rooms are exempted from taxation for 10 years(Mazuru 1997b). Although these are encouraging developments,tourism remains under-funded. In 1997 the Ministry of Tourismhad a budget of $1.2 million, representing 0.03% of the national


budget (Ion-Tudor 1997f). In order to generate more revenue fortourism promotion, a government ordinance in early 1998 estab-lished a ``Special Fund for the Promotion and Development ofTourism'', to which tourism-related businesses were expected tocontribute 3% of revenue (Ion-Tudor 1998).

Despite these initiatives the future of the Black Sea coastalresorts (traditionally the mainstay of Romanian tourism) remainsuncertain. But Hall (1995a) has predicted an increased demandamong Central Europeans for low-cost seaside holidays, which couldbene®t Romania. Consequently, RomaniaÐalong with othercountries of southeast Europe (Hall 1998)Ðis attempting to diver-sify and reposition its tourism product, and is increasingly promot-ing new forms, particularly rural and heritage types. Romania has avibrant rural culture and tradition unique in Europe, so that thecountry has much to offer for the development of this tourism form(Mitrache, Manole, Stijan, Bran and Istrate 1996). In the early post-communist period rural tourism was actively promoted by the gov-ernment which introduced various initiatives (often with EuropeanUnion assistance) designed to encourage the activity. Theseincluded the establishment of a Commission for Mountainous Zonesin 1990 and a law of 1994 to establish a legal framework for thedevelopment of rural tourism (Roberts 1996). Particular emphasishas been placed on the provision of agrotourism or rural accommo-dation which allows tourists to stay with a Romanian family in a vil-lage and experience rural life at ®rst-hand. It is an experiencewhich is particularly well suited for those tourists seeking contactwith authentic rural life and an escape from traditional options.Agroturism has been most strongly promoted in particular regions ofthe country, especially the Prahova valley (a mountainous corridorwhich links Bucharest with Transylvania), in Transylvania itself(particularly around Bras° ov and Sibiu), and in the remote northwes-tern region of Maramures° . Rural tourism is currently small in scale.According to government statistics 6,519 Romanians and 7,099foreigners were recorded as staying in agroturism units in 1997(Comisia Nat° ionalaÆ pentru StatisticaÆ 1998). However, the activityhas proved to have a broad appeal, particularly among urban basedRomanians, but also with foreign workers resident in Romania, andwith independent foreign tourists.

Rural tourism in Romania is largely a private sector development(New Markets Monthly 1996). Although there are a number ofsmall, local organizations promoting rural tourism, the activity isdominated by two (competing) organizations: a Romanian non-gov-ernmental organization called National Association for Rural,Ecological and Cultural Tourism in Romania, founded in 1994, andthe Belgian-based OpeÂration Villages Roumains, established in1989. The former has the aim of promoting and facilitating ruraltourism in Romania and has 1,812 rooms. Through a national net-work of of®ces it arranges accommodation for tourists (both foreignand Romanian), provides training and guidance for hosts, and moni-tors standards within its network. In addition, through its af®liation


with European rural tourism networks it is able to promote ruraltourism in Romania more widely. In 1995 the users of its accommo-dation units spent an estimated $280,300 (Glavan 1995).

For post-communist Romania the development of rural tourismhas had many bene®ts. First, it has been relatively unproblematicand inexpensive to develop. Second, it has been a means of present-ing a new image of Romania after the excesses of the Ceaus° escuera. Third, it offers additional accommodation units, particularly forthose who are unable to afford hotel prices (consequently rural tour-ism has become very popular with young Romanians). Fourth, ruraltourism offers considerable bene®ts for rural areas, including ad-ditional sources of income and employment for the rural population(at a time of rising prices) and the opportunity for farm diversi®ca-tion (Roberts 1996). The development of agroturism can also slowrural depopulation, and potentially make an important contributionto the revitalization of the countryside. Overall, as Roberts argues,the development of rural tourism is a means of building onRomania's strengths and uniqueness but without exposing, or pla-cing excessive demands upon, the underlying weaknesses within itstourism industry.

Romania is also promoting ecotourism in the Danube Delta, anarea of international importance for wildlife (Hall 1993b, 1993d).The economic exploitation of the area which was promoted byCeaus° escu was immediately halted by the post-communist govern-ment, and in 1990 the area was given international recognition as abiosphere reserve. Subsequently, the Delta has been promoted forvarious small-scale forms of tourism, including water sports andbird watching (Glavan 1994). However, development in the area ishighly regulated and controlled, and large areas of the delta are in-accessible to tourists. Since green tourism and ecotourism areamong the fastest growing sectors within the contemporary industryRomania has much to offer for the further development of this sec-tor.

Romania also has much to offer for the development of heritagetourism, a sector which is experiencing steady growth on aEuropean scale. Transylvania's rich multi-ethnic history has left a®ne legacy of historic towns, buildings and monuments (particularlyin the German towns of Bras° ov, Sibiu and Sighis° oara) which canrival anywhere else in Central Europe. In particular, there is grow-ing interest among German tourists in exploring the Saxon villagesand churches of southern Transylvania. There is also a well-estab-lished but expanding package-tour business centered on ``Draculatourism'' in Transylvania. The Ministry is also eager to promoteother regions for heritage tourism, particularly the northern regionsof Maramures° (with its legacy of wooden churches and buildings)and Bukovina (famous for its painted monasteries), and also thenortheastern region of Moldavia. There is also evidence thatBucharest's legacy of communism and revolution is increasinglybeing promoted (albeit by Western guidebooks) as ``heritage'' fortourists to gaze upon (Light 1998).


Heritage tourism is another way for Romania to play to itsstrengths. Tourists interested in this product are a relatively high-spending group with few environmental impacts, and are thusexactly the type which Romania needs to attract (Light andPrentice 1994). Romania contains a considerable reserve of largelyundiscovered resources which currently experience low tourist num-bers (although the German towns of Bras° ov, Sibiu, and Sighis° oaraare increasingly becoming part of the `ìnter-rail'' circuit of young,independent travelers). Therefore, it can target those tourists whodo not want to experience the large crowds of elsewhere in CentralEurope. At current levels of demand there are suf®cient good-qual-ity (and privatized) hotels in the main historic towns ofTransylvania to accommodate heritage tourists (although as num-bers increase more accommodation will be necessary). Perhaps mostimportantly, heritage tourism has the potential to fund conservationactivity. The care of historic buildings was long neglected duringthe communist period, and indeed the Directorate for HistoricMonuments was abolished by Ceaus° escu in 1975 (Gallagher andTucker 1996). In the post-communist period conservation activity issimilarly constrained by lack of funding, but heritage tourism cangenerate much-needed revenue for the maintenance and restorationof historic buildings.

There is, early evidence of a major re-positioning of Romania'stourist product. The emphasis is increasingly on those forms whichhave been termed ``post-Fordist'' (Sharpley 1994; Urry 1990, 1994).Such alternatives represent a distinct rejection of mass tourism,with an emphasis instead on small-scale and more sustainableforms of experience, on segmentation and targeting of (potentiallyhigh-spending) niche markets, and on independent tourists. Hence,Romania is increasingly promoting non-mass experiencesÐsuch asrural and heritage typesÐin place of the mass tourism at the BlackSea coastal resorts which were encouraged most strongly during thecommunist period. This sectoral re-positioning also has a distinctgeographical dimension (Light and Andone 1996), which involves ashift from the Black Sea coast (which is experiencing steadydecline) towards the center and north of the country (especiallyTransylvania). To date, however, it appears that the rede®nition ofRomania's tourist product is more the result of largely uncoordi-nated private-sector initiatives, than of a formal policy of theMinistry of Tourism designed to promote `àlternative'' forms oftourism for high-spending niche markets.

CONCLUSION

Tourism in post-communist Romania is currently in a state ofuncertain transition. Although the country has an extraordinarilyrich and diverse tourism potential (which can rival anywhere else inEurope), Romania is also a vivid illustration that the potential doesnot equate with tourism demand. Indeed the phrase `ùntapped po-tential'' is frequently used in discussions (for example, EIU 1993).


In terms of demand, international arrivals are stagnant, and dom-estic tourism has declined. In terms of supply, much hotel accom-modation is deteriorating and in need of investment, while there isalso a shortage of expertise, training, and a general understandingof the market economy among tourism workers.

To a large extent, the crisis now facing Romanian tourism is adirect legacy of the later communist period. The combination of arepressive regime and an inadequate tourism infrastructure (theresult of over a decade of neglect and under-investment) renderedRomania an unattractive destination, and arrivals were already inlong-term decline at the time of the overthrow of Ceaus° escu.However, the processes of political and economic transition in thepost-communist period have not been propitious for tourism.Political transition has been erratic as political instability and thedominance of former communists in government until November1996 has done further harm to Romania's image as a destination.Economic reforms have resulted in rising prices and unemployment(with detrimental effects on domestic tourism), but have yet to pro-duce widespread prosperity so that Romania is saddled with theimage of a ``poor country''.

Restructuring of tourism is an integral part of the transition pro-cess in Central and Eastern Europe, although in Romania successivepost-communist governments, faced with the need for macro-econ-omic reform, have placed tourism low on their list of priorities(indeed the post of Minister of Tourism disappeared in a govern-ment reorganization in December 1998). Privatization within theindustry has proceeded slowly and has yet to bring about improve-ments in the standards of accommodation. Many hotels are notattractive propositions to foreign investors, and those which are pri-vatized by the management and employee buy-out plan lack capitalfor signi®cant improvement. Regulation of the accommodation sec-tor has been introduced but can only be effective if it is enforced.Although tourism training opportunities are increasing, there is stilla need for greater knowhow and customer care skills amongworkers.

In the short term the prospects for Romanian tourism do notlook promising. There is likely to be little signi®cant upgrading ofthe hotel sector except in the largest cities, international demand isunlikely to increase signi®cantly, and domestic demand will con-tinue to fall. Until the government has implemented macro-econ-omic reform, tourism will remain a low political priority. In themedium to longer term, much will depend on the survival of thecurrent administration and its success in achieving the macro-econ-omic restructuring which Western analysts consider essential if thecountry is ever to achieve prosperity. Economic growth will revivedomestic tourism and will make available more capital for invest-ment in accommodation; it will allow the further growth of a privatesector in tourism; and it should mean increased funding for theMinistry of Tourism, allowing more advertising and promotion.Moreover, an environment of political and economic stability plays


an important role in making the country more attractive for poten-tial tourists. In the longer term Romania could enjoy the tourismboom experienced in the former communist countries of CentralEurope. In particular, the country has the potential to relaunchitself as a destination for ``alternative'' forms of tourism, and thedevelopment of rural and heritage types in Transylvania could, ifsuccessfully promoted, play a major role in contributing to localeconomic growth. However, the process of transition in Romania isstill not complete, so that future tourism development in thecountry will continue to be strongly dependent upon broader politi-cal and economic developments which are beyond its control.&

AcknowledgmentsÐThe authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Ion Cotea of theTraian Hotel, Drobeta Turnu Severin for his help in explaining the privatizationprocess in Romania; and to Tamara Simon and the late Ioan Istrate of theInstitute of Research for Tourism for permission to use unpublished data.

REFERENCES

Airey, D.1994 Education for Tourism in Poland: The PHARE Programme. Tourism

Management 15:467±471.Bachvarov, M.

1997 End of the Model? Tourism in Post-communist Bulgaria. TourismManagement 18:43±50.

BalaÂz, V.1995 Five Years of Economic Transition in Slovak Tourism: Successes and

Shortcomings. Tourism Management 16:143±159.BalaÂz, V., and M. Mitsutake

1998 Japanese Tourists in Transition Countries of Central Europe: PresentBehaviour and Future Trends. Tourism Management 19:433±443.

Bate, J.1991 East-Central Europe: From Reform to Transformation. London: Pinter.

Ben-Ner, A., and J. M. Montias1994 Economic System Reforms and Privatisation in Romania. In Privatisation

in Central and Eastern Europe, S. Estrin, ed., pp. 279±310. Harlow: Longman.Birtalan, A.

1997 Reasons, Motivations and 5% Effective Privatisation. Romanian BusinessJournal 4(50):16.

Buckley, P. J., and S. F. Witt1990 Tourism in the Centrally-planned Economies of Europe. Annals of

Tourism Research 17:7±18.Buckley, P. J. and P. N Ghauri, eds.

1994 The Economics of Change in East and Central Europe. London: AcademicPress.

Burns, P. M.1995 Hotel Management Training in Eastern Europe: Challenges for Romania.

Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 1:53±62.CaÃndea, M.

1993 Turismul in Ariile depreionare din Carpaii Meridional. GeographicaTimisiensis 2:198±203.

Cocean, P.1996 Geogra®a turismului. Bucures° ti: Editura Carro.


Comisia Nat° ionalaÄ pentru StatisticaÄ1995 Anuarul Turistic al RomaÃniei 1995. Bucures° ti: Comisia Nat° ionalaÄ pentru

StatisticaÄ.1996 Anuarul Statistic al RomaÃniei 1995. Bucures° ti: Comisia Nat° ionalaÄ pentru

StatisticaÄ.1997a Turismul õÃn RomaÃnia. Bucures° ti: Comisia Nat° ionalaÄ pentru StatisticaÄ.1997b Buletin Statistic Trimestrial 4 1997. Bucures° ti: Comisia Nat° ionalaÄ pentru

StatisticaÄ.1998 Turismul RomaÃniei: Breviar Statistic. Bucures° ti: Comisia Nat° ionalaÄ pentru

StatisticaÄ.Cooper, C. P., J. Fletcher, A. Noble, and J. Westlake

1995 Changing Tourism Demand in Central Europe: The Case of RomanianTourist Spas. Journal of Tourism Studies 6(2):30±44.

Cristescu, I.1996 Herculane: Model Turistic. Caransebes: Editura Hercules Friends.

Dimofte, C.1997 Black Sea Tourism. In Review Romania 18 (July/August):6±7.

Dumitrescu, M.1994 Strategia privatizaÄrii. Revista RomaÃnaÄ de Turism 1(1-2):24±28.

EIU1993 Country Pro®le: Romania. London: Economist Intelligence Unit.

Elliott, H.1993 Recovering from Dracula's legacy. The Times (October 2):20.

Enea, A.1997 Privatisation in Romania. Romanian Economy 12:54±56.

Erdeli, G., and I. Istrate1996 Potent° ialul turistic al RomaÃniei. Bucures° ti: EdituraÄ UniversitaÄt° ii din

Bucures° ti.Erdeli, G., and L. MaÄnescu

1997 Trends in the Development of Romanian Tourism. In Anglo-RomanianGeographies, D. Light and D. DumbraÄveanu-Andone, eds., pp. 67±75.Liverpool: Liverpool Hope Press.

Estrin, S., ed.1994 Privatisation in Central and Eastern Europe. Harlow: Longman.

Fletcher, J., and C. Cooper1996 Tourism Strategy Planning: Szolnok Country Hungary. Annals of Tourism

Research 23:181±200.Flint, A.

1993 Romanian Tourist Market Growing. Business Eastern Europe 22(38):8.Florian, M.

1994 Progamul PHARE Pentru Turism. Revista RomaÃnaÄ de Turism 1(1-2):34±40.

Foley, M., and J. J. Lennon1996 Editorial: Heart of Darkness. International Journal of Heritage Studies

2:195±197.Franck, C.

1990 Tourism Investment in Central and Eastern Europe. TourismManagement 11:333±338.

Gallagher, J., and P. H. J. Tucker1996 Revolution and Continuity in the Cultural Landscape: Transylvania in

Transition. In Frameworks for Understanding Post-Socialist Processes, D.Turnock, ed., pp. 21±26. Leicester: Leicester University, Department ofGeography Occasional Paper 36.

Gallagher, T.1994 History In Romania (Chapter: Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of

Independent States 1994) (2nd ed.) pp. 506±514. London: Europa.1998 Romania's Desire to be Normal. Contemporary Politics 4:111±125.

Georgescu, V., ed.1991 The Romanians: A History. London: Tauris.


Glavan, V.1994 Turismul in Rezervatia Biosferei Delta DunaÄrii. Revista RomaÃnaÄ de

Turism 1(4):30±34.1995 Agroturismul: Factor Determinant õÃn Dezvoltarea EconomicoÐSocialaÄ a

Satului RomaÃnesc. Revista RomaÃna de Turism 2(4):6±11.Hale, J.

1971 Ceausescu's Romania. London: Harrap.Hall, C. M.

1994 Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Chichester: Wiley.Hall, D.

1990 The Changing Face of Tourism in Eastern Europe. Town and CountryPlanning 59:348±351.

1991a Tourism and Economic Development in Eastern Europe and the SovietUnion. London: Belhaven.

1991b Evolutionary Pattern of Tourism Development in Eastern Europe and theSoviet Union. In Tourism and Economic Development in Eastern Europe andthe Soviet Union, D. R. Hall, ed., pp. 79±115. London: Belhaven.

1991c Introduction. In Tourism and Economic Development in Eastern Europeand the Soviet Union, D. R. Hall, ed., pp. 3±28. London: Belhaven.

1992a The Challenge of International Tourism in Eastern Europe. TourismManagement 13:41±44.

1992b The Changing Face of International Tourism in Central and EasternEurope. In Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality ManagementVolume 4, C. Cooper and A. Lockwood, eds., pp. 252±264. London: Wiley.

1993a Tourism in Eastern Europe. In Tourism in Europe: Structures andDevelopments, W. Pompl and P. Lavery, eds., pp. 341±358. Wallingford: CABInternational.

1993b Green Tourism in Eastern Europe. Town and Country Planning62(6):156±157.

1993c Transport Implications of Tourism Development. In Transport andEconomic Development in the New Central and Eastern Europe, D. R. Hall,ed., pp. 206±225. London: Belhaven.

1993d Ecotourism in the Danube Delta. Revue de Tourisme 3:11±13.1995a Tourism change in Central and Eastern Europe. In European Tourism:

Regions, Spaces and Restructuring, A. Montanari and A. M. Williams, eds.,pp. 221±244. Chichester: Wiley.

1995b Eastern Europe: Tourism/Leisure Perspectives: An Introduction. InTourism and LeisureÐCulture, Heritage and Participation, D. Leslie, ed., pp.3±10. Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association.

1998 Tourism Development and Sustainability Issues in Central and South-east-ern Europe. Tourism Management 19:423±431.

Harrison, D.1993 Bulgarian Tourism: A State of Uncertainty. Annals of Tourism Research

20:519±534.Henderson, K., and N. Robinson

1997 Post-Communist Politics: An Introduction. London: Prentice Hall.ICTVM (Institutul de CercetaÄra pentru Turism ``Virgil Madgearu'')

1995 Strategia Turismului RomaÃnesc pe Termen Mediu. Unpublished report tothe Ministry of Tourism, Bucharest.

Ion-Tudor, C.1997a Tariffs Cheaper in Greece than at Mamaia. Romania Business Journal

4(24):16.1997b Poiana Brasov Needs $40 Million. Romania Business Journal 4(24):16.1997c Privatisation Links the Past with the Present and the Present with the

Future. Romania Business Journal 4(27):14.1997d Real Leasing: An Entirely Useless Initiative. Romania Business Journal

4(34):14.1997e Who is Controlling Tourism in Seaside and Spa Resorts. Romania

Business Journal 4(26):16.1997f Ministry of Tourism: Successes and Failures. Romanian Business Journal

4(47):16.


1998 Special Fund for Tourism Promotion and Development. Romania BusinessJournal 5(12):16.

IordaÄnescu, T.1994 Investit° ii straÄine õÃn turismul RomaÃnesc. Revista RomaÃnaÄ de Turism 1(1-

2):30±32.Jaakson, R.

1996 Tourism in Transition in Post-Soviet Estonia. Annals of Tourism Research23:617±634.

Johnson, M.1995 Czech and Slovak Tourism. Tourism Management 16:21±28.1997 Hungary's Hotel Industry in Transition, 1960±1996. Tourism Management

18:441±452.Jordan, I.

1992 Slovakia in the Scope of Central European Tourism: Present Scope andOutlook. Geogra®ckyÂ Casopis 44:105±119.

Jung, B.1995 The Cultural Heritage of Communism. In Tourism and Leisure: Culture,

Heritage and Participation, D. Leslie, ed., pp. 31±43. Eastbourne: LeisureStudies Association.

Karp, R. C.1994 Central and Eastern Europe: The Challenge of Transition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.KoÈves, A., ed.

1992 Central and East European Economies in Transition. Oxford: Westview.Koulov, B.

1996 Market Reforms and Environmental Protection in the Bulgarian TourismIndustry. In Reconstructing the Balkans: A Geography of the New SoutheastEurope, D. Hall and D. Danta, eds., pp. 187±196. Chichester: Wiley.

Lavigne, M.1995 The Economics of Transition: From Socialist Economy to Market Economy.

Basingstoke: Macmillan.Lennon, J. J.

1995 Hotel Privatisation in Eastern Europe: Progress and Process. In Tourismand Leisure: Culture, Heritage and Participation, D. Leslie, ed., pp. 45±58.Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association.

Light, D.1998 Bucharest's Communist ``Heritage'' as a Resource for Tourism. Paper pre-

sented at Post-Communist Romania conference, Liverpool Hope UniversityCollege, Liverpool, UK, July 15±16 1998.

Light, D., and D. Andone1996 The Changing Geography of Romanian Tourism. Geography 81:193±203.

Light, D., and R. Prentice1994 Who Consumes the Heritage Product? Implications for European Heritage

Tourism. In Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in theNew Europe, G. J. Ashworth and P. Larkham, eds., pp. 90±116. London:Routledge.

Lindsay, M.1992 Developing Capital Markets in Eastern Europe: A Business Reference.

London: Pinter.Lockwood, A.

1993 Eastern Europe and the former Soviet States. In The InternationalHospitality Industry, P. Jones and A. Pizam, eds., pp. 25±37. Chichester:Wiley.

Marchidanu, B. and S. Rabbitte1998 Blackout! In Review: Romania's Magazine for Business (May/June):12.

Matei, D.1994 Stadiul Reformei õÃn Turism. Revista RomaÃnaÄ de Turism 1(6):2±4.1995 Perspectivele dezvoltaÄrii turismului romaÃnesc õÃn anul 1995. Revista

RomaÃnaÄ de Turism 2(1):2±4.


Mazuru, O.1997a HotelsÐForced to have Hot Water and Clean Bathrooms. Romania

Business Journal 4(41):16.1997b Travel CompaniesÐTo Renew every Three Years their Classi®cation

Certi®cates. Romanian Business Journal 4(38):16.Medlik, S.

1990 Focus on Eastern Europe. Tourism Management 11:95±98.Ministerul Turismului

1998 Strategia de Dezvoltare a Turismului õÃn Perioada 1997±2005. Bucures° ti:Institutul de Cercetare pentru Turism.

Mitrache, S., V. Manole, M. Stijan, F. Bran, and I. Istrate1996 Agroturism s° i Turism Rural. Bucures° ti: Fax Press.

Monitorul O®cial1998 Legislat° ie Privind Turismul. Bucures° ti: Monitorul O®cial.

Murphy, D.1993 Transylvania and Beyond. London: Arrow Books.

New Markets Monthly1996 Tourism Moves Towards Individuals. New Markets Monthly 47(October):9.

Ploaie, G.1996 The Impact of Tourism and Conservation on Agriculture in the Mountains

of VaÃlcea County. Romania. Geojournal 38:219±227.Popescu, C.

1993 Romanian Industry in Transition. Geojournal 29:41±48.Revista RomaÃnaÆ de Turism

1994 Brevetarea i licenierea õÃn turism. Revista RomaÃnaÆ de Turism 19941(3):24±27.

Richardson, D., and T. Burford1995 Romania: The Rough Guide ((1st ed.).). London: Rough Guides Ltd.

Richter, S., ed.1992 The Transition from Command to Market Economics in East-Central

Europe. Oxford: Westview.Roberts, L.

1996 Barriers to the Development of Rural Tourism in the Bran Area ofTransylvania. In Tourism and Culture: Image, Identity and Marketing, M.Robinson, N. Evans and P. M. Callaghan, eds., pp. 185±197. Sunderland:Business Education Publishers.

Romanian Business Journal1998 Problems Confronting Romanian Tourism. Romanian Business Journal

5(6):16.Sharpley, R.

1994 Tourism, Tourists and Society. Huntingdon: ELM.Smeral, E.

1993 Emerging Eastern European Tourism Markets. Tourism Management14:411±418.

Smith, A.H.1994 The Economy. In Romania (Chapter: Eastern Europe and the

Commonwealth of Independent States) 2nd ed., pp. 514±518. London:Europa.

Stan, L.1995 Romanian Privatization: Assessment of the First Five Years. Communist

and Post-Communist Studies 28:427±435.1997 Romanian Privatisation Program: Catching Up with the East. In Romania

in Transition, L. Stan, ed., pp. 127±161. Aldershot: Dartmouth.SÏtetic, S.

1991 Tourism in East Europe: A New Challenge. In Progress in Tourism,Recreation and Hospitality Management Volume 3, C. P. Cooper, ed., pp.154±164. London: Belhaven.

Turnock, D.1973 Tourism in the Romanian Carpathians. Town and Country Planning

41:268±272.1974 An Economic Geography of Romania. London: Bell.


1977 Rumania and the Geography of Tourism. Geoforum 8:51±56.1989 Eastern Europe: An Economic and Political Geography. London:

Routledge.1990 Tourism in Romania: Rural Planning in the Carpathians. Annals of

Tourism Research 17:79±102.1991 Romania. In Tourism and Economic Development in Eastern Europe and

the Soviet Union, D. R. Hall, ed., pp. 203±219. London: Belhaven.1997 The East European Economy in Context: Communism and Transition.

London: Routledge.Unwin, T.

1996 Tourism Development in Estonia: Images. Sustainability, and IntegratedRural Development. Tourism Management 17:265±276.

Urry, J.1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London:

Sage.1994 Cultural Change and Contemporary Tourism. Leisure Studies 13:233±238.

VasÏko, T., ed.1992 Problems of Economic Transition. Aldershot: Avebury.

Vodenska, M.1992 International Tourism in Bulgaria: Problems and Perspectives. Tijdschrift

voor Economische en Sociale Geogra®e 83:409±417.Wingrove D.

1997 Tourism in Romania: An Offer you CAN'T Resist? In Review Romania18(July/August):4±5.

Witt, S. F.1994 Opening of the Eastern Bloc Countries. In Global Tourism: The Next

Decade, W. Theobald, ed., pp. 217±225. Oxford: Butterworth±Heinemann.

Submitted 6 February 1998. Resubmitted 18 October 1998. Accepted 10 December 1998.Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: David H. Harrison.


roumanie tourism

Documents

depresseddomestic tourism

tourism development

romanian tourism

cultural tourism

postcommunist romania

roumanie postcommuniste

periode postcommuniste

firstexamines tourism