Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor

Fundaia pentru o Societate Deschis
Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor
Autorii studiului:
Gabriel Bdescu
Vlad Grigora
Cosima Rughini
Mlina Voicu
Ovidiu Voicu
2007
2007 Fundaia pentru o Societate Deschis (FSD)

Toate drepturile sunt rezervate Fundaiei pentru o Societate Deschis. Att publicaia, ct i
fragmente din ea, nu pot fi reproduse fr permisiunea Fundaiei pentru o Societate Deschis.
Bucureti, ianuarie 2007
Fundaia pentru o Societate Deschis
Str. Cderea Bastiliei nr. 33, sector 1, Bucureti
Telefon: (021) 212.11.01
Fax: (021) 212.10.32
Web: www.osf.ro
E-mail: info@osf.ro
Cuprins
Barometrul incluziunii Romilor prezentarea programului i a cercetrii
Cine sunt romii?
Cosima Rughini
Stare de spirit, instituii, opiuni politice ale romilor din Romnia
Ovidiu Voicu
Condiii de locuit i probleme financiare la populaia de romi
Vlad Grigora
Excluziunea formal a cetenilor de etnie rom
Cosima Rughini
Segregarea rezidenial
Cosima Rughini
Tolerana i discriminare perceput
Mlina Voicu
Viaa de familie, de la natere la moarte
Cosima Rughini
Capital uman i capital social la populaia de romi
Gabriel Bdescu
Cercetarea a fost realizat de Fundaia pentru o Societate Deschis sub egida

Deceniului de Incluziune al Romilor
Deceniul Incluziunii Romilor
Deceniul Incluziunii Romilor 2005 - 2015, iniiativ susinut de Open Society Institute i Banca Mondial,
este un efort internaional fr precedent de a combate discriminarea i de a asigura accesul egal al romilor la
educaie, locuine, locuri de munc i ngrijire medical. Lansat n februarie 2005 i susinut de nou state
din Europa Central i de Est, Deceniul de Incluziune a Romilor este sprijinit, de asemenea, de Comisia
European, de Consiliul Europei, Banca de Dezvoltare a Consiliului Europei i de Programul Naiunilor
Unite pentru Dezvoltare.
Partenerii Deceniului sunt unii de dorina comun de a estompa diferenele de nivel de trai dintre populaia
Roma i cea non-Roma, i de a nltura srcia i marginalizarea, ntr-un termen de zece ani. Obiectivul
declarat este acela de a accelera creterea gradului de incluziune social i a nivelului economic al etnicilor
Roma.
Deceniul este ghidat att de reperele comune ale incluziunii sociale i ale antidiscriminrii, ct i de cele ale
egalitii de anse i de ncetare a segregrii. n centrul setului de valori i al viziunii Deceniului se afl un
angajament pentru gsirea de soluii inovative, pentru cooperare internaional, promovare a transparenei i
participare a Romilor.
Viziunea i valorile Deceniului de Incluziune pun un accent deosebit pe implicarea Roma: "Nimic despre noi
fr noi: implicarea Roma va determina succesul sau eecul Deceniului. Reprezentanii Roma i organizaiile
societii civile sunt implicate n fiecare faz a Deceniului. Reprezentanii Roma au definit viziunea de la bun
nceput. Organizaii si experi Roma din societatea civil au identificat prioritile de politici publice, jucnd
un rol important n definirea scopurilor i obiectivelor. Participarea Roma va fi un element central n
monitorizarea programului de-a lungul urmtorilor zece ani."
I Dekada Vash i Romani Inkluzija
I Dekada vash e Romengi Inkluzija 2005-2015, jekh iniciativa vastjardi katar o Instituto vash jekh Putardo
Khetanipen thaj i Lumjaki Banka, si jekh nevo maskarthemutno zoripen te achavel pes i diskriminacija thaj
te ristjarel pes so e romen si len barabar putardo drom vash o sikljaripen, o beshipen, i buki thaj o sastipen. I
Dekada sas putardi and-o Februaro 2005 thaj 9 thema andar o Centro thaj o Esto e Evropako len kotor andre.
I Dekada si zurjardi katar i Evropaki Komisia, o Konsilo e Evropako, e Barjarimaski Banka katar o Konsilo e
Evropako thaj e Barjarimasko Programo e Unisarde Nacjengo.
E Dekadake partenerura si len jekh khetani vizija te phandaven i hiv and-o barvalipen thaj trajo mashkar e
roma thaj e gadze thaj te pharaven i truj e chororimaski thaj e ekskluziako and-e 10 bersha. Sar sas
mothovdo, objketivo si te sigjarel pes o progreso vash te lacharel pes e romengi socialo inkluzika thaj
ekonomikano statuso
I Dekada si tradini katar jekh angadzamento vash khetane valore palal i socialo inkluzija thaj mamujdiskriminacija, vash barabar sajutnimata thaj te achavel pes i segregacija. And-o mashkar e Dekadake
valorego thaj vizijako si o mangipen te adoptisaren pen neve bukiake mekanisme, te zurjarel pes i
mashkarthemutni kooperacija, thaj te kerel pes promocija vash transparenca thaj romani participacija.
I vizija thaj valorengi deklaracija vash e Inkluziaki Dekada del jekh bari importanca palal e Romani
participacija: Khanch vash amenge bi amaro: i Romani participacija ka kerel vaj ka musarel i Dekada. E
romane reprezentantura thaj civilo organizacije len kotor and-e savore nivelura e Dekadake. E roma kerde i
vizija katar o astaripen e Dekadako. E civilo romane grupura thaj ekspertura arakhle prioritetura vash
politike thaj khelde jekh sherutno rolo vash te arakhen pen e Dekadake obiektivura thaj celura. I Romani
participacija avela but importanto and-e procesoske supervizija thaj monitorizacija and-e avutne desh
bersha.
Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor

Descrierea programului
ncepnd cu luna octombrie a anului 2006 i continund n anul 2007, Fundaia pentru o
Societate Deschis implementeaz cercetarea intitulat Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor
(RIB-Roma Inclusion Barometer). Aceasta i propune ca principale obiective:
s afle care sunt percepiilor populaiei privind romii
s ofere romilor posibilitatea de a se pronuna n legtur cu principalele
probleme cu care se confrunt
Pentru a atinge aceste obiective, cercetarea, gndit ca un studiu cantitativ fundamentat
pe experiena Barometrului de Opinie Public (BOP), utilizeaz dou eantioane, unul
reprezentativ la nivel naional, iar cel de-al doilea reprezentativ pentru romii din
Romnia. Eantioanele au fost proiectate de prof. Dumitru Sandu; chestionarul folosit
este multitematic, cu un nucleu comun i module speciale pentru cele dou eantioane.
n acest mod se vor putea face comparaii ntre caracteristicile socio-demografice ale
celor dou populaii int. Temele urmrite de cercetare au fost stabilite de FSD plecnd
de la datele multianuale ale BOP, i n cadrul unui proces de consultare cu organizaii i
persoane cu experien n domeniu.
O echip de sociologi, colaboratori ai FSD, specializai n statistic social i cu
experien n cercetri sociologice efectuate n comuniti de romi (Cosima Rughini,
Gabriel Bdescu, Mlina Voicu, Vlad Grigora), a codificat lista temelor n ntrebri de
sondaj care s msoare corect din punct de vedere tiinific efectele sociale urmrite.
Culegerea i introducerea datelor au fost asigurate de ctre Metro Media Transilvania,
iar controlul calitii culegerii i introducerii datelor de ctre Institutul pentru
Cercetarea Calitii Vieii.
Datele au fost culese n cursul lunii decembrie 2006 i au fost analizate de aceeai
echip care a lucrat la proiectarea chestionarului, iar rezultatul analizei este publicat la
nceputul anului 2007, n acest raport. De asemenea, datele de sondaj vor fi puse gratuit
la dispoziia tuturor celor interesai. n cursul acestui an, FSD va iniia o serie de
dezbateri publice al cror scop va fi promovarea pe agenda public a necesitii de a fi
gsite soluii adecvate problemelor cu care se confrunt comunitile de romi. n acelai
timp, Fundaia va sprijini analiza i amendarea politicilor publice n domeniu.
Barometrul va fi repetat dup o perioad de doi-trei ani, pentru a oferi o msur n timp
a tuturor problemelor abordate n cadrul cercetrii.
Metodologie
Studiul folosete datele culese prin dou sondaje de opinie, primul reprezentativ pentru
ntreaga populaie a Romniei, iar cel de-al doilea reprezentativ pentru romii din
Romnia.
Caracteristicile cercetrii naionale
Volumul eantionului: 1.215 persoane de 18 i peste.
Marja de eroare statistic: 2,9%
Chestionarul: multi-tematic, durat 50-60 minute
Perioada de culegere a datelor: 14-30 noiembrie 2006
Caracteristicile cercetrii n rndul romilor
Volumul eantionului: 1.387 persoane de 18 i peste, de etnie roma, autoidentificai.
Marja de eroare statistic: 2,6%
Chestionarul: multi-tematic, durat 50-60 minute
Perioada de culegere a datelor: 14-30 noiembrie 2006
Proiectarea instrumentelor metodologice:
eantionare: Dumitru Sandu
proiectarea chestionarului: Gabriel Bdescu, Vlad Grigora, Cosima
Rughini, Mlina Voicu, Ovidiu Voicu
Culegerea i introducerea datelor:
Metro Media Transilvania
Controlul culegerii i introducerii datelor:
Institutul pentru Cercetarea Calitii Vieii
Analiza i interpretarea datelor:
Gabriel Bdescu, Vlad Grigora, Cosima Rughini, Mlina Voicu,
Ovidiu Voicu
Cine sunt romii?

Cosima Rughini
Identitatea etnic de rom, desemnat deseori prin etnonimul igan, a fost i
rmne puternic stigmatizat n societatea romneasc i n societile europene n
general. Dac n timpul regimului comunist valorizarea sa negativ era n acelai timp
recunoscut, dar i ascuns vederii de politica de ignorare a identitii etnice rome i de
asimilare etnic, dup 1989 libertatea de expresie a readus n prim-planul discursului
stereotipurile i emoiile negative asociate cu minoritatea rom. Etnonimul rom,
controversat de altfel n rndul populaiei majoritare din cauza nedoritei asemnri cu
etnonimul romn, este rezultatul afirmrii unei noi identiti de ctre elita rom, o
identitate ntemeiat n interiorul etniei, pe cultura i experienele acesteia, i nu pe
definiiile impuse de-a lungul istoriei de gadjii/ne-romi.
Printre strategiile de confruntare a stigmatizrii etnice a romilor se numr i
cele defensive - ascunderea i contestarea apartenenei la etnie, pe de o parte, i chiar
ncercarea de asimilare n cultura dominant, pe de alt parte. Ca urmare a reticenei
percepute a romilor de a se autoidentifica etnic ca atare n contexte oficiale,
veridicitatea datelor de recensmnt privind structura etnic a populaiei Romniei este
contestat de marea majoritate a observatorilor, inclusiv de organizaiile
neguvernamentale ale romilor. Decalajul dintre estimarea oficial a populaiei rome i
estimrile neoficiale ale cercettorilor sau diverselor organizaii civile este un indicator
al continuitii stigmatizrii identitii de rom. De altfel, o scurt privire a utilizrii
acestor etnonime n mass-media confirm fr putin de ndoial persistena
stereotipurilor etnice negative i utilizarea lor continu n scopul strnirii emoiilor
justiiare ale audienei (Tarnovschi, 2002 i Popescu, 2002).
Totui, dezvoltarea instituional a reprezentrii minoritilor etnice dup 1989 a
avut efecte i asupra identitii rome. Elita politic i civic rom a devenit din ce n ce
mai vizibil, precum i instituiile statului dedicate promovrii intereselor romilor i
combaterii discriminrii instituii precum orele de limba romani n coli, Consiliul
Naional de Combatere a Discriminrii sau Agenia Naional pentru Romi. n aceste
condiii, identitatea etnic rom devine din ce n ce mai mult subiect al controverselor
sociale, ieind din anonimatul stereotipiilor negative de la sine nelese. Datele
Barometrului de Incluziune a Romilor ilustreaz att presiunile exercitate de
stigmatizare, ct i eforturile populaiei rome de a rezista prin afirmare, nu numai prin
ascundere i/sau asimilare.
Autoidentificarea etnic
Din totalul subiecilor romi inclui n cercetare, aproape jumtate (45%) se
declar romi romnizai (vezi
Tabelul 1) acea categorie de romi care pstreaz doar n mic msur
caracteristicile culturale ale etniei, fiind educai n spiritul culturii romne. O proporie
de aproximativ 15% sunt rudari i vtrari, neamuri de asemenea relativ asimilate
culturii majoritare. Aproximativ 15% se identific cu neamurile mai tradiionale ale
cldrarilor, ursarilor sau crmidarilor, iar restul de aproximativ 25% se consider
doar igan sau se afiliaz altui neam.
7
Tabelul 1. Ce fel de rom suntei?
Neam/categorie etnic:
Rom romnizat
M consider doar igan
Rudar
Cldrar
Ursar
Vtrar
Crmidar
Altul
Total
%
45
23
12
6
3
3
2
6
100
Limba romani este limba matern n proporie de 40% pentru romii romnizai,
i n proporie majoritar (aproximativ 55%) n cazul celorlalte tipuri de romi (vezi
Tabelul 9).
Este interesant de observat c pentru jumtate dintre persoanele ne-rome i
pentru mai mult de o treime dintre romi, limba romani nu ar trebui s fie predat
copiilor n coal (vezi
Tabelul 2). Romii romnizai i romii cu alte identificri au n general preri
similare, diferind doar intensitatea acestora. Aceast devalorizare a limbii romani
reflect stigmatizarea ei general n societate i rezultatul acestei stigmatizri anume,
relativa ei inutilitate n interaciunile sociale oficiale. De asemenea, observm din
Tabelul 3 c limba matern a respondentului nu conteaz prea mult n aprecierea pe
care acesta o d limbii romani; n cadrul populaiei de etnie rom, vorbitorii nativi
difer statistic semnificativ de restul persoanelor, dar diferenele nu sunt foarte mari.
Tabelul 2. Copiii romi ar trebui s nvee limba romani n scoal n funcie de identificarea etnic
Rom romnizat
Dezacord total
Nu prea sunt de acord
Mai degrab de acord
Total de acord
Total
Alt fel de
Alt etnie
rom (romn, ungur etc.)
19
10
23
18
28
28
24
28
26
39
34
24
100
100
100
Diferenele sunt statistic semnificative pentru p=0.01
Tabelul 3. Copiii romi ar trebui s nvee limba romani n coal n funcie de limba matern a
persoanei
Limba matern romani

Nu
Da
15
13
27
19
28
24
30
44
Dezacord total
Mai degrab de acord
Total de acord
8
Total
100
100
Atribuirea etnicitii
Datorit variabilitii i suprapunerii trsturilor fizice ale romilor i ne-romilor,
hetero-identificarea etnic a persoanelor necunoscute ine n general seama de o
multitudine de criterii diferite, pe baza informaiilor la care avem acces fizice,
comportamentale, verbale etc. Este interesant de observat c rspunsurile subiecilor la
ntrebarea Cum v dai seama dac cineva este rom difer sistematic n funcie de
identitatea etnic a acestora. Putem observa n
Tabelul 4 c romii pun accent n rspunsurile lor n special pe criteriile
culturale, precum limba, stilul de vorbire i de mbrcminte, n timp ce ne-romii
accentueaz n mai mare msur trsturile fizice, inclusiv culoarea pielii, i cele
comportamentale criteriu care ascunde probabil o definiie stereotipic negativ a
comportamentului tipic rom.
Tabelul 4. Criterii de atribuire etnic: Cum v dai seama dac cineva este rom?
Criteriu
Aspect, fizionomie, cum arat
Comportament, obiceiuri,
caracter
Culoare
Limbaj, accent, vocabular
Haine, mbrcminte
Limba vorbit - limba romani
Nu tiu
Alte criterii sau rspunsuri
Total
(Numr cazuri)
Rom
Alt fel de Alt etnie
romnizat rom
(romn, ungur etc.)
9
9
17
7
7
13
14
19
15
23
8
6
100
(607)
13
15
14
17
20
5
100
(697)
23
10
9
10
10
9
100
(1224)
Desigur, aceste rspunsuri nu reflect neaprat criteriile efectiv folosite de

subieci n hetero-identificarea etnic. Identificarea perceptiv a unei categorii de
obiecte, inclusiv etnia persoanelor, este de cele mai multe ori nereflexiv, spontan
fiind deci greu de descris n cuvinte. Aceste rspunsuri reflect mai degrab teoriile
subiecilor cu privire la ce anume este un rom sau cum ar trebui s identificm un rom.
n ceea ce privete legtura dintre etnia prinilor i etnia copiilor, majoritatea
subiecilor, indiferent de etnie, sunt de acord cu faptul c a avea un printe rom face ca
i copilul s fie mai probabil rom dect ne-rom (Tabelul 5). De exemplu, aproximativ
55% dintre ne-romi i 75% dintre romi cred c dac tatl e rom atunci i copilul este,
probabil sau chiar sigur, rom spre deosebire de aproximativ 25% dintre ne-romi i
17% dintre romi care cred c va fi mai degrab romn. Aproximativ 20% dintre neromi i 8% dintre romi rspund c nu tiu. Aceast asimetrie n transmiterea
identitii etnice este mai puternic n cazul tatlui rom dect n cazul mamei rome. De
asemenea, transmiterea etnicitii rome este afirmat semnificativ n mai mare msur
de subiecii romi dect de cei ne-romi, care opteaz mai frecvent pentru transmiterea
etnicitii romne dar i pentru rspunsul nu tiu. Este interesant ns c romii
romnizai nu difer n rspunsuri de romii care se identific altminteri.
Tabelul 5. Atribuirea etniei copilului dintr-o familie mixt, n funcie de etnia subiectului
rom
romn
Nu tiu
Total
Dac un tnr are tatl rom i

mama romnc, ce este tnrul?
(%)
Rom
Alt fel de
Alt etnie
romnizat rom
(romn,
ungur etc.)
74
74
55
18
17
26
8
8
19
100
100
100
Dar dac un tnr are tatl romn i

mama rom, ce este tnrul? (%)
Rom
romnizat
61
31
8
100
Alt fel de
rom
63
29
9
100
Alt etnie
(romn,
ungur etc.)
48
33
19
100
Aceste rspunsuri sunt surprinztoare dac avem n vedere istoria de asimilare a

romilor n etnia majoritar. Fr a avea argumente empirice, cred c este probabil ca o
majoritate a copiilor din familii mixte s-i fi pierdut identitatea rom, prin eforturile
conjugate ale prinilor, colii i ale presiunii sociale n general. Teoria comun a
persistenei etniei rome n familiile mixte este, n opinia mea, empiric eronat. Cred c
aceast teorie poate fi explicat mai degrab ca o prescripie cum ar trebui s fie
considerai copiii familiilor mixte, i nu cum vor fi ei cu adevrat. Cu alte cuvinte,
marea majoritate a subiecilor, indiferent de etnie, consider c o persoan provenind
dintr-o familie mixt cu un printe rom este de fapt rom probabil chiar n ciuda
aparenelor. Date fiind eforturile pe care probabil multe persoane provenind din familii
rome sau mixte le-au fcut pentru a-i ascunde descendena, aceast teorie comun
poate fi interpretat ca o reacie de de-mascare, un fel de pedeaps pentru cei care sunt
prini asupra faptei.
n cazul persoanelor de etnie rom, mediul de reziden introduce o diferen
semnificativ n rspunsuri de exemplu, 83% dintre romii care locuiesc n orae mari
cred c un tat rom va avea un copil rom, fa de doar 70% la sat (vezi Tabelul 10).
Faptul c aceast atribuire este cea mai frecvent n mediul care ofer cea mai mare
anonimitate, i anume oraele mari, este un indiciu n plus c rspunsul este normativ
mai mult dect perceptiv reflect ceea ce subiecii cred c ar trebui s se ntmple, nu
ceea ce se ntmpl n general.
Aproximativ 10% dintre subieci, indiferent de etnie, consider c un tnr care
are ambii prini romi poate s nu fie el nsui rom; peste trei sferturi consider c acest
lucru nu este posibil (vezi Tabelul 11).
Grania dintre etnii

Dintre formele de contact interetnic, cstoriile sunt cele mai dezaprobate, att
de ctre romi, ct i de ctre celelalte etnii dar n mult mai mare msur de ctre neromi. De exemplu, aproximativ 40% dintre ne-romi consider c este ru sau foarte ru
10
ca romnii i romii s se cstoreasc ntre ei, fa de 25% care cred c e ru s se joace

mpreun copiii romni sau romi, i 35% care consider c locuirea mixt este rea (vezi
Tabelul 6). De asemenea, 20% dintre romi nu aprob cstoriile mixte, fa de
aproximativ 10% care nu aprob locuirea sau colarizarea mixt.
Reticena fa de cstoriile mixte este surprinztoare prin faptul c aceast
form de interaciune uman este totui cea n care partenerii au un control reciproc
ridicat. Nu ne putem alege nici vecinii, nici colegii copiilor notri din acest motiv
etnia lor poate fi folosit ca un predictor al comportamentului, ceea ce, n condiiile
stereotipurilor negative fa de romi, explic reticena ne-romilor fa de vecintatea
sau compania romilor. Totui, n cazul cstoriei, partenerul este ales n deplin
cunotin de cauz i fr constrngeri, astfel nct etnia sa nu mai poate fi considerat
o surs relevant de informaii despre el/ea. Desigur, miza n cazul cstoriilor este
foarte ridicat dar nu neaprat mai ridicat dect n cazul educaiei i companiei
copiilor. n aceste condiii, cred c intensitatea reticenei fa de cstoriile mixte
exprim nu numai stereotipurile negative, ci i refuzul unei intimiti care pune n
pericol, potenial, identitatea etnic.
Tabelul 6. n opinia dvs. este bine sau nu este bine ca
Foarte
ru
Ru
Bine
Foarte
bine
Nu tiu
Total
romnii i romii
s locuiasc n
aceeai zon a
localitii? (%)
Alt
Etnic
etnie rom
1
8
elevii romi i cei

romni s nvee
n aceeai clas?
(%)
Alt
Etnic
etnie rom
1
4
copiii romni i
romi s se joace
mpreun?
(%)
Alt
Etnic
etnie rom
2
6
romnii i romii
s se
cstoreasc
ntre ei? (%)
Alt
Etnic
etnie rom
5
15
27
49
11
9
51
37
18
58
15
8
48
41
19
57
14
6
51
39
27
42
11
14
42
35
5
100
3
100
4
100
3
100
5
100
2
100
6
100
4
100
Este de asemenea interesant c educaia subiectului nu influeneaz semnificativ

dezirabilitatea contactului cu cealalt etnie, nici n cazul romilor, nici n cazul celorlalte
persoane. Romii romnizai sunt ns semnificativ mai dispui ctre acceptarea
cstoriilor, vecintii i companiei ne-romilor, dect ceilali romi (vezi Tabelul 12 i
Tabelul 13).
Ci romi sunt n Romnia?

Cea mai mare proporie a romilor n populaie nregistrat oficial de
recensmintele Romniei a fost de 2,5% n 2002. Anterior, n mod constant proporia
oficial s-a situat sub 2%, atingnd minimul absolut de 0,3% n 1966 (vezi
11
Tabelul 7) o dovad a presiunilor de mascare a etnicitii exercitate asupra

etnicilor romi ca urmare a primului val de politici asimilaioniste iniiat la nceputul
anilor 60. De altfel, scderea la mai puin de jumtate a persoanelor care s-au
autodeclarat romi ntre 1930 i 1956 este o consecin direct a experienei deportrii
romilor n Transnistria.
Tabelul 7. Structura etnic a populaiei Romniei, conform datelor de recensmnt 1930-2002.
Surs: Institutul Naional de Statistic 1
Anul
1930
1956
1966
1977
1992
2002
Populaie total Romi

Romni (%) Maghiari (%) Romi (%)
(mil. loc.)
(loc.)
14,28 242.656
77,9
10,0
1,7
17,48 104.216
85,7
9,1
0,6
19,10
64.197
87,7
8,5
0,3
21,55 227.398
88,1
7,9
1,1
22,81 401.087
89,5
7,1
1,8
21,68 535.140
89,5
6,6
2,5
Estimrile neoficiale ale altor observatori sunt diverse. n 1993, Institutul de

Cercetare a Calitii Vieii estima la aproximativ un milion numrul persoanelor din
Romnia care triesc dup modul de via specific roma (Zamfir i Zamfir 1993,
apud OGrady i Tarnovschi), adic aproximativ 4% din totalul populaiei. Un studiu
realizat de ICCV n 1998 propunea o estimare de aproximativ un milion i jumtate de
romi, dintre care doar aproximativ 65% se autoidentific (Zamfir i Preda 2002, apud
OGrady i Tarnovschi). Vasile Gheu estima populaia de romi la 1,5 2 milioane
de persoane (Gheu 1996, apud OGrady i Tarnovschi). Dumitru Sandu propunea
n 2005 o estimare a populaiei de romi cu probabilitate ridicat de autoidentificare
situat ntre 730.000 i 970.000 de persoane (Sandu 2005, p. 6).
Estimrile medii realizate de locuitorii Romniei, romi i ne-romi deopotriv,
surprind ns prin faptul c sunt de aproape zece ori mai ridicate dect estimrile
oficiale, mult peste numerele avansate de experi. n medie, att romii ct i ne-romii
din Romnia consider c aproximativ 25% dintre locatarii rii noastre sunt romi.
Aproximativ 35% consider mai mult de o treime dintre cetenii romni sunt romi
(vezi Tabelul 14).
Tabelul 8. Estimarea proporiei de romi: valoarea medie i median a rspunsurilor subiecilor
Rom
romnizat
Dac v gndii la cei care triesc n zona n

care locuii dvs. cam ct la sut dintre acetia
1
Median
Medie
Site-ul Institutului Naional de Statistic http://www.insse.ro
12
Etnia subiectului
Alt fel de Alt etnie
rom
(romn,
ungur
etc.)
50
55
50
53
5
14
sunt romi?
Dac v gndii la cei care triesc n aceeai
localitate cu dvs. cam ct la sut dintre acetia
sunt romi?
Dac v gndii acum la toi oamenii care triesc
n Romnia, cam ct la sut dintre acetia credei
c sunt romi?
Median
Medie
25
27
25
33
10
17
Median
Medie
25
25
25
26
20
24
Este interesant de observat n

Tabelul 8 c estimrile romilor i ale ne-romilor cu privire la structura etnic a
populaiei Romniei sunt convergente, n ciuda diferenei considerabile a estimrilor lor
referitoare la vecintatea, respectiv localitatea n care triesc. n general romii consider
c triesc n zone cu o proporie semnificativ mai mare de locatari romi, dect romnii.
De exemplu, valoarea medie a proporiei percepute de romi n vecintate este de
aproximativ 15% pentru subiecii romni, maghiari etc. i de 55% pentru subiecii romi.
Totui, la nivelul rii percepiile concord asupra unui nivel estimat al minoritii rome
de aproximativ 25%.
Cred c putem interpreta aceast supraestimare prin faptul c 25% reprezint un
prag psihologic n estimarea proporiilor, dar i printr-o teorie comun esenialist a
etnicitii rome. Astfel, fr a avea dovezi directe n acest sens, cred totui c subiecii
consider c proporia de romi din populaie trebuie s fie mult mai ridicat dect
pare. Este posibil ca aceast teorie comun s se datoreze percepiei c romii ncearc
s i mascheze adevrata identitate, sau unei vizibiliti amplificate de stereotipuri
negative. Desigur, toate aceste consideraii sunt mai degrab puncte de vedere ntr-o
discuie dect concluzii ale vreunei cercetri.
O interpretare alternativ ar putea invoca nefamiliaritatea populaiei cu
estimrile procentuale i lipsa ateniei pentru semnificaia cifrelor. Aceast interpretare
ar fi justificat mai ales n cazul n care ar exista o influen considerabil a educaiei
asupra estimrilor dat fiind c persoanele cu educaie superioar, de exemplu, trebuie
s fie cel puin familiarizate cu semnificaia procentelor. Totui, dei educaia este
asociat semnificativ statistic cu aceste estimri, diferenele pe care le induce sunt mici:
de exemplu, media estimrilor propuse de persoanele cu educaie superioar este de
22%, fa de 25% n cazul persoanelor cu educaie primar sau gimnazial (vezi
Tabelul 15). n aceste condiii, cred c lipsa de familiaritate cu estimrile procentuale
nu influeneaz considerabil percepia asupra ponderii romilor n populaia Romniei,
fiind vorba mai degrab despre o teorie comun a etnicitii ascunse.
Cteva concluzii
Dup cum era de ateptat, exist diferene semnificative ntre felul n care
etnicitatea rom este neleas de romii nii fa de ne-romi (romni, maghiari i alii).
De exemplu, romii prefer criteriile culturale de hetero-identificare a romilor, pe cnd
celelalte etnii aleg n mai mare msur criterii fizice sau comportamentale. Romii cred
n vast majoritate i n mai mare msur dect ne-romii c un copil rezultat dintr-un
cuplu mixt rom-romn va fi rom ceea ce poate fi interpretat ca indicator al dorinei de
meninere a identitii etnice. n acelai timp, romii sunt semnificativ mai dispui dect
13
ne-romii ctre contacte interetnice n relaiile de vecintate, colarizare i joac a

copiilor, precum i cstorie.
Cea mai important asemnare ntre raportarea romilor i a celorlalte etnii fa
de etnicitatea rom const n estimarea convergent a proporiei de romi din populaia
Romniei la o medie de 25% - mult peste estimrile folosite n literatura sociologic, i
de aproximativ zece ori mai mari dect estimarea oficial bazat pe Recensmnt.
Anexe
Tabelul 9. Care este limba dvs. matern? (%)
romn
maghiar
romani
alt
Total
Rom
Alt fel de rom
Alt etnie (romn,
romnizat
ungur etc.)
57
40
90
3
6
7
40
54
1
0
0
2
100
100
100
Tabelul 10. Dac un tnr are tatl rom i mama romnc, ce este tnrul? (%)
rom
romn
Nu tiu
Total
Subiectul este rom

Ora mare
Ora mic
Sat
78
83
16
12
7
5
100
100
71
19
10
100
Subiectul nu e rom
Ora mare
Ora mic
Sat
53
52
25
33
22
15
100
100
57
24
19
100
Tabelul 11. Credei c un tnr care are ambii prini romi poate s nu fie rom?
Alt etnie Etnic rom (%)

(%)
13
10
Da, poate s nu fie

igan
Nu, este sigur rom
Nu tiu
Total
77
10
100
84
6
100
Tabelul 12. n opinia dvs. este bine sau nu este bine ca romnii i romii
S se cstoreasc ntre
ei?
Romnii i romii s
Elevii romi i cei romni
locuiasc n aceeai zon s nvee n aceeai
a localitii?
clas?
Rom
Rom
Alt
Alt
Alt
14
Alt
Rom
Alt
Alt
romnizat
Foarte
ru
Ru
Bine
Foarte
bine
Nu tiu
Total
fel de
rom
etnie
romnizat
fel de
rom
etnie
romnizat
fel de
rom
etnie
15
9
40
43
17
44
29
27
42
11
5
47
44
12
54
32
27
49
11
3
46
48
11
49
36
18
58
15
4
100
4
100
6
100
4
100
2
100
5
100
3
100
3
100
4
100
Tabelul 13. Ai accepta ca fiul sau fiica dvs. s se cstoreasc cu o persoan de

etnie/naionalitate (% rspunsuri afirmative din total)
Romn?
Maghiar?
Rom?
Rom romnizat Alt fel de rom

82
61
98
69
55
94
Alt etnie (romn, ungur etc)

95
58
35
Tabelul 14. Dac v gndii acum la toi oamenii care triesc n Romnia, cam ct la sut dintre
acetia credei c sunt romi?
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40 i peste
Total
Alt etnie
Etnic rom
16
27
22
15
21
100
11
18
35
18
18
100
Tabelul 15. Dac v gndii acum la toi oamenii care triesc n Romnia, cam ct la sut dintre
acetia credei c sunt romi? (%) n funcie de educaia subiectului
Fr scoal
Primar
Gimnazial
Ucenici, treapta 1, profesional, liceu
Postliceal, universitar
Estimarea medie Estimarea median

25
25
25
25
26
25
23
20
22
20
15
Bibliografie
Gheu, Vasile (1996). O proiectare condiional a populaiei Romniei pe
principalele naionaliti (1992-2025). n Revista de Cercetri Sociale 1/1996.
OGrady, Cathy i Tarnovschi, Daniela. Minoritile din Europa de Sud-Est. Romii
din Romnia. Raport CEDIME-SE i CRDE.
Popescu, Claudia (2002). Imaginea romilor n mass-media. n Rudolf Poledna,
Francis Ruegg i Clin Rus (coord.), Interculturalitate. Cercetri i perspective
romneti. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitar Clujean.
Sandu, Dumitru (2005). Comunitile de Romi din Romnia. O hart a srciei
comunitare prin sondajul PROROMI. Bucureti: Banca Mondial. Disponibil pe site-ul
Ageniei Naionale pentru Romi la adresa: http://www.anr.gov.ro/site/Biblioteca.html
Tarnovschi, Daniela (2002). Identitatea romilor. Construct istoric i mediatic. n
Rudolf Poledna, Francis Ruegg i Clin Rus (coord.), Interculturalitate. Cercetri i
perspective romneti. Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitar Clujean.
Zamfir, Ctlin i Preda, Marian (coord.) (2002). Romii din Romnia. Bucureti:
Expert.
Zamfir, Elena i Zamfir, Ctlin (coord.) (1993). iganii. ntre ignorare i
ngrijorare. Bucureti: Alternative
16
Stare de spirit, instituii, opiuni politice ale romilor din

Romnia
Ovidiu Voicu
n mod curent, n discursul public din Romnia, politic sau jurnalistic, referina
la concetenii notri de etnie rom se face prin sintagma problema romilor din
Romnia. Foarte probabil sintagma i-a pierdut conotaia negativ i are rolul
funcional de a include ntr-o formulare succint ideea c n societatea romneasc
romii nc reprezint o minoritate marginalizat, n cazul creia nu putem vorbi de o
real incluziune social. Aceeai sintagm cuprinde n mod implicit i asumarea unui
proiect, pentru c orice problem, prin definiie, necesit i o rezolvare. Proiectul
rezolvrii problemei romilor din Romnia este unul complex i care n acest moment nu
pare s aib de partea sa nici viziune, nici strategie, i cu att mai puin rezultate. Mai
mult, proiectul nu pare s aib susinere la nivelul decidenilor i nici implicarea activ
a beneficiarilor direci, romii, cu excepia unui nivel restrns al liderilor i organizaiilor
neguvernamentale.
Acest capitol urmrete s descopere cteva repere eseniale legate tocmai de
susinerea politic i implicarea romilor n posibile politici publice care vizeaz
mbuntirea situaiei acestei categorii sociale. Primul dintre aceste repere este starea
de spirit a grupului int, mulumirea i nemulumirea respondenilor, principala surs a
nemulumirii. Al doilea subiect tratat n capitol este relaia cu instituiile publice, iar cel
de-al treilea percepia cu privire la reprezentarea politic a intereselor romilor i cine
sunt cei mai importani lideri subiectivi ai acestora. Toate aceste chestiuni sunt privite
comparativ cu atitudinea populaiei n ansamblu.
Stare de spirit
Starea de spirit a populaiei este un indicator important a felului n care evoluia
societii este perceput de concetenii notri, precum i un element care conteaz
atunci cnd se solicit sprijinul i implicarea populaiei n programe de dezvoltare.
Oamenii pot fi mulumii sau nemulumii de cum merg lucrurile n ar, de propria
via, de cei din jur, de instituii i ali actori de pe scena public. O populaie cu un
grad mai ridicat de satisfacie este n mai mare msur nclinat spre dialog, spre
toleran, spre rezolvarea n comun a problemelor, n timp ce creterea nemulumirii
sociale poate s afecteze grav eficiena unor aciuni care depind de colaborarea i
17
implicarea oamenilor. De asemenea, nemulumirea este de cele mai multe ori asociat
cu inhibarea propriilor abiliti de dezvoltare personal i de participare la aciunile
comunitii, precum i cu autoizolare, cu refuzul de a participa la viaa social.
Romii din Romnia sunt nemulumii i pesimiti n legtur cu propria via,
att n cifre absolute, ct i comparat cu populaia luat n ntregime. Cele dou
elemente nemulumirea fa de felul n care triesc i pesimismul cu care privesc
evoluia lucrurilor sunt determinate n primul rnd de starea de srcie material
59
65
70
39
34
30
Oct 2004
Mai 2005
Mai 2006
Mulumii
68
32
Oct 2006
Nemulumii
Evoluia ponderilor celor care se consider mulumii, respectiv nemulumii cu felul n care
triesc, 2004-2006. Cifrele reprezint procente din total eantion. Diferenele pn la 100% sunt
non-rspunsuri.
Sursa: BOP-FSD 2004-2006
accentuat caracteristic grupului studiat. n acest sens, romii au opinii similare celor
mai sraci dintre cetenii romni, indiferent de etnie. Totui, peste factorul material, se
suprapun i alte elemente care contribuie la formarea percepiilor preponderent negative
ale romilor, ntre care nencrederea ridicat n instituii i sentimentul c sunt
discriminai.
n general, romnii sunt mai degrab nemulumii de felul n care triesc, aa
cum o arat toate cercetrile care au msurat aceast percepie. Seria Barometrul de
Opinie Public, realizat de Fundaia pentru o Societate Deschis, ne arat c n ultimii
doi ani numrul celor ce se consider mulumii a rmas constant n jurul procentului de
30-35% din populaie, n timp ce nemulumiii sunt de dou ori mai muli.
O percepie similar a satisfaciei fa de propria via este indicat, n ceea ce
privete populaia n ansamblu, i de datele Barometrului Incluziunii Romilor: 35%
dintre romni se declar mulumii de felul n care triesc, n timp ce 63% sunt
nemulumii. n ceea ce privete romii din Romnia, nemulumirea este mult mai mare:
procentul celor mulumii scade la 12%, n timp ce nemulumiii reprezint 87% dintre
respondenii de etnie rom. n tabelul urmtor, precum i n toate referinele urmtoare,
prin eantion naional vom desemna eantionul reprezentativ pentru ntreaga
populaie a Romniei (1.215 persoane), iar prin eantion romi eantionul
reprezentativ pentru romii din Romnia (1.387 persoane).
18
Ct de mulumit() suntei n general de felul n care trii?

Eantion
Mulumii
Nemulumii
Naional
Romi
35
12
63
87
Cifrele reprezint procente.

Diferenele pn la 100% sunt N/NR
Eticheta Mulumii nsumeaz rspunsurile Foarte mulumit i Destul
de mulumit, iar eticheta Nemulumii nsumeaz rspunsurile Nu prea
mulumit i Deloc mulumit.
Sursa: BIR-FSD, decembrie 2006
Nemulumirea respondenilor apare pe fondul percepiei de ctre majoritatea lor

a unei nrutiri a vieii fa de anul precedent. La nivel naional, aproximativ un sfert
din populaie consider c au o via mai bun dect anul trecut, tot un sfert percep o
nrutire a propriei viei i jumtate nu observ nici o schimbare. La nivelul
eantionului reprezentativ de romi, percepiile privind evoluia fa de anul precedent
este semnificativ mai pesimist. Doar 15% dintre romi sesizeaz o mbuntire a vieii,
iar 42% vorbesc chiar de o nrutire. Atunci cnd obiectul ntrebrii se extinde pentru
a cuprinde oamenii din localitate i oamenii din ar, procentele dintre cele dou
eantioane se apropie i diferenele de percepie ntre romi i ansamblul populaiei se
diminueaz. Majoritatea respondenilor, n ambele eantioane, consider c viaa
oamenilor fie s-a nrutit, fie a rmas la fel, att n ceea ce privete propria localitate,
ct i ntreaga ar. Cu alte cuvinte, romii au tendina de a privi mult mai defavorabil,
comparat cu percepia ntregii populaii, evoluia vieii pe msur ce ntrebarea devine
mai specific i se apropie de universul propriei existene.
Cum este [] n prezent comparativ cu cea de acum un an?
Viaa dvs.
Viaa oamenilor din localitatea dvs. Viaa oamenilor din ar
Eantion
Naional
Romi
Naional
Romi
Naional
Romi
Mai bun
La fel
Mai proast
N/NR
27
48
24
1
15
41
42
2
13
47
26
14
9
43
37
11
11
39
35
15
9
38
38
15

Eticheta Mai bun nsumeaz rspunsurile mult mai bun i mai bun,
iar eticheta Mai proast nsumeaz rspunsurile mult mai proast i mai proast.
O situaie similar n ceea ce privete diferenele de percepie asupra evoluiei

propriei viei o ntlnim atunci cnd proiectm ntrebarea n viitor. Romii sunt n
general mai pesimiti, i doar un sfert dintre ei sper ntr-o mbuntire, fa de o
treime din totalul cetenilor romni.
Cum credei c vei tri peste un an?
Eantion
Naional
Romi
Mai bine
La fel
32
26
26
24
19
Mai prost
N/NR
28
13
35
13

Eticheta Mai bine nsumeaz rspunsurile mult mai bine i mai
bine, iar eticheta Mai prost nsumeaz rspunsurile mult mai
prost i mai prost.
Din intersecia rspunsurilor la cele trei ntrebri obinem o tipologie a

oamenilor n funcie de aprecierile cu privire la viaa de acum, evoluia fa de anul
trecut i speranele cu privire la anul urmtor. Pentru simplificarea analizei, am marcat
patru tipuri care puncteaz extremele i centrul tabloului.
Tipul A reprezint cei mai nemulumii i mai pesimiti dintre respondeni: ei
sunt nemulumii de viaa lor, sesizeaz o nrutire fa de acum un an i tot o
nrutire prevd i pentru anul urmtor. Ei sunt 15% dintre respondeni n cazul
eantionului naional, i sunt 26% dintre romi. Tipurile B i C i cuprind pe cei care nu
sesizeaz nici o schimbare major n evoluia vieii lor, nici fa de anul trecut, nici n
proiecia ctre anul urmtor. Diferena ntre cele dou tipuri const n satisfacia fa de
cum merg lucrurile n prezent cei din tipul B sunt mai degrab nemulumii, iar cei
din tipul C sunt mai degrab mulumii. mpreun, cele dou tipuri cuprind 18% dintre
cetenii romni, respectiv 17% dintre romi, cu observaia c tipul B (nemulumiii) are
o pondere mai mare n cazul romilor. La cealalt margine a tabloului, tipul D, i
cuprinde pe cei mai optimiti: ei percep o mbuntire a vieii fa de anul precedent,
sunt satisfcui de cum merg lucrurile i sper ntr-o evoluie pozitiv i n anul
urmtor. Dac la nivelul ntregii populaii procentul celor din tipul D este de 12%, n
rndul romilor ponderea acestui tip scade la doar patru procente.
Fa de acum un an viaa este

Mai proast
La fel
Naional
Satisfacia fa de
via
Peste un an viaa
va fi
Mai proast
La fel
Mai bun
Nemulumit
15A
3
3
Mulumit
1
1
1
Nemulumit
9
11B
9
Mai bun
Mulumit
3
7C
6
Fa de acum un an viaa este

Mai proast
La fel
Romi
Satisfacia fa de
via
Mai proast
Peste un an viaa La fel
va fi
Mai bun
Nemulumit
26A
7
7
Mulumit
1
1
1
Nemulumit
12
15B
11
Nemulumit
3
3
5
Mulumit
1
4
12D
Mai bun
Mulumit
0
2C
2
Nemulumit
2
2
6
Mulumit
1
1
4D
Tipul A este compus, pentru ambele eantioane, din oameni cu resurse mai
20
mici, din toate categoriile: au venituri mai mici, sunt mai n vrst, au educaie mai
sczut, sunt mai puin informai, au mai puine relaii utile, sunt mai puin sntoi,
locuiesc mai ales n zone defavorizate economic. De asemenea, ei au ncredere mai
sczut n oameni i n instituii. La cealalt extrem, tipul D, este caracterizat de
indivizi cu resurse mai ridicate (din toate categoriile menionate). Atunci cnd facem
aceste comparaii, termenul de referin este media fiecrui eantion, deci dac vorbim
de romi cu resurse mai multe sau mai puine, referina este media eantionului de romi.
Celelalte tipuri se compun din indivizi aflai pe toate aceste dimensiuni ntre cele dou
extreme. Aceast analiz ne arat c principala diferen ntre percepiile celor dou
categorii nu este n nici un caz una care ine de etnie, ci de srcie, ponderea celor aflai
n situaie de resurse minime este mult mai mare n cazul romilor dect n ansamblul
populaiei.
Principalele nemulumiri, att la nivelul ntregii populaii, ct i n ceea ce
privete romii, sunt cele legate de nivelul veniturilor. Datele BIR sunt confirmate i n
acest caz de cercetrile similare. Astfel, pe o serie de patru dimensiuni sntatea,
banii, familia, prietenii nemulumirea cea mai mare se nregistreaz n cazul ambelor
eantioane n ceea ce privete banii, n timp ce familia i prietenii genereaz mai
degrab motive de mulumire.
Ct de mulumit() suntei de?
Eantion
Viaa dvs.
Sntatea dvs.
Banii pe care i avei
Familia dvs.
Prietenii dvs.
Naional
Romi
Naional
Romi
Naional
Romi
Naional
Romi
Naional
Romi
Mulumii
Nemulumii
35
12
58
55
28
9
88
78
79
63
63
87
42
44
71
90
9
20
17
32

Eticheta Mulumii nsumeaz rspunsurile Foarte mulumit i Destul de
mulumit, iar eticheta Nemulumii nsumeaz rspunsurile Nu prea mulumit i
Deloc mulumit.
n mod evident, resursele materiale reprezint principala surs de insatisfacie.

Percepia subiectiv a propriei bunstri ne ofer o imagine a felului n care se
difereniaz cele dou grupuri int. Dac la nivelul ntregii populaii 30% dintre
respondeni consider c se afl sub pragul de supravieuire (veniturile nu ne ajung
nici pentru strictul necesar), n cazul romilor ponderea crete la 73%. Mai puin de 6%
dintre romii din Romnia declar c veniturile curente se situeaz ntr-o zon cel puin
a traiului decent.
21
Cum apreciai veniturile actuale ale gospodriei dumneavoastr?

Eantion
Naional
Romi
Nu ne ajung nici pentru strictul necesar

Ne ajung numai pentru strictul necesar
Ne ajung pentru un trai decent, dar nu ne permitem
cumprarea unor bunuri mai scumpe
Reuim s cumprm i unele bunuri mai scumpe, dar cu
restrngeri n alte domenii
Reuim s avem tot ce ne trebuie, fr s ne restrngem de
la nimic
29,9
34,5
73,0
14,4
21,0
4,9
5,9
1,0
2,0
0,4

Instituii
O alt caracteristic a societii romneti, confirmat de numeroase cercetri,
este nencrederea n instituii publice. Aa cum ne ateptam, nivelul de nencredere este
mai ridicat n cazul romilor dect n cel al ne-romilor n cazul majoritii instituiilor i
organizaiilor pentru care am msurat acest indicator. Este interesant c romii sunt ceva
mai indulgeni cu Guvernul i Parlamentul, comparat cu restul populaiei. Chiar dac
diferena este sub marja de eroare a sondajelor, cele dou instituii ale autoritii
centrale sunt singurele care se bucur n mai mare msur de ncrederea romilor dect
de cea a populaiei n ansamblu.
Eantion
Uniunea European
Preedinie
Guvern
Parlament
Justiie
Armat
Poliie
Primria localitii
Partide politice
Bnci
Mass-media (televiziune, radio,
pres)
Organizaii neguvernamentale
Biseric
Naional
puin + foarte
puin
mult + foarte
mult
Romi
puin + foarte
puin
mult + foarte
mult
47
53
73
75
64
39
53
47
77
53
44
43
23
20
31
57
44
50
17
39
50
59
71
73
67
50
62
59
75
63
39
36
24
22
28
44
34
38
16
24
42
55
18
53
27
78
49
59
28
43
20
68

n schimb, ncrederea romilor este semnificativ mai sczut dect cea a neromilor n instituiile cu care intr n contact direct i care, teoretic, sunt cele ce
mediaz n primul rnd pentru rezolvarea problemelor acestora. Doar 38% dintre romi
22
spun c au ncredere mult sau foarte mult n Primria localitii n care triesc (spre
deosebire de 50% dintre toi cetenii care au aceeai opinie), 34% au ncredere n
Poliie (fa de 44% la nivel naional) i numai 20% n organizaii non-guvernamentale
(comparat cu 27% n ansamblul populaiei).
n acelai timp, romii apeleaz de trei ori mai des la asistenii sociali de la
Primrie i de dou ori mai mult la sprijinul altor funcionari din Primrie dect neromii. De asemenea, romii interacioneaz mai des cu poliia i cu directorul sau
profesorii colii. Aceste interaciuni sunt n mare msur determinate de dependena
romilor de diverse forme de ajutor social, dar n acelai timp rezultatul lor determin
felul n care respondenii privesc instituiile publice. ncrederea n Primrie, n cazul
romilor, crete la 50% n rndul celor care au apelat la funcionari sau asisteni sociali
din Primrie i au fost mulumii de felul n care li s-a rspuns solicitrilor, dar scade
pn la 22% pentru cei nemulumii.
n ultimul an, dvs. sau cineva din familia dvs. ai avut o problem pentru rezolvarea creia s
cerei ajutorul?
Eantion
asistenilor sociali de la Primrie
altor funcionari din Primrie
poliiei din localitate
profesorilor sau directorului colii
Da
Nu
Da
Nu
Da
Nu
Da
Nu
Naional
13
86
17
81
11
87
9
89
Romi
38
61
33
66
15
83
14
83

Principalul tip de ajutor social primit de romii din Romnia este venitul minim
garantat (am exclus de aici alocaiile pentru copii, de care beneficiaz orice familie care
are copii, indiferent de nivelul de venit). Din ntreaga populaie, ponderea celor care
declar c cineva din familia lor primete VMG (venitul minim garantat) este de 8%. n
rndul romilor procentul crete la 38%. Dintre acetia, 64% spun c n ultima lun au
fcut munc n folosul comunitii pentru a primi banii (fa de doar 42% procentul
similar dintre ne-romii care primesc acelai ajutor social).
Dvs. sau cineva din familia dumneavoastr primii venitul minim
garantat/ajutor social?
Eantion
Naional Romi
Nu
86
61
38
Da
13
Doar pentru cei care primesc VMG
Eantion
Naional Romi
42
64
n ultima lun, ai/a fcut munc n folosul Da
comunitii pentru a primi banii?
Nu
48
31
23

La nivel central, Consiliul Naional pentru Combaterea Discriminrii (CNCD)

este una dintre instituiile care au printre responsabiliti i protejarea drepturilor
romilor (pentru sentimentul de discriminare perceput, a se vedea capitolele
urmtoare). Tot la nivel central, funcioneaz Agenia Naional pentru Romi (ANR),
organism n subordinea Guvernului, al crei obiectiv este tocmai promovarea i
implementarea programelor care s contribuie la mbuntirea situaiei romilor.
Notorietatea acestor dou instituii este foarte sczut att la nivel naional, ct mai ales
n rndul romilor din Romnia.
Numele Ageniei Naionale pentru Romi este cunoscut doar de o cincime dintre
romii din Romnia (fa de 26%, procentul din ntreaga populaie). Dintre cei care au
auzit de ANR (ne referim la eantionul de romi), jumtate au o prere mai degrab bun
despre activitatea acesteia, dar aproape dou treimi consider c ANR ajut doar n
mic sau foarte mic msur la rezolvarea problemelor romilor. Datele ne arat n
primul rnd c Agenia nu a reuit s se fac cunoscut n rndul grupului int ca
generator de strategii i programe, ceea ce este fie rezultatul unei activiti slabe, fie al
unei strategii neinspirate de comunicare. Dintre cei care au auzit de Agenie, jumtate
apreciaz eforturile acesteia, dar procentul ridicat al celor ce cred c rezultatele ajut
doar n mic msur romii arat c ateptrile romilor cu privire la ANR sunt mai
ridicate dect ceea ce ofer instituia n acest moment.
Ai auzit de Agenia Naional pentru Romi (ANR)?
Eantion
Naional
Nu
73
Da
26
Doar pentru cei care au auzit de ANR:
Eantion
Avei o prere mai degrab bun mai degrab bun
sau mai degrab proast despre

mai degrab proast
activitatea ANR?
n ce msur ANR ajut la mare + foarte mare
rezolvarea problemelor romilor
mic + foarte mic
din Romnia?
Romi
80
19
Naional
44
Romi
50
22
48
33
26
30
61
Consiliul Naional pentru Combaterea Discriminrii se bucur de o notorietate

puin mai ridicat n rndul romilor; un sfert dintre acetia declar c instituia le este
cunoscut. Ca i n cazul ANR, Consiliul este mai cunoscut celor care sunt mai
informai (citesc mai des ziare, se uit mai des la televizor), i foarte probabil
notorietatea sa este dat de prezena mediatic mai intens. Numrul celor care au o
opinie bun despre CNCD, n rndul romilor, se apropie de jumtate (46%), ca i al
celor care cred c aciunile Consiliului contribuie la scderea discriminrii n Romnia
(47%). Totui, trebuie subliniat c cei care percep o discriminare a romilor sunt n mai
mare msur nemulumii de activitatea CNCD: n cazul lor, procentul celor care au o
24
opinie mai degrab proast crete pn la 52%, iar al celor care sunt de prere c
activitatea Consiliului ajut doar n mic msur la scderea discriminrii este
Ai auzit de Consiliul Naional pentru Combaterea Discriminrii
(CNCD)?
Eantion
Naional
Nu
75
Da
25
Doar pentru cei care au auzit de CNCD:
Eantion
Avei o prere mai degrab bun mai degrab bun
sau mai degrab proast despre

mai degrab proast
activitatea CNCD?
n ce msur CNCD ajut la mare + foarte mare
scderea
discriminrii
n
mic + foarte mic
Romnia?
Romi
75
25
Naional
68
Romi
46
22
28
33
47
48
41
Percepia existenei unor segmente de ceteni care sunt defavorizai n Romnia

este larg rspndit att la nivel naional, ct i n rndul romilor: 46% dintre ne-romi,
respectiv 43% dintre romi, cred c n Romnia legea nu se aplic la fel pentru toat
lumea, ci exist ceteni defavorizai. Exist ns diferene n ceea ce privete cine sunt
cei defavorizai. Pentru cei mai muli dintre respondeni n ansamblul populaiei (40%),
sracii sunt n primul rnd n aceast postur, i doar 9% plaseaz pe primul loc romii.
n schimb, 60% dintre romii care percep existena unei discriminri cred c mai ales
romii sunt victimele ei. Persoanele care se consider srace, indiferent la care dintre
eantioane facem referire, consider n mai mare msur c sracii sunt cei defavorizai
n faa legii.
n opinia dvs., legile se aplic la fel pentru toat lumea, sau sunt ceteni defavorizai n faa
legii?
Eantion
Naional
Romi
Legea se aplic la fel pentru toat lumea

40
Exist ceteni defavorizai
46
Doar pentru cei care consider c exist ceteni defavorizai
Cine sunt cei defavorizai? (ntrebare deschis)
Eantion
sracii
iganii/romii
btrnii, pensionarii
cei fr relaii
minoritile
ranii/cei din mediul rural
cei fr educaie
Alii
25
Naional
40
9
6
4
6
2
13
43
44
Romi
27
60
2
2
Lideri, partide i opiuni politice

Decizia politic este un element important n procesul de implementare a
politicilor publice, mai ales n chestiuni controversate cum este cea a rezolvrii
problemelor romilor din Romnia. Asumarea unei poziii care favorizeaz sau
defavorizeaz romii reprezint un tip de decizie care, ntr-un calcul politic ct se poate
de pragmatic, poate atrage consecine de natur s mulumeasc sau s neliniteasc
actorii politici. n primul rnd, sprijinirea programelor care vizeaz ridicarea nivelului
de resurse a romilor i incluziunea social reprezint conduita fireasc ntr-o societate
care i-a ales deja ntre valorile fundamentale respectarea drepturilor omului, libertatea
sau egalitatea. n acelai timp, pe fondul unei atitudini de respingere a romilor din
partea unui segment de electorat minoritar, dar relativ activ politic, msurile sau numai
atitudinea discriminatorie la adresa romilor pot s conduc la sporirea capitalului
electoral. Similar, preluarea unor stereotipuri larg rspndite i exprimarea lor ntr-un
discurs populist poate aduce beneficii de natur electoral. Nu n ultimul rnd, actorii
politici trebuie s in cont de faptul c romii reprezint un public electoral important,
chiar dac nu au disciplina de vot a electoratului maghiar (pentru a da un exemplu din
aceeai zon). Totui, n mai multe ocazii n ultimii 17 ani s-a putut observa c
politicienii romni sunt dispui s eludeze valorile de referin pentru un ctig
electoral.
n acelai timp, pentru a se ajunge la o decizie politic favorabil programelor
care vizeaz mbuntirea situaiei romilor, este necesar ca n dezbaterea ce precede
decizia, fie c ea este public sau are loc la nivelul autoritilor, s existe lideri care s
sprijine programele propuse. Vorbim n Romnia de lideri romi i de partide ale
romilor, dar este evident c acetia nu au fora i anvergura colegilor lor maghiari
pentru a rmne n limitele exemplului menionat mai sus.
Toate aceste aspecte fac interesant i necesar includerea, ntr-o cercetare cu i
despre romii din Romnia, a unei radiografii a percepiilor populaiei, indiferent dac
este vorba de romi sau ne-romi, cu privire la partidele i liderii politici ce sprijin n
acest moment romii din Romnia. Pentru msurarea opiunilor electorale am folosit
ntrebri deschise, neasistate, adic respondenii nu au avut la dispoziie o list de
rspunsuri, ci au indicat spontan partidul sau personalitatea politic preferat, la cererea
operatorului.
Urmrind opiunile electorale ale romilor n ceea ce privete partidele politice,
se observ n primul rnd c Aliana DA i partidele componente nu reuesc s i
atrag acest electorat. Dac n ansamblul populaiei ceea ce am numit polul DA se
situeaz n majoritatea cercetrilor la un procent de 45-50% dintre cei care au o opinie
format, doar 19% dintre romi indic spontan fie Aliana, fie PD sau PNL. De
asemenea, PRM nu se bucur de simpatia acestui grup electoral, cu o cot de doar 6%.
Principalele dou partide care ctig aceste voturi sunt Partida Romilor i PNG. Nu
este o surpriz faptul c Partida Romilor (PR) se bucur de aprecierile celor pe care i
reprezint; PR este principalul vehicul politic, din punct de vedere al susinerii
electorale, care se adreseaz exclusiv reprezentanilor acestei etnii. Ceva mai
26
surprinztoare este cota Partidului Noua Generaie, practic de trei ori mai popular n
rndul romilor dect n ansamblul populaiei.
Dac duminic ar fi alegeri parlamentare cu ce partid sau alian

politic ai vota?
Eantion: Romi
Aliana DA
3
PD
9
PNL
7
PSD
23
PNG
20
PRM
6
UDMR
2
Partida Romilor
28
Altele
2
Cifrele reprezint procente din cei care au o opiune de vot.
A fost folosit o ntrebare deschis, neasistat.
Distribuia celor care nu voteaz este urmtoarea:
nu votez
12
nu m-am hotrt
29
nu rspund
15
Procente din total eantion
Totui, marea majoritatea a respondenilor nu reuesc s indice cu exactitate un

partid care s reprezinte interesele romilor. Cei care au o opinie n acest sens indic n
primul rnd Partida Romilor (9,8% dintre toi cetenii i 15,1% dintre romi) i PSD
(8,8%, respectiv 7,7%).
Dintre toate partidele politice, care credei c reprezint cel mai bine
interesele romilor?
Eantion
Naional Romi
Partida Romilor Social-Democrat
9,8
15,1
PSD
8,8
7,7
PNG
1,0
4,1
PNL
2,0
1,9
PD
1,0
1,1
PRM
2,9
0,9
Aliana Civica a Romilor
0,2
Altul
2,0
1,7
Nici unul
2,0
3,4
Nu tiu/Nu m-am hotrt/NR
70,6
63,9
27

Organizaiile politice ale romilor au n continuare probleme de notorietate chiar

n rndul propriului public. Chiar Partida Romilor, cel mai vechi i mai cunoscut partid
al romilor, este necunoscut de 30% dintre respondenii de etnie rom. Alte formaiuni,
precum Aliana Civic a Romilor, Aliana pentru Unitatea Romilor sau Centrul Cretin
al Romilor (acestea nu sunt n mod obligatoriu partide politice, dar sunt organizaii cu
reprezentare la nivel naional i care susin inclusiv obiective politice ale romilor) sunt
i mai puin cunoscute de ctre publicul lor int, aa cum arat graficul de mai jos.
Foarte puin/Deloc
Puin
Partida Romilor
18
19
Aliana Civic a
Romilor
16
19
Mult
Foarte mult
19
Nu cunosc
30
11
42
44
Aliana pentru
Unitatea Romilor
15
17
11
Centrul Cretin al
Romilor
13
17
11
57
Ct ncredere avei dvs. n ?

Eantion: romi.
Cifrele reprezint procente. Diferenele pn la 100% sunt non-rspunsuri
Dincolo de problema de notorietate, dar legat de aceasta, este i una de lips a

ncrederii. n cazul tuturor organizaiilor pentru care am msurat acest indicator
numrul celor care au puin sau foarte puin ncredere n ele este mai mic dect al
celor care au o poziie mai degrab pozitiv. Sursele acestor opiuni pot fi pe de o parte
fondul general de nencredere n instituii i organizaii, iar pe de alt parte n
rezultatele organizaiilor n cauz, rezultate care fie nu sunt cunoscute, fie sunt sub
ateptrile beneficiarilor direci, romii.
n acelai set de ntrebri am rugat respondenii s ne indice trei dintre lideri
romi pe care i consider reprezentativi la nivel naional. Rspunsurile primite ne arat
c Mdlin Voicu, Nicolae Pun i Regele Cioab (n aceast ordine) sunt nu numai cei
mai populari, dar i singurii cu o notorietate ceva mai ridicat. Multe alte persoane au
fost indicate de un numr mic de respondeni; ntre ei, cel mai des apar mpratul Iulian
i primarul sectorului 5 al Capitalei, Marian Vanghelie. Alte nume care apar ceva mai
28
des (cel puin 0,1% la prima sau a doua opiune) sunt: Bumbu Viorel, Gheorghe Ioan,
Madalin Voicu
Nicolae Paun
Regele Cioaba
4,0
10,9
3,6
8,1
1,3
6,6
12,0
1,4
1,9
Imparatul Iulian 1,2 1,8

Marian Vanghelie
Altcineva
7,0
Prima opiune
7,3
5,9
A doua opiune
A treia opiune
Putei s mi spunei numele a trei lideri romi cunoscui n ar?

Eantion: romi.
Cifrele reprezint procente. Diferenele pn la 100% sunt non-rspunsuri
Roianu, Gotu Viorica, Gigi Becali, Tatian, Bitu Nicoleta, Bobu Ioan, Negrea Doduta,
Bulibaa, Punescu, Gheorghe Rducanu, Nicolae Gu, Ilie Dinc, Gheorghe Ivan,
Nicolae Gheorghe, Leo din Strehaia, Ion Neveanu.
Pentru ne-romi este mai dificil s indice un lider rom. Procentul celor care nu
indic nici mcar un nume este de 70%, sunt 77% cei care nu tiu s numeasc o a doua
persoan i 89% este ponderea celor ce nu pot s se refere la un al treilea lider. Numele
care apar cel mai des sunt Mdlin Voicu (18% n total, toate opiunile) i Regele
Cioab (10%).
Extinznd paleta de opiuni la liderii politici indiferent de etnie, am ncercat s
aflm care sunt personalitile politice percepute de romi ca fiind cele ce i ajut cel mai
mult pe romii din Romnia. Din nou, pentru ambele categorii de respondeni a fost
dificil s numeasc o astfel de persoan i cele mai multe rspunsuri se plaseaz n zona
nu tiu, nu m-am hotrt, nu rspund. Pentru ne-romii care au o opinie, numele lui
Mdlin Voicu apare cel mai frecvent (8,8% din total eantion). n schimb, romii l
plaseaz pe primul loc pe George Becali (13,1%). Numele acestuia este menionat mai
ales de ctre persoanele foarte srace, i de aceea cel mai probabil popularitatea
liderului PNG se datoreaz donaiilor sale i nu unor raiuni de natur etnic. Liderul
Partidei Romilor, Nicolae Pun, este al doilea ca frecven a menionrilor (5,2%).
Care credei c este personalitatea politic ce i ajut cel
mai mult pe romii din Romnia?
Eantion
Naional Romi
George Becali
2,0
13,1
Nicolae Pun
1,0
5,2
29
Mdlin Voicu
Traian Bsescu
Regele Cioab
Adrian Nstase
Ion Iliescu
Corneliu Vadim Tudor
Altul
nici unul
Nu tiu/Nu m-am hotrt/NR
8,8
2,0
2,0
2,0
2,9
1,0
1,0
77,5
2,8
1,9
1,7
1,5
1,5
0,7
1,1
6,0
64,4

Observaiile de mai sus explic n bun msur i ierarhia preferinelor romilor

n eventualitatea organizrii alegerilor prezideniale. Doar 49% dintre romi au o opinie
deja format i Gigi Becali se afl pe primul loc n preferinele acestora, cu 35%,
depindu-l cu puin pe preedintele n exerciiu Traian Bsescu (32%). Acest lucru se
ntmpl ntr-un context politic n care (la momentul culegerii datelor) Traian Bsescu
se bucura de sprijinul a mai mult de jumtate dintre cetenii romni cu drept de vot i o
opinie clar. Un numr relativ mare de ceteni de etnie rom indic spontan la
ntrebarea deschis politicieni precum Adrian Nstase (7%) sau Ion Iliescu (7%), dar
cele mai multe dintre ele vin de la persoane foarte puin informate, srace i care
locuiesc n comuniti rurale.
Dac duminica viitoare ar avea loc alegeri pentru
Preedintele rii, dvs. pe cine ai vota?
Eantion: Romi
35
Gigi Becali
32
Traian Bsescu
8
7
Adrian Nstase
7
Ion Iliescu
3
Mircea Geoan
2
Theodor Stolojan
6
Alii
Cifrele reprezint procente din cei care au o opiune de vot.
Distribuia celor care nu voteaz este urmtoarea:
nu votez
11
nu m-am hotrt
25
nu rspund
15
Procente din total eantion
30
Condiii de locuit i probleme financiare la populaia de romi

Vlad Grigora
Starea material precar a romilor reprezint unul dintre subiectele cele mai
mediatizate n sfera srciei, fiind prezentat cu obstinaie de diferii actori din spaiul
public de la ziarele care construiesc cu rapiditate anchete sociale ce prezint familii
de romi cu muli copii trind n locuine pe jumtate drmate pn la ONG-urile care
militeaz pentru soluionarea problemelor acestei etnii. Capitolul de fa i propune s
analizeze cu date consistente la nivel naional n ce msur problemele financiare cu
care se confrunt romii sunt n mod real mai severe dect cele ale indivizilor aparinnd
altor etnii 2. Dificultile materiale pot lua diferite forme, cel mai adesea intercorelate,
de la cele strict monetare (lipsa veniturilor necesare subzistenei), pn la diverse
probleme de locuire (ce pot fi explicate cel puin parial printr-o lips cronic a
resurselor financiare) calitatea slab a locuinei, lipsa accesului la utiliti sau
caracteristicile zonei de reziden.
Trebuie ns subliniat c, dei pe tot parcursul capitolului vom compara
persoanele de etnie rom cu indivizii celorlalte etnii folosind unii indicatori ai
bunstrii, diferenele posibilele nu pot fi imputate automat apartenenei etnice n sine,
existnd ali factori explicativi pentru situaia descris i.e. nu etnia indivizilor
genereaz supraaglomerare, ci este posibil ca lipsa resurselor s i constrng pe
indivizi s adopte ca strategie de reducere a costurilor locuirea mpreun a mai multor
membri ai familiei.
n ce zone triesc romii?

Datele ne arat c romii sunt n general mai puin satisfcui de localitatea, zona
i locuina n care triesc comparativ cu ceilali indivizi. Dac atunci cnd i evalueaz
localitatea romii tind s aib fie o atitudine de mijloc (fiind nici mulumii, nici
nemulumii), fie chiar una de mulumire (dei ntr-o msur mai sczut dect ceilali
respondeni), pe msur ce coboar la situaia lor concret, evalundu-i mai nti
zona i apoi locuina, gradul de nemulumire se amplific, crescnd totodat i diferena
dintre procentul romilor nesatisfcui i cel al celorlali indivizi n aceast stare (Tabel
6).
2
Cele dou grupuri care vor fi comparate n acest capitol sunt: a) pe de o parte romii din
eantionul la nivel naional i din eantionul de romi (cei care s-au declarat romi sau igani) i b) toi
indivizii cu excepia romilor din ancheta la nivel naional.
31
Rspunsurile la ntrebrile de satisfacie nu ofer ns o radiografie suficient a

condiiilor de via ale intervievailor, ntruct imaginea este distorsionat de nivelul
ateptrilor acestora (la acelai nivel de satisfacie condiiile de via ar putea fi mult
mai precare pentru romi dect pentru ali indivizi dac ateptrile primului grup ar fi
mai sczute). De aceea este necesar o analiz care s vizeze poziia comunitilor n
care respondenii triesc, prezena i calitatea serviciilor din interiorul acestora, dar i
accesul la servicii din afara zonelor de locuit.
Datele la nivel naional ne indic o puternic asociere a calitii locuirii cu
mediul rezidenial i cu poziionarea casei n cadrul localitii. Situarea ntr-un mediu
rezidenial sau n altul este un predictor puternic al accesului la servicii ntruct n
mediul rural calitatea acestora este mai sczut, sistemele de utiliti sunt puin
rspndite, drumurile sunt mai proaste etc. (Tabel 7). n plus, poziia zonei, chiar n
interiorul aceluiai tip de localitate, constituie sursa unor diferene, existnd o asociere
semnificativ ntre situarea comunitii din care face parte individul (central, de
mijloc, periferic) i accesul la servicii (Tabel 8).
Ponderea indivizilor de etnie rom n rural este mai mare dect cea a membrilor
celorlalte etnii - 60% versus 40%. n plus, cei dinti triesc ntr-o msur mai mare n
zonele periferice ale localitilor 68% dintre romi, n comparaie cu doar 46% dintre
membrii altor etnii ce afirm c locuiesc n astfel de zone. Este interesant de observat
c situarea romilor ntr-o zon sau alta depinde de mediul de reziden cei din mediul
rural triesc n zonele centrale ntr-o msur mai mic dect cei din mediul urban. Acest
lucru poate fi explicat de faptul c o bun parte a locuinelor locuite de indivizii de
etnie rom n centrele oraelor sunt locuine vechi (anul mediu al construciei lor este
1886) nchiriate de la stat. Faptul c romii au o pondere mai ridicat n mediul rural i
c tind s locuiasc mai degrab n comunitile ndeprtate accentueaz ideea c
acetia au acces limitat la servicii i mult mai slab calitativ comparativ cu ceilali
indivizi.
Starea drumurilor, ce reprezint un factor important al accesului fizic la
serviciile din afara comunitii, este declarat ca fiind proast ntr-o msur mult mai
mare de indivizii de etnie rom comparativ cu ceilali indivizi 63% dintre romi
apreciaz starea ca fiind proast sau foarte proast (la acetia se mai adaug 1% care
afirm c n zon nu exist drumuri deloc) fa de doar 42% dintre indivizii de alte
etnii. Aprecierea calitii drumurilor este susinut de datele obiective 72% dintre
romi au drumuri de pmnt n faa caselor, pe cnd doar 48% dintre indivizii de alt
etnie au astfel de drumuri. Semnificativ este faptul c pentru aceleai tipuri de zone,
condiiile de acces n comunitate sunt mai proaste pentru persoanele de etnie rom
comparativ cu cele pentru alte persoane. Aceast diferen se pstreaz chiar i atunci
cnd comparm indivizii din acelai mediu de reziden i care locuiesc n aceleai
tipuri de comuniti n interiorul localitilor (Tabel 9).
Efectele strii proaste a drumurilor pot fi agravate prin dou elemente
insuficiena mijloacelor de transport i calitatea slab a serviciilor din interiorul
comunitii. Procentul romilor care au declarat c transportul n comun lipsete sau c
funcioneaz n condiii proaste n zonele n care triesc este mult mai mare (50%)
dect n cazul celorlali indivizi (31%). Chiar dac diferena se poate justifica printr-o
pondere diferit a celor ce locuiesc n mediul rural, observm c deosebirile dintre etnii
se pstreaz i n interiorul acelorai tipuri de localiti (Tabel 9). n plus, nu numai c
32
accesul ctre alte zone (i implicit ctre serviciile pe care acestea le pot oferi) este mai
prost pentru romi dect pentru ceilali indivizi, dar n comunitile n care triesc romii
lipsesc magazinele, colile sau grdiniele ntr-o msur mai ridicat fa de celelalte
zone.
Condiii de locuit i acces la utiliti

Diferenele dintre romi i celelalte etnii se adncesc atunci cnd analizm
situaia locuinelor, lund n considerare indicatori precum accesul la utiliti,
materialul de construcie a locuinelor i situaia legal a romilor.
n ceea ce privete racordarea la ap, gaze sau canalizare, n mediul rural
diferenele dintre cele dou grupuri, dei reale, nu sunt puternice, ntruct toate
locuinele (indiferent de caracteristicile gospodriilor) tind s nu aib acces n general.
n mediul urban, ns, diferenele sunt mult mai vizibile de la 70% gospodrii
neracordate n cazul romilor la 20% sau chiar 10% n cazul altor indivizi. Pe lng
aceste deficiene, se mai adaug lipsa electricitii i nclzirea cu deeuri sau chiar
nenclzirea locuinei, aspecte relevante pentru situaia prezent a romilor i alarmante
chiar dac au o amploare mai sczut circa 13% dintre romi nu au electricitate, un
procent destul de ridicat n comparaie cu 2% pentru celelalte etnii. Este semnificativ la
acest capitol faptul c 80% dintre gospodriile romilor fr electricitate nu au datorii la
curent (procentul este egal cu cel al romilor care au electricitate i au astfel de datorii),
ceea ce pune sub semnul ntrebrii ideea oarecum generalizat cum c locuinele
indivizilor de etnie rom nu au curent electric pe motiv de neplat a facturilor. Este
posibil fie ca indivizii s nu aib resursele financiare pentru a se racorda, fie s nu
existe reea de curent n general n zon.
nclzirea cu deeuri sau chiar nenclzirea locuinelor caracterizeaz circa 12%
dintre locuinele romilor.
Tabel 1 Acces la utiliti n funcie de etnie i de mediu, (%)
Locuine...
neracordate la gaze naturale
fr canalizare
fr ap curent n cas
fr electricitate
nclzite cu deeuri sau nenclzite
Romi
95
95
95
14
10
Rural
Alte etnii
89
87
84
3
1
Romi
75
72
73
12
14
Urban
Alte etnii
21
15
10
1
2
Romi
87
86
86
13
12
Total
Alte etnii
53
49
44
2
2
Calitatea locuinelor reprezint un alt factor relevant al locuirii. Datele ne arat

c n mediul urban un numr mult mai ridicat de romi locuiesc la cas comparativ cu
respondenii de alte etnii. Asta face ca procentul locuinelor din materiale rezistente
(piatr, crmid, BCA etc.) s fie mult mai sczut pentru romi 55% dintre romii din
mediul urban triesc n astfel de locuine comparativ cu 90% dintre ceilali indivizi. n
ceea ce privete locuirea la bloc observm c mai mult de jumtate dintre romi triesc
n blocuri confort III/IV sau n foste cmine de nefamiliti. n mediul rural, diferenele
dintre persoanele rome i cele ne-rome nu provin din tipul locuinei ntruct aproape
toi indivizii triesc n case, ci se datoreaz materialelor de construcie casele romilor
33
fiind fcute ntr-o proporie mai ridicat din materiale slabe comparativ cu celelalte
locuine.
n plus, ngrijortoare este locuirea n imobile prsite sau improvizate n
mediul rural 3% dintre gospodriile de romi triesc n locuine prsite sau n locuine
improvizate, iar n mediul urban procentul acestora ajunge la 8% (n cazul altor etnii,
chiar dac exist probabil astfel de locuine, numrul lor nu este relevant statistic).
Tabel 2 Tipul locuinei, dup etnie i mediu rezidenial, (%)

rural
urban
Romi Alte etnii Romi Alte etnii
cas
96
95
79
43
ntr-un bloc de confort I sau II
1
4
6
53
ntr-un bloc confort III, IV sau fost cmin de nefamiliti
0
0
7
4
n locuine prsite
1
0
3
0
ntr-o locuin improvizat
2
0
5
0
Total
100
100
100
100
Total N
864
550
553
635
Supraaglomerarea este o alt problem cu care romii se confrunt ntr-o msur

mai ridicat dect ceilali indivizi, numrul mediu de persoane pe camer n cazul lor
fiind mai mult dect dublu fa de numrul mediu de indivizi din gospodriile ne-rome.
Totodat, densitatea spaial (metri ptrai pe persoan) este diferit n cazul celor 2
grupuri (8 mp/persoan n gospodriile de romi vs. 19,5 mp/persoan). Lipsa de spaiu
asociat cu ali factori precum ncercarea de a reduce costurile de nclzire determin
circa 70% dintre gospodriile de romi care au buctrii s le foloseasc i pentru a
dormi n ele (faptul c 11% dintre gospodriile romilor nu au buctrii n comparaie cu
doar 2% n cazul altor etnii face ca supraaglomerarea s fie chiar mai pronunat n
cazul lor dect o arat datele mai sus prezentate).
Tabel 3 Supraaglomerarea gospodriilor n funcie de etnie.
Gospodria medie
Numrul mediu de camere ntr-o locuin, fr dependine
Suprafaa medie a locuinelor
Numrul mediu de persoane pe camer
Suprafaa medie pe persoan
Suprafaa median pe persoan
% gospodriilor care folosesc buctria ca i camer de locuit
Romi
5.7
2.5
52
2.7
13
8
23
Alte etnii
3.5
3.1
71
1.3
25.6
19.5
69,4 3
ns poate cea mai grav problem o reprezint lipsa siguranei locuirii doar
3
Dintre gospodriile care au buctrie, deoarece 11% dintre gospodriile romilor nu au buctrie.
34
66% dintre romi au afirmat c triesc avnd un contract pentru locuine comparativ cu
82% n cazul indivizilor aparinnd altor etnii. Mai mult dect att, dintre romii care au
contracte circa 9% locuiesc cu chirie (majoritatea lor la stat), pe cnd doar 1% dintre
ne-romii cu contract intervievai se afl n aceast situaie. Ambele elemente fac ca doar
58% dintre romi s aib sigurana unui contract de proprietate pentru locuine (locuina
fiind legal fie a lor/partenerilor lor, fie a prinilor) fa de 81% n cazul indivizilor de
alte etnii.
Srcie monetar i deprivare material

Absena bunurilor de lung durat din gospodrie reprezint un element
definitoriu al excluziunii indivizilor, n condiiile n care unele dintre bunuri sunt
considerate de strict necesitate n societatea modern. Pentru ca analiza s devin
consistent, vom considera c deprivarea este cu att mai puternic cu ct un anumit
bun este mai rspndit n societate i cu ct discrepana dintre grupurile comparate este
mai ridicat. Din acest punct de vedere, observm c frigiderul lipsete ntr-o proporie
covritor mai mare n cazul romilor dect n cel al ne-romilor 37% dintre romi
dispun de un astfel de bun, comparativ cu 88% n cazul celorlalte etnii. Televizorul
color este de asemenea un bun care apare mai rar la romi fa de celelalte etnii. i n
cazul telefonului (indiferent de tip mobil sau fix) diferena dintre romi i alte etnii este
de peste 40% - dac doar 32% dintre romi au acces la telefon, peste 73% dintre
membrii altor etnii utilizeaz un astfel de serviciu (n mediul rural diferenele sunt mai
mici probabil i din motive obiective lipsa de acoperire a reelei de telefonie,
dificultile de instalare a posturilor telefonice) etc. Discrepanele se menin i atunci
cnd comparm situaia bunurilor secundare autoturism, main automat, calculator
etc.
Diferenele ntre procentele de mai sus sunt probabil consecina deosebirilor
dintre veniturile pe termen lung ale celor dou grupuri absena bunurilor fiind astfel
rezultatul unei stri de srcie persistente. n acest sens, devine semnificativ analiza
veniturilor din prezent, a datoriilor pe care respondenii le au, precum i a fezabilitii
plii lor ntr-un timp rezonabil.
Aa cum era de ateptat, datele referitoare la veniturile respondenilor ne indic
existena unor diferene semnificative ntre indivizii de etnie rom i indivizii de alte
etnii - dac n luna octombrie venitul mediu al unui rom a fost de 1,5 milioane, pentru
celelalte persoane venitul mediu a fost de circa 3,7 milioane 4 . Diferena n valoare
absolut este mai mic n mediul rural unde veniturile sunt n general mai reduse (dei
romii au venituri la jumtate fa de celelalte etnii), pe cnd n mediul urban distana
dintre veniturile romilor i cele ale altor indivizi este cu mai mult de 2,5 milioane mai
ridicat. Includerea n analiz a veniturilor celorlalte persoane din gospodrii nu
schimb sensul rezultatelor de mai sus ntruct se pstreaz amploarea diferenelor
dintre grupuri.
Pentru analiza veniturilor pe persoan am eliminat 12 cazuri extreme de peste 20 de milioane.
35
Tabel 4 Veniturile respondenilor n luna octombrie, dup etnie i mediu rezidenial
Venitul mediu al R n luna octombrie

Venitul median al R n luna octombrie
% R care n luna octombrie nu au avut nici un venit
Venitul mediu pe membru al gosp. n luna octombrie
Venitul median pe membru al gosp. n luna octombrie
% gosp. care n luna octombrie nu au avut nici un venit
Rural
romi alt etnie
1.3
2.8
0.5
2.1
46
23
0.9
2.3
0.4
1.6
10.7
2.2
Urban
romi alt etnie
1.9
4.5
1
3.8
38
14
1.3
3.9
0.6
3.0
10.3
0.2
romi
1.5
0.8
43
1.0
0.5
10.6
Total
alt etnie
3.7
3
19
3.1
2.3
1.2
n plus fa de veniturile sczute, este important de menionat faptul c o mare

parte a romilor nu au avut nici o surs de venit n luna anterioar anchetei 43% dintre
romi au declarat c nu au obinut nici un venit n ultima lun, n comparaie cu doar
19% dintre ceilali indivizi. Ne ateptm ns ca analiza veniturilor la nivel de
gospodrie s anuleze aceste diferene ntruct s-ar putea aduga venituri ale altor
indivizi ce lucreaz, ajutorul de omaj, pensii ale persoanelor n vrst, alocaii ale
copiilor etc. Datele la nivel de gospodrie ne arat nsa c dac n cazul respondenilor
de alte etnii procentul gospodriilor fr nici un fel de venit n luna octombrie se
apropie de 0 (1,2%), n cazul romilor acest procent este nc destul de ridicat 10%
dintre gospodrii neavnd nici o surs de venit. Alarmant este i faptul c aceast
situaie poate avea urmri asupra bunstrii copiilor peste 11% dintre copiii romi
triesc n locuine n care nici o persoan nu are nici un venit, fa de doar 2% dintre
ceilali copii.
Mai mult dect att, dac lum n considerare i bunurile obinute n propria
gospodrie sau primite de la alte persoane, diferenele dintre veniturile reale n funcie
de etnia indivizilor sunt i mai ridicate nu numai c romii au venituri monetare mai
mici, dar nici nu au obinut resurse din autoconsum mcar la fel de consistente n
comparaie cu celelalte etnii. Diferena se datoreaz n principal situaiei indivizilor din
mediul rural, deoarece n mediul urban diferenele de autoconsum nu sunt foarte
ridicate: 84% dintre romi nu au consumat nimic din bunuri produse n gospodria
proprie sau primite de la rude, prieteni, n comparaie cu indivizii de alte etnii care nu
au consumat n proporie de 81%. n mediul rural diferena se adncete ns doar
35% dintre indivizii celorlalte etnii nu au nregistrat deloc autoconsum n comparaie cu
80% dintre romii care s-au aflat n aceast situaie. Aceast situaie se poate explica, cel
puin parial, prin diferena ntre terenurile agricole deinute dac gospodriile ai cror
respondeni au fost de etnie rom au n medie doar 0,2 hectare, celelalte gospodrii au
n medie circa 2 ha.
Lipsa veniturilor pe termen mediu i poate constrnge pe indivizi s aib datorii
care, acumulndu-se, pot duce la situaii dramatice de la renunarea la unele servicii
de baz, electricitate, ap, cldur, pn la abandonarea locuinelor n care triesc n
prezent i gsirea altor strategii mai puin costisitoare chiar dac mult mai slabe
calitativ. Datele ne arat c procentul romilor cu datorii este cu aproape 20% mai mare
dect cel al celorlali indivizi (38%, n comparaie cu 20%). Observm c procentul
romilor cu datorii la ntreinere este la fel de ridicat ca i n cazul celorlalte etnii i c n
cazul datoriilor la banc situaia este aceeai probabil absena veniturilor legale le
limiteaz romilor accesul la acest serviciu. Metoda alternativ n cazul lor este
mprumutul de la rude i prieteni (19% dintre romi au fcut astfel de mprumuturi
36
informale) sau chiar de la cmtari. Este interesant de observat c un procent ridicat

dintre cei care au datorii este dat de indivizii care au datorii la facturile de energie
electric.
Tabel 5 Datorii la diferite utiliti, n funcie de etnia respondenilor
Datorii
Orice
ntreinere
Chirie
Electricitate
Rude, prieteni
Cmtari
Banc
% total indivizi
Romi Alte etnii
38
20
7
7
3
1
16
7
19
6
2
0
7
8
% din cei cu datorii

Romi
Alte etnii
20
8
42
53
5
19
37
4
37
31
1
43
Media datoriilor pt. cei cu datorii

Romi
Alte etnii
5.53
6.06
0.27
0.47
0.17
0.11
0.42
0.23
2.50
0.43
0.17
0.05
2.80
4.66
Chiar dac analizndu-i pe indivizii cu datorii observm c media sumelor

mprumutate de ctre romi este mai mic dect cea n cazul altor etnii, aceste valori nu
sunt concludente dect dac le comparm i cu veniturile de care dispun respondenii.
Dac n cazul romnilor raportul dintre datorii i veniturile dintr-o lun (n cazul nostru
octombrie) este n medie subunitar, n cazul romilor raportul este supraunitar 0,7 fa
de 1,76. Pentru jumtate dintre romii cu datorii valoarea datoriilor este 0,4 din venituri,
pe cnd pentru jumtate dintre indivizii de alte etnii valoarea datoriilor este de doar 0,2
din aceste venituri.
Concluzii
Datele prezentate au artat ca indivizii de etnie rom triesc ntr-o msur mai
mare n zone periferice i n localiti din mediul rural fa de ceilali indivizi, ceea ce
face ca accesul la servicii s fie semnificativ mai sczut. Indicatorii de acces la servicii
precum starea drumurilor din zon, existena unor mijloace de transport ctre alte zone,
precum i prezena i calitatea serviciilor din zonele n care indivizii triesc au valori
semnificativ mai mici pentru romi n comparaie cu cele pentru persoanele de alte etnii
(diferenele se pstreaz i atunci cnd controlm cu mediul sau poziia comunitii).
n plus, locuinele romilor sunt construite din materiale de calitate mai slab, nu
au acces la utilitile de baz (canalizare, gaz, ap, electricitate) ntr-o proporie
covritoare i sunt supraaglomerate (numrul de persoane pe camer este dublu n
cazul lor fa de locuinele altor etnii). O treime dintre indivizii de etnie rom triesc n
absena unui contract de proprietate sau de nchiriere (8% dintre respondenii romi din
mediul urban i 3% dintre cei din mediul rural triesc chiar n locuine improvizate sau
prsite).
Starea proast a locuirii este dublat de probleme financiare prezente
veniturile romilor sunt foarte sczute, de foarte multe ori chiar lipsesc n totalitate
(aproape jumtate dintre romi nu au avut nici o surs de venit n luna trecut i o
zecime dintre gospodrii nu au obinut nici un venit). Acest lucru justific faptul c
aproape 40% dintre gospodriile de romi au datorii (procentul este la jumtate n cazul
37
gospodriilor formate din indivizi de alte etnii) i pentru cele mai multe dintre familii
valoarea mprumuturilor este mai mare dect veniturile totale acumulate ntr-o lun.
38
Anex
Tabel 6 Msura n care indivizii sunt mulumii de localitatea, zona, locuina n care triesc, dup
etnia indivizilor, (%)
n
general,
ct
de
mulumit suntei de...
Localitatea n care locuii Romi
Alte etnii
Zona, cartierul n care Romi
locuii
Alte etnii
Locuina dumneavoastr Romi
Alte etnii
Foarte
mulumit
11
16
10
17
11
25
Mulumit
38
50
33
51
32
54
Nici mulumit, nici

nemulumit
34
24
31
22
24
15
Nemulumit
13
8
18
8
21
5
Foarte
nemulumit
4
3
8
3
12
1
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
Tabel 7 Calitatea serviciilor n funcie de mediul de reziden al indivizilor, (%)
Starea drumurilor
Transportul n comun
Magazine i piee pentru cumprturi zilnice
coli
Grdinie i cree
Locuri de joac pentru copii
rural
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
39
Foarte bun, bun
Satisfctoare
24
38
33
54
47
68
56
71
52
68
25
44
22
30
22
28
35
23
28
22
27
22
22
25
Foarte proast,
proast, lipsete
54
32
45
18
18
9
16
7
21
10
53
31
Tabel 8 Calitatea serviciilor n funcie de mediul de reziden i poziia zonei n localitate, (%)
rural
rural
rural
urban
urban
urban
rural
rural
rural
urban
urban
urban
rural
rural
rural
urban
urban
urban
rural
rural
rural
urban
urban
urban
n zona central
n zona de mijloc
n zona periferic
n zona central
n zona de mijloc
n zona periferic
n zona central
Transportul n comun
n zona de mijloc
n zona periferic
n zona central
n zona de mijloc
n zona periferic
Magazine
i
piee n zona central
pentru
cumprturi n zona de mijloc
zilnice
n zona periferic
n zona central
n zona de mijloc
n zona periferic
n zona central
coli
n zona de mijloc
n zona periferic
n zona central
n zona de mijloc
n zona periferic
Starea drumurilor
Foarte bun,
bun
50
25
15
43
37
38
46
37
25
57
54
52
57
50
43
75
69
66
77
56
49
80
72
67
Satisfctoare
20
30
18
20
33
31
14
20
26
22
31
28
29
32
39
17
22
25
15
25
34
12
26
23
Foarte proast,
proast, lipsete
30
45
67
37
30
31
41
43
48
20
15
20
14
18
18
8
9
10
8
19
17
7
2
10
Tabel 9 Starea drumurilor, funcie de tipul zonei, mediu rezidenial i etnie, (%)
n zona central
n zona de mijloc
n zona periferic
Romi
39
14
47
100
49
30
16
55
100
172
8
16
76
100
598
Starea drumurilor
Foarte bun/bun
Satisfctoare
Proast/f. proast/lipsete
Total
Total N
Foarte bun/bun
Satisfctoare
Total
Total N
Foarte bun/bun
Satisfctoare
Total
Total N
40
Rural
Alt etnie
50
20
30
100
80
25
29
45
100
187
16
17
67
100
261
Urban
Romi
Alt etnie
40
43
14
21
46
36
100
100
70
97
45
36
25
33
30
30
100
100
87
211
18
39
20
30
62
31
100
100
363
287
Tabel 10 Cum apreciai situaia zonei n care locuii n ceea ce privete urmtoarele aspecte...
Starea drumurilor
rural
urban
Total
Transportul n comun
rural
urban
Total
Iluminarea stradal
rural
urban
Total
Magazine i piee
cumprturi zilnice
pentru rural
urban
Total
coli
rural
urban
Total
Grdinie i cree
rural
urban
Total
Locuri de joac pentru copii
rural
urban
Total
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
romi
alt etnie
F.
Satisfctoare
bun/bun
15
16
25
21
26
20
39
29
19
18
32
26
23
22
33
22
30
26
54
28
26
24
44
25
20
20
40
26
35
19
60
27
26
19
50
27
47
29
48
35
47
28
69
22
47
28
59
28
58
22
56
28
49
28
71
22
55
24
64
25
51
23
52
27
46
27
69
22
49
24
61
24
16
14
25
21
23
21
45
25
18
17
35
23
41
Proast/f.
proast
68
53
54
32
63
42
28
24
28
14
28
19
46
21
43
12
45
16
19
15
21
8
20
11
18
14
19
6
19
10
19
17
23
9
21
13
30
20
29
21
30
20
Lipsete Total
1
1
0
0
1
0
27
21
16
4
22
12
14
14
3
1
10
7
5
2
4
1
5
2
2
2
4
1
3
1
7
4
5
1
6
3
40
33
27
10
35
21
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Tabel 11 Caracteristici ale locuinelor n care triesc romii comparative cu indivizi de alte etnii, pe medii de reziden, (%)
Rural
Zona n care se afl locuina individului... n zona central
n zona de mijloc
n zona periferic
NS/NR
Total
Locuina nu are...
electricitate
racord la gaze naturale
canalizare
closet n cas, ci n curte
closet nici n cas, nici n curte
Tipul alimentrii cu ap
instalaie curent n cas
instalaie curent n curte
fntn cu gleat n curte
fntn public, cimea
reeaua public
Tipul nclzirii
central de bloc
central de apartament
sob
nclzire electric
nclzire cu deeuri
Locuina nu e nclzit
Ce tip de locuin este cea n care locuii Apartament la bloc
n prezent?
Cas la curte
Apartament n vil
Cas cu etaj sau vil ocupat de o singur
gospodrie
Alt situaie
n principal din ce material de construcie beton
piatr, crmid, BCA
este fcut locuina?
lemn
faian, chirpici
altceva
Total
romi
6
20
69
5
100
14
95
95
86
12
5
7
37
51
0
0
0
89
0
8
2
6
92
1
0
alt etnie
15
34
47
4
100
3
89
87
83
2
16
10
58
16
0
1
5
92
1
1
0
6
92
0
1
romi
13
16
66
6
100
12
75
72
73
7
27
19
14
41
5
1
3
75
2
9
5
13
74
0
1
1
0
26
16
55
2
100
0
2
46
14
36
2
100
12
2
46
4
44
5
100
Urban
alt etnie
16
33
46
6
100
1
21
15
15
0
90
7
2
1
41
6
22
27
2
1
1
64
33
1
1
1
4
66
8
22
0
100
Total
romi
8
18
68
5
100
13
87
86
81
10
14
12
28
47
2
1
1
83
1
9
3
8
85
0
1
alt etnie
15
34
46
5
100
2
53
49
47
1
56
8
28
8
22
4
14
57
2
1
1
37
60
1
1
5
1
33
12
51
3
100
0
3
52
12
32
2
100
42
Tabel 12 Tipul locuirii (contract i apartenena proprietii) n funcie de mediu i etnie, (%)
romi
63
4
27
6
73
22
2
3
n gospodria Dvs. avei n prezent un

Da, avem un contract valabil
contract valabil de chiria sau de
Nu, avem un contract dar nu mai e valabil
proprietar pentru locuina n care stai?
Nu, nu avem nici un fel de contract
NS/NR
Proprietatea dvs., partenerului dvs.
Pt. cei care au contract valabil,
Proprietatea prinilor
Locuina n care stai n prezent este
nchiriat de la o persoan, firm
nchiriat de la stat
Tabel 13
alt etnie
77
1
20
2
78
21
0
0
romi
71
4
21
4
59
21
3
13
Urban
alt etnie
87
1
11
2
80
17
2
1
romi
66
4
25
6
67
22
2
7
Total
alt etnie
82
1
15
2
80
19
1
0
Dotarea locuinelor cu bunuri de lung durat, n funcie de mediu i etnie, (%)
Avei n gospodrie n stare

funcionare...
autoturism (inclusiv de la firm)
telefon mobil (inclusiv de la firm)
telefon fix
frigider
main de splat automat
computer
Televizor color
Tabel 14
Rural
de Romi
5
27
7
32
5
3
62
Rural
Alt etnie
26
45
27
78
27
13
86
Romi
7
31
10
44
17
4
67
Urban
Alt etnie
44
67
64
96
69
43
96
Romi
Total
Alt etnie
6
28
8
37
9
4
64
36
57
47
88
50
29
91
Distribuia raportului dintre datorii i consum/venituri, n funcie de etnie
Datorii raportate la consum

Datorii raportate la venituri
Alte etnii N
Valid
179 Alte etnii N
Valide
190
Medie
0.6
Medie
0.70
Median
0.2
Median
0.20
Abatere standard
1.1
Abatere standard
1.50
Percentile
25
0.0
Percentile
25
0.03
50
0.2
50
0.20
75
0.6
75
0.57
Romi
N
Valide 408.0 Romi
N
Valide 407.00
Medie
1.5
Medie
1.76
43
Median
Abatere standard
Percentile
25
50
75
0.4
3.9
0.1
0.4
1.2
Median
Abatere standard
Percentile
25
50
75
0.40
3.92
0.11
0.40
1.67
44
Excluziunea formal a cetenilor de etnie rom

Cosima Rughini
Precizri conceptuale
Excluziunea formal se refer la lipsa actelor de stare civil, identitate sau locative o
problem care afecteaz interaciunea cetenilor cu autoritile statului i cu alte persoane fizice.
Exist mai multe situaii posibile:
lipsa actelor de stare civil: nenregistrarea naterii (echivalent cu lipsa codului numeric
personal CNP), a cstoriei sau a decesului;
lipsa certificatelor de natere, de cstorie sau de deces prin pierdere, furt, deteriorare etc.,
n condiiile n care aceste evenimente au fost nregistrate;
nenregistrarea persoanei de 14 ani i peste n baza naional de eviden a persoanelor;
lipsa buletinului sau a crii de identitate valabile prin expirare, pierdere, furt, deteriorare
etc., n condiiile n care persoana a fost nregistrat cu ocazia realizrii primului act de
identitate.
Persoanele care nu au fost nregistrate la natere nu exist din punct de vedere administrativ,
n relaie cu autoritile statului romn i ca atare nu pot intra n nici un fel de relaii oficiale sau
autorizate nici cu parteneri publici, nici cu parteneri privai. Ele nu sunt ceteni ai statului romn i
nici ai altui stat, fiind astfel lipsite de cetenie i de drepturile asociate. Persoanele care au fost
nregistrate la natere dar, din diferite motive, nu posed un buletin/carte de identitate i/sau
certificat de natere sufer n practic de acelai tip de excluziune, deoarece, dei sunt ceteni ai
statului romn, nu pot dovedi acest lucru n faa unei tere pri. Lipsa actului de identitate duce la
imposibilitatea exercitrii drepturilor civice i sociale fundamentale, precum i la imposibilitatea
relaionrii corecte cu autoritile statului, fiind astfel o problem urgent de interes public.
Lipsa actelor locative poate fi neleas ca imposibilitate de dovedire a unei reedine sau
a unui domiciliu stabil. Aceast problem are dou dimensiuni importante:
- Dimensiunea administrativ: lipsa dovezii domiciliului stabil i/sau a reedinei conduce
la dificulti n relaionarea cu instituiile publice deoarece (1) multe dintre acestea au autoritate
definit local, cetenii fiind repartizai n interaciunea cu ele pe baza adresei din actul de identitate
i (2) lipsa dovezii unui domiciliu stabil continu s fie o problem n eliberarea actelor de
identitate, cu consecine asupra integrrii sociale a persoanelor respective;
- Dimensiunea social: deseori persoanele care nu pot face dovada unui domiciliu stabil sau
a unei reedine locuiesc n condiii ilegale, temporare, sau improvizate, n condiii improprii.
Desigur, exist i cazuri de persoane care i-au construit case sau vile cu confort standard sau peste
standard dar fr autorizaie; aceste situaii sunt ns mai rare, iar posesorii acestor locuine au n
mai mare msur posibilitatea de a-i rezolva problemele prin fore proprii. n cazul persoanelor
care nu au acces legal la o locuin adecvat, problema nu este doar una administrativ, ci este n
sens larg social, datorit imposibilitii exercitrii unui drept social respectiv dreptul la o
locuin adecvat (prevzut de Art. 11 al Conveniei Internaionale privind Drepturile Economice,
Sociale i Culturale). n unele cazuri legalizarea proprietii asupra locuinei este relativ facil
dac, de exemplu, persoana a avut dar i-a pierdut actele de proprietate sau a obinut dreptul de
proprietate prin acte de mn necontestate etc. n multe alte cazuri o soluionare prin mecanisme
pur legale este imposibil, fiind necesare decizii politice ale autoritilor locale de exemplu,
hotrri de schimbare a destinaiei terenurilor, de concesiune sau de mproprietrire, sau decizii de
construire a unor locuine sociale etc. (Rughini 2004, Berescu i Celac 2006). n toate situaiile
punerea n legalitate a unor aezri umane are implicaii urbanistice i de amenajare a
teritoriului, care trebuie de asemenea avute n vedere (Berescu i Celac 2006).
45
Modificri n politicile publice referitoare la elaborarea actelor de identitate i de stare

civil
n anii 2005-2006 au avut loc schimbri importante n organizarea sistemului de eviden a
persoanelor i n legislaia de elaborare a actelor de identitate i de stare civil. Sistemul a fost
descentralizat, actele fiind elaborate de direciile comunitare de eviden a persoanelor, n
subordinea autoritilor locale. Direciile judeene de eviden a persoanelor au n special atribuii
metodologice, fr a putea exercita un control ierarhic asupra birourilor comunitare. Ca urmare a
parteneriatelor ncheiate ntre organizaii neguvernamentale, n principal Romani CRISS, i
autoritile publice responsabile cu evidena persoanelor, problema punerii n legalitate a
persoanelor care nu au acte, n special a celor de etnie rom, a nceput s urce n ierarhia de
prioriti a autoritilor publice. Inspectoratul naional pentru evidena persoanelor a elaborat
ncepnd cu anul 2004 planuri de msuri cu privire la punerea n legalitate a persoanelor de etnie
rom, planuri care includeau organizarea de campanii cu camera mobil n comunitile de romi n
care un numr semnificativ de persoane nu aveau acte. Toate aceste msuri au condus la
nregistrarea i eliberarea actelor de stare civil i identitate pentru numeroase comuniti de romi.
Este prin urmare de ateptat ca gravitatea acestei probleme s fi sczut vizibil n ultimii ani i s fie
de altfel n continu scdere. Pe de alt parte, lipsa actelor locative este o problem a crei
soluionare nu s-a simplificat n nici un fel, n lipsa unor politici concertate de sprijin pentru
asigurarea locuinei acordat persoanelor srace sau a abordrii problemei actelor de proprietate
pentru comunitile istoric constituite fr acte legale.
Date ale Barometrului Incluziunii Romilor, noiembrie 2006

Lipsa actelor locative este o problem cu care se confrunt 20% dintre romii din mediul
urban i 30% dintre romii din mediul rural. Dei n mai mic msur, aceasta este o problem i
pentru locatarii de alte etnii, care nu au un contract valabil de chiria sau de proprietar n
aproximativ 10% din cazuri n mediul urban, i 20% n mediul rural (
Tabelul 16).
Tabelul 16. n gospodria dvs. avei n prezent un contract valabil de chiria sau de proprietar pentru locuina n
care stai? (%)
Urban
Alt
etnie
Da, avem un contract valabil
Nu, avem un contract, dar nu mai e valabil
Nu, nu avem nici un fel de contract
Total
87
1
12
100
Rural
Alt
etnie
Etnic
rom
74
4
22
100
79
2
20
100
Etnic
rom
67
4
29
100
Aproximativ 3% dintre subiecii romi nu au avut niciodat certificat de natere, fiind prin
urmare nenregistrai n registrul de stare civil situaia cea mai grav de excluziune formal. n
cazul acestor persoane, soluionarea problemei implic procedura nregistrrii tardive a naterii, prin
realizarea unei expertize medico-legale de confirmare a identitii i prin apelul la instan
procedur ce poate dura pn la un an. De asemenea, aproximativ 3% dintre subiecii romi declar
c nu au avut niciodat buletin sau carte de identitate. Proporiile corespunztoare subiecilor
romni sunt semnificativ mai mici, de sub 1%.
46
Tabelul 17. Dvs. avei sau ai avut vreodat (% rspunsuri negative)
Alt
etnie
certificat de natere?
buletin/carte de
identitate?
Nu
Nu
Etnic rom
0,9
0,3
3,0
3,0
Aproximativ 14% dintre subiecii romi declar c i-au pierdut la un moment dat certificatul
de natere, i 16% i-au pierdut buletinul; n cazul persoanelor de alt etnie, proporiile sunt de 8%
n cazul certificatului de natere, respectiv 12% n cazul buletinului (Error! Reference source not
found.). Referitor la situaia prezent, 6% dintre romi nu au un act de identitate valabil, iar 5% nu
au certificat de natere. Este important de observat c n cazul persoanelor care au avut certificat de
natere i, dintr-un motiv sau altul, nu l mai au, eliberarea unui nou certificat este un proces simplu
i rapid spre deosebire de situaia celor care nu au avut niciodat certificat de natere.
Tabelul 18. Dar n prezent, avei (%)
Alt
etnie
certificat de natere
buletin/carte de identitate valabil()
Nu
Nu
Etnic rom
0,9
1,5
4,9
6,0
Lipsa actelor este asociat cu lipsa colarizrii, cu srcia i cu locuirea ntr-un ora mare.
De exemplu, n cazul persoanelor rome fr coal, aproximativ 10% nu au certificat de natere i o
proporie chiar mai mare nu au buletin de identitate fa de aproximativ 3% dintre cei care au
absolvit o coal profesional sau mai mult (Tabelul 19).
Tabelul 19. Dar n prezent, avei (% din totalul subiecilor romi)
Nivel de colarizare
Fr scoal Primar
buletin/carte de identitate
valabil()
Nu
Nu
9
12
Gimnazial
5
6
Profesional,
liceu, universitar
3
4
3
3
Dac aproximm nivelul de trai al familiei printr-un indicator simplu, i anume posesia unui
televizor color, putem observa o diferen clar, similar ca amploare cu cea indus de educaie,
ntre situaia celor care nu au un televizor color (i anume 36% dintre romi) i situaia celor care au
(64% dintre romi). Persoanele rome care locuiesc n gospodrii fr televizor color nu au acte de
identitate i certificat de natere n proporie de aproximativ 10-12%, fa de 3% n cazul
persoanelor din gospodrii mai nstrite (Tabelul 20).
Avei n gospodrie n stare

de funcionare, televizor
color?
Da
Nu
Nu
Nu
2
3
9
12
47
Lipsa actelor este mai frecvent n oraele mari dect n cele mici i dect n sat o posibil
consecin a schimbrilor mai frecvente de domiciliu i a dificultilor sporite de interaciune cu
funcionarii publici (Tabelul 21). Aceast diferen este interesant i n contextul n care n mediul
rural este mai ridicat proporia persoanelor care nu au acte locative (vezi
Tabelul 16) i prin urmare nu pot face dovada adresei de domiciliu, ceea ce reprezint un
obstacol semnificativ n calea obinerii unei cri de identitate.
Tipul localitii
Ora
Ora
mare
mic
11
12
Nu
Nu
Sat
5
7
4
5
Putem observa din Tabelul 22 c 8% dintre romii romnizai i 20% dintre ceilali romi nu
sunt nscrii la un medic de familie, spre deosebire de doar aproximativ 4% din persoanele de alt
etnie.
Tabelul 22. Suntei nscris la un medic de familie? (n funcie de etnie) (%)
Da
Nu
Total
(Cazuri)
Rom
Alt fel de
Alt etnie
romnizat rom
(romn, ungur etc.)
92
80
96
8
20
4
100
100
100
(617)
(755)
(1288)
n cazul persoanelor rome care nu au certificat de natere sau buletin de identitate,

aproximativ jumtate nu sunt nscrise la un medic de familie (Tabelul 23)
Tabelul 23. nscrierea la un medic de familie, n funcie de starea actelor de identitate i stare civil (% din
totalul subiecilor romi)
Da
Nu
Total
Cazuri
Dar n prezent, avei

Dar n prezent, avei
buletin/carte de identitate
certificat de natere?
valabil()?
Da
Nu
Da
Nu
88
53
87
12
47
13
100
100
100
(1294)
(83)
(1321)
52
49
100
(68)
Anexe
Tabelul 24. L-ai pierdut vreodat... (% rspunsuri afirmative)
Alt
etnie
buletin / carte de identitate
Da
Da
7.6
11.5
Etnic rom
13.5
16.0
48
Bibliografie
Berescu, Ctlin i Celac, Mariana (2006). Housing and Extreme Poverty. The Case of
Roma Communities. Bucureti: Ion Mincu University Press.
Preda, Marian (2002). Caracteristici ale excluziunii sociale specifice pentru populaia de
romi din Romnia. n Zamfir, Ctlin i Preda, Marian (coord.) Romii n Romnia. Bucureti:
Editura Expert.
Rughini, Cosima (2004). Cunoatere incomod. Intervenii sociale n comuniti
defavorizate n Romnia anilor 2000. Bucureti: Printech.
49
Segregarea rezidenial
Cosima Rughini
Problema segregrii rezideniale a romilor este nc ignorat n agenda public a autoritilor
romne, n ciuda gravitii i a persistenei ei. Mai mult, segregarea rezidenial este o problem cu
puine anse de ameliorare fr o intervenie sistematic a statului, datorit ineriei ridicate a
pattern-urilor de locuire, a decalajului economic considerabil dintre romi i romni i, nu n ultimul
rnd, a discriminrii romilor n societatea romneasc.
n ceea ce urmeaz voi explora, cu ajutorul datelor din Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor,
influena pe care segregarea rezidenial o are asupra atitudinilor cu privire la relaiile interetnice
i asupra ateptrilor legate de tratamentul discriminatoriu n instituiile publice. Dup cum voi
argumenta mai jos, datele indic o variaie teritorial a discriminrii romilor n instituiile
publice romneti, segregarea rezidenial avnd o influen semnificativ n acest sens. De
asemenea, n ciuda stereotipurilor cu privire la problemele sociale din zonele predominant rome,
locatarii ne-romi ai acestor zone sunt semnificativ mai dispui ctre contact interetnic dect
locatarii zonelor cu mai puini romi.
Aceste concluzii au ns un statut mai degrab ipotetic i exploratoriu, mai ales datorit
caracterului subiectiv al indicatorilor folosii pentru msurarea segregrii rezideniale dup cum
voi discuta n continuare.
Msurarea segregrii rezideniale

n Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor (BIR), din noiembrie 2006, avem la dispoziie indicatori
subiectivi ai segregrii rezideniale a romilor, i anume urmtoarele trei ntrebri (
Tabelul 8):
Tabelul 25. Estimarea proporiei de romi: valoarea medie i median a rspunsurilor subiecilor
I1: Dac v gndii la cei care triesc n zona n care locuii

dvs. cam ct la sut dintre acetia sunt romi?
I2: Dac v gndii la cei care triesc n aceeai localitate cu
dvs. cam ct la sut dintre acetia sunt romi?
I3: Dac v gndii acum la toi oamenii care triesc n
Romnia, cam ct la sut dintre acetia credei c sunt romi?
Median
Medie
Median
Medie
Median
Medie
Romi
50
54
25
30
25
26
Alt etnie
5
13
10
17
20
24
Rspunsurile subiecilor sunt ntemeiate pe o supraevaluare clar a proporiei romilor n

populaie. De exemplu, n cazul estimrilor la nivel de ar (ntrebarea I3), valoarea medie a
rspunsurilor este de aproximativ zece ori mai mare dect estimarea oficial a proporiei romilor n
populaie, dar i de 3-6 ori mai mare dect estimrile experilor i organizaiilor care ncearc s in
cont de reticena persoanelor rome de a se autoidentifica n contexte oficiale. n aceste condiii, am
utilizat dou strategii pentru a folosi aceste variabile ca indicatori ai segregrii rezideniale
percepute, pornind de la premisa c percepia asupra proporiei romilor n zon este corelat
(imperfect) cu proporia lor real:
(1) Am folosit direct prima ntrebare ca un indicator al segregrii rezideniale percepute a
zonei unde locuiete subiectul. Relevana acestei variabile depinde de presupoziia c, n medie,
respondenii care ofer o estimare mai ridicat a proporiei de romi din zon chiar locuiesc n zone
50
cu mai muli romi dect ceilali respondeni chiar dac ntre proporia estimat i cea real poate fi
o diferen considerabil.
Tabelul 8 indic o variaie considerabil a acestui indicator n funcie de etnia subiectului.
(2) Am construit un indicator al suprareprezentrii percepute a romilor n zon,
indicator care ia valoarea 1 atunci cnd subiectul consider c proporia de romi din zon n care
locuiete este mai ridicat dect proporia de la nivelul localitii n general (deci atunci cnd
estimarea oferit la I1 este mai mare dect estimarea oferit la I2). De asemenea, relevana acestui
indicator depinde de premisa c suprareprezentarea perceput este asociat, chiar dac imperfect, cu
suprareprezentarea real. i acest indicator variaz semnificativ n funcie de etnia respondentului:
dintre persoanele de etnie rom, 60% consider c locuiesc n zone n care romii sunt mai frecveni
dect la nivelul localitii fa de numai 16% dintre persoanele de alte etnii.
n ceea ce privete atitudinea fa de segregarea romilor, baza de date include mai multe
ntrebri de opinie, care sunt discutate mai jos.
Influena segregrii asupra atitudinilor i ateptrilor

Populaia de romi
Segregarea rezidenial perceput, msurat prin cei doi indicatori definii mai sus, are o
influen semnificativ asupra discriminrii cu care subiecii romi se ateapt s fie confruntai.
Persoanele rome care consider c triesc n zone cu mai muli locatari romi rspund mai des dect
ceilali c se ateapt ca n interaciunea cu autoritile publice s fie tratate mai ru dect
solicitanii ne-romi.
Aceast concluzie reiese din analiza de regresie multipl a tratamentului egal ateptat 5 n
funcie de variabile precum segregarea rezidenial perceput, educaia subiectului, identificarea cu
romii romnizai (fa de alte identificri cu etnia romilor), locuirea la marginea localitii, posesia
unui televizor color n gospodrie i mediul de reziden (Tabelul 29). Sexul i vrsta subiectului
au fost scoase din analiz deoarece nu aveau o influen empiric semnificativ i nici relevan
teoretic special. Modelul alternativ, n care segregarea rezidenial este aproximat prin
indicatorul de suprareprezentare perceput a romilor, conduce la aceleai concluzii (
Tabelul 30).
Se poate observa c toate cele trei variabile rezideniale sunt semnificative statistic n
explicarea discriminrii ateptate. Locuirea ntr-o zon perceput ca fiind dominant rom este
asociat semnificativ, n cazul romilor, cu ateptarea unui tratament inferior n instituiile publice
ca i locuirea la marginea localitii i locuirea n mediul rural. Variabilele referitoare la
caracteristicile socio-culturale ale subiectului, precum nivelul de colarizare, identificarea cu romii
romnizai, sau srcia (estimat prin posesia unui televizor color) nu au o influen semnificativ
independent 6 . Putem avansa astfel o prim concluzie, pe baza acestor date: tratamentul
discriminatoriu n instituiile publice romneti este distribuit sistematic ntr-o logic a
geografiei sociale: zonele rurale, periferice i dominant rome sunt supuse unui risc mai mare
de neglijare instituional. Caracteristicile sociale i etnice ale zonei conteaz mai mult dect
5
Tratamentul egal ateptat este construit prin nsumarea valorilor urmtoarelor cinci variabile: Dvs. sau cei apropiai,
cum credei c ai fi tratat n comparatie cu romii/iganii la(a) Scoal / (b) Spitale, dispensare / (c) Primrie / (d)
Judectorie, Procuratur / (e) Poliie (1=mai ru, 2=la fel, 3=mai bine). Pentru subiecii ne-romi ntrebarea
solicit comparaia cu tratamentul primit de romi, iar pentru subiecii romi ntrebarea solicit comparaia cu tratamentul
primit de romni. Valorile mici ale indicelui arat ateptarea de a primi un tratament inferior, iar valorile mari arat
ateptarea de a primi un tratament superior.
6
Posesia unui televizor color are o influen semnificativ statistic, dar slab, n primul model.
51
cele ale persoanei, n experiena discriminrii. Este important de remarcat aici c aceste concluzii
provizorii se refer la populaia de romi i la percepiile sale asupra discriminrii, segregrii etc.
Cazul populaiei de alte etnii este discutat mai jos.
Cum influeneaz ns segregarea perceput dorina de a interaciona cu populaia de etnie
ne-rom 7? n general, persoanele rome care cred c proporia de romi din zon este mai ridicat
sunt semnificativ mai dornice s interacioneze cu ne-romii dect celelalte persoane de etnie rom.
De asemenea, persoanele care se identific cu categoria etnic rom romnizat sunt mai dispuse
spre interaciuni interetnice. Surprinztor ns, subiecii romi care locuiesc la marginea localitii
sunt relativ mai puin dispui ctre interaciunea interetnic, fa de subiecii romi din alte zone
(Tabelul 29). Aceleai concluzii le regsim n modelul n care segregarea este aproximat prin
indicatorul suprareprezentrii percepute a romilor (
Tabelul 30).
n ceea ce privete influena segregrii percepute asupra dispoziiei spre interaciuni
interetnice, dei este semnificativ statistic, trebuie s observm totui c nu este foarte puternic la
nivelul declaraiilor vizibile. Marea majoritate a romilor sunt dispui spre contacte cu ne-romii ntro diversitate de contexte sociale; omogenitatea acestei atitudini nu las loc unor variaii prea
puternice (vezi Tabelul 26 i Tabelul 27).
Tabelul 26. n opinia dvs. este bine sau nu este bine ca romnii si romii s locuiasc n aceeai zon a
localitii? (%) n funcie de segregarea perceput a zonei; respondeni romi
Ru sau foarte
ru
Bine
Foarte bine
Total
Estimarea proporiei de romi n zon

Mai puini / la fel de muli romi Mai muli romi in zon
in zon ca n localitate
dect n localitate
14
6
52
51
34
43
100
100
Diferenele sunt semnificative statistic pentru p=0.01
Tabelul 27. n opinia dvs. este bine sau nu este bine ca elevii romi i cei romni s nvee n aceeai clas? (%)
n funcie de segregarea perceput a zonei; respondeni romi
Ru sau foarte
ru
Bine
Foarte bine
Total
Estimarea proporiei de romi n zon

Mai puini / la fel de muli romi Mai muli romi in zon
in zon ca in localitate
dect n localitate
13
5
47
49
40
46
100
100
Diferenele sunt semnificative statistic pentru p=0.01
Atitudinea fa de interaciunea interetnic este un indice construit prin nsumarea valorilor urmtoarelor cinci
variabile: n opinia dvs. este bine sau nu este bine ca ? (a) romnii i romii s locuiasc n aceeai zon a localitii /
(b) elevii romi i cei romni s nvee n aceeai clas / (c) romnii i romii s lucreze n acelai birou / atelier / (d)
romnii i romii s se cstoreasc ntre ei / (e) copiii romni i romi s se joace mpreun? (fiecare avnd valori de la
1=foarte ru la 4=foarte bine)
52
Populaia de alte etnii

n cazul populaiei ne-rome, percepia asupra proporiei de romi n localitate este asociat cu
percepia asupra gravitii problemelor din zon 8 (furturi din locuin, violene, conflicte). O alt
variabil care explic parial gravitatea perceput a problemelor din zon este evaluarea general a
calitii vieii n oraul respectiv (Tabelul 31).
Este dificil de propus o interpretare a asocierii dintre proporia perceput de romii din zon
i gravitatea perceput a problemelor din zon, deoarece ambele variabile sunt subiective,
reflectnd att realitatea nconjurtoare, ct i perspectiva proprie subiectului asupra lumii
(optimism / pesimism, exprimare expansiv / conservatoare etc.). Relevana acestei asocieri apare,
cred, n analiza din Tabelul 32, unde este detaliat influena pe care percepia proporiei de romi
din zon o are asupra disponibilitii subiecilor ne-romi de a interaciona cu subiecii romi.
Pornind de la stereotipurile negative legate de romi, precum i de la asocierea prezenei
acestora cu probleme n vecintate, putem s ne ateptm c persoanele care consider c locuiesc
n vecinti cu mai muli romi dect n general n localitate s fie defensive i deci reticente n
interaciunea cu romii n general. Modelul indic ns o asociere opus. Este foarte interesant de
observat c persoanele ne-rome din zone percepute a fi locuite de muli romi sunt semnificativ mai
dispuse ctre interaciunea cu romii, n diferite contexte sociale (Tabelul 32). Relaia pozitiv
dintre percepia frecvenei romilor n vecintate i dispoziia spre interaciunea cu ei apare n
ambele modele de regresie, indiferent de cum este aproximat proporia romilor n zon.
O alt variabil care influeneaz semnificativ deschiderea subiecilor ne-romi ctre
interaciunea cu romii este valorizarea pe care acetia o acord limbii romani. Este de altfel de
ateptat ca dispoziia de a interaciona cu romii s fie corelat cu o accepiune cultural a etniei i cu
refuzul stereotipurilor comportamentale comune. Am msurat aceast nelegere cultural a etniei
rome prin aprobarea de ctre subiect a predrii limbii romani n coli. Jumtate dintre ne-romi nu
aprob acest lucru, precum i o treime dintre romi (vezi Tabelul 28). Cei care aprob ns, dintre
ne-romi, sunt ntr-adevr mai dispui ctre relaionarea cu persoanele de etnie rom 9.
Anexe
Tabelul 28. Copiii romi ar trebui s nvee limba romani n coal
Rom romnizat
Dezacord total
Mai degrab de acord
Total de acord
Total
18.5%
18.3%
24.4%
38.8%
100.0%
Alt fel de
rom
10.3%
27.7%
27.6%
34.4%
100.0%
Alt etnie
(roman, ungur etc.)
23.2%
27.7%
25.5%
23.6%
100.0%
Tabelul 29. Dependena atitudinii fa de segregare i a discriminrii ateptate de omogenitatea rezidenial

perceput analiz pe subiecii romi.
Gravitatea problemelor din zon este un indice construit prin nsumarea valorilor urmtoarelor trei variabile: V
rugm s ne spunei ct de grave sunt n zona n care locuii urmtoarele probleme...(a) Furturi din locuine / (b)
Violene asupra persoanelor / (c) Conflicte ntre vecini (fiecare avnd valori de la 1 = nu e deloc o problem la 4 =
foarte grav).
9
Putem observa (n Tabelul 8) c educaia colar are o influen negativ asupra dispoziiei ctre interaciune cu
romii. Aceast influen se datoreaz inerii sub control a valorizrii limbii romani, cu care educaia coreleaz pozitiv.
Persoanele cu colarizare mai ridicat au mai des o perspectiv cultural asupra etniei; dac inem ns constant
aceast variabil, colarizarea este asociat negativ cu dispoziia spre contact interetnic. Dac nu controlm nici o
variabil adiional educaia nu coreleaz cu dispoziia spre interaciune cu romii.
53
Tratament egal ateptat

(indice sumativ)
(R2 Varianta explicat de model)
Dac v gndii la cei care triesc n
zona n care locuii dvs. cam ct la
sut dintre acetia sunt romi?
Ultima coal absolvit Respondent
Rom romnizat (fa de alt tip de rom)
Locuire periferic (fa de locuire n
zone centrale sau alte zone)
Avei n gospodrie n stare de
funcionare...Televizor color
Mediu de reziden urban (fa de
rural)
(5%)
-.130
Atitudinea fa de
interaciunea interetnic
(indice sumativ)
(7%)
.222
.006
.025
-.108
-.046
.106
-.144
.036
.087
-.130
-.011
Coeficienii subliniai sunt semnificativi pentru p=0,01
Tabelul 30. Dependena atitudinii fa de segregare i a discriminrii ateptate de suprareprezentarea

persoanelor rome n zon analiz pe subiecii romi.
Tratament egal ateptat

(indice sumativ)
Locuiete intr-o zon cu mai muli locatari
romi dect n general n localitate
Ultima scoal absolvit Respondent
Rom romnizat
Locuire periferic
funcionare...Televizor color
Mediu de reziden
(6%)
-.140
Atitudinea fa de
(indice sumativ)
(4%)
.146
.028
.031
-.115
.038
-.043
.102
-.112
.068
-.017
-.144
Tabelul 31. Percepia asupra problemelor din zon (furturi din locuin, violene, conflicte) pentru populaia
ne-rom
Gravitatea perceput a
problemelor din zon
(indice sumativ)
(4%)
.137
.118

Nemulumirea fa de ora n general
Locuiete intr-o zon cu mai muli locatari romi dect n
general in localitate
Ultima coal absolvit de respondent
.041
Vrst respondent
-.079
Mediu de reziden
.012
Tabelul 32. Dependena atitudinii fa de segregare de segregarea rezidenial perceput populaia de alte etnii
(romni, maghiari, germani etc.).
Atitudinea fa de
(indice sumativ)
Atitudinea fa de
(indice sumativ)
54

Dac v gndii la cei care triesc n
zon n care locuii dvs. cam ct la
sut dintre acetia sunt romi?
Locuiete ntr-o zon cu mai muli
locatari romi dect n general n
localitate
Limba romani n coal
Percepia asupra problemelor sociale
din zon (furturi, violente, conflicte)
Ultima coal absolvit de respondent
funcionare...main de splat
automat
Mediu de reziden
(5%)
(7%)
.160
.098
.154
-.057
.179
-.082
-.102
-.005
-.106
.019
.077
.117
Toleran i discriminare perceput

Mlina Voicu
Tolerana fa de cei diferii din punct de vedere etnic, religios sau ca orientare sexual este
de obicei considerat un semnal de sntate al unei societi democratice. Studiile anterioare arat
c nivelul de toleran este expresia gradului de dezvoltare social i economic 10 , ns i o
rezultant a capitalului social individual 11. Astfel, societile cu un grad crescut de bunstare sunt
caracterizate de o toleran crescut fa de minoriti. De asemenea, societile n care oamenii
interacioneaz frecvent n afara familiei i n care se stabilesc frecvent relaii cu persoane diferite
din punct de vedere etnic, rasial sau religios, folosesc practici discriminatorii n msura mai redus,
iar relaiile interumane sunt mai puin afectate de prejudeci etnice sau rasiale. Studiile arat c
Suedia i Olanda reprezint campionii europeni n materie de toleran 12.
Anii tranziiei post-comuniste nu au fost caracterizai de o toleran etnic prea ridicat n
Romnia. Dincolo de datele numeroaselor sondaje de opinie care susin acest fapt, afirmaia este
ntrit de o serie de evenimente care dovedeau existena unor tensiuni etnice, ce au ocupat prima
pagin a ziarelor n mai multe rnduri. Cazurile Hdreni sau Mihail Koglniceanu indicau
existena unui nivel sczut de toleran interetnic, iar reaciile recente ale populaiei la paradele gay
au demonstrat c societatea romneasc este puin dispus s tolereze indivizii diferii de populaia
majoritar. Romii au constituit n multe cazuri inta comportamentelor discriminatoare n viaa
cotidian, iar rezultatele sondajelor de opinie artau la nceputul anilor 90 c intolerana etnic era
foarte crescut n rndul populaiei majoritare, peste 70% dintre romni nedorind s aib un vecin
de etnie rom 13.
Acest capitol ncearc s surprind pe de o parte nivelul de toleran al societii romneti
fa de romi, precum i discriminarea perceput n rndul etniei roma. Este urmrit i evoluia n
10
Inglahart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43
Societies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
11
Voicu, Bogdan. 2005. Penuria post-modern a postcomunismului romnesc. Iai: Expert Projects
12
Halman, Loek. 2001. The European Values Study: The Third Wave. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press
13
Voicu, Mlina, erban, Monica. 2002. Despre diferene: ntre toleran i prejudeci, n Zamfir Ctlin, Marian
Preda (coord.): Romii din Romnia. Bucureti: Expert
55
timp a gradului de toleran fa de romi n societatea romneasc. Textul se mai oprete i asupra
gradului de toleran reciproc ntre romni i romi, ncercnd s vad care sunt factorii care
determin un grad ridicat de intoleran la nivelul populaiei majoritare, precum i cine sunt romii
care se consider a fi discriminai.
Prejudecile fa de anumite grupuri, intolerana i discriminarea constituie fenomene
nrudite. n timp ce prejudecile reprezint atitudini negative fa de membrii unui grup, motivate
fiind doar de apartenena la grupul respectiv 14 , discriminarea reprezint un comportament
difereniat aplicat unei persoane n virtutea apartenenei reale sau presupuse a acesteia la un anumit
grup 15 . n timp ce prejudecile in de atitudini i de modul de a gndi, discriminarea ine de
comportament i de interaciunea cotidian. Practic, discriminarea reprezint modul de manifestare
n viaa de zi cu zi a prejudecilor. De multe ori, prejudecile legate de un anumit grup etnic se
transpun n comportamente difereniate n sfera economic, politic, social, avnd un impact
puternic asupra statutului economic i social a grupului etnic respectiv.
Privind din perspectiv dinamic, n timp, gradul de intoleran al populaiei majoritare fa
de romi a sczut foarte mult n perioada de dup 1990. Dac n 1993 peste 70% dintre romni
refuzau s aib vecini romi, n 2006 ponderea acestora s-a redus la jumtate, numai 36% afirmnd
acest lucru. Datele din Figura 1 indic o scdere constant n ultimii 13 ani a intoleranei etnice fa
de romi. Cauzele acestei schimbri sunt multiple. Pe de o parte, mbuntirea situaiei economice
poate fi invocat pentru a explica aceast schimbare. Pe de alt parte, se poate spune c pe parcursul
tranziiei populaia Romniei a nvat regulile jocului unei societi democratice, ale toleranei i
respectului interetnic. Nu n ultimul rnd trebuie menionate cauzele de natura instituional,
schimbarea legislativ i dezvoltarea de programe destinate s stimuleze incluziunea social a
romilor.
Figura 1. Evoluia n timp a intoleranei fa de romi: ponderea n populaia total a celor care nu i doresc
vecini romi (1993 2006)
80%
70%
72%
60%
60%
50%
49%
40%
37%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1993
1997
1999
2006
Sursa datelor pentru 1993, 1997 i 1999: Studiul Valorilor Europene 1993 i 1999 (EVS 1993 i EVS 1999) i Studiul
Valorilor Mondiale (WVS 1997)
Analiza datelor arat c nu numai intolerana fa de romi a sczut n ultimii ani, ci

intolerana generalizat s-a redus n ultimii 7 ani. Media scorului de intoleran generalizat, care
surprinde respingerea fa de persoane de religie i etnie diferit (excluznd romi), precum i de
orientare sexual diferit, a sczut ntre 1999 i 2006 la populaia Romniei, aa cum rezult din
14
Allport, Gordon. 1958. The Nature of Prejudice, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company,
Garden City
15
Voicu, Mlina. Discriminarea, n Dicionar de srcie, www.iccv.ro

56
Tabelul 33. Per ansamblu, romnii au devenit mai tolerani fa de alteritate. Dac ne referim ns
la diferenele care exist ntre gradul de toleran fa de alteritate al populaiei majoritare
comparativ cu cel al populaiei de romi, se remarca faptul c romii sunt, n medie, semnificativ mai
tolerani. Acest lucru se explic i prin faptul c romii constituie o minoritate etnic avnd un statut
de inferioritate n mod istoric, minoritate expus adesea prejudecilor i actelor de discriminare.
Tabelul 33. Variaia intoleranei generalizate ntre 1999 i 2006, precum i n funcie de apartenena etnic
nu ar dori ca vecini persoane diferite: musulmani,

imigrani, homosexuali, evrei, maghiari
Eantion
naional 1999
Eantion
naional 2006
Eantion romi
1,7
1,5
1,3
Scorul variaz de la 0 la 5, iar diferena este statistic semnificativ pentru un nivel semnificativ al testului t, p <0,01
Chiar dac romii se dovedesc a avea un grad de toleran mai sporit comparativ cu populaia
majoritar, n raport cu etnicii romni tind s manifeste comportamente discriminatoare, avnd
tendina de a-i favoriza propria etnie. Datele din Tabelul 34 arat c etnicii romi sunt mai tentai s
acorde prioritate celor de aceeai etnie n educaie i angajare. Chiar dac i n rndul populaiei
majoritare exist tendina de a favoriza un romn atunci cnd este vorba de acces la educaie sau de
plata muncii, este mai probabil ca un romn s afirme c att romnul, ct i romul trebuie tratai la
fel. Este de menionat faptul c att la populaia de romi, ct i la cea majoritar tendina de a
discrimina n situaii concrete, precum admiterea n liceu sau plata pentru munc egal, este destul
de redus, peste 80% din ambele eantioane afirmnd c romii i romnii trebuie tratai n mod egal.
Aa cum aminteam anterior, societatea romneasc nu pare a mai fi una marcat de segregri
majore. Tendina spre intoleran exist i marcheaz viaa cotidian, ns prejudecile etnice s-au
redus simitor n ultimii ani.
Tabelul 34 Discriminare interetnic la romi i la populaia majoritar
Un rom i un romn lucreaz n construcii i fac aceeai

munc, la fel de bine, avnd aceeai calificare. Cine credei c
ar trebui s ctige mai mult?
Doi elevi, unul rom i altul romn, se prezint la examenul de
admitere n liceu, avnd aceeai medie i aflndu-se pe ultimul
loc la egalitate. Care dintre cei doi ar trebui s intre la liceu?
%
iganul
Romnul
Amndoi la fel
iganul
Romnul
Amndoi la fel
Eantion
naional
2
10
88
2
11
87
Eantion
romi
7
7
85
8
8
84
Distribuiile din table difer semnificativ ntre cele dou eantioane pentru un nivel de semnificaie p<0,001 al testului
2 .
Datele analizate arat c intolerana etnic a populaiei majoritare difer n funcie de grupul
etnic la care se raporteaz. Conform Tabelul 35, tolerana populaiei majoritare este semnificativ
mai mare fa de etnicii germani i fa de cei maghiari, n timp ce fa de populaia rom
intolerana este mai mare. Astfel c romnii sunt dispui s accepte ca germanii din Romnia s
triasc dup propriile obiceiuri, ns nu accept ca romii s triasc dup normele tradiionale ale
etniei lor. n comparaie, populaia de romi este semnificativ mai tolerant fa de toate minoritile
etnice, scorul maxim de permisivitate fiind nregistrat evident fa de etnicii romi. Aceste rezultate
susin cele afirmate anterior referitor la gradul de toleran i permisivitate crescut al romilor, dat
chiar de statutul de minoritate.
Tabelul 35. Tolerana fa de diferite minoriti etnice la romi i la populaia majoritar
eantion naional
Germanii din Romnia trebuie s triasc dup obiceiurile
romnilor
Maghiarii din Romnia trebuie s triasc dup obiceiurile
eantion romi
4,68
4,73
4,85
4,71
57
romnilor
Romii din Romnia trebuie s triasc dup obiceiurile
romnilor
5,12
4,20
Indicaie de citire a tabelului: rspunsurile la ntrebri au fost msurate pe o scal de la 1 la 10, unde 1 nseamn
respingerea afirmaiei i 10 nseamn acceptarea acesteia. Cifrele din tabel reprezint media rspunsurilor la ntrebri.
n consecin, scorurile apropiate de 1 nseamn respingerea afirmaiei i indica un grad mare de toleran, iar cele
apropiate de 10 indic un grad mare de intoleran.
Acceptarea interaciunii interetnice n viaa cotidian reprezint o alt msur a toleranei

ntre etnii. Rezultatele cercetrii relev o diferen major n acceptarea interaciunii cotidiene ntre
romi i populaia majoritar. Datele din Figura 2 demonstreaz faptul c interaciunea este
acceptat de ctre populaia majoritar mai ales dac acesta are loc n spaiul public (serviciu,
coal), ns exist reticene n ceea ce privete mprirea spaiului privat. Muli dintre cei
intervievai nu accept s locuiasc n aceeai zon cu romii i mai ales resping cstoriile mixte
(romi romni). De cealalt parte, acceptarea relaiilor interetnice este aproape unanim, dovedind
dorina de integrare a romilor. Cu toate acestea, i n cazul populaiei de romi problema cstoriilor
ntre membrii celor dou etnii este mai puin acceptat comparativ cu celelalte tipuri de interaciuni.
Figura 2. Acceptarea interaciunii interetnice n viaa cotidian pentru romi i populaia majoritar (Indici ai
Opiniei Dominante)
copiii romni si romi s se

joace mpreun
romnii si romii s se
cstoreasc ntre ei
romnii si romii s lucreze

n acelai birou / atelier
elevii romi si cei romni s

nvee n aceeai clas
esantion romi
romnii si romii s
locuiasc n aceeai zon a
localitii
esantion national
-100: dezacord maxim
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
+100: acord maxim
Indicaie de citire a graficului: datele prezentate n grafic reprezint Indici ai Opiniei Dominante (IOD) calculai pentru
fiecare variabil n parte. IOD variaz de la -100, la +100, valorile negative indicnd respingerea afirmaiei respective,
n timp ce valorile pozitive indic acordul cu itemul respectiv. Cu ct valorile sunt mai apropiate de +100, cu att opinia
respectiv este mai larg mprtit de ctre populaie.
n ceea ce privete cstoriile interetnice se constat o reticen a populaiei de etnie romn,

nu numai fa de etnicii romi, ci i fa de cei maghiari, aproape jumtate din populaie respingnd
cstoria propriilor copii cu un etnic maghiar. Cu toate acestea, trebuie subliniat faptul c reticena
fa de maghiari este mai sczut comparativ cu cea fa de romi, doar 30% din populaia majoritar
acceptnd acest tip de cstorie. Este interesant i faptul c romii accept n msur egal cu etnicii
romni cstoria cu un maghiar, nefiind diferene ntre cele dou grupuri din acest punct de vedere.
n fapt, atitudinile legate de comportamentul marital sunt destul de similare la cele dou populaii
analizate, att romii, ct i populaia majoritar prefernd cstoriile n interiorul propriului grup,
prerile fiind mprite n ceea ce privete mariajele cu maghiari. Sper deosebire de romni, romii
accept n proporie destul de ridicat cstoriile cu romni, acesta fiind probabil unul dintre
mecanismele importante de integrare.
58
Figura 3. Acceptarea cstoriilor cu o persoan de etnie diferit la romi i la populaia majoritar
(Ai accepta ca fiul / fiica dvs. s se cstoreasc cu cineva de etnie)

96%
95%
100%
90%
75%
80%
70%
57%
58%
60%
50%
32%
40%
30%
20%
10%
esantion national
0%
esantion romi
romana
maghiara
roma
Multe dintre teoriile care ncearc s explice discriminarea pun accentul pe resursele de care
dispun indivizii. Astfel, explicaiile care se bazeaz pe stratificarea social arat c persoanele care
dein poziii de putere tind s discrimineze mai mult pentru a-i ntri poziia 16, n timp ce alte
explicaii teoretice pun accentul pe faptul c discriminarea apare n condiiile existenei unor resurse
limitate pentru care membrii grupurilor se afl n competiie 17.
Cu toate acestea, datele referitoare la prejudecile populaiei majoritare fa de romi nu
susin aceste puncte de vedere (vezi Tabelul 36). Conform rezultatelor furnizate de Barometrul
Incluziunii Romilor nici unul dintre indicatorii de status nu joac un rol n sporirea toleranei fa de
romi. Astfel, nici educaia, nici venitul i nici vrsta nu au efect asupra nivelului individual de
toleran fa de romi. n schimb, variabilele legate de nivelul de capital social individual joac un
rol foarte important n determinarea gradului de toleran. Astfel, cu ct o persoan are o reea
social mai extins i are mai mult ncredere n persoanele din afara familiei, cu att nivelul de
toleran fa de romi este mai ridicat. n plus, existena unor contacte sociale cu membrii etniei
rome crete nivelul de toleran, adic interaciunea interetnic duce la scderea prejudecilor i a
discriminrii.
Ali factori cu efect asupra gradului de toleran sunt rezidena urban i nivelul general de
toleran fa de cei care fac parte din grupuri diferite etnic sau religios, exceptndu-i pe romi. Cu
ct individul este mai tolerant la modul general, cu att va avea mai puine prejudeci fa de romi.
De asemenea, cei care locuiesc n orae sunt mai tolerani fa de romi n comparaie cu populaia
rural.
Tabelul 36. Determinani ai toleranei fa de romi la populaia majoritar 18
Interaciunea cu romii
ncrederea n cei diferii
Efect asupra toleranei

+
+
16
Bouhris, Richard, John Turner, Andre Gaugnon. 1997. Interdependence, Social Identity and Discrimination, n
Oakes, Penelope, Naomi Ellemers, Alexander Haslam (coord.). The Social Psycholgy of Stereotiping and Group Life,
Oxford, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers
17
Sherif, Muzafer, Carolin Sherif. 1956. An Outline of Social Psychology. Revised Edition, New York: Harper &
Brothers
18
Modul de construcie al indicatorului de toleran fa de romi este prezentat n anex.

59
Dimensiunea reelei sociale individuale

Locuiete n mediul urban
Intoleran fa de cei diferii
(religios sau etnic cu excepia romilor)
Venit
Sex
Vrst
Educaie
+
+
-
Datele din tabel reprezint rezultatele unei analize de regresie liniar multipl (R2 = 0,111; Testul Durbin Watson =
1,522). Semnele + / - din tabel marcheaz coeficienii de regresie statistic semnificativi (pentru un nivel de semnificai
p<0,001).
Privind interaciunea cu populaia majoritar din perspectiva populaiei de romi, se poate

spune c, dei prejudecile fa de romi au sczut foarte mult n ultimii 14 ani, romii continu s se
simt discriminai n viaa cotidian i s considere c etnia reprezint un element important pentru
reuita n via. n comparaie, populaia majoritar nu consider c apartenena etnic i-a favorizat
n vreun fel, minimiznd impactul acesteia asupra reuitei sociale. Pentru romi, lucrurile stau altfel.
Conform datelor din Tabelul 37, opinia dominant n rndul romilor este c etnia este important
pentru reuita n via i pentru cea colar, ns domeniul n care discriminarea acioneaz cel mai
puternic pare s fie angajarea, romii simind prezena prejudecilor etnice atunci cnd vine vorba
despre locurile de munc.
Tabelul 37. Discriminarea etnic perceput n ocupaie i educaie
n localitatea dvs., n ce
Eantion
msur credei c etnia
naional
conteaz pentru
Ocuparea unui loc de munc
-10
Reuita copiilor la coal
-25
Reuita n via
-18
Eantion romi
35
6
14
Indicaie de citire a tabelului: datele prezentate n tabel reprezint Indici ai Opiniei Dominante (IOD) calculai
pentru fiecare variabil n parte. IOD variaz de la -100, la +100, valorile negative indicnd respingerea afirmaiei
respective, n timp ce valorile pozitive indic acordul cu itemul respectiv. Cu ct valorile sunt mai apropiate de +100, cu
att opinia respectiv este mai larg mprtit de ctre populaie
i n ceea ce privete tratamentul primit n instituiile publice exist diferene ntre romi i
populaia majoritar. n timp ce romii se simt discriminai n interaciunea cu toate instituiile,
romnii nu se consider deloc discriminai. Conform datelor furnizate de ctre Barometrul
Incluziunii Romilor discriminarea cea mai puternic resimit de ctre romi este n interaciunea cu
angajaii primriilor, ai poliiei i din sistemul sanitar. Nivelul cel mai sczut de discriminare este
resimit n cadrul colii. Studiile anterioare 19 arat c n instituii publice precum primriile sau
spitalele discriminarea este mai des ntlnit datorit puterii discreionare de care dispun angajaii
acestora. Astfel, acetia trebuie s selecteze ntre diferii solicitani i s distribuie resursele n
funcie de o serie de criterii birocratice. n acest proces, funcionarii acioneaz n funcie de
propriile prejudecai i tind s i favorizeze pe cei similari lor. Aceasta este i situaia de fa,
interaciunea cu personalul primriei care acord o serie de beneficii sociale fiind perceput ca fiind
defavorizat.
Figura 4. Discriminarea perceput n instituiile publice de ctre romi n raport cu romnii i de ctre romni n
raport cu romii (IOD)
19
Lipsky Michael. 1980. Level Street Bureaucracy Dilemmas of the Individual in the Public Services, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation
60
Esantion romi
Esantion national
Politie
Judectorie, Procuratur
Primrie
Spital / dispensar
Scoal
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Indicaie de citire a graficului: datele prezentate n grafic reprezint Indici ai Opiniei Dominante (IOD) calculai pentru
fiecare variabil n parte. IOD variaz de la -100, la +100, valorile negative indicnd respingerea afirmaiei respective,
n timp ce valorile pozitive indic acordul cu itemul respectiv. Cu ct valorile sunt mai apropiate de +100, cu att opinia
respectiv este mai larg mprtit de ctre populaie.
Tabelul 38. Determinani ai discriminrii percepute la populaia de romi 20
Interaciunea cu romnii
ncrederea n cei diferii
Vrsta
Locuiete n mediul urban
Practica religioas
Venit
Sex
Dimensiunea reelei sociale personale
Educaie
Efect asupra discriminrii percepute

+
-
Datele din tabel reprezint rezultatele unei analize de regresie liniar multipl (R2 = 0,120; Testul Durbin
Watson = 1,325). Semnele + / - din tabel marcheaz coeficienii de regresie statistic semnificativi (pentru un nivel de
semnificai p<0,001).
n cazul romilor, nivelul de capital social individual joac un rol important n determinarea
discriminrii percepute. Astfel c romii care interacioneaz mai frecvent cu romnii i cei care au
ncredere sporit n persoanele din afara familiei tind s se considere mai puin discriminai. n plus,
cei care frecventeaz biserica se simt mai puin discriminai probabil pentru c practica religioas i
integreaz n grupul de practicani i i ine conectai la un grup multietnic mai larg. De asemenea,
vrsta pare s influeneze nivelul de discriminare perceput, cei tineri considernd c primesc un
tratament difereniat n msur mai mare dect cei vrstnici. Din nou resursele individuale, precum
educaia i venitul, nu au importan n ceea ce privete discriminarea perceput.
Concluzii
Societatea romneasc a devenit mai tolerant n ultimii 14 ani, prejudecile fa de cei care
aparin unor grupuri etnice i religioase diferite reducndu-se semnificativ. Prejudecile i
intolerana fa de populaia de romi au sczut de asemenea foarte mult. Cu toate acestea, romii
continu s se simt discriminai n contactul cu instituiile publice i n angajarea n munc. coala
20
Indicatorul de discriminare perceput este construit ca scor aditiv din rspunsurile la ntrebrile: n ce msur
considerai c suntei tratat mai bine, la fel sau mai prost comparativ cu romnii la coal, spital, primrie,
judectorie, poliie. Scorul a cumulat ct un punct pentru fiecare caz n care persoana a afirmat c s-a considerat mai
prost tratat comparativ cu romnii.
61
este ns instituia n care romii se simt cel mai puin discriminai. Datele avute la dispoziie arat c
distana interetnic se reduce odat cu creterea capitalului social individual, adic a capacitii de
relaionare individual i a ncrederii n oameni. Rezultatele cercetrii indic faptul c nu resursele
materiale sau umane influeneaz calitatea relaiilor interetnice, ci capacitatea de a te relaiona cu
ali indivizi joac aici un rol important. Interaciunea cu oameni de etnie diferit crete tolerana i
duce la scderea tensiunilor i la nsntoirea societii. Practic, avem de a face cu un mecanism
circular, care duce la integrare social, interaciunea sporete tolerana care duce la rndul su la
creterea interaciunii interetnice.
62
Anex: modul de construcie al indicilor utilizai n analiz

Saturaii i comunaliti pentru factorul Toleran fa de populaia de romi
n opinia dvs. este bine sau nu ca
Saturaii Comunaliti
romnii i romii s locuiasc n aceeai zon a localitii
0,831
0,691
elevii romi i cei romni s nvee n aceeai clas
0,899
0,808
romnii i romii s lucreze n acelai birou/atelier
0,899
0,808
romnii i romii s se cstoreasc ntre ei
0,716
0,513
copiii romni i romi s se joace mpreun
0,892
0,796
Metoda folosit pentru extragerea factorilor a fost Principal Axis Factoring
KMO = 0,890; variaia total explicat de factor fiind de 72%
Saturaii i comunaliti pentru factorul ncredere n cei diferii

n opinia dvs. este bine sau nu s ai ncredere n
Saturaii Comunaliti
oameni ntlnii pentru prima dat
0,602
0,363
oamenii de alt religie
0,912
0,832
oamenii de alt naionalitate
0,908
0,823
Metoda folosit pentru extragerea factorilor a fost Principal Axis Factoring
KMO = 0,664; variaia total explicat de factor fiind de 67%
63
Viaa de familie
Cosima Rughini
Unele aspecte ale vieii de cuplu i de familie n general, aa cum sunt ele surprinse prin
indicatorii din baza de date, difer semnificativ n funcie de etnie, avnd deci o component
cultural vizibil. Nu de puine ori ns influena etniei include, sau mai bine zis ascunde influena
colarizrii, care este poate variabila cu cele mai puternice consecine asupra comportamentului de
cuplu. Deoarece persoanele de etnie rom au urmat semnificativ mai puini ani de coal dect
persoanele de alte etnii, o comparaie global ntre aceste dou categorii va reflecta simultan
influena apartenenei la o comunitate etnic, cu normele ei specifice, i experiena colarizrii, care
transform felul n care oamenii vd lumea.
n medie, gospodriile subiecilor romi includ aproximativ 5-6 persoane, fiind semnificativ
mai numeroase dect gospodriile subiecilor de alte etnii, care includ n medie 3-4 persoane (vezi
Tabelul 39). Aceast diferen este dat mai ales de numrul copiilor, deoarece numrul
vrstnicilor este mai mic n gospodriile de romi.
Tabelul 39. Din ci membri este alctuit gospodria dvs. ?
Alt etnie
Etnic rom
Total membri Copii sub 7

ani
3,60
0,23
5,70
0,86
Copii ntre 7 i Copii ntre 11 Vrstnici de

11 ani
i 15 ani
peste 60 de ani
0,20
0,20
0,57
0,60
0,53
0,41
Debutul maturitii
n Tabelul 42 putem urmri variabilele care au influen asupra vrstei de la care subiectul
ncepe s devin un om matur. Brbaii i ncep viaa de familie n general mai trziu dect femeile,
dar ncep s lucreze un pic mai repede.
Influena vrstei este pozitiv ceea ce pare paradoxal, dar se datoreaz de fapt caracterului
n curs de desfurare al fenomenelor analizate, n raport cu viaa persoanelor din eantion (vezi
i situaia similar din seciunea Cstoria). De exemplu, vrsta la primul copil este inevitabil mai
mic pentru persoanele mai tinere, deoarece persoanele care nasc primul copil mai trziu vor fi
surprinse n categoriile de vrst mai mari. Influena vrstei n acest caz nu reflect o diferen ntre
generaii, ci doar timpul mai lung sau mai scurt pe care diferitele persoane l-au avut la dispoziie
pentru a realiza un anumit eveniment. Singurul fenomen care n linii mari este finalizat pentru
marea majoritate a subiecilor (cu excepia studenilor), i anume terminarea colii, este i cazul n
care nu exist o influen semnificativ a vrstei.
Vrsta de maturizare este mai redus n mediul rural dect n cel urban, dar aceast variabil
este mai puin important dect etnia i educaia. Etnia rom are o influen substanial,
independent de educaie: persoanele rome termin coala mai devreme i i ntemeiaz i familia
mai timpuriu, dac includem aici i relaiile de concubinaj (vezi Tabelul 45) dei ncep s
munceasc aproximativ la aceeai vrst cu persoanele ne-rome.
O ipotez interesant, pe linia vizibilitii publice de care se bucur cstoriile la vrste
fragede n comunitile tradiionale de romi, ar putea afirma c principala tensiune n familiile rome
o pune colarizarea copiilor cu nceperea vieii de familie, i nu cu munca, tinerele cupluri fiind
probabil sprijinite de prini. Aceast ipotez este ns contrazis, cel puin la nivel exploratoriu, de
datele din Tabelul 40 i din Tabelul 41, care arat c exist un decalaj mediu substanial ntre
vrsta la prima cstorie i vrsta ieirii din sistemul colar de aproximativ 5 ani la tinerii romi i
3,5 ani la tinerele rome. Un astfel de decalaj nu permite avansarea ipotezei c ieirea prematur din
coal se datoreaz cstoriei. Mai degrab este vorba despre eecul sistemului colar de a capta
interesul copiilor i tinerilor romi, care abandoneaz coala fr a fi silii nici de viaa de familie,
nici de presiunea de a munci. Aceleai tabele ne arat de altfel un decalaj mediu de aproximativ un
64
an jumtate pentru tinerii romi i doi ani pentru tinerele rome ntre ieirea din coal i nceperea
muncii.
Tabelul 40. Debutul maturitii pentru brbai. La ce vrst (ani)
Ai avut Ai plecat Ai nceput

Ai terminat V-ai
coala?
cstorit/ai primul
din casa
s muncii?
intrat n
copil?
prinilor?
concubinaj?
Rom romnizat
19
15
20
21
16
Alt fel de rom
19
14
19
20
15
Alt etnie (romn, ungur etc.)
18
24
25
20
18
Diferenele subliniate i cele dintre romi i ne-romi sunt statistic semnificative pentru p=0.01
n Tabelul 40 putem observa de asemenea c tinerii romi care se declar romi romnizai
difer semnificativ statistic fa de ceilali tineri romi n ceea ce privete vrsta la care au intrat
treptat n maturitate situndu-se n medie ntre ei i bieii de alte etnii. Mici diferene exist i n
cazul tinerelor rome romnizate, dar ele nu sunt semnificative statistic.
Tabelul 41. Debutul maturitii pentru femei: La ce vrst (ani)

Ai terminat V-ai
din casa
s muncii?
coala?
cstorit/ai primul
intrat n
copil?
prinilor?
concubinaj?
Rom romnizat
14
17
19
17
16
Alt fel de rom
14
17
18
17
16
17
20
22
19
18
Total
15
19
20
18
17
Diferenele dintre romi i ne-romi sunt statistic semnificative pentru p=0.01; cele ntre romii romnizai i
ceilali romi nu sunt semnificative
Tabelul 42. Dependena vrstei de maturizare de sex, etnie, educaie i generaie: La ce vrst (coeficieni
standardizai de regresie multipl; variabila dependent este vrsta optim, variabilele independente sunt pe
linii)
Ai terminat
coala?
V-ai
cstorit/ai
intrat n
concubinaj?
(35%)
Ai avut
primul
copil?
Ai plecat Ai nceput
din casa s
prinilor? muncii?
(R2 - Variana explicat de model 21) (34%)

(35%)
(9%)
(20%)
.249
Sex respondent
.060
.246
.119
-.051
-.190
-.015
Etnic rom
-.194
-.090
-.350
.105
Vrst respondent
.065
.115
.101
.113
.347
Ultima coal absolvit a
(inaplicabil)
.334
.175
.377
respondentului
.073
.009
Mediu urban
.087
.113
.136
Vrsta la care mama a terminat
.287
coala
Coeficienii subliniai sunt statistic semnificativ diferii de zero pentru p=0.01
21
n interpretarea procentului de varian explicat, n toate modelele de regresie din aceast analiz, trebuie inut cont
de faptul c modelele de regresie au fost realizate pe totalitatea subiecilor romi i ne-romi din cercetare, proporia de
romi fiind deci mult supra-reprezentat fa de nivelul naional. Din aceasta cauz variabila etnic rom contribuie
substanial la explicarea variaiei variabilei efect.
65
Diferene de generaie
Cum difer ns generaiile sau categoriile de vrst ntre ele n ceea ce privete debutul
maturitii, dac le privim n ansamblu? n cazul persoanelor de etnie rom, n ceea ce privete
proporia de femei care au rmas nsrcinate nainte de 18 ani (aproximat prin proporia celor care
au nscut primul copil la 18 ani sau mai devreme) putem observa o scdere de la generaia vrstnic
nspre cele mai tinere, dar aceste diferene nu sunt semnificative statistic n eantionul BIR, putnd
deci s se datoreze ansei. Peste jumtate dintre femeile rome i-au conceput primul copil nainte de
vrsta de 18 ani (vezi Tabelul 43). Din totalul femeilor ne-rome, doar aproximativ 16% au
conceput un copil nainte de 18 ani.
Tabelul 43. Proporia gravidelor minore n funcie de categoria de vrst
Categoria de vrst
Au nscut primul copil

la 18 ani sau mai puin
20-29
51
30-39
52
40-49
55
50 i peste
61
Diferenele ntre categoriile de vrst nu sunt statistic semnificative pentru p=0.05
De asemenea, nu se nregistreaz diferene semnificative ntre generaii n ceea ce privete

vrsta la care au terminat coala subiecii romi nici pentru femei, nici pentru brbai.
Faptul c nu exist diferene substaniale ntre generaii n ceea ce privete debutul
maturitii este confirmat i de compararea informaiilor despre subieci cu cele pe care ei le ofer
despre prinii lor. De exemplu, n cazul femeilor rome, vedem c vrsta medie la care i-au nceput
diferite aspecte ale vieii de adult este foarte apropiat de vrsta medie a mamelor persoanelor din
eantion (vezi Tabelul 60).
Diferene de concepie
Diferenele de experien personal sunt asociate cu diferene de concepie privind vrsta
optim pentru debutul vieii adulte. De exemplu, persoanele care au devenit prini timpuriu cred c
este bine ca o fat sau un biat s se cstoreasc semnificativ mai devreme dect ceilali subieci.
Cele mai importante caracteristici de care depinde ns vrsta considerat optim pentru maturizare
sunt etnia i colarizarea. Astfel, persoanele de etnie rom cred, independent de educaie, c vrsta
maturizrii trebuie s fie mai redus; persoanele cu educaie mai mic sunt de asemenea de prere
c debutul vieii de adult trebuie s se petreac mai devreme fa de cele cu educaie mai ridicat,
independent de etnie (vezi Tabelul 44). Mediul de reziden exercit o mic influen asupra acestor
concepii n ceea ce privete fetele, dar nu n ceea ce privete bieii ceea ce indic o omogenizare
surprinztoare a modelelor familiale n rural i urban, atunci cnd inem cont de educaie i de alte
variabile relevante.
Tabelul 44. Care credei c este cea mai potrivit vrst la care este bine (coeficieni standardizai de regresie
multipl; variabila dependent este vrsta optim, variabilele independente sunt pe linii)
(R2 - Variana explicat de model)

Etnic rom
respondentului
Mediu de reziden
Vrst respondent
La ce vrst...ai avut primul copil?
S se cstoreasc
O fat
Un biat
(32%)
(35%)
-.305
.272
.074
-.090
.100
S aib un copil
O fat
Un biat
(26%)
(30%)
-.327
-.223
.248
.248
-.260
.233
.023
-.014
.149
.021
-.033
.205
.065
-.093
.160
66
Sex respondent
.135
.147
.088
.108
Cstoria
Starea matrimonial depinde surprinztor de puin de etnie, mai ales dup vrsta de 30 de
ani. n ceea ce i privete pe tineri (18-29 ani), putem observa c aproximativ dou treimi dintre
persoanele ne-rome sunt necstorite, n timp ce doar o treime dintre tinerii romi sunt necstorii.
Restul de o treime sunt implicai ns n relaii de concubinaj, nu n cstorii cu acte. Proporia de
tineri cstorii formal este aceeai pentru romi i pentru ne-romi, i anume de aproximativ un sfert.
Este posibil ca raportarea la relaiile stabile cu persoane de sex opus s fie diferit ntre tinerii romi
i ne-romi i astfel s fie tradus diferit n rspunsurile la chestionar. De exemplu, probabil c unii
tineri ne-romi care sunt implicai n relaii stabile consider c sunt necstorii, n timp ce acelai
tip de relaie poate fi calificat cu mai mare uurin de tinerii romi ca fiind concubinaj, datorit
familiarizrii mai mari cu termenul i cu tipul de relaie.
Pentru toate celelalte categorii de vrst observm c proporia de cstorii formale plus
proporia de cstorii fr acte este aceeai, indiferent de etnie: aproximativ 90% pentru cei ntre 30
i 39 de ani, 85% pentru intervalul 40-49 de ani i 70% pentru intervalul de 50 de ani i peste.
Persoanele ne-rome aleg ns mai des s i oficializeze relaiile stabile de cuplu, astfel nct
proporia de persoane cstorite fr acte este semnificativ mai mare n cazul respondenilor romi
(Tabelul 45). n cazul celor de peste 50 de ani, proporia de persoane vduve este aceeai pentru
romi i ne-romi.
Tabelul 45. n prezent suntei (%)
Necstorit
Cstorit cu acte
Cstorit fr acte,
concubinaj
Divorat, separat
Vduv
Total
18-29 ani
30-39 ani
40-49 ani
50 de ani i peste
Alt
Rom
Alt
Rom
Alt
Rom
Alt
Rom
etnie
etnie
etnie
etnie
8
3
4
4
3
1
68
33
24
26
78
57
78
61
68
55
8
39
10
33
7
25
2
17
0
0
100
2
0
100
4
0
100
5
2
100
6
5
100
6
5
100
2
26
100
2
25
100
Att n cazul romilor ct i al ne-romilor, proporia de persoane necstorite este

semnificativ mai mare n cazul brbailor dect al femeilor; proporia de persoane recstorite nu
difer ns semnificativ n funcie de sex. Aproximativ 15% dintre persoanele de etnie rom sunt
recstorite (cu acte sau fr acte), fa de 9% dintre persoanele de etnie romn ceea ce indic o
stabilitate uor mai redus a relaiilor matrimoniale n cazul cuplurilor ntemeiate de persoane rome
(vezi
Tabelul 63).
Copiii
Att etnia, ct i colarizarea au o influen semnificativ asupra numrului de copii pe care
ii are o femeie. De asemenea, o alt variabil relevant o constituie debutul vieii familiale:
persoanele care au nscut primul copil mai devreme au nscut n medie mai muli copii - observaie
de altfel intuitiv. Influena pozitiv a vrstei se datoreaz de asemenea caracterului n curs de
desfurare al fenomenului femeile tinere au avut mai puin timp la dispoziie pentru a nate copii
dect cele mai vrstnice; nu este deci vorba despre o diferen de generaie.
67
Tabelul 46. Ci copiii (vii) ai nscut?
Coeficieni de
corelaie parial
(R2)
(21%)
Etnic rom
.190
-.150
respondentului
Mediu de reziden
-.035
Vrsta subiectului
.224
La ce vrst...ai avut primul copil?
-.189
n Tabelul 47 putem observa c, privind n ansamblu i fr s inem cont de diferenele de

educaie, femeile rome se numr mai frecvent n categoriile de mame cu patru, cinci, ase i mai
muli copii. n total, aproximativ 40% dintre femeile rome intervievate au nscut cel puin patru
copii, n comparaie cu proporia de aproximativ 12% dintre femeile de alt etnie.
Tabelul 47. Numrul de copii nscui vii (pentru respondenii femei) (%)
Alt etnie
Nici unul
Unul
Doi
Trei
Patru
Cinci
ase i peste
Total
Etnic rom
17
11
27
14
33
20
11
17
5
15
4
10
3
13
100
100
Planificarea familial
n Tabelul 48 putem observa c proporia de femei rome care au fcut cel puin o
ntrerupere de sarcin, de aproximativ 35%, este uor mai ridicat dect proporia femeilor ne-rome
aflate n aceast situaie; de asemenea, experiena avorturilor repetate este mai frecvent n rndul
femeilor rome. Diferenele nu sunt mari, dar sunt semnificative statistic. Aceast comparaie ne
arat faptul c femeile rome fac eforturi de planificare familial ntr-o msur comparabil cu
femeile ne-rome; metoda avortului ns, mult mai larg rspndit n rndul populaiei Romniei
dect metodele de contracepie, este limitat n ceea ce poate produce, datorit efectelor negative
pentru sntatea femeii, a implicaiilor morale i n general a problemelor pe care le pune n cadrul
familiei.
Tabelul 48. Numrul de ntreruperi de sarcin (%)
Alt etnie
Nici una
Una
Dou
Trei
Patru
Cinci i peste
Total
Etnic rom
71
64
7
8
9
6
6
7
3
5
5
10
100
100
68
Persoanele de etnie rom folosesc metode contraceptive ntr-o proporie de aproximativ

15%, fa de 25% dintre persoanele de alte etnii. Educaia colar explic parial aceast diferen,
dat fiind c n cazul ambelor etnii persoanele mai educate folosesc mai des metode contraceptive
dect cele cu un nivel de colarizare mai sczut. Totui, persoanele rome cu educaie medie
apeleaz semnificativ mai rar la contracepie dect cele ne-rome cu un nivel colar similar (Tabelul
49).
Tabelul 49. Dvs. folosii metode pentru a evita sarcina? (% rspunsuri afirmative, n funcie de categoriile de
educaie colar)
Categorii de educaie
Fr coal
Primar
Gimnazial
Ucenici, treapta 1, profesional, liceu
Postliceal, universitar
Total
Alt etnie
Etnic rom
- (21 cazuri)
10
5
9
15
15
33
22
34
- (11 cazuri)
25
13
Diferenele subliniate sunt statistic semnificative pentru p=0.05
n ceea ce privete alegerea metodelor contraceptive, persoanele de etnie rom declar mai
des c folosesc metode feminine (pilul, injecie sau sterilet) dect persoanele de alt etnie, n cazul
crora folosirea prezervativului este mai rspndit (Tabelul 50).
Tabelul 50. Metode de planificare familial folosite - % rspunsuri din subiecii care folosesc metode de
contracepie
Metode naturale (abstinen, calendar, retragere)

Metode feminine (pilul, injecie, sterilet)
Prezervativ
Total
Alt etnie Etnic rom

22.2
27.3
37.2
46.1
40.6
26.6
100.0
100.0
Idealul familial
Proporia de femei rome care nu mai doresc copii este aceeai cu proporia femeilor de alt
etnie, i anume aproximativ 75%. Totui, n cazul femeilor care mai doresc copii, persoanele de
etnie rom difer prin faptul c doresc mai muli (vezi
Tabelul 51).
Proporia persoanelor care i mai doresc copii este mai mare n cazul brbailor dect n
cazul femeilor o reflectare, probabil, a efortului asimetric pe care l fac prinii pentru creterea
copiilor. Dac, de exemplu, doar 25% dintre femeile rome i mai doresc copii, n cazul brbailor
romi proporia este de aproximativ 45% - iar peste o treime dintre brbaii romi i doresc s mai
aib nc cel puin trei copii. n aceste condiii este inevitabil c negocierile n cuplul familial,
explicite sau implicite, asupra descendenei nu vor putea ignora preferinele soului mai ales n
condiiile unei lipse de acces real la mijloace de planificare familial i a unui model familial relativ
tradiional.
Tabelul 51. Ci copii mai dorii?
Femei
Alt etnie
Nici unul
Unul
Doi
Trei sau mai muli
Brbai
Alt etnie
Etnic rom
76
8
5
11
75
5
3
17
Etnic rom
65
5
7
23
56
3
5
36
69
Total
100
100
100
100
Modelul familial dominant, indiferent de etnie, este cel cu 1-2 copii (Tabelul 61)
mprtit de aproximativ dou treimi din persoanele ne-rome i jumtate dintre persoanele rome.
Proporia celor care rspund c este cel mai bine ca ntr-o familie s nu fie copii este practic zero. n
jur de 20% dintre romi i ne-romi cred c este cel mai bine ca o familie s aib 2-3 copii. Familiile
mai mari sunt considerate dezirabile de aproximativ 13% dintre ne-romi i de aproximativ 30%
dintre romi.
colarizarea
Participarea colar a copiilor din familiile de romi este semnificativ mai sczut dect n
cazul celorlalte familii. De exemplu, Tabelul 62 prezint numrul mediu de copii necolarizai n
funcie de vrsta copilului i de etnia prinilor.
Dac lum n considerare toi copiii din gospodriile subiecilor, putem, pe baza
informaiilor din baza de date, s vedem ci sunt n total i ci nu merg la coal sau grdini, n
funcie de categoria de vrst (vezi
Tabelul 52). Pe baza tabelului, putem calcula aproximativ frecvena necolarizrii copiilor.
De exemplu, din totalul copiilor ntre 0-6 ani aflai n gospodriile subiecilor ne-romi, 48% nu
merg nici la grdini nici la cre fa de 80% n cazul copiilor romi. n cazul copiilor cuprini
ntre 7 i 11 ani n gospodriile subiecilor din eantion, 19% nu merg la coal n cazul subiecilor
romi fa de 2% n cazul subiecilor romni. Pentru copiii peste 11 ani, 39% nu merg la coal n
cazul subiecilor romi, fa de 9% n cazul subiecilor ne-romi.
n ansamblu, dintre copiii cu vrste ntre 11 i 15 ani cuprini n gospodriile subiecilor
romi intervievai, aproximativ 28,4% nu merg la coal. Aceste date sunt concordante cu estimrile
bazate pe Ancheta Bugetelor de Familie, 2001, conform crora 27,9 % dintre copiii romi cuprini
ntre 7 i 14 ani nu urmeaz coala (Grigora 2005). De asemenea, calcule realizate pe Ancheta
Bugetelor de Familie n ceea ce privete copiii romi ntre 8 i 16 ani arat c n 2004 proporia celor
care nu erau elevi era de 25,7%, iar n 2003 de 31,3% (Zamfir, Briciu et al. 2005, p. 48).
Tabelul 52. Distribuia copiilor necolarizai din gospodriile subiecilor pe categorii etnice i de vrst (suma
valorilor variabilelor, pentru subiecii din eantion)
Numrul de copii sub 7 ani din gospodrie

Dintre care: Copii 0-6 ani care nu merg la cre/grdini
Numrul de copii ntre 7 i 11 ani din gospodrie
Dintre care: Copii 7-11 ani care nu merg la coal
Numrul de copii ntre 11 i 15 ani din gospodrie
Dintre care: Copii 11-15 ani care nu merg la coala
Romi
Ne-romi
(sum)
(sum)
1221
295
978
141
846
252
162
6
745
252
290
22
De asemenea, putem s observm comparativ proporia de prini care au copii

necolarizai. Din totalul prinilor romi care au copii n intervalul de vrst 7-11 ani, aproximativ
20% au un copil n acest interval care nu se duce la coal fa de 3% n cazul celorlalte etnii. De
asemenea, dac lrgim intervalul de vrst la 7-15 ani, aproximativ 30% dintre prinii romi au un
copil necolarizat, fa de 8% dintre prinii de alt etnie. Persoanele care se identific etnic cu
70
categoria romi romnizai difer semnificativ de persoanele rome cu alte identificri, avnd o
proporie mai redus de prini cu copii necolarizai (de 10% respectiv 20%) (vezi
Tabelul 53).
Tabelul 53. Prini care au copii necolarizai n intervalul de vrst 7-11 ani, respectiv 7-15 ani, n funcie de
identificarea etnic. (% rspunsuri afirmative)
Au un copil necolarizat n
intervalul...
7-11 ani
7-15 ani
Rom romnizat
10
21
Alt fel de
rom
24
37
Romi total
19
31
Alt etnie
(roman, ungur etc)
3
8
n general proporia copiilor romi care merg la coli distante (4 km i peste) este
semnificativ mai redus dect proporia copiilor de alt etnie n aceast situaie probabil datorit
lipsei accesului la mijloace de transport care s le permit acest lucru (vezi
Tabelul 64 i Tabelul 65).
colarizarea sczut a copiilor romi n raport cu copiii de alt etnie, pe parcursul ultimelor
generaii, poate fi observat i n diferenele de educaie colar dintre populaia rom i populaia
de alte etnii (vezi Tabelul 54). Practic, jumtate dintre persoanele rome au colarizare primar sau
deloc, n timp ce educaia postliceal sau universitar este ntlnit ntr-o proporie foarte redus.
Aceste date confirm nc o dat concluzia numeroaselor cercetri realizate n aceast direcie i
anume eecul cronic al sistemului colar romnesc de a include copiii i tinerii romi.
Tabelul 54. Variaia educaiei colare n funcie de etnie
Alt etnie
Fr coal
colarizare primar
colarizare gimnazial
coal de ucenici, treapta 1, coal
profesional, liceu
colarizare postliceal, universitar
Total
Etnic rom
2
11
24
48
23
28
33
15
15
1
100
100
Aceste diferene n colarizare, pentru generaiile adulte dar i pentru copiii acestora, apar n
ciuda unei valorizri relativ similare a educaiei. ntrebai n ce msur anii de coal conteaz
pentru reuita n via, 20% dintre respondenii romi cred c n mic sau foarte mic msur, fa de
10% dintre respondenii de alt etnie (Tabelul 55). Diferenele cresc ns atunci cnd contextul
ntrebrii este mai pragmatic. Pui n situaia ipotetic a unui printe al crui copil a terminat 8
clase, aproximativ 55% dintre subiecii romi l-ar sftui s mearg la liceu, fa de 90% dintre
subiecii de alt etnie, n timp ce aproape un sfert dintre ipoteticii prini romi l-ar sftui s nceap
s munceasc, fa de 5% dintre cei de alt etnie (
71
Tabelul 56).
Tabelul 55. n ce msur credei c educaia (anii de coal) conteaz pentru reuita n via:
n foarte mic msur

n mic msur
n mare msur
n foarte mare msur
Alt etnie
Etnic rom
6
4
9
17
31
43
54
36
100
100
Tabelul 56. Dac ai avea un copil care tocmai a terminat 8 clase, ce l-ai sftui s fac:
Alta etnie
Etnic
rom
s mearg la liceu
87
53
s mearg la scoala profesional,de ucenici
7
19
s nceap s munceasc
4
23
nu l-as sftui nimic
2
5
100
100
Este foarte interesant c, n interiorul populaiei de romi, prinii care au copii necolarizai
rspund la fel cu cei care nu au la ntrebarea privind sfatul ipotetic. Este vizibil aici o falie clar
ntre credine i comportament. Capacitatea prinilor romi de a-i traduce n practic valorile i
evalurile privitoare la educaie este mai redus dect cea a prinilor ne-romi. Dei instituia
colar, prin reprezentanii ei de la interfaa cu prinii i anume, profesorii acuz deseori lipsa
de motivaie i interes a prinilor romi pentru educaia copiilor, este clar c decalajul de valorizare
a educaiei colare nu explic dect parial eecul colar al copiilor romi. Amploarea excluziunii
colare a acestora este att de grav nct dimensiunea ei structural nu poate fi neglijat: este vorba,
mai nainte de toate, de un eec de sistem, i nu de un eec individual.
Creterea copilului
Prinii romi prefer n mai mare msur naterea unui bieel, dect prinii ne-romi; cel
puin n cazul n care o familie are un singur copil, o treime dintre persoanele intervievate de etnie
rom cred c ar fi mai bine ca acesta s fie biat, fa de 15% dintre cei de alte etnii. Preferina
pentru o fiic este egal distribuit, n aproximativ 12% din cazuri ceea ce difer este proporia
celor care rspund nu conteaz (vezi Tabelul 57).
Tabelul 57. Dac o familie nu poate avea dect un singur copil, credei c ar fi mai bine ca acesta s fie feti sau
bieel?
Feti
Bieel
Nu conteaz
Total
Alt etnie Etnic rom

12
13
16
37
73
50
100
100
72
Mamele rome alpteaz nou nscuii semnificativ mai mult dect mamele de alt etnie; n
medie, ele dedic aproximativ 13 luni alptrii bebeluului, fa de 9 luni n cazul celorlalte mame.
Totui, vrsta medie la care copilul este familiarizat cu alte alimente (fructe, pine, legume etc.) este
aceeai indiferent de etnie: ase luni i jumtate.
n ceea ce privete pedepsele corporale, practicile sunt uniforme pentru prinii romni i
pentru cei romi. Mici diferene apar n cazul aplicrii unei palme la fund, prinii romi fiind mai
reticeni; metodele mai dure (o palm peste obraz sau btaia cu un obiect) sunt dezaprobate n egal
msur (
Tabelul 58).
Tabelul 58. I-ai dat vreodat ultimului dvs. copil
O palm la fund?
Alt etnie
Niciodat
Rareori
Uneori
Deseori
Total
O palm peste O btaie cu

obraz?
cureaua sau cu alt
obiect?
Etnic rom
21
37
28
15
100
25
52
73
34
29
18
17
8
33
3
1
9
100
100
100
Diferenele subliniate sunt statistic semnificative pentru p=0.01
Experiena morii
Decesul unui copil
Experiena tragic a morii unui copil este nc frecvent n familiile din Romnia:
aproximativ 10% dintre subiecii ne-romi i 15% dintre cei romi au trecut printr-o astfel de situaie,
iar aproximativ 3% dintre prinii n ambele categorii etnice au trit doliul dup un copil de repetate
ori (vezi Tabelul 59).
Tabelul 59. Ai avut vreun copil care s fi murit?
Alt etnie
Nici unul
Unul
Doi sau mai
muli
Total
Etnic rom
89
8
3
84
13
4
100
100
73
Diferena dintre subiecii romi i ne-romi este statistic semnificativ; ea poate fi atribuit pe
de o parte efectului probabilitii, n condiiile n care prinii romi au mai muli copii dect cei neromi, dar i condiiilor mai adverse de trai cu care se confrunt cei dinti. O comparare a celor dou
cauze este dificil de realizat cu precizie n condiiile datelor de fa. Aproximativ, putem vedea de
exemplu c femeile ne-rome din eantion care au nscut copii au avut n total 1234 de copii i au
trecut prin experiena a 103 decese, ceea ce nseamn c aproximativ 8,5% dintre copiii nscui de
femeile ne-rome din eantion au murit. n cazul femeilor rome care au avut copii, numrul total al
nscuilor vii este de 2223 iar cel al deceselor de 182; aproximativ 8,2% dintre copiii nscui de
femeile rome din eantion au murit. Cele dou proporii sunt foarte asemntoare, indicnd faptul
c, dac exist riscuri sporite de deces n cazul copiilor romi, acestea nu sunt probabil foarte
ridicate.
Decesul unui adult
Informaiile pe care le avem n baza de date despre aceast experien sunt indirecte. Dup
cum am vzut n Tabelul 39, numrul mediu de persoane vrstnice din gospodriile romilor este
mai redus dect n cazul gospodriilor subiecilor de alte etnii. Dat fiind c nu putem vorbi despre o
norm de desprindere a familiilor tinere de vrstnici care s fie mai puternic n cazul persoanelor
rome, probabil c aceast diferen se datoreaz speranei mai reduse de via a populaiei de etnie
rom. n ceea ce privete vduvia, ea este rspndit n aceeai proporie n cadrul persoanelor rome
i al celor de alt etnie (vezi Tabelul 45).
Concluzii
Comportamentele de cuplu i familiale ale persoanelor rome difer substanial de cele ale
persoanelor ne-rome n cteva privine cele mai clare fiind debutul maturitii i descendena.
Tinerii romi devin aduli i prini mai devreme dect cei ne-romi, iar n general familiile rome au
mai muli copii. Este interesant de observat n aceast privin faptul c dorina de a avea o familie
mai numeroas este ntlnit mai des n cazul brbailor romi dect n cazul femeilor. De asemenea,
femeile rome fac eforturi de planificare familial comparabile cu femeile ne-rome, dar mai limitate
n eficien deoarece se bazeaz mai ales pe metoda avortului.
Alte aspecte ale relaiilor de cuplu sunt foarte asemntoare ntre romi i ne-romi, cum ar fi
frecvena cstoriilor (formale i informale) i atitudinea fa de pedepsele fizice aplicate copiilor.
Relaiile de cuplu n cazul persoanelor ne-rome sunt mai des oficializate dect n cazul celor rome,
i sunt uor mai stabile.
n ceea ce privete copiii, colarizarea variaz puternic n funcie de apartenena etnic.
Sistemul educaional romnesc este nc departe de a face fa problemei deficitului de educaie cu
care se confrunt generaie dup generaie de romi dei problema nu este nici nou, nici
necunoscut. Prin urmare, resursele de care vor dispune copiii i tinerii romi de azi pentru a se
adapta la un mediu social n schimbare tot mai rapid sunt sever limitate. Fr sprijinul statului
pentru formarea colar i profesional n copilrie i tineree, generaiile rome continu s intre n
via cu o nevoie accentuat de sprijin familial i public, care le va marca ntreaga via.
Anexe
Tabelul 60. Debutul maturitii: date despre mama subiectului
Ai
terminat
coala?
Rom romnizat
Alt fel de rom
V-ai cstorit/ai
intrat n concubinaj? primul
din casa s
copil?
prinilor? muncii?
13
17
18
17
15
12
17
18
17
14
74

16
20
21
19
17
Diferenele dintre romi i ne-romi sunt statistic semnificative pentru p=0.01; cele ntre romii romanizai i
ceilali romi nu sunt semnificative
Tabelul 61. Ci copii este bine s fie ntr-o familie?
Alt etnie
1-2 copii
2-3 copii
3-4 copii
4-5 copii sau mai muli 22
Total
Etnic rom
68
19
6
7
100
47
24
12
17
100
Tabelul 62. n gospodrie exist... (valori medii, n funcie de identificarea etnic)
Alt etnie
Etnic rom
Copii 0-6 ani care nu merg

la cre/grdini
.11
.69
Copii 7-11 ani care nu merg Copii 11-15 ani care nu

la coal
merg la coal
.00
.02
.11
.20
Tabelul 63. Numrul de cstorii al subiectului (% pe sexe)
Etnie
Alt etnie
Cstorii
Nici una
Una
Dou
Trei i peste
Total
Nici una
Una
Dou
Trei i peste
Total
Etnic rom
Brbai
18
73
7
2
100
16
68
11
5
100
Femei
11
81
7
2
100
10
76
11
3
100
Tabelul 64. Distana pn la coal, pentru cel mai mic elev din gospodrie (km)
Alt etnie
0-1 km
2-3 km
4 km i peste
Total
Etnic rom
51
58
25
34
24
8
100
100
Tabelul 65. Cu ce merge copilul la coal?
Alt etnie
Pe jos
Transport n comun
Maina colii
22
Etnic rom
73
17
6
94
5
2
Inclusiv rspunsurile ct vrea Dumnezeu.

75
Maina familiei
Total
3
0
100
100
Bibliografie
Grigora, Vlad (2002). Excluziunea social n cazul populaiei de etnie rom. Analiz a datelor din
Ancheta Bugetelor de Familie 2001. Lucrare de master nepublicat.
Zamfir, Ctlin (coord.), Briciu, Cosmin et. al. (2005). Dignoza srciei i a riscurilor n
dezvoltarea copilului din Romnia. Academia Romn, Institutul de Cercetare a Calitii Vieii.
Disponibil on-line pe site-ul ICCV la adresa URL:
http://www.iccv.ro/romana/articole/Saracia_copilului_oct_2006.zip
Capital uman i capital social la populaia de romi

Gabriel Bdescu
Sunt romii mai sraci dect ceilali oameni din Romnia? Studiile n care resursele
financiare i materiale ale romilor sunt comparate cu cele ale membrilor altor etnii din Romnia pun
de fiecare dat n eviden diferene importante n defavoarea celor dinti. Capitolul Condiii de
locuit i probleme financiare la populaia de romi din acest volum arat clar faptul c persoanele
de etnie rom au n medie mai puini bani, locuiesc n case supraaglomerate, construite din
materiale de calitate mai slab i au mai puin acces la utilitile de baz (canalizare, gaz, ap,
electricitate).
Cum stau romii din perspectiva altor resurse dect a celor de tip financiar i material? n ce
msur au acces la informaii utile sau deprinderi care s i ajute s se descurce i, eventual, s
compenseze pentru nivelele reduse ale celorlalte tipuri de resurse? Ct de mult se pot baza pe
ajutorul familiei, al prietenilor, al cunotinelor, sau ct de uor le este s colaboreze cu ali oameni
pentru a-i rezolva problemele? Sau n termenii folosii n tiinele sociale, ct de mult capital uman
(informaii, deprinderi, cunotine) i capital social (relaii utile, capacitatea de a coopera) au romii
fa de ceilali oameni din Romnia?
Capitalul uman al romilor

De ce tind romii s fie mai sraci dect ceilali oameni care triesc n Romnia? Liderii romi
identific adesea drept o cauz important nivelul mai sczut de educaie colar al romilor n
comparaie cu cel al membrilor altor etnii. Datele acestei cercetri indic ntr-adevr o structur
educaional a romilor mult diferit de cea a restului populaiei: 23% dintre respondenii romi nu au
coal, 27% au absolvit patru clase, iar 33% au opt clase - fa de 2% fr coal, 11% avnd patru
clase i 24% cu opt clase n rndul celorlalte etnii considerate mpreun; 95% dintre romi nu au
absolvit liceul, comparat cu 60% n rndul celorlali respondeni (vezi Tabelul 15 n capitolul "viaa
de familie").
Mai mult, romii par s fi beneficiat mult mai puin de o cretere a nivelului colar de-a
76
lungul timpului dect membrii celorlalte etnii din Romnia. Astfel, n datele sondajului diferena
ntre nivelul educaional al persoanelor sub 40 de ani fa de cel al persoanelor care au peste 40 de
ani este mult mai mic n cazul romilor dect n cazul celorlali respondeni. Chiar i dintre
respondenii romi mai tineri, 95% nu au liceu, iar 21% nu au nici un fel de coal (Tabelul 1).
Tabelul 1. Relaia dintre etnie (romi/ne-romi), educaie colar i vrst.
Vrsta
> 40 ani
fr coal
primar
gimnazial
> gimnazial, < liceu
liceu
facultate
Total
< 40 ani
fr coal
primar
gimnazial
liceu
facultate
Total
Etnia
Ne-romi
18
2.3%
136
17.7%
209
27.2%
172
22.4%
171
22.2%
63
8.2%
769
100.0%
4
.8%
10
2.0%
95
18.7%
129
25.3%
216
42.4%
55
10.8%
509
100.0%
Total
Romi
167
26.3%
212
33.4%
169
26.7%
68
10.7%
14
2.2%
4
.6%
634
100.0%
159
20.9%
176
23.1%
291
38.2%
96
12.6%
33
4.3%
6
.8%
761
100.0%
185
13.2%
348
24.8%
378
26.9%
240
17.1%
185
13.2%
67
4.8%
1403
100.0%
163
12.8%
186
14.6%
386
30.4%
225
17.7%
249
19.6%
61
4.8%
1270
100.0%
Care sunt cauzele acestor diferene? Sunt mai multe explicaii posibile, care nu se exclud
reciproc. Oamenii decid s investeasc n educaia proprie sau cea a copiilor atunci cnd cred c
acest lucru le va aduce beneficii i atunci cnd i permit.
Conform datelor cercetrii, romii tind s atribuie o importan mai mic educaiei colare
dect membrii celorlalte etnii. Dintre romi, 36% sunt de prere c educaia (anii de coal) conteaz
pentru reuita n via ntr-o foarte mare msur, n timp ce dintre membrii celorlalte etnii, 54% sunt
de aceast prere. n acelai timp, 50% dintre respondenii romi afirm c i-ar recomanda propriului
copil atunci cnd termin opt clase s mearg la liceu, fa de 85% dintre membrii celorlalte etnii.
O explicaie posibil pentru aceste diferene de aspiraii educaionale poate fi aceea c
investiia n educaie este perceput a avea mai puine rezultate n cazul romilor. Cu alte cuvinte, ar
fi mai puin rentabil n acest moment s investeti bani n pregtirea colar profesional personal
sau a copiilor dac eti de etnie rom dect dac eti de alt etnie. Este adevrat? Susin datele
sondajului BIR ideea conform creia romii au mai puin de ctigat de pe urma educaiei colare
dect membrii celorlate etnii? Da i nu. Graficul urmtor indic faptul c unei creteri date a
nivelului de educaie colar tinde s i corespund aproximativ aceeai cretere de venit att pentru
romi ct i pentru ne-romi. n acelai timp ns, pentru acelai nivel de educaie romii au n general
venituri mai mici dect restul populaiei.
Figura 1. Relaia dintre nivelul de educaie i venituri pentru romi i pentru ne-romi.
77
Venituri
Etnie
Roma
Alta etnie
0
Educatie
Un alt motiv posibil pentru nivelul mai sczut de aspiraii educaionale n rndul romilor
poate fi pus n legtur cu veniturile mai mici ale acestora. Atunci cnd oamenii nu i permit un
lucru tind s afirme c importana lui este redus. Susin datele o explicaie de acest tip? Da, dar
ntr-o msur limitat. Datele sondajului indic ntr-adevr faptul c oamenii mai bogai i-ar
ndruma mai frecvent copilul s i continue studiile, att n rndul romilor ct i al ne-romilor. n
acelai timp, diferena ntre cele dou etnii persist i atunci cnd sunt comparate persoane cu
venituri apropiate. Romii din categoria cea mai nalt de venit au rspunsuri asemntoare
romnilor din categoria cea mai mic de venituri.
Tabelul 2. Relaia dintre etnie (romi/ne-romi), aspiraii educaionale (recomand/nu
recomand continuarea studiilor gimnaziale) i nivelul resurselor materiale (foarte
sczute/sczute/ridicate/foarte ridicate).
Resurse
materiale
Foarte sczute
Recomand
continuarea
studiilor
Nu
Da
Total
Sczute
Recomand
continuarea
studiilor
Nu
Da
Total
Ridicate
Recomand
continuarea
studiilor
Total
Nu
Da
Etnia
Ne-romi
Romi
Total
30
28.8%
74
71.2%
104
100.0%
31
16.7%
155
83.3%
186
100.0%
44
14.7%
256
85.3%
300
100.0%
338
55.9%
267
44.1%
605
100.0%
145
43.2%
191
56.8%
336
100.0%
82
40.6%
120
59.4%
202
100.0%
368
51.9%
341
48.1%
709
100.0%
176
33.7%
346
66.3%
522
100.0%
126
25.1%
376
74.9%
502
100.0%
78
Foarte ridicate
Recomand
continuarea
studiilor
Nu
Da
Total
45
7.5%
552
92.5%
597
100.0%
28
24.6%
86
75.4%
114
100.0%
73
10.3%
638
89.7%
711
100.0%
O alt categorie de explicaii posibile pentru nivelul mai sczut de aspiraii educaionale n
rndul romilor are n vedere contextul social la care acetia se raporteaz. Astfel, respondenii care
percep societatea ca fiind guvernat de reguli discriminatorii, n care legile nu sunt aceleai pentru
toi, precum i cei care vd alte criterii pentru reuita n via dect munca i efortul personal tind s
recomande mai rar dect ceilali subieci continuarea studiilor dincolo de nivelul gimnazial. n
rndul respondenilor romi care afirm c legile nu se aplic la fel pentru toat lumea i c exist
ceteni nedreptii proporia celor care recomand studiile liceale este de 49%, fa de 58% n
rndul celorlali subieci de etnie rom. n mod asemntor, dintre romii care cred c norocul,
relaiile sau nclcarea legii sunt mai importante pentru a face bani n Romnia dect munca, 51%
recomand studiile liceale, fa de 58% dintre romii care afirm c e nevoie de munc i efort
personal.
Contextul cultural are un rol nu mai puin important pentru stabilirea unui nivel educaional
dezirabil. Astfel, exist o relaie pozitiv ntre vrsta la care s-a cstorit o persoan i vrsta pe care
aceasta o consider dezirabil pentru cstorie pentru un tnr sau o tnr din ziua de azi (vezi i n
capitolul "viaa de familie"). n cazul romilor, att vrsta respondenilor, ct i vrsta considerat
drept potrivit pentru cstorie sunt n medie mai mici dect n cazul celorlali subieci (18 ani fa
de 22 pentru vrsta la cstorie, respectiv 20 fa de 23 pentru vrsta recomandat). n acelai timp,
persoanele care consider drept dezirabil o vrst redus la cstorie tind s recomande mai rar
continuarea studiilor dincolo de nivelul gimnazial (Figura 2). 51% dintre respondenii romi
consider c brbaii ar trebui s se cstoreasc nainte de 21 de ani, fa de 12% dintre ceilali
subieci. Doar 25% dintre cei care care consider c brbaii ar trebui s se cstoreasc nainte de
21 de ani recomand continuarea studiilor dincolo de nivelul gimnazial, fa de 50% dintre cei care
recomand o vrst la cstorie peste 21 de ani.
Figura 2. Relaia dintre "cea mai potrivit vrst la care este bine s se cstoreasc o fat" i
nivelul de educaie recomandat.
1.2
1.0
nivelul scolar recomandat
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
varsta cea mai potrivita pentru casatorie
Educaia colar este unul dintre indicatorii cei mai frecvent folosii pentru a aproxima
nivelul de capital uman al unei persoane. Pornind de la informaiile despre limbile strine vorbite de
79
ctre respondeni, datele acestei cercetri permit construirea a nc unui indicator care n
completarea informaiilor despre ultima coal absolvit ofer o imagine i mai clar asupra
cunotinelor i deprinderilor utile ale acestora. Tabelul 3 ilustreaz prezena unor diferene clare
ntre romi i ceilali subieci atunci cnd sunt considerate limbile strine: 10% dintre romi declar c
pot lua parte la o conversaie n cel puin o limb strin, alta dect romn, maghiar sau romani,
fa de o treime dintre respondenii de alte etnii. Este adevrat c prin includerea i a limbii romani
n categoria limbilor strine nu ar mai fi diferene ntre cele dou categorii de subieci, ns
avantajele oferite n prezent pe piaa muncii din Romnia sau din alte ri de cunoaterea acestei
limbi tind s fie mai mici dect n cazul altor limbi strine.
Tabelul 3. Proporia celor care declar c pot lua parte la o conversaie n una sau mai multe
limbi strine (alta dect romn, maghiar sau romani), n funcie de etnie (romi / ne-romi).
Nici o lb. strin
O lb. strin
Dou lb. strine
Trei sau mai multe lb. strine
ROM
alta etnie
860
66.6%
232
18.0%
148
11.5%
51
4.0%
1291
100.0%
Total
rom
1285
90.7%
69
4.9%
38
2.7%
25
1.8%
1417
100.0%
2145
79.2%
301
11.1%
186
6.9%
41
1.5%
2708
100.0%
n plus fa de avantajele pe care le poate oferi pentru ocuparea unui loc mai bun pe piaa
muncii, n cazul migraiei temporare n strintate cunoaterea unei limbi strine favorizeaz
efectele de nvare social, inclusiv dobndirea unor deprinderi, cunotine i atitudini care sunt
parte a capitalului uman i social al unei persoane. n timp ce mai mult de jumtate (53%) dintre
respondenii care au lucrat n strinatate i care nu sunt romi declar c vorbesc o limb strin,
doar un sfert (24%) dintre romii care au lucrat n strintate declar c vorbesc o limb strin.
Capitalul social al populaiei de etnie rom

Exist un acord larg n tiinele sociale asupra faptului c anumite tipuri de atitudini, reele
sociale i reguli de comportament pot oferi un avantaj semnificativ celor care le posed i, prin
agregare, comunitilor din care fac parte. O serie de studii recente argumenteaz faptul c att
dezvoltarea economic ct i dezvoltarea democratic au un determinant principal comun, i anume
nivelul de capital social, concept care se refer la "aspecte ale organizrii sociale, cum sunt reelele,
normele i ncrederea, care faciliteaz coordonarea i cooperarea pentru obinerea unor beneficii
mutuale" (Putnam 1993 p. 36). Familia, prietenii i cunoscuii pe care se poate baza o persoan
atunci cnd ncearc s rezolve probleme personale sau de interes comun constituie una dintre
formele de capital social frecvent ntlnite n societatea romneasc. Perioada comunist a
contribuit din plin la dezvoltarea unor relaii de cunotine necesare pentru rezolvarea unor
probleme dintre cele mai diverse, de la obinerea de alimente, pn la accesul la servicii medicale,
loc de munc, locuin etc. Dei mai puin importante dup 1989, anumite tipuri de reele sociale iau pstrat caracterul de resurs, de capital social, n special datorit funcionrii deficitare a unora
dintre instituiile statului postcomunist. Figura 3 ilustreaz faptul c exist ntradevr o relaie
pozitiv ntre capitalul relaional al subiectului i starea sa material, att n rndul romilor
(coeficientul de corelaie r = 0.4) ct i al celorlali subieci (r = 0.4). Desigur, asocierea dintre cei
doi factori poate fi datorat att unui efect cauzal al relaiilor asupra veniturilor ct i a unui efect de
sens opus, ns este plauzibil (i consistent cu rezultatele altor cercetri) faptul c succesul material
este cel puin n parte rezultat al capitalului relaional.
80
Figura 3. Relaia dintre venituri i un indice al relaiilor/cunotinelor. 23
Venituri
Etnie
Roma
Alta etnie
0
Relatii / cunostinte
Datele sondajului arat faptul c persoanele de etnie rom tind s aib mai puine relaii utile
dect cele de alte etnii, pentru fiecare dintre situaiile evaluate (probleme de boal, la tribunal, la
primrie, la poliie, pentru obinerea unui credit, pentru obinerea unui loc de munc, n lumea
afacerilor, n strintate, n contactul cu instituiile judeene). Pe ansamblu, numrul mediu de tipuri
de astfel de relaii este aproape de trei ori mai mare pentru cei care nu sunt romi dect pentru romi:
1.7 fa de 0.6. Tabelul 4, n care sunt prezentate rspunsurile pentru fiecare dintre cele nou tipuri
de relaii, ilustreaz faptul c diferenele cele mai mari sunt cele care privesc ajutorul n relaia cu
justiia, n lumea afacerilor i pentru obinerea unui credit.
Tabelul 4. Tipuri de relaii utile pentru romi/ne-romi.
Avei relaii/cunotine pe care v putei baza..
n caz de boal pentru consultaie, tratament, intervenie

chirurgical
la tribunal, notar, avocat
la primrie
la poliie
n obinerea unui credit
n obinerea unui loc de munc
n lumea afacerilor
n strintate
la instituiile judeene (prefectur, consiliul judeean)
Ne-romi
(% celor care
au rspuns
afirmativ)
36
Romi
(% celor
care au
rspuns
afirmativ)
15
16
23
21
12
17
14
23
7
4
14
9
3
5
3
9
3
Legtura dintre etnie i capitalul relaional se pstreaz, dei cu intensitate mai sczut,
atunci cnd este controlat efectul nivelului educaional (Tabelul 5).
Tabelul 5. Relaiile dintre capital relaional (numrul de relaii utile), etnie (romi/ne-romi) i
nivelul de educaie.
23
Subiecii au fost ntrebai dac au cunotine/relaii pe care se pot baza n caz de boal, la tribunal, la primrie, la
poliie, pentru obinerea unui credit, pentru obinerea unui loc de munc, n lumea afacerilor, n strintate, n contactul
cu instituiile judeene. Indicele este egal cu numrul de rspunsuri afirmative.
81
fr scoal
primar
gimnazial
liceu
facultate
Total
Ne-romi
.59
.83
1.35
1.60
1.97
3.16
1.69
Romi
.36
.51
.63
1.27
1.40
2.50
.65
Total
.38
.59
.92
1.49
1.91
3.11
1.15
Relaiile utile ale populaiei de etnie rom difer nu doar prin faptul c au o densitate mai
redus dect n cazul celor de alt etnie, dar i printr-o pondere mai ridicat a rolului pe care l au
familia, vecinii i prietenii. Astfel, 55% dintre respondenii romi afirm c iau uneori mprumut
bani sau obiecte sau sunt ajutai la activiti din gospodrie de rudele lor, n compaie cu 44% dintre
respondenii de alte etnii. n cazul vecinilor sau prietenilor, proporia este de 44% pentru romi i de
37% pentru ceilali.
Atunci cnd respondenii sunt ntrebai dac se poate reui n via prin fore proprii, sau
dac ajutorul celorlali este mai important, persoanele mai educate i cele cu venituri mai ridicate
afirm mai frecvent c succesul este posibil prin fore proprii. Doar 30% dintre romi cred c se
poate reui prin fore proprii, fa de 43% dintre ne-romi, ns, atunci cnd este controlat statistic
efectul venitului, diferena dispare.
ncrederea n ceilali oameni este o alt component a capitalului social frecvent studiat,
fiind considerat drept unul dintre factorii care explic cel mai bine de ce anumite grupuri de
oameni au succes n identificarea problemelor comune i a modului n care acestea pot fi rezolvate
n timp ce altele nu au. Mai muli autori au descris i argumentat o tipologie complex a formelor
de ncredere i au analizat relaiile dintre ele. Mai nti, exist o distincie clar ntre ncrederea n
instituii i ncrederea n alte persoane. ncrederea generalizat, neleas drept "ncrederea n
oamenii pe care nu i tim i care este probabil s fie altfel dect noi" (Uslaner 1999), este cel mai
mult discutat i este considerat n mod frecvent drept forma de ncredere relevant pentru
costurile de tranzacie n economie i pentru predilecia indivizilor de a se implica n aciuni civice.
Efectele pozitive asociate unui nivel ridicat de ncredere generalizat sunt extrem de diverse. Astfel,
sunt numeroase studiile care aduc argumente n favoarea faptului c ncrederea generalizat este un
ingredient important al nivelului de democraie i al stabilitii unui regim democratic.
Mecanismele prin care ncrederea poate influena calitatea proceselor democratice sunt
complexe i includ mai multe componente. n primul rnd, un nivel ridicat de ncredere generalizat
este propice implicrii active a cetenilor n activiti asociative care, direct sau indirect, tind s
duc la o administrare mai eficient i mai democratic, att la nivel local, ct i la nivelul
societii. n plus, oamenii care au un nivel mai ridicat de ncredere tind s respecte n mai mare
msur legile, sunt mai puin nclinai s nu i plteasc impozitele i sunt mai dispui s doneze
bani sau timp unor organizaii neguvernamentale. Nu n ultimul rnd, societile cu un nivel ridicat
de ncredere generalizat tind s fie caracterizate i de un grad ridicat al liberalizrii i a ritmului de
cretere economic.
Atunci cnd sunt ntrebai dac au ncredere n ceilali oameni sau n membri ai familiei lor,
respondenii romi nu sunt semnificativ diferii de ceilali respondeni. Proporia celor care afirm c
au ncredere este n jurul valorii de 24%, rezultat apropiat cu cele obinute n alte sondaje realizate
n ultimii ani i care plaseaz Romnia printre rile cu puin ncredere. Atunci cnd subiecii sunt
ntrebai dac exist printre cunoscuii lor persoane care nu le sunt rude, dar pe care se pot baza la
nevoie, pe ansamblul eantionului proporia celor care dau un rspuns afirmativ este de aproximativ
o treime. Exist ns o diferen important ntre romi i ceilali respondeni: 43% dintre romi nu au
astfel de cunoscui, fa de 28% dintre ne-romi. Valoarea medie a numrului de cunotine este 3
pentru romi, respectiv 4 pentru ne-romi.
Sunt i alte cteva diferene n ceea ce privete ncrederea fa de diferite categorii de
persoane: proporia celor cu ncredere mult sau foarte mult n vecini este 53% n cazul romilor i
82
de 61% pentru ceilali; ncrederea n persoanele de alt religie este 20% fa de 27%; ncrederea n
persoanele de alt etnie este 20% fa de 27%.
Exist deci un uor deficit n cazul romilor, care se menine i atunci cnd sunt comparate
persoane cu caracteristici socio-demografice similare.
Unele cercetri au artat existena unei legturi de determinare ntre nivelul de optimism al
unei persoane i dimensiuni ale capitalului social. Persoanele care cred c n viitor viaa lor va fi
mai bun tind s aib mai mult ncredere n forele proprii i s fie mai deschise interaciunii cu
oameni diveri ori cu instituii. n plus, datele arat diferene importante n ceea ce privete nivelul
de optimism al romilor fa de ceilali respondeni. Astfel, 26% dintre respondenii romi sunt de
prere c vor tri mai bine sau mult mai bine peste un an, fa de 33% dintre ne-romi; 23% dintre
romi cred c n ara noastr lucrurile merg ntr-o direcie bun fa de 36% dintre ceilali
respondeni. Cnd ns sunt comparate persoane care au venituri asemntoare, diferenele tind s
i schimbe semnul, avndu-i pe romi uor mai optimiti dect respondenii de alte etnii.
Concluzii
Ct de mult capital uman i capital social au romii fa de ceilali oameni din Romnia?
Analizele din acest capitol au pus n eviden diferene clare ntre cele dou categorii de populaie:
romii tind s fie mai puin educai, cunosc n mai mic msur limbi strine, se pot baza mai puin
pe ajutorul unor reele de cunoscui, i le este mai dificil s colaboreze cu ali oameni pentru a-i
rezolva problemele.
Care sunt motivele acestui deficit de resurse de tip cultural? O parte important a
rspunsului are n vedere intercondiionrile strnse dintre capitalul uman, social, cel financiar i
fizic. Oamenii cu venituri mici, care locuiesc n condiii precare, i permit investiii minime n
capitalul uman i social propriu sau al familiei lor, fapt care le menine sczute ansele de a-i crete
nivelul bunstrii. n acelai timp ns, romii au un nivel mai sczut de aspiraii educaionale, chiar
i atunci cnd sunt comparai cu persoane avnd venituri similare, dei investiia n capital uman
tinde s fie la fel de rentabil indiferent de etnie. O categorie de explicaii pentru aceast diferen
pornete de la faptul c persoanele de etnie rom percep adesea societatea ca fiind guvernat de
reguli discriminatorii, n care legile nu sunt aceleai pentru toi i n care aproape fiecare dintre
instituiile statului i trateaz pe romi mai prost dect pe romni. Ca urmare, efortul de a dobndi
capital uman i social este perceput a fi mai ridicat n cazul romilor dect n cazul celorlalte etnii. n
plus, valorizarea pozitiv a educaiei vine uneori n contradicie cu norme care guverneaz alte
aspecte ale vieii sociale. n particular, datele arat cum tradiia din rndul unei pri a populaiei
rome de a avea cstorii ntre persoane foarte tinere tinde s descurajeze continuarea educaiei
colare.
n concluzie, care sunt mecanismele care frneaz reducerea deficitului de capital uman i
social n rndul romilor? n primul rnd, discriminarea fa de romi n rndul instituiilor statului are
un efect negativ asupra resurselor de tip cultural ale romilor. Bo Rothstein arat cum tratarea
nediscriminatorie de ctre instituiile publice are un efect pozitiv nu doar asupra ncrederii n
instituii ci i asupra ncrederii sociale n rndul grupurilor minoritare (Rothstein 2006, 2000). n
acelai timp, expunerea la diversitate poate avea un efect pozitiv asupra capitalului social. O mare
parte a literaturii despre capital social afirm c ncrederea social crete n urma contactelor ntre
categorii diverse de oameni (Marschall i Stolle 2004), ns cteva lucrri recente arat faptul c
nu orice fel de interaciune are efecte pozitive. Pettigrew (1998, 66) aduce argumente n favoarea
faptului c, n plus fa de diversitate, contactele trebuie s aib loc ntre grupuri cu status egal,
scopuri comune i experiena unor situaii de cooperare. Astfel, reducerea intoleranei fa de romi
ar avea un efect pozitiv asupra resurselor culturale ale acestora.
BIBLIOGRAFIE
Marschall, Melissa and Dietlind Stolle. 2004.. Race and the City: Neighborhood Context and the
83
Development of Generalized Trust, Political Behavior, 26:126-154.

Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1998. Intergroup Conflict Theory, Annual Review of Psychology, 49:6585.
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions n Modern Italy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Rothstein, Bo. 2004. Social Trust and Honesty n Government: A Causal Mechanism Approach. in
Janos Kornai, Susan Rose-Ackerman and Bo Rothstein (eds), Creating Social Trust: Problems
of Post-Socialist Transition. Palgrave Macmillan 2004.
Uslaner, Eric. 2006. Does Diversity Drive Down Trust? Paper presented at the Conference on
Civil Society, the State, and Social Capital, Bergen, Norway, May 11-13, 2006
84
Open Society Foundation
Roma Inclusion Barometer
Authors:
Gabriel Bdescu
Vlad Grigora
Cosima Rughini
Mlina Voicu
Ovidiu Voicu
2007
1
2007 Open Society Foundation

All rights reserved for the Open Society Foundation. Neither the publication as a whole, nor its
fragments can be reproduced without permission of the Open Society Foundation. Bucharest,
January 2007
Foundation for an Open Society
33 Cderea Bastiliei street, 1st district, Bucharest
Phone: (021) 212.11.01
Fax: (021) 212.10.32
Web: www.osf.ro
E-mail: info@osf.ro
Contents
Roma Inclusion Barometer presentation of the research program
Who are the Roma?

Cosima Rughini
State of mind, institutions, political options of the Roma in Romania
Ovidiu Voicu
Dwelling conditions and financial problems of the Roma population
Vlad Grigora
Formal exclusion of Roma origin citizens
Cosima Rughini
Residential segregation
Cosima Rughini
Tolerance and perceived discrimination
Mlina Voicu
Family life
Cosima Rughini
Human and social capital of the Roma population
Gabriel Bdescu
17
31
44
49
56
66
81
The survey was conducted by the Open Society Foundation under the aegis of the
Decade for the Roma Inclusion
The Decade of Roma Inclusion
This grant is made to your organization by the Open Society Institute under the Decade of Roma Inclusion.
The Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005-2015, an initiative supported by the Open Society Institute and the
World Bank, is an unprecedented international effort to combat discrimination and ensure that Roma have
equal access to education, housing, employment and health care. Launched in February 2005 and endorsed
by nine Central and Eastern European countries, the Decade of Roma Inclusion is also supported by the
European Commission, the Council of Europe, the Council of Europe Development Bank, and the United
Nations Development Program.
Decade partners are united by a common vision to close the gap in welfare and living conditions between the
Roma and the non-Roma and to break the cycle of poverty and exclusion over a period of 10 years. The
declared objective is to accelerate progress in improving the social inclusion and economic status of Roma.
The Decade is driven by a commitment to shared values of social inclusion and anti-discrimination, to
promote equal opportunities and bring an end to segregation. Central to the values and vision of the Decade
is a commitment to embrace innovative approaches, foster international cooperation, and promote
transparency and Roma participation.
The vision and values statement of the Decade of Inclusion places great emphasis on Roma participation:
Nothing about us without us: Roma participation will make or break the Decade. Roma representatives and
civil society organizations are involved in every stage of the Decade. Roma shaped and defined the vision
from the very outset. Roma civil society groups and experts identified policy priorities and played a key role
in defining Decade goals and targets. Roma participation will be central to regular oversight and monitoring
of the process over the next ten years.
I Dekada Vash i Romani Inkluzija
I Dekada vash e Romengi Inkluzija 2005-2015, jekh iniciativa vastjardi katar o Instituto vash jekh Putardo
Khetanipen thaj i Lumjaki Banka, si jekh nevo maskarthemutno zoripen te achavel pes i diskriminacija thaj
te ristjarel pes so e romen si len barabar putardo drom vash o sikljaripen, o beshipen, i buki thaj o sastipen. I
Dekada sas putardi and-o Februaro 2005 thaj 9 thema andar o Centro thaj o Esto e Evropako len kotor andre.
I Dekada si zurjardi katar i Evropaki Komisia, o Konsilo e Evropako, e Barjarimaski Banka katar o Konsilo e
Evropako thaj e Barjarimasko Programo e Unisarde Nacjengo.
E Dekadake partenerura si len jekh khetani vizija te phandaven i hiv and-o barvalipen thaj trajo mashkar e
roma thaj e gadze thaj te pharaven i truj e chororimaski thaj e ekskluziako and-e 10 bersha. Sar sas
mothovdo, objketivo si te sigjarel pes o progreso vash te lacharel pes e romengi socialo inkluzika thaj
ekonomikano statuso
I Dekada si tradini katar jekh angadzamento vash khetane valore palal i socialo inkluzija thaj mamujdiskriminacija, vash barabar sajutnimata thaj te achavel pes i segregacija. And-o mashkar e Dekadake
valorego thaj vizijako si o mangipen te adoptisaren pen neve bukiake mekanisme, te zurjarel pes i
mashkarthemutni kooperacija, thaj te kerel pes promocija vash transparenca thaj romani participacija.
I vizija thaj valorengi deklaracija vash e Inkluziaki Dekada del jekh bari importanca palal e Romani
participacija: Khanch vash amenge bi amaro: i Romani participacija ka kerel vaj ka musarel i Dekada. E
romane reprezentantura thaj civilo organizacije len kotor and-e savore nivelura e Dekadake. E roma kerde i
vizija katar o astaripen e Dekadako. E civilo romane grupura thaj ekspertura arakhle prioritetura vash
politike thaj khelde jekh sherutno rolo vash te arakhen pen e Dekadake obiektivura thaj celura. I Romani
participacija avela but importanto and-e procesoske supervizija thaj monitorizacija and-e avutne desh
bersha.
Roma Inclusion Barometer

Description of the program
Starting from
implemented
follows:
October 2006 and continuing in 2007, the Open Society Foundation has
the Roma Inclusion Barometer survey. Its main objectives are as
to find out peoples perception on the Roma
to offer Roma population the possibility to assert their opinion about the
main problems they are confronted with
To achieve these objectives the survey, conceived as a quantitative study based on the
experience acquired in the Public Opinion Barometer, uses two samples: a nationally
representative one, and another which is representative for the Roma population in
Romania. The samples have been designed by Prof. Dumitru Sandu; the questionnaire
is a multiple choice one with a common core and several specialized modules for the
two samples. We shall thus be able to make comparisons between the social and
demographic characteristics of the two target populations. The topics followed during
the research had been established by the Open Society Foundation starting from the
multi-annual data of the Public Opinion Barometer and within a framework of
consultations with organizations and persons with expertise in the filed.
A team of sociologists, contributors to the FOS specialized in social statistics and with
expertise in sociological research conducted in Roma communities (Cosima Rughini,
Gabriel Bdescu, Mlina Voicu, Vlad Grigora), have codified the list of topics in
questions which will measure the followed social effects in a correct scientific manner.
The data collection and entering have been provided by Metro Media Transilvania, and
the control of the quality of both data collection and entering by the Research Institute
for Quality of Life.
Data were collected during the month of December and analyzed by the same team,
which have worked at drafting the questionnaire and the result of the analysis was
published at the beginning of the year 2007 in this Report. The survey data will also be
made available free of charge to all interested people. During this year, FOS will
initiate several public debates with the purpose to promote on the public agenda the
need to find appropriate solutions to the problems the Roma communities are
confronted with. At the same time, the Foundation will support the analysis and
amendment of the public policies in this field.
The Barometer will be repeated after a 2-3 year period to reflect the evolution in time of
the issues approached in the research.
Methodology
The survey uses the data collected through two polls, one which is representative of the
entire population of Romania, the other for the Roma population of Romania.
Characteristic of the national survey

Size of the sample: 1.215 persons aged 18 and over
Statistic error margin: 2,9%
Questionnaire: multiple choices, duration: 50-60 minutes
Data collecting period: 14-30 November 2006
Characteristic of the survey among the Roma population

Size of the sample: 1.387 persons aged 18 and over, self-identified as Roma
Statistic error margin: 2,6%
Questionnaire: multiple choices, duration: 50-60 minutes
Data collecting period: 14-30 November 2006
Authors of the methodological tools:
samples: Dumitru Sandu

questionnaire drafting: Gabriel Bdescu, Vlad Grigora, Cosima
Rughini, Mlina Voicu, Ovidiu Voicu
Data collecting and entering:
Metro Media Transilvania
Control of data collecting and entering:
Institute for the Research of Life Quality
Data analysis and interpretation:
Gabriel Bdescu, Vlad Grigora, Cosima Rughini, Mlina Voicu,

Ovidiu Voicu
Who are the Roma?

by Cosima Rughini
The ethnical identity of Roma, often designated as gypsy, has always been
strongly stigmatizing in the Romanian society and the European societies, in general.
While during the communist regime its negative perception was both recognized and
hidden from sight by the policy of ignoring the Roma ethnical identity and ethnic
assimilation, after 1989 the freedom of expression brought up again the stereotypes and
negative emotions associated with the Roma minority. The ethnic term of Roma
very much controversial in the majority population because of its unwanted similitude
with the ethnic term of Romanian is the result of the assertion of the new identity by
the Roma elite, an identity rooted within the ethnic group in its culture and experiences
and not in the definitions imposed along history by the gadji (non-Roma) people.
Among the confronting strategies of the Roma ethnic stigmatization there are
the defensive ones hiding and even denying the ethnic belonging, on one hand, even
the attempt to assimilate the dominant culture, on the other hand. As a consequence of
the reluctance perceived by Roma to identify themselves with their ethnical group in
official circumstances, the reliability of the census data on the ethnic structure of
Romanias population is questioned by most of the observers, including Roma
nongovernmental organizations. The gap between the official estimate of the Roma
population and the informal estimates of the research workers or different civil
organizations is an indicator of the continuing stigmatization of the Roma identity. As a
matter of fact, a brief examination of the use of these ethnic names in mass media
confirms undoubtedly the persistence of the negative ethnic stereotypes and their
continuous use with the purpose to stir redeeming emotions in the audience
(Tarnovschi, 2002 and Popescu, 2002).
Nevertheless the institutional development of the ethnical minorities after 1989
has impacted the Roma identity. The Roma political and civic elite became more and
more visible, as well as the state institutions dedicated to the promotion of the Roma
interests and the fight against discrimination institutions as Romani language classes
in schools, the National Council for Combating Discrimination or the National Roma
Agency. Under these conditions the Roma ethnic identity becomes more and more
subject of the social controversy, coming out of the anonymity of the negative
stereotypes which go without saying. The data of the Roma Inclusion Barometer
show both the stigmatizing pressures and the efforts of the Roma population to resist
them by assertion, and not only by hiding and/or assimilation.
Ethnic self-identification
Out of the total number of Roma people included in the survey, almost half
(45%) declare themselves Romanianised Roma (see Table 1) this is a Roma category
which preserves only to a small extent the cultural characteristics of the ethnic group, as
they are educated in the spirit of the Romanian culture. Approximately 15% are wood
workers and hearth-makers, groups which are relatively assimilated into the majority
culture. Approximately 15% identify themselves with the more traditional groups of
bucket-makers, bear leaders and brick makers and the remaining 25% consider
themselves just gypsies or affiliate themselves to other ethnic groups.
Table 1. What kind of a Roma are you?
Ethnic group/category:
Romanianised Roma
I am just Gypsy
Wood worker
Bucket maker
Bear leader
Poker maker
Brick maker
Others
Total
%
45
23
12
6
3
3
2
6
100
Romanian is the mother tongue of 40% of the Romanianised Romas and of most
(55%) of the other Roma groups (see Table 9).
It is interesting to note that half of the non-Roma and over one third of the
Roma people are of the opinion that the Romani language should not be taught in
school to children (see Table 2). Romanianised Romas and Roma with other
identifications have generally similar opinions, the only difference being the intensity.
This devaluation of the Romani language reflects its general stigmatization and the
result of this stigmatization namely its relative uselessness in official social
interactions. We can also see from Table 3 that the respondents mother tongue does
not matter very much in his/her appreciation of the Romani language; within the Roma
population, native speakers statistically differ significantly from the other persons, but
differences are not very big.
Table 2. Roma children should learn Romani language in school depending of the ethnical
identification
Romanianised
Roma
I fully disagree
I rather dont agree
I rather agree
I fully agree
Total
19
18
24
39
100
Other Other ethnic group

Roma
(Romanian,
Hungarian, etc.)
10
23
28
28
28
26
34
24
100
100
Differences are significant for p=0.01
Table 3. Roma children should learn Romani language in school depending on the persons
mother tongue
Mother tongue:
Romani
No
Yes
I fully disagree
15
13
I rather dont agree
27
19
I rather agree
28
24
I fully agree
30
44
Total
100
100
Differences are statistically significant for p=0.01
Ethnical belonging
Due to the variability and overlapping of the Roma and non-Roma physical
traits the ethnical hetero-identification of the unknown persons generally takes into
account several different criteria based on the available information such as physical,
behavioural, verbal criteria, etc. It is interesting to note that the respondents answers to
the question How do you realize someone is Roma? differ systematically depending
on their ethnic identity. We can see in Table 4 that Roma stress in their answers mainly
cultural criteria, such as language, speaking and clothing style, while non-Roma
emphasize to a greater extent the physical traits, including the skin colour, and the
behavioural ones a criterion which probably hides a stereotypically negative
definition of the typical Roma behaviour.
Table 4. Criteria of the ethnical belonging How can you tell that someone is Roma?
Criterion
Aspect, physiognomy, what they

look like
Behaviour, habits, character
Skin colour
Language, accent, vocabulary
Clothes
Language spoken Romani
Dont know
Other criteria or answers
Total
(Number of cases)
Romania
nised
Roma
Another
kind of
Roma
Other ethnical
group
(Romanian,
Hungarian etc.)
17
7
14
19
15
23
8
6
100
(607)
7
13
15
14
17
20
5
100
(697)
13
23
10
9
10
10
9
100
(1224)
Of course, these answers do not necessarily reflect the real criteria used by the
subjects for the ethnic hetero-identification. The perceptive identification of a category
of objects, including peoples ethnic origin is most frequently non-reflexive,
spontaneous so it is difficult to describe it in words. The answers reflect rather the
subjects theories on what a Roma is or how we should identify a Roma person.
As for the relation between the parents and childrens ethnic origin, most of the
subjects, regardless of their ethnic origin, agree that having a Roma parent makes the
child most probably a Roma and not a non-Roma (Table 5). For instance,
approximately 55% of the non-Roma and 75% of the Roma believe that if the father is
Roma, the child will also be, probably or even surely, Roma while approx. 25% of the
non-Roma and 17% of the Roma think it will be rather Romanian. About 20% of the
non-Roma and 8% of the Roma answer I dont know. This asymmetry in transmitting
the ethnic identity is stronger in the case of a Roma father than in that of a Roma
mother. Also, the transmission of the Roma ethnic identity is stressed to a significantly
greater extent by the Roma subjects than by the non-Roma ones, who choose more
often the answer I dont know. It is interesting to note that Romanianised Roma do
not differ in their answers from the Roma who identify themselves otherwise.
Table 5. Ethnic origin of a child of a mixed family depending on the subjects ethnic origin
If a youngsters father is Roma, and

its mother Romanian, what is the
youngster? (%)
Romania Another Other ethnic
group
kind of
nised
(Romanian,
Roma
Roma
Hungarian
etc.)
Roma
Romani
nan
Dont
know
Total
If the youngsters father is Romanian and

its mother Roma, what is the youngster?
(%)
Other
Romaniani Another
ethnic
sed Roma
kind of
group
Roma
(Romanian,
Hungarian
etc.)
55
61
63
48
26
31
29
33
74
18
74
17
19
19
100
100
100
100
100
100
The answers are surprising if we take into consideration the history of the Roma
assimilation within the majority population. Without having any empirical arguments,
we think it most probable for most of the children form mixed families to have lost
their Roma identity through the shared efforts of parents, school and social pressure.
The common theory of the persistence of the Roma ethnic origin in the mixed families
is, in our opinion, empirically wrong.
We are of the opinion that this theory can rather be explained as a prescription
how should children of mixed families be seen and not what they really are. In other
words, most of the subjects, regardless of their ethnic origin, think that a person from a
mixed family with one Roma parent as a matter of fact is a Roma probably even
in spite of the appearances.
In the case of people of Roma origin, the residential environment introduces a
significant difference in answers e.g.: 83% of the Roma who live in big cities think
that a Roma father will have a Roma child, while only 70% think so in the countryside
(see Table 10). The fact that this attribution is most frequent in the environment which
provides the highest anonymity, namely in big cities, is one more indication of the
10
answer being rather normative than perceptive it reflects what the subjects think it
should happen, not what really happens.
About 10% of the subjects, regardless of their ethnic group, think that a
youngster whose both parents are Roma may not be a Roma; over three quarters think
that this is not possible (Table 11).
Border between ethnic groups

Among the forms of inter-ethnic contact, marriages are most disapproved of,
both by Roma, and the other ethnic groups but to a greater extent by the non-Roma
ones. For instance, about 40% of the non-Roma thinks it bad or very bad for Romanian
and Roma to get married to one another, while 25% think it is bad for Romanian and
Roma children to play together; 35% think it is bad to live together (Table 1). 20% of
the Roma people do not approve of mixed marriages, while 10% do not approve of
dwelling and going to school together.
The reluctance to the mixed marriages is surprising, because this is a form of
human inter-action where the partners have a high mutual control. We cannot choose
either our neighbours or our childrens schoolmates this is why their ethnic origin can
be used as a behaviour predictor which, given the conditions of negative stereotypes
towards Roma, explains the non-Roma reluctance to Romas vicinity or company.
Nevertheless in case of marriage, the partner is chosen in a fully knowledgeable way
and without any constraints. His/her ethnic origin cannot thus be seen as a relevant
source of information about him/her. Of course, the stake is very high in case of
marriages but necessarily much higher than in case of childrens education and
company. In this respect, we think that the intensity of the reluctance to the mixed
marriages expresses not only the negative stereotypes, by also the refuse of an intimacy,
which has the potential to jeopardise the ethnic identity.
Table 1. Ii your opinion is it good or not for
Very
bad
Bad
Good
Very
good
Dont
know
Total
Romanians and
Romas to live
together in the
same district of a
town? (%)
the Roma and

Romanian pupils
to learn in the
same classroom
(%)?
Romanian and
Roma children to
play together?
(%)
Romanians and
Romas to marry
one another (%)?
Other
ethnic
group
Other
ethnic
group
Other
ethnic
group
Other
ethnic
group
Roma
ethnic
group
Roma
ethnic
group
Roma
ethnic
group
Roma
ethnic
group
15
27
49
11
9
51
37
18
58
15
8
48
41
19
57
14
6
51
39
27
42
11
14
42
35
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
11
We should also note that the subjects education does not influence significantly
either in the case of Roma or of the other persons the desirability of the contact with the
other ethnical group. Romanianised Romas are nevertheless much readier to accept
non-Romas marriages, vicinity and company than the other Romas (Table 7 and 8).
How many Romas are there in Romania?

The highest Roma percentage officially registered during the censuses of
Romania was of 2.5% in 2002. Before that the official percentage was constantly less
than 2%, with an absolute minimum of 0.3% in 1966 (Table 2) as a result of the
pressure exerted on the Roma population in the early 60s to hide their ethnic origin.
The diminishing by over one half of the number of persons who identified themselves
as Roma between 1930 and 1956 is a direct consequence of the Romas deportation to
Transnistria.
Table 2. Ethnic structure of Romanias population according to the census data between 1930 and
2002. Source: National Institute for Statistics 1
Year
1930
1956
1966
1977
1992
2002
Roma
Romanians(%) Hungarians
Romas
Total
(inhab.)
(%)
(%)
population
(mil.inh.)
14.28 242,656
77.9
10.0
1.7
17.48 104,216
85.7
9.1
0.6
19.10
64,197
87.7
8.5
0.3
21.55 227,398
88.1
7.9
1.1
22.81 401,087
89.5
7.1
1.8
21.68 535,140
89.5
6.6
2.5
Informal estimates of other observers differ. In 1993, the Research Institute for
the Quality of Life estimated that there are about one million people in Romania living
according to the specific Roma life style (Zamfir and Zamfir 1993, apud OGrady
and Tarnovschi), i.e. about 4% of the population. A survey conducted by the same
Institute in 1998 estimated approximately one million and a half Romas, out of which
only about 65% identify themselves as such (Zamfir and Preda 2002, apud OGrady
and Tarnovschi). Vasile Gheu estimated the Roma population as being of 1.5 2
million people (Gheu 1996, apud OGrady i Tarnovschi). Dumitru Sandu suggests
in 2005 an estimate of the Roma population with a high probability of identification
between 730,000 and 970,000 persons (Sandu 2005, p. 6).
Average estimates offered by Romanias both Roma and non-Roma inhabitants
are surprising because they are almost ten times higher than the official ones, much
over the number given by the experts. In average both Roma and non-Roma
populations in Romania think that about 25% of our country inhabitants are of Roma
1
Website of the National Institute for Statistics http://www.insse.ro
12
origin. About 35% think that over one third of the Romanian nationals are of Roma
origin (Table 9).
Table 3. Estimation of the Roma percentage: average value and median value of the subjects
answers
Subjects ethnic origin
Romania Other
Other
nised
kind of
ethnic
Roma
Roma
group
(Romania
n,
Hungaria
n etc.)
If you think of those who live in the same

neighbourhood where you live, what percentage
of them are Roma?
If you think of those who live in the same town
where you live, what percentage of them are
Roma?
If you think of all people who live in Romania,
what percentage of them are Roma?
Median
Average
50
55
50
53
5
14
Median
Average
25
27
25
33
10
17
Median
Average
25
25
25
26
20
24
It is interesting to note that the estimates of both Roma and non-Roma people of
Romanias population ethnic structure are convergent, in spite of the considerable
difference of their estimates of their neighbourhood or town. In general, Roma people
think they live in areas with a significantly higher proportion of Roma inhabitants than
Romanian ones. For example the average value of the percentages perceived by Romas
in their neighbourhood is of approximately 15% in the Romanian, Hungarian subjects,
etc., and 55% in the Roma subjects. Nevertheless, for the national level the perceptions
are similar, and the estimated level of the Roma minority is of about 25%.
We think that this overestimation can be explained by the psychological
threshold of 25% in estimating proportions but also by a common essentialist theory of
Roma ethnicity. Without having any direct evidence in this respect, we think that
subjects are convinced that the Roma proportion of the population must be much higher
than it seems. This common theory may be explained by the perception that Roma
people try to hide their real identity, or by an amplified visibility of the negative
stereotypes. Of course, all these are rather viewpoints in a conversation than
conclusions of a scientific research.
An alternative interpretation might invoke the populations lack of familiarity
with the percentile estimates and lack of attention given to the significance of numbers.
This interpretation is justified especially in the case that there is a significant influence
of education on estimates as educated persons, for instance, have to be familiar with
the significance of percentages. Nevertheless, if education is significantly associated
with statistic estimates, the differences it induces are small: e.g., the average estimate
suggested by educated people is 22%, while people who graduated only from the
primary or lower high school give an estimate of 25% (Table 7). Given these
circumstances, we think that the lack of familiarity with the percentile estimate does not
13
influence very much the perception about Romas share of Romanias population, as
we have to do with a common theory of hidden ethnicity.
Some conclusions
As expected, there are significant differences between the Roma ethnicity as
understood by the Romas themselves and the non-Roma people (Romanians,
Hungarians and others). For example, Roma people prefer the cultural criteria for
Romas hetero-identification while the other ethnic groups prefer to a greater extent
physical and behavioural ones. Roma people believe to a greater extent than the nonRoma ones that a child resulting from a Roma-Romanian marriage will be a Roma
child which can be interpreted to a certain extent as an indication of the desire to
preserve their ethnic identity. At the same time, Roma people approve significantly
more than the non-Roma of inter-ethnic contacts in the neighbourhood relations, school
going and a playing, as well as marriage.
The most important similitude between Romas and other ethnic groups
attitude towards the Roma ethnicity consists in the convergent estimate of the Roma
proportion of Romanias population 25%, much over the estimates of the sociological
literature and almost ten times higher than the official census-based estimate.
Annexes
Table 1. Which is your mother tongue? (%)
Romaniani
sed Roma
Romanian
Hungarian
Romani
Other
Total
Other kind of
Roma
57
3
40
0
100
40
6
54
0
100
Other ethnic
group (Romanian,
Hungarian etc.)
90
7
1
2
100
Table 2. If a youngsters father is Roma and his/her mother Romanian, what is the youngster? (%)
Roma
Romanian
Dont
know
Total
Subject is Roma
Big city
Small
town
83
12
Village
78
16
Subject is not Roma

Big city
Small
town
71
53
19
25
52
33
57
24
Village
10
22
15
19
100
100
100
100
100
100
14
Table 3. Do you think that a youngster whose both parents are Roma may not be Roma?
Other
ethnic
group
(%)
Yes he/she may not
be gypsy
No, he/she is surely
Roma
Dont know
Total
Roma ethnic
group (%)
13
10
77
84
10
100
6
100
Table 4. In your opinion is it good or isnt it for Romanians and Romas
Very
bad
Bad
Good
Very
good
Dont
know
Total
Other
ethnic
group
Other
kind of
Roma
Romanian
ised Roma
Children to learn in the

same classroom?
Other
ethnic
group
Other
kind of
Roma
Romanian
ised Roma
To live together in the

same area of the
neighbourhood?
Other
ethnic
group
Other
kind of
Roma
Romanian
ised Roma
To marry one another?
15
9
40
43
17
44
29
27
42
11
5
47
44
12
54
32
27
49
11
3
46
48
11
49
36
18
58
15
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Table 5. Would you approve of your son/daughter to marry a person of ethnic

group/nationality? (% affirmative answers out of total)
Romanianised
Roma
Romanian?
Hungarian?
Roma?
Other kind of Roma
82
61
98
69
55
94
15
Other ethnic group

(Romanian, Hungarian etc.)
95
58
35
Table 4.? If you think now of all people living in Romania, what percentage of them you think are
Roma?
Other
ethnic
group
0-9
10-19
20-29
30-39
40 and over
Total
Roma ethnic
group
16
27
22
15
21
100
11
18
35
18
18
100
Table 5. If you think now of all people living in Romania, what percentage of them you think are
Roma? % (depending of the subjects education level)
Average
estimate
No formal education
Primary school
Lower High school
Apprentice school, lower high school,
vocational school, high school
Post high school, university
education
Median estimate
25
25
26
23
25
25
25
20
22
20
Literature
Gheu, Vasile (1996). O proiectare condiional a populaiei Romniei pe
principalele naionaliti (1992-2025) [A conditional projection of Romanias
population by main nationalities]. in Revista de Cercetri Sociale 1/1996.
OGrady, Cathy i Tarnovschi, Daniela. Minoritile din Europa de Sud-Est. Romii
din Romnia. Raport CEDIME-SE i CRDE. [Minorities in South-eastern Europe.
Roma populations in Romania. A CEDIME-SE and CRDE report
Popescu, Claudia (2002). Imaginea romilor n mass-media. [ Roma image in mass
media] in Rudolf Poledna, Francis Ruegg and Clin Rus (coord.), Interculturalitate.
Cercetri i perspective romneti [Intercultural studies. Romanian research and
perspective] Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitar Clujean.
Sandu, Dumitru (2005). Comunitile de Romi din Romnia. O hart a srciei
comunitare prin sondajul PROROMI. [ Roma communities of Romania. A map of
community poverty through a PROROMI survey], Bucharest: World Bank, Available
on the National Roma Agency website: http://www.anr.gov.ro/site/Biblioteca.html
Tarnovschi, Daniela (2002). Identitatea romilor. Construct istoric i mediatic [Romas
Identity. A Historical and Mass Media construct] in Rudolf Poledna, Francis Ruegg and
Clin Rus (coord.), Interculturalitate. Cercetri i perspective romneti. [Intercultural
studies. Romanian research and perspective] Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitar Clujean.
Zamfir, Ctlin and Preda, Marian (coord.) (2002). Romii din Romnia [Romas in
Romania] Bucharest: Expert.
Zamfir, Elena and Zamfir, Ctlin (coord.) (1993). iganii. ntre ignorare i
ngrijorare [Gypsies. Between ignorance and concern], Bucharest: Alternative
16
State of mind, institutions and political options of the Roma in

Romania
by Ovidiu Voicu
Currently in the Romanian public political or journalistic discourse the
reference to our fellow citizens of Roma origin is made through the phrase the Roma
problem in Romania. It is most probable that the phrase has lost its negative
connotation and has the functional role to include in a succinct formula the idea that in
the Romanian society Roma people are still a marginalised minority, in whose case we
cannot talk about a real social inclusion. The same phrase includes implicitly a project,
because any problem, by definition, needs a solution. The project to solve the Roma
problem in Romania is a complex one and at present it seems to have neither vision nor
strategy, much less results. Moreover, the project does not seem to enjoy either the
support of the decision makers or the active implication of its direct beneficiaries,
namely the Roma people, except for a small number of leaders and nongovernmental
organisations.
This chapter wants to uncover some essential landmarks related exactly to the
political support and Roma implication in possible public policies which deal with the
improvement of the situation of this social category. The first of these landmarks is the
state of mind of the target group, the respondents (dis)satisfaction, the main source of
dissatisfaction. The second topic approached in this chapter is the relation with the
public institutions, and the third is the perception of the political representation of the
Roma interests and who are their most important subjective leaders. All these questions
are regarded in comparison with peoples attitude as a whole.
State of mind
The state of mind of the population is an important indicator of how the
evolution of society is perceived by our fellow citizens and an important element when
asking for the support and the involvement of the population in development
programmes. People may be satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in
the country, with their own life, with people around them, with institutions and other
actors of the public life. A population with a higher degree of satisfaction is more
inclined to dialogue, tolerance, shared solutions to the problems while an increased
social dissatisfaction can affect seriously the effectiveness of such actions, which
depend on peoples cooperation and involvement. Dissatisfaction is most often
associated with the inhibition of the own development capabilities and participation in
the community activities, as well as with isolation and refuse to participate in the social
life.
Romanian Romas are dissatisfied and pessimistic about their own life both in
absolute figures and compared to the population as a whole. The two elements
dissatisfaction with their way of living and pessimism regarding the evolution of things
are first of all determined by the characteristic state of severe poverty of the group. In
this respect, Romas have similar opinions as the poorest Romanian nationals, regardless
of their ethnic belonging. Nevertheless, the material factor is overlapped by other
17
elements which contribute to shaping the mainly negative perceptions of the Roma
people, among which the lack of confidence in institutions and the feeling that they are
discriminated.
In general, Romanians are rather dissatisfied with the way they live, as it is
shown in all the surveys which have measured this perception. The series Public
59
65
70
39
34
30
Oct 2004
Mai 2005
Mai 2006
Mulumii
68
32
Oct 2006
Nemulumii
The evolution of shares of those who consider themselves satisfied, respectively dissatisfied whit
h their own lives, 2004-2006. The figures are percentages of the sample.
The differences to 100% are the NA/NR answers.
Source: BIR-FSD, December 2006
Opinion Barometer, carried out by the Open Society Foundation indicate that during
the last two years the number of those who consider themselves satisfied is constantly
around 30-35% of the population, while the dissatisfied are twice as many.
A similar perception of satisfaction with the own life is also indicated for the
population as a whole by the Barometer of Roma Inclusion: 35% of the Romanians
declare themselves satisfied with the way they live, while 63% are dissatisfied. As for
the Romanian Romas, the dissatisfaction is much higher: the percentage of the
dissatisfied people drops to 12%, while the dissatisfied are 87% of the respondents of
Roma origin. In the next table as well as in the following references, we will designate
by national sample the representative sample of the whole Romanian population
(1,215 persons), and by Roma sample the representative sample of the Romanian
Romas (1,387 persons).
How satisfied are you with the way you live?
Sample
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
National
Roma
35
12
63
87
The figures are percentages.

The differences to 100% are the NA/NR answers. Very satisfied, Rather
satisfied and the label Dissatisfied includes the answers: Not very
satisfied and Not satisfied at all. Differences to 100% are non-answers.
18
The respondents dissatisfaction shows up on the background of the perception

by their majority of a worsening of life compared to last year. At the national level,
almost a quarter of the population think that their life is better than last year, another
quarter perceive a worsening of their own life and half of them do not perceive any
change. In the representative Roma sample, the perception of the evolution compared to
last year is significantly more pessimistic. Only 15% of Roma notice an improvement
of their life, while 42% mention a worsening. When the question is extended to include
people in the town and people in the countryside, the percentages of the two
samples are more similar and the differences in the perception of the Roma and the
population as a whole are smaller. Most of the respondents in both samples think that
peoples life has either worsened or stayed the same in both their town and in the entire
country. In other words, Roma people tend to have a rather more pessimistic opinion
compared to the perception of the population as a whole about the life evolution,
when the question becomes more specific and touches the universe of their own
existence.
How is [] compared to one year ago?
Your life
The life of people in your town The life of people in the whole country
Sample
National
Roma
National
Roma
National
Roma
Better
The same
Worse
NA
27
48
24
1
15
41
42
2
13
47
26
14
9
43
37
11
11
39
35
15
9
38
38
15
Figures are percentages

The label Better includes the answers: much better and better,
and the label worse includes the answers: much worse and worse
We find a similar situation of the differences in perception of the evolution of

their own life when we project the question in the future. Generally speaking, Romas
are more pessimistic and only a quarter of them have a hope of improvement, compared
to one third of all the Romanian citizens.
How do you think you will live in one year from now?
Sample
National
Roma
Better
The same
Worse
NR
32
26
28
13
26
24
35
13

The label Better includes the answers: much better and better,
and the label worse includes the answers: much worse and
worse
Crossing the answers to the three questions we get a typology of people

19
depending on their opinions on their life so far, the evolution compared to last year and
the hopes regarding the next year. To simplify the analysis, we differentiated four
points marking the centre and extremes of the table.
Type A represents the most dissatisfied and pessimistic of the respondents: they
are not happy with their life, perceive a worsening compared to last year and predict
also a worsening for the next year. They are 15% of the respondents in the national
sample and 26% of the Roma sample. Types B and C include those who do not see any
major difference in their life evolution, either compared to the previous year, or in the
projection of the next one. The difference between the two types is in the satisfaction
with the way things go now, at present type B are rather dissatisfied, while Type C
are rather satisfied. Together the two types represent 18% of the Romanian people and
17% of the Roma population. It should be noted that Type B (dissatisfied) has a higher
share in Roma population. At the other extreme of the table we have Type D, including
the most optimistic ones: they perceive an improving of life compared to the previous
year, are happy with the way things are going now and hope for a positive evolution
next year. While at the level of the entire population the percentage of those in Type D
is 12%, in the Roma sample the share of this percentage drops by only 4%.
National
Dissatisfied
In one year life will
be
Satisfied
Worse
The same
Better
Roma
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Worse
In one year life will The same
be
Better
Compared to one year ago life is

Worse
The same
Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied
1
9
15A
3
1
11B
3
1
9
Compared to one year ago life is
Worse
The same
Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied
1
12
26A
7
1
15B
7
1
11
Satisfied
3
7C
6
Better
Dissatisfied
3
3
5
Satisfied
1
4
12D
Satisfied
0
2C
2
Better
Dissatisfied
2
2
6
Satisfied
1
1
4D
Type A includes in both samples people with low income of all categories: low
income people, elderly persons, low education level, less informed, have less useful
relations, less healthy, live mainly in economically disfavoured areas. They have a
lower level of trust in people and institutions. At the other extreme, Type D includes
high income people (of all the above mentioned categories). When we make these
comparisons, the reference term is the average of each sample; so, when we talk about
lower or higher income Romas the reference is the average of the Roma sample. This
analysis shows that the main difference between the perceptions of the two categories is
not at all related to the ethnic origin, but to poverty; nevertheless the share of those with
minimum resources is much higher in the case of Romas than in the population as a
whole.
20
The main reason for dissatisfaction at both the level of the entire population and
the Roma people is the income. BIR data are confirmed in this case by similar surveys.
In a series of four dimensions health, money, family, and friends the highest
dissatisfaction is in both samples related to money, while family and friends generated
rather reasons for satisfaction.
How happy are you with?
Sample
Your life
Your health
The money you have
Your family
Your friends
National
Roma
National
Roma
National
Roma
National
Roma
National
Roma
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
35
12
58
55
28
9
88
78
79
63
63
87
42
44
71
90
9
20
17
32
Figures are percentages.

Differences to 100% are NA/NR.
The label Satisfied includes the answers: Very satisfied and Rather satisfied
and the label Dissatisfied includes the answers Not very satisfied and Not at all
satisfied.
It is obvious that the material resources are the most important source of
dissatisfaction. The subjective perception of their own welfare offers an image of how
the two target groups differentiate themselves. While in the entire population 30% of
the respondents think that they are under the survival threshold (incomes are not even
enough to survive), in the case of Romas their share increases to 73%. Less than 6% of
the Romas in Romania state that their current income is enough at least for a decent
living.
How do you assess the present income of your household?
Sample
National
Roma
It is not even enough for the minimum needs

It covers just the minimum needs
It is enough for a decent living, but we cannot afford buying
expensive things
We can even buy expensive things but with restrictions in
other areas
We have everything without restrictions
29,9
34,5
73,0
14,4
21,0
4,9
5,9
2,0
1,0
0,4

Differences to 100% are NA/NR
21
Institutions
Another characteristic of the Romanian society confirmed in several studies is
the lack of trust in public institutions. As expected, the level of mistrust is higher in
Romas than in the non-Roma for most of the institutions and organisations for which
we have measured this indicator. It is interesting to note that Roma are somehow more
lenient with Government and Parliament, compared to the rest of the population. Even
if the difference is under the survey error margin the two central institutions are the
only ones which enjoy to a greater extent Romas confidence than the confidence of the
Whole population.
Sample
European Union
President
Government
Parliament
Justice
Army
Police
Town Hall
Political parties
Banks
Media (television, radio, press)
Nongovernmental organisations
Church
National
little +
little
very
47
53
73
75
64
39
53
47
77
53
42
55
18
much
much
44
43
23
20
31
57
44
50
17
39
53
27
78
+ very
Roma
little +
little
50
59
71
73
67
50
62
59
75
63
49
59
28
very
much
much
+ very
39
36
24
22
28
44
34
38
16
24
43
20
68

The Romas confidence is significantly lower than the confidence of non-Romas

regarding the institutions with which they have a direct contact and which,
theoretically, should be the first to mediate for the solution of their problems. Only 38%
of Romas say that they are confident or very confident with the Town Hall where they
live (while 50% of all the citizens have this opinion), 34% trust the Police (compared to
44% at the national level) and only 20% place their trust in non-governmental
organisations (compared to 27% of the population as a whole)
At the same time, Romas call three times more frequently on the social workers
of the Town Hall and two times more to other public servants than the non-Romas.
Romas have more frequent interactions with the police, the school headmasters and
teachers. These interactions are mainly due to the Romas dependence on different
forms of social allowances and the results of these interactions determine the way in
which the respondents regard the public institutions. The trust in the Town Hall, in the
case of Romas, increases to 50% of those who called on the public servants of social
workers of the Town Hall and were satisfied with the way their requests were
answered, but drops to 22% in the dissatisfied persons.
22
During the last year have you or anyone in your family had a problem for whose solution you
asked for help from
Sample
Town Hall social workers
other Public servants of the Town Hall
Police of your town
school teachers or headmaster
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
National
13
86
17
81
11
87
9
89
Roma
38
61
33
66
15
83
14
83

The main kind o social benefit received by the Romanian Romas is the
minimum guaranteed income (we have excluded here the children allowances which
are given to every family with children, regardless of their income). Out of the whole
population, the share of those who say that someone in their family receives the MGI
(minimum guaranteed income) is 8%. Among the Roma population the percentage
increases to 38%. 64% of them say that during the last month they worked for the
community in order to receive the money (compared to only 42% of the non-Roma who
receive the same social benefit).
Do you or anyone in your family receive the MGI /social benefits?
Sample
National Roma
No
86
61
38
Yes
13
Only for those who receive MGI
Sample
National
During the last month have you worked for No
42
the community in order to receive the
Yes
48
Money?
Roma
64
31

At the central level, the National Council for Combating Discrimination is one
of the institutions which have among their responsibilities the protection of Romas
rights (for the feeling of perceived discrimination, see the following chapters). At the
central level, too, there is a National Agency for Romas, a body subordinated to the
Government, whose objective is to promote and implement the programmes designed
to improve Roma situation.
The name of the National Agency for Romas is known by only one fifth of the
Romanian Romas (compared to 26% of the entire population). Half of those who have
heard of the NAR (of the Roma sample) have a rather good opinion about its activity,
but almost two thirds think that NAR helps only to a small extent to solve Roma
23
problems. Data show first of all that the Agency did not succeed in making itself known
within the target group as a generator of strategies and programmes, which is the result
either of a poor activity or of a lack of communication. Among those who have heard of
the Agency, half of them appreciate its efforts, but the high percentage of those who
think that the results help only to a small extent indicate that the Romas expectations
concerning NAR are higher than what the institutions provide at present.
Have you heard of the National Agency for Romas (NAR)?
Sample
National Roma
No
73
80
19
Yes
26
Only for those who have heard of NAR:
Sample
National
rather
good
44
Have you a rather good or rather
bad opinion about NAR activity?
rather bad
22
To which extent does NAR help in great + very great
48
solving Romas problems in
Romania?
small + very small
30
Roma
50
33
26
61
The National Council for Combating Discrimination enjoys a little higher

notoriety among Romas: a quarter of them state that the institution is known. As in the
case of NAR, the Council is better known by those who are more informed (they read
papers, watch TV more often) and its notoriety is most probably due to its more
frequent presence in media. The number of those who have a good opinion about the
Council among the Romas is almost half (46%), as well as the share of those who think
that the Council work contributes to diminishing discrimination in Romania (47%). We
should nevertheless emphasise that those who perceive a discrimination against Roma
are more dissatisfied with the Council activity: in their case, the percentage of those
who have a rather bad opinion increases to 52%.
Have you heard of the National Council for Combating Discrimination
(NCCD)?
Sample
No
Yes
Only for those who have heard of NCCD:
Sample
Have you a rather good or rather rather good
bad opinion about NCCD
activity?
To which extent does NCCD help
in solving Romas problems in
Romania?
National
75
25
Roma
75
25
National
68
Roma
46
rather bad
great + very great
22
28
33
47
small + very small
48
41
24
The perception of existing segments of citizens who are disfavoured in Romania

is widely spread at both national level and among the Romas: 46% of the non-Romas
and 43% of Romas think that in Romania the law is not enforced equally for everybody
and there are disfavoured citizens. There are differences about who are the disfavoured
citizens. For most of the respondents in the entire population (40%) poor people are in
this situation, and only 9% put Romas on the first place. 60% of the Romas who
perceive discrimination think that Romas are its main victims. People who think they
are poor, regardless of the samples we refer to, think to a greater extent that poor people
a disfavoured in front of the Law.
In your opinion, are laws enforced equally for everybody or are citizens
disfavoured in front of the Law
Sample
National
Law is enforced equally for everybody
40
There are disfavoured citizens
46
Only for those who think that there are disfavoured citizens
Roma
43
44
Who are the disfavoured ones? (open question)
Sample
National
Roma
poor people
gypsies / Roma
elderly, retired people
people without connections
minorities
farmers /people in rural areas
uneducated people
other
40
9
6
4
27
60
6
2
13
2
2
Leaders, political parties and options

The political decision is an important element in the process of implementing
public policies, mainly in such controversial issues as solving Roma problems in
Romania. Taking a position to favour or disfavour Roma is a type of decision which,
according to a very pragmatic political calculation, may result in consequences, which
will either satisfy or stir political actors. First of all, this is about supporting
programmes meant to increase Romas income level and their social inclusion, seen as
a normal behaviour in a society, which chose among its fundamental values the respect
for the human rights, freedom and equality. At the same time, against the background
of Romas being rejected by a minor but relatively active electoral segment, the
discriminatory measures or mere discriminatory attitude towards Romas may result in
an increased electoral capital. Last but not least, the political actors have to take into
consideration the fact that the Roma population are an important electoral public even if
they dont have the voting discipline of the Hungarian electorate (to give an example of
the same area). Nevertheless we could see on several occasions during the last 17 years
25
that the Romanian politicians were readier to avoid the reference values in favour of an
electoral gain.
At the same time, in order to reach a favourable political decision for the
programmes designed to improve Romas situation, there have to be leaders to support
the programmes in the debate preceding the decision making, be it public or at the
administration level. We can identify in Romania Roma leaders and Roma parties but it
is obvious that they dont have the necessary force and readiness of their Hungarian
counterparts to remain in the area of the above mentioned example.
All these aspects make it necessary and interesting to include in a research about
Romanian Romas an image of peoples perception, regardless if this is about Roma or
not-Roma population, of the political parties and leaders who presently support Roma
people in Romania. To measure the electoral options we used open, unassisted
questions; this means that the respondents had no list of answers, but have
spontaneously indicated the favourite political party or personality at the operators
request.
Following the electoral options of the Roma people regarding the political
parties we can see that the DA Alliance and its composing parties do not succeed in
attracting this electorate. While in the entire population the DA pole is in most of the
surveys 45-50% of those who have an opinion, only 19% of the Roma people indicate
spontaneously the Alliance, DP or LNP.
The Great Romania Party doesnt enjoy the sympathy of this electoral group
and gets only 6% of their votes. The main two parties which get these votes are the
Roma Party and the New Generation Party. It is not surprising at all that the Roma
Party enjoys the appreciation of those whom it represents; RP is the main political
vehicle which addresses exclusively this ethnic group. A little more surprising is the
share of the New Generation Party, which is practically three times more popular
among the Roma than in the main population.
If we had parliamentary elections on Sunday for which party or
alliance would you vote?
Sample: Roma
DA Alliance
3
DP
9
LNP
7
SDP
23
NGP
20
GRP
6
DUMR
2
Roma Party
28
Other
2
The figures are percentages of those who have a voting option.
An open, unassisted question was used.
There is the following distribution of those who do not vote:
I dont vote
12
I havent decided yet
29
I dont answer
15
Percentage of total sample
Source BIR-FSD, December 2006
26
Nevertheless, most of the respondents cannot indicate exactly a party, which

represents the interests of the Roma population. Those who have an opinion in this
respect indicate first of all the Roma Party (9.8% of all citizens and 15.1% of Roma)
and SDP (8.8% and 7.7% respectively).
Of all the political parties, which one in your opinion represents best
the Roma interests?
Sample
National Roma
Social Democratic Roma Party
9.8
15.1
SDP
8.8
7.7
NGP
1.0
4.1
LNP
2.0
1.9
DP
1.0
1.1
GRP
2.9
0.9
Civil Alliance of Roma
0.2
Other
2.0
1.7
None
2.0
3.4
Dont know/Havent decided yet/NR
70.6
63.9
The figures are percentages of those who have a voting option.
Roma Political organisations still have notoriety problems even among their
own public. Even Roma Party, the oldest and best known Roma party is ignored by
30% of the respondents of Roma origin. Other parties, like the Roma Civil Alliance, the
Alliance for Roma Unity and Roma Christian Centre (these are not necessarily political
parties but they are nationally representative and support among other, Roma political
objectives) are less known by their target public, as we can see in the following graph.
Foarte puin/Deloc
Puin
Partida Romilor
18
19
Aliana Civic a
Romilor
16
19
Mult
19
30
42
44
15
17
11
Centrul Cretin al
Romilor
13
17
11
How much trust do you place in?

Sample: Roma.
Figures are percentages. Differences to 100% are non-answers.
27
Nu cunosc
11
Aliana pentru
Unitatea Romilor
Foarte mult
57
The lack of confidence is another problem, besides the one of notoriety, to

which this is very close. In all the organisations where we have measured this indicator
the number of those who have little or very little confidence in them is lower that of
those who have a rather positive attitude. The sources of these options may be on one
hand the general distrusting attitude towards institutions and organisations, and, on the
other hand, the results of these organisations, which are either not known or under the
expectations level of their direct beneficiaries, namely Roma people.
We have also asked the respondents to indicate three of the Roma leaders they
consider representative of the national level. The answers we received indicate that
Mdlin Voicu, Nicolae Pun and King Cioab (in this order) are not only the most
popular, but the only ones with a rather higher notoriety. Many other persons have been
indicated by a small number of respondents; among them, Emperor Iulian and the
Mayor of the Bucharest 5th Sector, Marian Vanghelie occur most frequently. Other
names which occur more often (at least 0.1% in the first or second option) are: Bumbu
Viorel, Gheorghe Ioan, Roianu, Gotu Viorica, Gigi Becali, Tatian, Bitu Nicoleta, Bobu
Ioan, Negrea Doduta, Bulibaa, Punescu, Gheorghe Rducanu, Nicolae Gu, Ilie
Dinc, Gheorghe Ivan, Nicolae Gheorghe, Leo of Strehaia, Ion Neveanu.
It is more difficult for the non-Roma to indicate a Roma leader. The percentage
of those who indicate no name is 70% and 77% cannot name a second person; 89% is
the share of those who cannot name a third leader. The most frequent names are:
Mdlin Voicu (18% in total, all the options) and King Cioab.
Madalin Voicu
Nicolae Paun
Regele Cioaba
4,0
10,9
3,6
8,1
1,3
6,6
12,0
1,4
1,9
Imparatul Iulian 1,2 1,8

Marian Vanghelie
Altcineva
7,0
Prima opiune
7,3
5,9
A doua opiune
A treia opiune
Can you indicate the names of three Roma leaders known in Romania?
Sample: Roma.
Figures are percentages. Differences to 100% are non-answers.
The question was opened, unattended.
28
We extended the option possibilities to include political leaders regardless of

their ethnic origin and tried to find out which are the political personalities who most
help Roma people in Romania. Again, in both respondents categories it was difficult to
name one such person and most of the answers were: I dont know, I havent decided
yet, I dont answer. As for the non-Roma who have an opinion the most frequent name
is Mdlin Voicu (8.8% of the sample), while the Roma themselves put George Becali
on the first place /13.1%). His name is mentioned especially by the very poor people
and his popularity is most probably due to his donations and not to ethnic reasons.
Nicolae Pun, the leader of the Roma Party, ranks second as occurrence (5.%).
Which do you think is the political personality who
helps most the Roma population in Romania?
Sample
National Roma
George Becali
2.0
13.1
Nicolae Pun
1.0
5.2
Mdlin Voicu
2.8
8.8
Traian Bsescu
2.0
1.9
Regele Cioab
2.0
1.7
Adrian Nstase
1.5
Ion Iliescu
2.0
1.5
2.9
0.7
Other
1.0
1.1
None
1.0
6.0
Dont know/Havent decided yet/
NR
77.5
64.4
The observations above explain to a great extent the Roma order of preference
in the event of possible presidential elections. Only 49% of Roma people have an
already shaped opinion and George Becali ranks first in their options, with 35%, which
is more than President Traian Bsescu (32%). This happens in a political context when
(at the moment of data collecting) Traian Bsescu was enjoying the support of more
than half of the voting Romanians and a clear opinion. A relatively important number
of citizens of Roma origin answer spontaneously the open question by naming
politicians such as Adrian Nstase (7%) and Ion Iliescu (7%) but most of them come
from very poorly informed and poor people living in the rural areas.
29
If next Sunday we had Presidential elections, whom

would you vote?
Sample: Roma
35
Gigi Becali
32
Traian Bsescu
8
7
Adrian Nstase
7
Ion Iliescu
3
Mircea Geoan
2
Theodor Stolojan
6
Others
Figures are percentages of those having a voting option.
An open unassisted question was used.
The distribution of those who do not vote is as follows:
I dont vote
11
I havent decided yet
25
I dont answer
15
Percentage of total sample
Source: BIR-FSD, decembrie 2006
30
Dwelling conditions and financial problems

of the Roma population
by Vlad Grigora
The precarious material condition of Roma is one of the most present topics in
mass media in relation to poverty obstinately discussed by different public actors
from newspapers which conduct rapid social surveys where Roma families with a lot of
children live in almost ruined houses to the NGOs, which fight to find a solution to the
problems of this ethnic group. Based on consistent data at the national level, this
chapter will analyse to which extent the financial problems Roma people are confronted
with are really more severe than those of individuals of other ethnic groups 2. The
material difficulties may take different shapes which are most often interrelated with
the strictly monetary ones (lack of income needed for subsistence) to the different
dwelling problems (which can be at least explained by a chronic lack of financial
resources) poor quality of dwelling, lack of access to utilities and characteristics of
the residential area.
We have to emphasise that, although in this chapter we are going to compare
people of Roma ethnic origin with individuals of other ethnic belonging using some
welfare indicators, the possible differences cannot be explained by the mere belonging
to the ethnic group, as there are other explanations for the respective situations i.e. it
is not the ethnic origin of the individuals which generates overcrowding, but the lack of
resources, which may force the individuals to adopt as a strategy for reducing costs to
share rooms with the other members of the family.
In which area do Roma live?

Data show that Roma people are generally less satisfied with the town,
neighbourhood and house where they live compared to the other individuals. When
they assess their town Roma people tend to adopt a medium attitude (they are neither
satisfied, nor dissatisfied), sometimes they are even satisfied (but to a lesser extent than
the other respondents) when they get closer to their concrete condition. Their degree of
dissatisfaction increases, when they assess first their neighbourhood and than the
dwelling. At the same time, we can see a decrease of the difference between the
percentage of dissatisfied Roma people and of the other individuals in the same
condition.
The answers to the satisfaction-related questions do not offer a sufficiently clear
idea of the living conditions of the interviewed people, as the image is distorted by the
level of their expectations (at the same satisfaction level the living conditions might be
much more precarious for Roma than for other individuals if the expectations of the
first group would be lower). This is why an analysis is needed to focus on the
2
The two groups to be compared in this chapter are as follows: a) Roma people in the national sample
and in the Roma sample (those who declared themselves Roma or gypsy) and b) all the individuals
except for Roma people in the national survey.
31
communities the respondents live in, the presence and quality of services within them
and the access to services outside the dwelling area.
National data show a strong association of the quality of dwelling with the
residential environment and positioning of the house within the community. The
location in one residential environment or another is a strong predictor of access to
services, because in the rural area their quality is lower, utility systems are less spread,
roads are worse, etc. (Table 7). Moreover, the positioning of the area within the same
type of settlement is a source of differences, as there is a significant link between the
(central, average, peripheral) positioning of the community the individual belongs to,
and his/her access to services (Table 8).
The share of individuals of Roma origin in the rural area is higher than that of
other ethnic groups 60% versus 40%. Moreover, the former live to a higher extent in
the peripheral areas of the settlements 68% of the Roma people compared to only
46% of the members of other ethnic groups who say that they live in such areas. It
should be noted that the positioning of Roma people in one area or another depends on
the residential environment those in rural area live in the central areas to a lesser
extent than those in the urban area. This may be explained by the fact that many of the
houses inhabited by the Roma people downtown in the big cities are very old (average
building year 1886), hired from the state dwelling fund. The reality that Roma people
have a higher share in the rural area and tend to live rather in remote communities
points out that they have a more limited access to services than the other individuals
and these services are of poorer quality.
The condition of the roads, which is an important factor of the physical access
to the services outside the community, is assessed as very poor to a much greater extent
by the Roma individuals than the others 63% of the Roma consider the condition of
the roads as poor or very poor (to these another 1% should be added of those who say
that there is no road at all in their area) compared to only 42% of the individuals of
other ethnic origin. Their assessment of the condition of the road is backed by the
objective data 72% of the Roma have earth roads in front of their houses, while only
48% of the individuals of other ethnic groups have such roads. It is important to note
that in the same kind of areas, access conditions to the community are worse for Roma
individuals than for the others. This difference persists even when we compare
individuals of the same residential environment who live in the same type of
communities inside settlements (Table 9).
The consequences of the poor condition of the road can be aggravated by two
more elements insufficient means of transportation and poor quality of services
within the community. The percentage of Roma people who say that public
transportation is absent or works badly in the areas where they live is much higher
(50%) than in the case of the other individuals (31%). Although the difference may be
justified by a different share of those who live in the rural area we notice that the
differences between ethnic groups persist within the same type of communities (Table
9). Moreover, not only the access to other areas (implicitly to the services they may
offer) is worse for Roma people than for the individuals of other origin, but in the
communities where Roma people live there are no shops, schools or day care to a
greater extent than in other areas.
32
Dwelling conditions and access to utilities

The differences between Roma and other ethnic groups are deeper when we
look at the condition of their dwellings, taking into account indicators such as: access to
utilities, building material of the house, legal situation of Roma people.
As for the coupling to running water, gas or sewage system the differences
between the groups in the rural areas are not very big, although they are real, because
all the houses (regardless of the household characteristics) tend to lack access. In the
urban area the differences are much more visible from 70% uncoupled households in
the case of Roma population to 20% or even 10% in the case of other individuals.
To these deficiencies we should add the lack of electricity and heating with
waste or total lack of heating, which are relevant aspects of the present situation of
Roma people. They are really alarming, although there is not a very widely spread
situation about 13% of Roma people have no power, a rather high percentage
compared to 2% of the other ethnic groups. It is important to note that 80% of the
Roma households without power have no debts for electricity (an equal percentage with
that of Roma people who have power and have also debts). This reality questions the
rather generalised idea that Roma people have no power because they do not pay their
bills. Maybe people have no money to pay for the coupling or there is no network in the
area. 12% of the Roma houses are heated with waste or not heated at all.
Table 1 Access to utilities depending on ethnic group and environment (%)
Dwellings
not coupled to the gas network
no sewage
no running water in house
no power
heating with waste or no heating
Roma
95
95
95
14
10
Rural
Others
89
87
84
3
1
Urban
Roma
Others
75
21
72
15
73
10
12
1
14
2
Roma
87
86
86
13
12
Total
Others
53
49
44
2
2
The quality of the dwelling is a relevant factor of housing. Data show that in the
urban area there are a much greater number of Roma people living in comparable
conditions with other ethnic groups. This makes the percentage of dwellings built of
strong materials (brick, stone, BCA) much lower for the Roma population 55% of
Roma people in the urban area live in such houses, compared to 90% of the other
individuals. As for the block of flats, we note that over half of Roma live in III/IV
comfort class blocks of flats or in former hostels for single persons. In the rural area,
the differences between the Roma and the non-Roma people do not stem from the kind
of dwelling as almost all individuals live in houses, but from the building materials
Roma houses are built to a greater extent than other people houses of weak materials.
Much more alarming is their living in abandoned or improvised constructions
in the rural area 3% of the Roma households live in abandoned or improvised houses
and in the urban area their percentage reaches 8% (in the case of other ethnic groups,
even if probably such dwellings exist, their number is not statistically relevant).
33
Table 2 Type of dwelling by ethnic group and residential area (%)

rural
urban
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
house
96
95
79
43
I /II comfort block of flats
1
4
6
53
III/IV comfort block of flats or former hostel for single
0
0
7
4
people
abandoned houses
1
0
3
0
improvised houses
2
0
5
0
Total
100
100
100
100
Total N
864
550
553
635
Overcrowding is another problem Roma people are confronted with to a greater

extent than the other individuals, as the average number of people per room in their
case is over the double of the number of individuals in the non-Roma households. The
density (square meters per person) differs in the two groups (8 sq m /person in Roma
households vs. 19.5 sq m/person in the others). The lack of room associated with other
factors such as the attempt to reduce heating costs make 70% of the Roma households
who have a kitchen to use it to sleep in (and as 11% of the Roma households have no
kitchen overcrowding is even worse in their case than it results from the above
presented data).
Table 3. Overcrowded dwellings depending on ethnic group
Average household
Average number of rooms in a dwelling, without annexes
Average surface of a dwelling
Average number of people per room
Average surface per person
Median surface per person
% of households use the kitchen as a bed room
Roma
5.7
2.5
52
2.7
13
8
23
Others
3.5
3.1
71
1.3
25.6
19.5
69,4 3
Maybe the most serious problem is the lack of the dwelling security only 66%
of Roma people say that they have a housing contract for their houses compared to 82%
of the other ethnic groups. Moreover, about 9% of the Roma people who have a
contract have hired rooms (mostly from the state), while only 1% of the interviewed
non-Roma people who have contracts are in this situation. Only 58% of Roma people
have the security of an ownership contract for their dwellings (the house is legally their
or belongs to their parents) compared to 81% of the other ethnic groups.
Of the households which have a kitchen, because 11% of the Roma households have no kitchen.
34
Monetary poverty and material deprivation

The lack of long lasting goods in the household is a characteristic of the
individuals exclusion, because some of them are seen as strictly necessary in a modern
society. For the analysis to become consistent, we shall consider deprivation deeper if
the respective lacking item is widely spread in our society and the gap between the
compared groups is bigger. We notice for instance that the refrigerator is missing in a
much higher proportion in the Roma households than in the non-Roma ones 37% of
the Roma have such an item, compared to 88% in the case of the other ethnic groups.
The colour TV is also an item less frequently seen in the Roma households
compared to the other ethnic groups. The same about the telephone (regardless of its
type mobile or fixed) the difference between Roma and the other ethnic groups is of
over 40%; while only 32% of the Roma have access to the phone, over 73% of the
members of other ethnic groups use such a device (in the rural area the differences are
smaller, which is probably due to the lack of covering network, difficulties with the
installing of telephone lines etc.). The gaps persist when we compare the situation of
other secondary items car, automatic machine, computer etc.
The differences between the above mentioned percentages are most probably
the consequence of the differences in the long term income of the two groups the lack
of these items is thus the result of a persistent poverty. In this respect it is important to
note the analysis of the present incomes, the debts the respondents may have, as well as
the feasibility of their paying back in a reasonable period of time.
As expected, the data on the respondents incomes indicate significant
differences between individuals of Roma origin and the other ethnic groups while the
average income for October of a Roma individual was 1.5 million, the other people had
an average income of about 3.7 million 4. The difference in absolute value is lower in
the rural area where incomes are generally lower (although Roma people have half the
income of the other ethnic groups), while in the urban area the difference between
Roma income and the income of the other individuals is over 2.5 million higher. The
inclusion in the analysis of the other peoples income does not change the results above
because the difference between groups still persists.
Table 1. Respondents income in October, by ethnic group and residential area
Roma
R average income in October
1.3
R median income in October
0.5
% R who had no income in October
46
Average monthly income per member of the household 0.9
in October
Median monthly income per member of the household in 0.4
October
% households which had no income in October
10.7
Rural
Other
2.8
2.1
23
2.3
Urban
Roma
Other
1.9
4.5
1
3.8
38
14
1.3
3.9
Roma
1.5
0.8
43
1.0
1.6
0.6
3.0
0.5
2.3
2.2
10.3
0.2
10.6
1.2
To analyse the income per person we eliminated 12 extreme cases with over 20 million monthly
incomes.
35
Total
Other
3.7
3
19
3.1
It is important to note, besides the fact that most of the Roma people had no
income source in the month prior to our survey 43% of the Roma state that they did
not get any income in the previous month, compared to 19% in the other group. We
expect the analysis of the income at the household level to cancel these differences
because other incomes of other individuals might be added; wages of those who work,
unemployment benefits, elderly pensions, children allowance etc. The households data
show that, while the percentage of households of other ethnic origin without any
income in October is close to zero (1.2%), this percentage is much higher in Roma
households, as 10% of them had no income. An alarming reality is the fact that this
situation could impact children welfare over 11% of the Roma children live in
dwellings where no person has an income, compared to only 2% of the other children.
Moreover, if we take into consideration the item obtained in their own
household or received from other people, the differences in real income according to
the individuals ethnic origin are even higher not only have Roma people lower
monetary incomes, but they didnt obtain consumer goods as the other ethnic groups
did. The difference is mainly due to the situation of the individuals in the rural area,
because in the urban area the differences in self-consumption are not very high: 87% of
the Roma did not consume anything of the goods produced in their own household or
received from relatives, friends, compared to individuals of other ethnic groups who
consumed about 81%.
In the rural area the difference deepens even more only 35% of the individuals
of other ethnic groups had no self-consumption compared to 80% of the Roma in the
same situation. This situation may be explained at least partially, by the difference
between the agricultural lands they own because Roma household have in average
about 0.2 ha while the others household average is about 2 ha.
The lack of medium term income may constraint individuals to make debts
which can accumulate thus resulting in dramatic situations from giving up some basic
services like power, water, heating supply to abandoning the dwelling where they live
now and finding other less costly but qualitatively poor living strategies. Data show that
the percentage of Roma individuals who have debts is by 20% higher than the number
of the other individuals (38% versus 20%).
We can notice that the percentage of Roma people who have debts for upkeep is
as high as in the case of the other ethnic groups and the situation is similar regarding
the debts to banks most probably the lack of legal income limits their access to this
service. The alternative method is in their case borrowing from relatives and friends
(19% of the Roma people have subscribed such informal loans) and even from usurers.
It is interesting to note that a high percentage of those who have debts are a group of
individuals who havent paid their electricity bills.
Table 1 Debts for different utilities, according to the respondents ethnic origin
Debts
% total individuals
anything
Roma
38
Others
20
% of those who
have debts
Roma
Others
36
average debts of those who have

debts
Roma
Others
5.53
6.06
upkeep
rent
electricity bill
relatives,
friends
usurers
bank
7
3
16
19
7
1
7
6
20
8
42
53
37
4
37
31
0.27
0.17
0.42
2.50
0.47
0.11
0.23
0.43
2
7
0
8
5
19
1
43
0.17
2.80
0.05
4.66
When looking at the individuals who have debts we notice that the average
amounts borrowed by Roma are lower than in the case of the other ethnic groups, but
these values should be compared to the respondents income. For the Romanians the
monthly rate of debts and incomes (in October in our case) is under 1 and in the case of
Roma people is over 1 (0.7 versus 1.76). For half of the Roma who have debts the
amount is 0.4 of their income, while for half of the individuals of other ethnic origin the
amount of debt is only 0.2 of their income.
Conclusions
The data presented above show that the individuals of Roma origin live to a
greater extent in peripheral areas of the rural settlements compared to the other
individuals, which makes their access to services lower. The indicators of the access to
services, such as the condition of the roads, the existing means of transportation to
other areas, the occurrence and quality of services in the area where they live have
significantly lower values for Roma people compared to people of other ethnic groups
(the differences persist even when we examine the environment or the community
position).
Moreover, Roma dwellings are build of weak materials, they have no access to
basic utilities (sewage, gas, water and power supply) in an overwhelming percentage
and they are overcrowded (number of persons per room is double in their case
compared to the other ethnic group). One third of the individuals of Roma origin live in
the urban area and 3% of those in the rural area live in improvised or abandoned
houses.
To the bad condition of the dwellings financial problems can be added Roma
incomes are very low, sometimes they have no income at all (almost half of the Roma
had no income source last month and one tenth of the households did not get any
income). This explains that almost 40% of the Roma households have debts (the
percentage is half in the case of the individuals of other ethnic origin) and for most of
the families the amount borrowed is higher than the monthly income.
37
Annex
Table 6. Measure of individuals satisfaction with the location, are, dwelling they live in, according
to their ethnic origin (%)
In general, how satisfied
are you with
The town where you live Roma
Others
The neighbourhood where Roma
you live
Others
Your dwelling
Roma
Others
Very
satisfied
11
16
10
17
11
25
Satisfied Neither satisfied, nor Dissatisfied

dissatisfied
38
34
13
50
24
8
33
31
18
51
22
8
32
24
21
54
15
5
Very satisfied Total

4
3
8
3
12
1
100
100
100
100
100
100
Table 7 Quality of services according to the individuals residential environment (%)
Condition of the roads

Public transportation
Shops and markets for daily shopping
Schools
Kindergartens and day care centres
Play grounds for children
rural
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
38
Very good, good
Satisfactory
24
38
33
54
47
68
56
71
52
68
25
44
22
30
22
28
35
23
28
22
27
22
22
25
Very bad, bad,

lacking
54
32
45
18
18
9
16
7
21
10
53
31
Table 8 Quality of services according to the residential environment and positioning in the town
(%)
rural
rural
rural
urban
urban
urban
rural
rural
rural
urban
urban
urban
rural
rural
rural
urban
urban
urban
rural
rural
rural
urban
urban
urban
Very good,
good
50
25
15
43
37
38
46
37
25
57
54
52
57
50
43
75
69
66
77
56
49
80
72
67
Downtown
Central area
Outskirts
Downtown
Central area
Outskirts
Downtown
Central area
Outskirts
Downtown
Central area
Outskirts
Shops and markets for Downtown
the daily shopping
Central area
Outskirts
Downtown
Central area
Outskirts
Downtown
Schools
Central area
Outskirts
Downtown
Central area
Outskirts
Satisfactory
20
30
18
20
33
31
14
20
26
22
31
28
29
32
39
17
22
25
15
25
34
12
26
23
Very bad, bad,

lacking
30
45
67
37
30
31
41
43
48
20
15
20
14
18
18
8
9
10
8
19
17
7
2
10
Table 9 Condition of the Roads, by area, residential environment and ethnic belonging (%)
Downtown
Central area
Outskirts
Roma
39
14
47
100
49
30
16
55
100
172
8
16
76
100
598

Very good / good
Satisfactory
Bad/very bad/lacking
Total
Total N
Very good / good
Satisfactory
Total
Total N
Very good / good
Satisfactory
Total
Total N
39
Rural
Others
50
20
30
100
80
25
29
45
100
187
16
17
67
100
261
Urban
Roma
Others
40
43
14
21
46
36
100
100
70
97
45
36
25
33
30
30
100
100
87
211
18
39
20
30
62
31
100
100
363
287
Table 10 How do you assess the situation of the area where you live on the following aspects
rural
urban
Total
rural
urban
Total
Street lightening
rural
urban
Total
Shops and markets for

everyday shopping
rural
urban
Total
Schools
rural
urban
Total
Nurseries and kindergartens
rural
urban
Total
Play grounds for children
rural
urban
Total
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Roma
Others
Very
Satisfactory Bad/very bad Lacking Total
good/good
15
16
68
1
100
25
21
53
1
100
26
20
54
0
100
39
29
32
0
100
19
18
63
1
100
32
26
42
0
100
23
22
28
27
100
33
22
24
21
100
30
26
28
16
100
54
28
14
4
100
26
24
28
22
100
44
25
19
12
100
20
20
46
14
100
40
26
21
14
100
35
19
43
3
100
60
27
12
1
100
26
19
45
10
100
50
27
16
7
100
47
29
19
5
100
48
35
15
2
100
47
28
21
4
100
69
22
8
1
100
47
28
20
5
100
59
28
11
2
100
58
22
18
2
100
56
28
14
2
100
49
28
19
4
100
71
22
6
1
100
55
24
19
3
100
64
25
10
1
100
51
23
19
7
100
52
27
17
4
100
46
27
23
5
100
69
22
9
1
100
49
24
21
6
100
61
24
13
3
100
16
14
30
40
100
25
21
20
33
100
23
21
29
27
100
45
25
21
10
100
18
17
30
35
100
35
23
20
21
100
40
Table 11 Characteristics of the Roma dwellings compared to other ethnic groups, by environmental areas (%)
Rural
Area of the individuals dwelling
The house has no
Type of water supply
Type of heating
In what type of house do you live now?
downtown
central area
outskirts
NS/NR
Total
power supply
gas coupling
sewage
toilets not inside the house, but in the yard
no toilet at all
Running water inside the house
Running water in the yard
Bucket well in the yard
Public fountain, pump
public network
heater in the block of flats
heater in the flat
stove
electric heating
heating on waste
no heating
Flat in a block of flats
House
Flat in a villa
2-storey house or villa inhabited by one household
Other situation
What main building material is your concrete
dwelling made of?
brick, stone BCA
wood
41
Urban
Total
Roma
6
20
69
5
100
14
95
95
86
12
5
7
37
51
0
0
0
89
0
8
2
6
92
1
0
Others
15
34
47
4
100
3
89
87
83
2
16
10
58
16
0
1
5
92
1
1
0
6
92
0
1
Roma
13
16
66
6
100
12
75
72
73
7
27
19
14
41
5
1
3
75
2
9
5
13
74
0
1
Others
16
33
46
6
100
1
21
15
15
0
90
7
2
1
41
6
22
27
2
1
1
64
33
1
1
Roma
8
18
68
5
100
13
87
86
81
10
14
12
28
47
2
1
1
83
1
9
3
8
85
0
1
Others
15
34
46
5
100
2
53
49
47
1
56
8
28
8
22
4
14
57
2
1
1
37
60
1
1
1
0
26
16
0
2
46
14
12
2
46
4
1
4
66
8
5
1
33
12
0
3
52
12
half timber, adobe

other
Total
55
2
100
36
2
100
44
5
100
22
0
100
51
3
100
32
2
100
Table 12 Type of dwelling (contract and ownership) according to the environment and ethnic belonging (%)
Roma
63
4
27
6
73
22
2
3
Do you have a valid rent contract or

Yes, we have a valid contract
ownership document for the dwelling you
No, we have a contract, but it is no longer valid
live in?
No, we have no contract at all
NS/NR
Your own / your partners property
For those who have a valid contract, is
Your parents property
the dwelling you live in
Rented from one firm, person
Rented from the state
42
Rural
Others
77
1
20
2
78
21
0
0
Roma
71
4
21
4
59
21
3
13
Urban
Others
87
1
11
2
80
17
2
1
Roma
66
4
25
6
67
22
2
7
Total
Others
82
1
15
2
80
19
1
0
Table 13 Endowment of dwelling with long lasting items, by environment and ethnic
group (%)
Have you in your household a
functioning
car (including from the company)
mobile phone (including from the
company)
fix phone
refrigerator
automatic washing machine
computer
Colour TV
Rural
Roma
Others
Urban
Roma
Others
Total
Roma
Others
5
27
26
45
7
31
44
67
6
28
36
57
7
32
5
3
62
27
78
27
13
86
10
44
17
4
67
64
96
69
43
96
8
37
9
4
64
47
88
50
29
91
Table 2Distribution of the debts and consumption /income rate by ethnic origin
Others
Roma
Debts vs consumption
N
Valid
Average
Median
Standard deviation
Percentile
25
50
75
N
Valid
Average
Median
Standard deviation
Percentile
25
50
75
179 Others
0.6
0.2
1.1
0.0
0.2
0.6
408.0 Roma
1.5
0.4
3.9
0.1
0.4
1.2
43
Debts vs incomes
N
Valid
Average
Median
Standard deviation
Percentile
25
50
75
N
Valid
Average
Median
Standard deviation
Percentile
25
50
75
190
0.70
0.20
1.50
0.03
0.20
0.57
407.00
1.76
0.40
3.92
0.11
0.40
1.67
The formal exclusion of the Roma citizens

by Cosima Rughini
Conceptual clarifications
The formal exclusion refers to the lack of civil status, identity or dwelling
documents a problem affecting citizens interaction with the state authorities and with
other natural persons. There are several possible situations:
civil status documents missing: unregistered birth (which results in the lack of a
personal identification number), marriage or death;
birth, marriage or death certificates missing they were lost, stolen or
deteriorated although the events were registered;
14year olds are not registered in the National Persons Register;
valid ID missing expired, lost, stolen, deteriorated etc. but the person was
registered when issued first personal ID
The persons who have not been registered on birth do not exist legally in their
relation to the Romanian state; hence they cannot have either official or authorised
relations either to public or private partners. These persons are neither citizen of the
Romanian state nor of any other state, hence have no citizenship and associated rights.
People who were registered on birth but for different reasons have no ID document or
birth certificate suffer practically the same type of exclusion, because they are not
citizens of the Romanian state and cannot prove their state belonging in front of a third
part. The missing ID results in their impossibility to exert any fundamental civil and
social rights and they cannot have any correct relations with the state authorities, thus
having an urgent problem of public interest.
The missing residence documents can be understood as impossibility to prove
their permanent domicile or residence. This problem has two important aspects:
- The administrative dimension: having no stable domicile and/or residence
results in difficulties in their relations with the public institutions because (1) many of
them have a locally defined authority and people are distributed for interaction with
them according to their address mentioned in their ID and (2) the impossibility to prove
that hey have a residence is a problem for issuing identity documents, which has
consequences on the persons social integration.
- The social dimension: very often people who cannot prove having a stable
domicile or a permanent residence live in illegal, temporary or improvised,
inappropriate conditions. Of course there are also cases of people who had had houses
or villas built for them with an over standard comfort, without building permission. But
these situations are rare, and the owners of these houses have enough power to solve
their problems by themselves. In the case of people who have no legal access to an
appropriate dwelling, this is not a mere administrative problem, but a social, wider one,
because of the impossibility to exert their social right namely to have an appropriate
dwelling (provided by Art. 11 of the International Convention of Economic, Social and
Cultural rights).
In some cases it is rather easy to legalise the dwelling ownership status if,
for instance the person had ownership documents but lost them or got the property right
by hand written documents which were not challenged etc. In many cases a solution
44
through purely legal mechanism is impossible and political decisions of the local
authorities are needed for instance changing the purpose of the land, concession
decisions, land appropriation, decisions to build social dwellings etc. (Rughini 2004,
Berescu and Celac 2006). In all situations the legalisation of some human settlements
has implications on the urban planning and territorial organisation, which we
should also take into consideration (Berescu and Celac 2006).
Changes in the public policies concerning the issuing of the personal identity
and civil status documents
In the years 2005 2006 important changes have occurred in the organisation of
the persons register and in the legislation concerning the issuing of personal identity
and civil status documents. The system had been decentralised and these documents are
now issued by the community directorates for people registration, which are
subordinated to the local authorities. The county directorates have only methodological
attributions without the possibility to exert the hierarchical control on the community
offices. Following the partnership concluded between the nongovernmental
organisations, mainly with Romani CRISS and the public authorities in charge with the
persons register, the problem of making the situation of paperless people and
especially of the Roma ones legal had come up on the priority list of the public
authorities.
As of 2004 the national Inspection for persons register worked out plans of
measures to make Roma people status legal; these plans included campaigns with a
mobile camera in the Roma communities where an important number of people have no
ID papers. Al these measures resulted in issuing an important number of civil status and
identity papers for many Roma communities. It is thus to be expected for the
seriousness of this problem to have diminished during the last years. On the other hand,
the missing domicile documents is still a problem whose solution was not al all
simplified because of the lack of a concerted policy to support poor people and assign
them a dwelling and to tackle the problem of issuing ownership documents for the
historically constituted settlements which have no such legal documents.
Data of the Roma Inclusion Barometer, November 2006

20% of the Roma people in the urban area and 30% in the rural area are
confronted with the problem of missing domicile proving documents. This is a problem
for people of other ethnic origin, too, but to a lesser extent; there are about 10% persons
in the urban area and 20% in the rural one who have no valid hiring contract or
ownership document (Table 1).
45
Table 1. Do you have now in your household a valid hiring contract or ownership document for the
dwelling you live in? (%)
Urban
Others
Yes, we have a valid contract
No, we had a contract, but it is no longer
valid
No, we have no contract at all
Total
Rural
Roma
Others
Roma
87
1
74
4
79
2
67
4
12
100
22
100
20
100
29
100
Almost 3% of the Roma subjects have never had a birth certificate thus they are
not registered in the civil status register the most severe case of formal exclusion. In
the case of other persons, the solution of the problem involves the procedure of a late
registering of birth by means of a legal medical expertise to confirm the identity and
taking the case to the Court of Justice and this procedure make take one year. Almost
3% of the Roma subjects state that they have never had ID papers. The same proportion
is significantly lower in the case of Romanians under 1%.
Table 2. Have you or have you ever had (% negative answers)
Others
a birth certificate?
ID papers?
No
No
Roma
0,9
0,3
3,0
3,0
Approximately 14% of the Roma subjects state that they had lost at a certain
moment their birth certificate and 16% had lost their ID papers; in the case of people of
other ethnic origin, the proportions are 8% for the missing births certificate and 12%,
respectively, for the ID papers. As for the present situation, 6% of the Roma have no
valid ID and 5% have no birth certificate. It is important to note that in the case of
people who have had a birth certificate and for one reason or another no longer have it,
issuing a new certificate is a simple and rapid operation unlike the situation of those
who have never had one.
Table 6. What about now, do you have (%)
Others
Roma
a birth certificate
No
0.9
4.9
a valid ID paper
No
1.5
6.0
The missing documents are associated with not going to school, with poverty
and living in a big city. For instance, in the case of illiterate Roma people,
46
approximately 10% have no birth certificate and even more have no ID compared to
about 3% of those who graduated a vocational school or more (Table 2).
Table 2. What about now, do you have (% of the total Roma subjects)
None
a birth certificate
No
a valid ID paper
No
Education level
Vocational
Primary Upper
school, high
primary
school, university
school
9
5
3
4
12
If we approximate the living standard of the family by a simple indicator,

namely having a colour TV, we will see a clear difference similar to that induced by the
education level between the situation of those who have no colour TV (namely 36% of
the Roma) and those who have one (64%). There are about 10-12% Roma people which
live in households without TV who have neither papers nor birth certificate compared
to 3% in the case of the wealthier people (Table 3).
Table 3. What about now, do you have (% of total Roma)
Do you have in your

household a functioning
colour TV
Yes
a birth certificate
a valid ID paper
No
No
No
2
3
9
12
The situation of the missing documents is more frequent in big cities that in the
small ones and in villages this may be a consequence of the frequent changes of
domicile and the greater difficulties in interacting with the public servants (Table 4).
This is an interesting difference, given the fact that in the rural area there is a higher
share of paperless people (See Table 1) who cannot prove their domicile, which is a
major obstacle in getting an ID.
Table 7. What about now, do you have (% of total Roma)
a birth certificate
No
a valid ID paper
No
Type of settlement
Big city Small
Village
town
11
5
4
12
We can see in Table 5 that 8% of the Romanianised Roma and 20% of the other
Roma have no family doctor compared to only 4% people of other ethnic origin.
47
Table 5. Have a family doctor? (by ethnic origin) (%)
Yes
No
Total
(Cases)
Romaniani
sed Roma
Other kind
of Roma
92
8
100
(617)
80
20
100
(755)
Other ethnic origin

(Romanian,
Hungarian etc.)
96
4
100
(1288)
As for the Roma persons who have neither birth certificate nor ID papers almost
half have no family doctor (Table 6).
Table 6. Having a family doctor, depending on the ID and civil status documents (% of total Roma)
What about now, do you

have a valid ID?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Total
Cases
88
12
100
(1294)
What about now, do you

have a valid birth certificate
Yes
53
47
100
(83)
No
87
13
100
(1321)
52
49
100
(68)
Annexes
Table 7. Have you ever lost (% affirmative answers)
your birth certificate

ID papers
Yes
Yes
Other
Roma
ethnic
origin
7.6
11.5
13.5
16.0
Literature
Berescu, Ctlin and Celac, Mariana (2006). Housing and Extreme Poverty.
The Case of Roma Communities. Bucureti: Ion Mincu University Press.
Preda, Marian (2002). Caracteristici ale excluziunii sociale specifice pentru
populaia de romi din Romnia [Characteristics of the specific social exclusion of
Roma people in Romania]. n Zamfir, Ctlin i Preda, Marian (coord.) Romii n
Romnia [Roma people in Romania], Bucharest Expert Publishers
Rughini, Cosima (2004). Cunoatere incomod. Intervenii sociale n
comuniti defavorizate n Romnia anilor 2000. [Uncomfortable knowledge. Social
intervention in disfavoured communities of Romania in the 20s], Bucharest, Printech
Publishers
48
Residential segregation
by Cosima Rughini
The problem of Roma peoples residential segregation is still ignored in the
public agenda of the Romanian authorities, in spite of its seriousness and persistence.
Moreover, residential segregation has little chance to be tackled and solved unless the
state interferes in a systematic way, because of the high inertia degree of the dwelling
patterns, the considerable economic gap between Roma and Romanians and last but not
least, the discrimination against Roma people in the Romanian society.
Based on the data provided by the Roma Inclusion Barometer we shall explore
in the following sections the influence exerted by residential segregation on the attitude
to inter-ethnic relationships and on the expectations related to the discriminatory
treatment by the public institutions. As we will demonstrate further on, data indicate a
territorial variation of the Roma discrimination in the Romanian public institutions, and
residential segregation plays an important role in it. In spite of the stereotypes regarding
social problems in the predominant Roma areas, the non-Roma inhabitants of these
areas are significantly readier to have inter-ethnic contacts than the inhabitants of
the areas with less Roma people.
But these conclusions have a rather hypothetical and exploratory status,
especially due to the subjective indicators used to measure residential segregation as
we shall demonstrate further on.
Measuring residential segregation

The Roma Inclusion Barometer (RIB) of November 2006 provides subjective
indicators of the Roma residential segregation, namely the following three questions:
Table 8. Estimating the Roma proportions: average and median value of the subjects answers
I1: If you think of those who live in the same area as you
do, what is the share of Roma people?
I2: If you think of those who live in the same town as
you do, what is the share of Roma people?
I3: If you think now of all the people who live in

Romania, what is the share of Roma people?
Roma
50
Others
5
Average
54
13
Median
25
10
Average
30
17
Median
25
20
Average
26
24
Median
The subjects answers are based on a clear overestimate of the Roma proportion
of the population. For instance, in case of the estimate of the country level (question I3)
the average value of the answers is almost 10times higher than the official estimate of
the Roma proportion of the population, but also 3-5times higher than the estimates of
49
the experts and organisations which try to take into account Roma peoples reluctance
to identify themselves as Roma in official contexts. Under these conditions, we used
two strategies to apply these variables as indicators of the perceived residential
segregation, starting from the assumption that the perception of the Roma proportion in
the area must be (wrongly) correlated to their real share:
(1) We used directly the first question as an indicator of the residential
segregation perceived in the area where the subject lives. The relevance of this
variable depends on the assumption that, in average, the respondents who offer a higher
estimate of the Roma share in the area do live in areas with more Roma people than the
other respondents even if between the estimated proportion and the real one there
might be a considerable difference. Data indicate a considerable variation of this
indicator depending on the subjects ethnic origin.
(2) We built up an indicator of the perceived over-representativeness of the
Roma people in the area; this indicator has the value 1 when the subject thinks that the
Roma share in the area where he/she lives is higher than the proportion at the town
level (i.e. when estimate I1 is higher than estimate I2). The relevance of this indicator
depends on the assumption that the perceived over-representation is associated, even if
wrongly, with the real over-representation. And this indicator varies also significantly
depending on the respondents ethnic origin: 60% of the Roma people think that they
live in area where Roma people are more numerous than in the whole town compared
to only 16% of the people of other ethnic origin.
As for the attitude to Roma segregation, the database includes more questions of
opinion, which are discussed further on.
Influence of segregation on attitudes and expectations

Roma population
The perceived residential segregation, measured by the above defined indicators
has an important influence on the discrimination Roma subjects expect to be confronted
with. Roma people living in area with more Roma inhabitants answer more often than
the others that they expect to be treated worse in their interactions with public
authorities than the non-Roma subjects.
This conclusion results from the analysis of the multiple regression of the
expected equal treatment depending on several variables such as perceived residential
segregation, subjects education level, identification with the Romanianised Roma
people (compared to other kinds of identification with the Roma ethnic origin), living at
the outskirts, having a colour TV in their household 5 and the residential environment
(Table 7). We eliminated subjects gender and age from the analysis because they had
neither significant empirical influence nor special theoretical relevance. The alternative
model in which residential segregation is approximated through the indicator of the
perceived Roma over-representation leads to the same conclusions (Table 8).
Having a colour TV has a weak statistical significance in the first model.
50
We may notice that all three residential variables are statistically significant in
explaining the expected discrimination. Living in an area perceived as dominantly
Roma is significantly associated in the case of Roma people with an expected inferior
treatment in public institutions as well as living in the outskirts and in the rural area.
The variables concerning the subjects social and cultural characteristics such as
educational level, identification with the Romanianised Roma or poverty (estimated by
the indicator of having a colour TV) have no independent significant influence.
We may thus suggest a first conclusion based on these data: the discriminatory
treatment in the Romanian public institutions is systematically distributed
according to the logic of the social geography: rural, peripheral and mainly Roma
areas are subject to a greater risk of institutional neglect. The social and ethnic
characteristics of the area are more important that those of the individual, in the
experience of discrimination. It is important to note that these provisional conclusions
refer to the Roma population and its perceptions on discrimination, segregation etc. The
case of the population of another ethnic origin is discussed further on.
How does the perceived segregation influence the desire to interact with the
non-Roma population 6? In general Roma people who think that the Roma share in the
area is higher are significantly readier to inter-act with the non-Roma than the other
people of Roma ethnic origin. People who identify themselves as Romanianised
Roma are more available for inter-ethnic inter-actions. Surprisingly, Roma subjects
who live at the outskirts are relatively less ready to inter-act compared to Roma people
in other areas (Table 7). We find the same conclusions in the model where segregation
is approximated through the indicator of the perceived Roma over-representation
(Table 8).
As for the influence of the perceived segregation on the readiness for interethnic inter-actions, although it is statistically significant, we should nevertheless notice
that it is not very strong in the verbal statements. Most of the Roma people are ready to
have contacts with the non-Roma people in a variety of social contexts; the
homogeneity of this characteristic leaves no room for to strong variations (see Table 4
and Table 5).
The attitude towards the inter-ethnic action is an indicator built by summing up the values of the
following five variables: In your opinion, is it good or not (a) for Romanians and Roma to live in the
same area of the town / (b) for Roma and Romanian children to go to the same classroom / (c) for
Romanians and Roma people to work in the same office/workshop / (d) for the Romanians and Roma to
marry each other / (e) for Romanian and Roma children to play together? (each one having values from
1 = very bad to 4 = very good)
51
Table 4. In your opinion, is it good or not for Romanian and Roma to live in the same area of the
town (%) depending on the perceived segregation in the area; Roma respondents.
Bad or very
bad
Good
Very Good
Total
Estimating Roma share in the area

Less / the same number of More Roma in the area
Roma in the area as in the than in the entire town
entire town
14
6
52
34
100
51
43
100
Statistically significant differences for p = 0,01
Table 5. In your opinion, is it good or not for Romanian and Roma children to go to the same
classroom? (%) depending on the perceived segregation in the area; Roma respondents.
Bad or very
bad
Good
Very Good
Total
Estimating Roma share in the area

Less / the same number of Roma More Roma in the area
in the area as in the entire town
than in the entire town
13
5
47
40
100
49
46
100
Statistically significant differences for p = 0,01
The population of other ethnic origin

As for the non-Roma population the perception of the Roma share in the town is
associated with the perception of the seriousness of the problems in the area 7 (theft
from houses, violence, conflicts). Another variable, which partly explains the perceived
seriousness of the problems in the area, is the general evaluation of the life quality in
the respective town (Table 9).
It is difficult to suggest an interpretation of the association between the
perceived perception of Roma people in the area and the perceived seriousness of the
The seriousness of the problems in the area is an indicator built by summing up the value of the
following three variables: Tell us please how serious the following problems are in the area where you
live (a) theft from houses / (b) violence against people / (c) conflicts between neighbours (everyone of
them has values from 1 = there is no problem to 4 = very serious).
52
problems in the area, because both variables are subjective and they reflect both the
surrounding reality and the own subjects perspective of the world (optimism /
pessimism, expansive /conservative expression etc.). The relevance of the associations
is clearly illustrated in Table 10, where we detail the influence the perception of the
Roma share in the area has on the availability of the non-Roma subjects to interact with
Roma subjects.
Starting from the negative Roma-related stereotypes and the association of their
presence with neighbourhood problems we can expect people who think that they live
in neighbourhood with more Roma people that there are in the town as a whole to be
defensive and thus reluctant to interaction with Roma people, in general. The model
indicates an opposite association. It is interesting to note that non Roma persons in an
area perceived as having many Roma people are significantly readier to interact with
Roma people in different social contexts (Table 8). The positive relation between the
perceived share of Roma in the neighbourhood and the availability to interact with them
is present in both regression models, no matter how we approximate the Roma share in
the area.
Another variable which influences significantly the openness of the non Romasubjects towards interaction with Roma people is the valorisation they grant to the
Romani language. It is to be expected that the availability to interact with Roma
people will be correlated with a cultural acceptance of the ethnic group and the denial
of the common behavioural stereotypes. We have measured this cultural understanding
of the Roma ethnic group by the approval by the subject of teaching Romani language
in schools. Half of the non-Roma people do not approve of it, as well as one third of the
Roma people (Table 4). And those of the non-Roma people who approve of it are
really more available for relation with Roma people.
Annexes
Table 9. Roma children should learn Romani language in school
Fully disagree
I rather dont agree
I rather agree
Fully agree
Total
Romanianised
Roma
Other kind
of Roma
18.5%
18.3%
24.4%
38.8%
100.0%
10.3%
27.7%
27.6%
34.4%
100.0%
Other ethnic group

(Romanian,
Hungarian, etc.)
23.2%
27.7%
25.5%
23.6%
100.0%
Table 5. Dependence of the attitude towards segregation and the expected discrimination on the
perceived residential homogeneity an analysis on the Roma subjects
Expected equal treatment

(summation indicator)
(R2 Variant explained in the model)
If you think of those who live in the
area where you live, what percentage
of them are Roma people?
(5%)
-.130
53
Attitude towards the

inter-ethnic interaction
(7%)
.222
Last school graduated by the

Respondent
Romanianised Roma (vs. other kind of
Roma)
Living at the outskirts (vs. living
downtown or in other areas)
functioning Colour TV
Residential environment urban (vs.
rural)
.006
-.046
.025
.106
-.108
-.144
.036
.087
-.130
-.011
Underlined coefficients for p = 0.01
Table 6. Dependence of the attitude towards segregation and the expected discrimination on Roma
overrepresentation in the area
Lives in an area where there are more Roma

people than in the whole town
Last school graduated by the Respondent
Romanianised Roma
Living at the outskirts
functioning Colour TV
Residential environment
Expected equal
treatment (summation
indicator)
(6%)
-.140

(4%)
.146
.028
.031
-.115
.038
-.043
.102
-.112
.068
-.017
-.144
Underlined coefficients are significant for p = 0.01
Table 7. Perception of the problems in the area (thefts from houses, violence, conflicts) for the
non-Roma population
Perceived seriousness of the

problems in the area (summation
indicator)
(4%)
.137
.118

Dissatisfaction with the city, in general
Lives in an area where there are more Roma people than in
the whole town
Last school graduated by the Respondent
.041
Respondents age
-.079
.012
54
Table 5. Dependence of the attitude towards segregation on the perceived residential segregation
population of other ethnic groups (Romanians, Hungarians, Germans etc.)

If you think of those who live in the
area where you live, what percentage
of them are Roma people?
Lives in an area where there are more
Roma people than in the whole town
Romani language in school
Perception of the social problems in
the area (thefts, violence, conflicts)
Respondent
Have you in your household an
automated washing machine?

(5%)

(7%)
.160
.098
.154
-.057
.179
-.082
-.102
-.106
-.005
.019
.077
.117
55
Tolerance and perceived discrimination

by Mlina Voicu
Tolerance to those who are of different ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation
is usually seen as a characteristic of a healthy democratic society. Earlier studies show
that the tolerance level is the expression of the social and economic development 8, but
also a result of the individual social capital 9. Wealthier societies are characterised by an
increased tolerance to minorities. Societies where people inter-act frequently outside
their families and establish frequent relations with people of different ethnic, racial and
religious grounds use less discriminatory practices and their inter-human relations are
less affected by ethnic or racial preconceived ideas. Studies show that Sweden and the
Netherlands are the European champions in tolerance 10.
The post-communist transition years have not been singled out by a very high
ethnic tolerance in Romania. Apart data from the numerous polls of opinion which
confirm this opinion, the idea is also backed by several events proving the existence of
ethnic tensions, which kept first pages of newspapers in several occasions. The
Hdreni and Mihail Koglniceau cases indicate a low level of ethnic tolerance and
peoples recent reaction to the gay parades show that the Romanian society is not ready
to tolerate individuals who are different from the majority population. Roma have been
in many cases the target of discriminatory behaviours in our everyday life, and the
results of the opinion polls showed at the beginning of the 90s that ethnic intolerance
was very high in the majority population, with over 70% of the Romanian not wanting
to a have a Roma neighbour 11.
This chapter attempts at illustrating on one hand the tolerance level of the
Romanian society to Roma people, and the perceived discrimination among Roma
population, on the other hand. We follow the evolution in time of the tolerance level to
Roma people in the Romanian society. Our text insists also on the mutual tolerance
degree between Roma and Romanian people and we try to see which factors determine
a high intolerance level in the majority population, as well as who are the Roma people
who think of themselves that they are discriminated against.
Preconceived ideas about certain groups, intolerance and discrimination are
related phenomena. While preconceived ideas are negative attitudes to the members of
Inglahart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic and Political
Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
9
Voicu, Bogdan. 2005. Penuria post-modern a postcomunismului romnesc [Post-modern penury of

the Romanian post-communism], Jassy: Expert Projects
10
Halman, Loek. 2001. The European Values Study: The Third Wave. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press
11
Voicu, Mlina, erban, Monica. 2002. Despre diferene: ntre toleran i prejudeci, [About
differences: between tolerance and preconceived ideas], in Zamfir Ctlin, Marian Preda (coord.): Romii
din Romnia [Roma people in Romania], Bucharest, Expert
56
a group, which are simply motivated by the mere belonging to that group 12,
discrimination is a differentiated behaviour applied to a person because of his/her real o
assumed belonging to a certain group 13. While preconceived ideas are linked to
attitudes and ways of thinking, discrimination is related to everyday behaviour and
interaction. As a matter of fact, discrimination is the how preconceived idea manifest
themselves in everyday life. Many times preconceived ideas on certain ethnic groups
are translated in differentiated behaviours in the economic, political and social life thus
having a strong impact on the economic and social status of the respective ethnic group.
Seen from a dynamic perspective, in time, the intolerance level of the majority
population towards Roma people decreased very much after 1990. While in 1993 over
70% of the Romanians refused to have a Roma neighbour in 2006 their share has
halved, as only 36% still say that. Data in Figure 1 show a constant decreasing trend of
the intolerance to Roma people during the last 13 years. There are several causes of this
decrease. On one hand, the improved economic situation can be invoked to explain this
change. On the other hand, we can say that during the transition Romanian people
learnt the rules of the game of a democratic society, of tolerance and inter-ethnic
respect. Last but not least we should also mention the institutional causes, the legal
changes and the development of programmes meant to stimulate Roma social inclusion.
Figure 1. Evolution in time of the intolerance to Roma people: the share of the total population
which does not want to have Roma neighbours (1993 2006)
80%
70%
72%
60%
60%
50%
49%
40%
37%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1993
1997
1999
2006
Source of data for 1993, 1997 and 1999: European Values Study 1993 and 1999 (EVS 1993 and EVS
1999) and World Values Study (WVS 1997)
The analysis of the data show that not only intolerance to Roma people has
12
Allport, Gordon. 1958. The Nature of Prejudice, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday &
Company, Garden City
13
Voicu, Mlina. Discriminarea [Discrimination], in Dicionar de srcie [A dictionary of poverty],

www.iccv.ro
57
decreased during the last years, but the generalised intolerance has diminished during
the last 7 years. The average score of generalised intolerance, which illustrates the
rejection of people of different religion and ethnicity (Roma excluded) and of different
sexual orientation has decreased between 1999 and 2006 in the Romanian population,
as it results from Table 5. All in all Romanians became more tolerant to others. But if
we compare the differences in the degree of tolerance to otherness of the majority
population and that of the Roma people, we will see that Roma people are, in average,
significantly more tolerant. This is explained by the fact that Roma people are an ethnic
minority with a historically inferior status, a minority which has often been exposed to
preconceived ideas and discrimination acts.
Table 5. Variation of the generalised intolerance between 1999 and 2006 and depending on the
ethnic belonging
National sample
1999
National
sample 2006
Roma sample
1.7
1.5
1.3
do not want the have as neighbours different

persons: Muslims, immigrants, homosexuals,
Jews, Hungarians
The score varies from 0 to 5 and the difference is statistically significant for a significant level of the test
t, p <0,01
Even if Roma people prove to be more tolerant compared to the majority

population, they tend to have discriminatory behaviours towards Romanians and favour
their own ethnic group. Data in Table 6 show that Roma people are more inclined to
give priority to people of their own ethnic origin in education and employment.
Although there is a tendency in the majority population to favour a Romanian when we
talk about access to education and wages, it is more probable for a Romanian to say that
both Romanians and Roma people should be treated equally. We should note that in
both Roma and majority population the tendency to discriminate in concrete situations,
as for instance admittance to high school or payment for work is rather low, as over
80% of both samples say they should be treated equally. As we mentioned before, the
Romanian society doesnt seem to be characterised by major segregations. The
tendency to intolerance exists and marks our day-to-day life, but ethnic preconceived
ideas have significantly decreased during the last years.
Table 6 Inter-ethnic discrimination in Roma and majority population
%
Gypsy
Romanian
Both the same
Gypsy
Romanian
A Roma person and a Romanian work both in constructions

and do the same work equally well as they both have the same
skills. Who do you think should earn more?
Two children, a Roma and a Romanian one pass an admittance
test for the high school, they score the same and rank both on
the last place. Which one of them should be taken to the high
Both the same
school?
National
sample
2
10
88
2
11
Roma
sample
7
7
85
8
8
87
84
The distribution in the tables differ significantly between the two samples for a significance level of
p<0,001 of the test 2 .
58
The analysed data show that the ethnic intolerance of the majority population
varies depending on the ethnic group they refer to. According to Table 7 the tolerance
of the majority population is significantly greater to the German and Hungarian ethnic
groups, while intolerance is higher in case of Roma groups. Romanians are readier to
accept the idea that German might live in Romania according to their own habits, but
do not approve of Roma people to live according to the traditional norms of their ethnic
group. Compared to them, the Roma population is by far more tolerant to all the ethnic
minorities, and the maximum permissiveness score is of course to the Roma ethnic
groups. The results support the above mentioned statement on the increased tolerance
degree and permissiveness of Roma people, given by their own minority status.
Table 10. Tolerance to the different ethnic minorities and Roma people in the majority population
Germans in Romania should live according to the

Romanians habits
Hungarians in Romania should live according to the
Romanians habits
Roma people in Romania should live according to the
Romanians habits
National sample
Roma sample
4.68
4.73
4.85
4.71
5.12
4.20
Instructions how to read the table: the answers to the questions have been measured on a scale from 1 to
10, where 1 means full rejection of the statement and 10 its full acceptance. Figures in the table are the
average of the answers. Consequently, the scores close to 1 mean the rejection of the statement and
indicate a high degree of tolerance; those close to 10 indicate a higher level of intolerance.
The acceptance of the inter-ethnic inter-action in every day life is another

measure of inter-ethnic tolerance. The results of the research show a major difference in
accepting the everyday interaction between Roma and the majority population. Data in
Figure 2 show that interaction is accepted by the majority population especially if it
occurs in a public space (workplace, school etc.) but there is some reluctance about
sharing the private space. Many of the interviewed people do not accept to live in the
same area as the Roma people and they absolutely reject mixed marriages (Romanian
Roma). On the other hand, the acceptance of the interethnic relations is almost
unanimous, which proves the desire of Roma people for integration. Nevertheless,
Roma population is more reluctant to the mixed marriages, compared to other kinds of
interactions.
59
Figure 2. The acceptance of the inter-ethnic interaction in everyday life for Roma people and the
majority population (Dominant Opinion Indicators)
copiii romni si romi s se

joace mpreun
romnii si romii s se
cstoreasc ntre ei
romnii si romii s lucreze

n acelai birou / atelier
elevii romi si cei romni s

nvee n aceeai clas
esantion romi
romnii si romii s
locuiasc n aceeai zon a
localitii
esantion national
10
20
30
40
-100: dezacord maxim
50
60
70
80
90
+100: acord maxim
Instructions for reading the graph: data in the graph are Dominant Opinion Indicators (DOI) calculated
for each variable separately. DOI varies from -100 to +100, and the negative values indicate the rejection
of the respective statement, while the positive values indicate the approval of the respective item. The
closer the values are to +100,the more widely is the respective opinion shared by the population.
As for the inter-ethnic marriages we can see a reluctance of the Romanian

population not only to the Roma people, but also to the Hungarians, as almost half of
the population doesnt approve of the marriage of their children to a Hungarian.
Nevertheless, we should note that the reluctance to the Hungarians is lower compared
to the one to Roma, as only 30% of the majority population accepts this type of
marriage. It is interesting that Roma people accept to an equal extent the marriage to a
Hungarian as the Romanians do; there are no differences between the two ethnic groups
from this viewpoint. As a matter of fact, the attitude related to the marital behaviour is
rather similar in the two analysed populations, both Roma people and the majority
population prefer marriages within their own group, and opinions are divided on
marriages to Hungarians. Unlike Romanians, Roma people accept to a rather large
proportion the marriages to the Romanians, as this is most probably one of the most
important integrating mechanisms.
60
Figure 3. Approval of the marriage to a person of a different ethnic origin by Roma and Romanian
people
Would you approve of your son / daughter to marry someone of a ethnic origin?)
96%
95%
100%
90%
75%
80%
70%
57%
58%
60%
50%
32%
40%
30%
20%
10%
esantion national
0%
esantion romi
romana
Romanian
maghiara
roma
Hungarian
Roma
Many of the theories which try to explain discrimination lay the accent on the
individuals resources. Explanations based on the social stratification show that people
who have powerful position tend to discriminate more in order to consolidate their
positions 14, while other theoretical explanations lay an accent on the fact that
discrimination occurs when resources are limited and the members of the group
compete for them 15.
Nevertheless, data on the majority populations preconceived ideas about Roma
people do not confirm these viewpoints (see Table 6). According to the results
provided by the Roma Inclusion Barometer none of the status indicators plays a role in
enhancing tolerance to Roma people. Neither education, nor age nor income has any
effect on the individual tolerance level to Roma people. But the variables related to the
individual social capital play a very important role in determining the tolerance level.
The wider the social network of a person is and the higher his/her trust in people
outside their family, the higher the tolerance level is. Moreover, the existing social
contacts with the Roma population increase the tolerance level, namely the interethnic
interaction results in decreasing preconceived ideas and discrimination.
There are other factors with an effect on the tolerance level such as urban
14
Bouhris, Richard, John Turner, Andre Gaugnon. 1997. Interdependence, Social Identity and
Discrimination, n Oakes, Penelope, Naomi Ellemers, Alexander Haslam (coord.). The Social Psycholgy
of Stereotiping and Group Life, Oxford, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers
15
Sherif, Muzafer, Carolin Sherif. 1956. An Outline of Social Psychology. Revised Edition, New York:
Harper & Brothers
61
residence and the general tolerance level to those belonging to different ethnic and
religious groups, except for Roma people. When an individual is generally more
tolerant he/she will have less preconceived ideas about Roma people. People who live
in cities are more tolerant to Roma compared to the rural population.
Table 6. Determinants of the tolerance to Roma people within the majority population 16
Interaction with Roma

Confidence in those who are different
Dimension of the individual social network
Residence
Intolerance to those who are different
(religiously or ethnically, except for Roma)
Income
Gender
Age
Education
Effect on tolerance
+
+
+
+
-
Data in the table are the result of a multiple linear regression analysis (R2 = 0.111; Durbin Watson test =
1.522). The signs + / - in the table mark the statistically significant regression coefficients (for a
significant level p<0,001).
As for the interaction with the majority population from the Roma perspective
we can say that, although preconceived ideas about Roma decreased considerably
during the last 14 years, Roma people still feel discriminated against in everyday life
and think that the ethnic belonging is an important element of success in life. Compared
to it, the majority population does not think that their ethnic belonging favoured them in
any way, thus minimising its impact on the social success. Things are different for
Roma people. According to data in Table 7, the dominant opinion among Roma people
is that ethnic origin is important to success and education and the field where
discrimination is at its utmost seems to be employment, as Roma people feel the power
of ethnic rejection when talking abut workplaces.
Table 7. ethnic discrimination in occupation and education
In your town, do you think

National sample
ethnic origin is important for
being given a workplace
-10
children school success
-25
success in life
-18
Roma sample
35
6
14
Instruction for reading: data in the table are Dominant Opinion Indicators calculated for each
variable separately. They vary from -100 to +100, with negative values indicating the rejection of the
statement and positive values the approval of the item. The closer the values are to -100 the wider this
opinion is shared by the population.
As for the treatment received in the public institutions there are differences
between Roma and the majority population. While Roma people feel discriminated in
their interaction with all Romanian institutions, Romanians do not feel discriminated at
16
The way of constructing the indicator is shown in the annex.
62
all. According to the data provided by the Roma Inclusion Barometer the strongest
discrimination is felt by Roma people in their interaction with the employees of the
town hall, police and medical care system. The lowest discrimination level is felt in
schools. Previous researches 17 show that in public institutions such as town halls and
hospitals discrimination is more often due to the discretionary power of their
employees. They have to select from the different applicants and distribute resources
according to several bureaucratic criteria. In this process, public servants act according
to their own thinking and they tend to favour their own kind of people. This is the
present situation, when the interaction with the town hall staff, which distributes several
social benefits, is perceived as a disfavouring one.
Figure 4. Discrimination perceived in public institutions by Roma people compared to Romanians
and by Romanians compared to Roma people (DOI)
Esantion romi
Esantion national
Politie
Judectorie, Procuratur
Primrie
Spital / dispensar
Scoal
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
25
30
Instructions for reading: data in the table are Dominant Opinion Indicators calculated for each
variable separately. They vary from -100 to +100, with negative values indicating the rejection of the
statement and positive values the approval of the item. The closer the values are to -100 the wider this
opinion is shared by the population.
Table 1. Determinants of discrimination perceived in the Roma population 18
Effect on the perceived discrimination
Interaction with Romanians
17
Lipsky Michael. 1980. Level Street Bureaucracy Dilemmas of the Individual in the Public Services,
New York: Russell Sage Foundation
18
The indicator of the perceived discrimination is built as an additional score to the answers to the
following questions: to which extent do you think you are treated better, the same or worse compared to
Romanians in school, hospital, Town Hall, Courts, police. The score cumulated one point for each case
in which the person says he/she felt a worse treatment compared to the Romanians.
63
Confidence to the others
Age
Lives in the urban area
Religious practice
Income
Gender
Dimension of the personal social network
Education level
Data in the table show the results of a multiple linear regression analysis (R2 = 0.120; Durbin
Watson test = 1.325). The signs + / - in the table mark the statistically significant regression coefficient
(for a significant level p<0,001).
In the case of Roma people, the level of the individual social capital plays an
important role in determining the perceived discrimination. Roma people who interact
more frequently with Romanians and those who have an increased confidence in people
from outside their family tend to see themselves as less discriminated against.
Moreover, those who go frequently to church feel less discriminated most probably
because the religious practice integrates them in the parishioners groups and keeps
them connected to a wider multi-ethnic group. Age seems also to influence the
perceived level of discrimination, as young ones think they benefit to a larger extend
than elderly people of a differentiated treatment. Again, individual resources such as
education and income have no relevance for the perceived discrimination.
Conclusions
During the last 14 years the Romanian society has become more tolerant, and
the prejudices against those belonging to other ethnic and religious groups have
diminished significantly. Preconceived ideas and intolerance to the Roma population
have also decreased considerably. Nevertheless Roma people still continue to feel
discriminated in their contacts with public authorities and employment. But school is
the institution where Roma people feel least discriminated. The available data show that
the inter-ethnic distance is reduced when the individual social capital increases, namely
the capacity of individual networking and confidence in people. The results of the
research show that it is not the material or human resources which influence the quality
of the inter-ethnic relations, but the networking capacity with other individual which
plays here an important role. Interacting with people of a different ethnic origin
increases tolerance and results in decreased tensions and healing of society. As a
matter of fact this is a circular mechanism, which results in social integration;
integration increases tolerance which, in its turn results in an increased inter-ethnic
interaction.
64
Annex: building the indicators used in the analysis

Saturations and communalities for the factor: Tolerance to the Roma population
In your opinion is it good or not for
Saturations Communalities
Romanian and Roma people to live together in the same
0.831
0.691
district of the town
Roma and Romanian children to learn in the same
0.899
0.808
classroom
Romanians and Roma people to work in the same office /
0.899
0.808
workshop
Romanian and Roma people to marry one another
0.716
0.513
Romanian and Roma children to play together
0.892
0.796
The method used to extract the factors was: Principal Axis Factoring
KMO = 0.890; the total variation explained by the factor being 72%
Saturations and communalities for the factor: Confidence in different people

In your opinion is it good or not to have confidence in Saturations Communalities
people you meet for the first time
0.602
0.363
people of another religion
0.912
0.832
people of another nationality
0.908
0.823
The method used to extract the factors was: Principal Axis Factoring
KMO = 0.664; the total variation explained by the factor being 67%
65
Family Life
by Cosima Rughini
Some aspects of the couple and family life, in general, as they are illustrated in
the indicators of the database, differ significantly according to ethnic origin, thus
having an obvious cultural component. It is not rare that the influence of the ethnic
origin includes or, better to say, hides the influence of school, which is maybe the
variable with the most powerful consequences on the couple behaviour. As Roma
people go to school significantly lees years that people of other ethnic groups, a global
comparison between these two categories will reflect simultaneously the influence of
the belonging to an ethnic community, with its specific norms, and the school
experience, which transforms peoples vision of the world.
In average, the Roma households include 5 6 people, thus being significantly
more numerous than the households of other ethnic groups, which have an average of
3-4 persons (see Table 1). This difference is given especially by the number of
children, because the number of elderly people is smaller in the Roma households.
Table 1. How many members are there in your household?
Elderly over
Children
Total members Children under Children
60
7
between 7 and between 11
and 15
11
Other ethnic groups 3.60
0.23
0.20
0.20
0.57
Roma
5.70
0.86
0.60
0.53
0.41
Beginning of maturity
Table 4 shows the variables which influence the age at which the subject starts
being a grown up person. Men start their family life generally later than women, but
they start working earlier.
The age influence is a positive one which may seem a paradox, but this is due
to the uncompleted analysed phenomena which are in progress compared to the life
of the people in our sample (see the similar situation in the Chapter on Marriage). For
instance the age when they have their first child is unavoidable earlier in younger
persons because people who have their child later will be dealt with in the older age
categories. The age influence does not reflect in this case a difference between
generations but only the longer or shorter time different people had to get at a certain
stage. The only event which is, generally, finalised in the great majority of the subjects
(except for students) is also the case where age has no significant influence.
The maturity age is lower in the rural than in the urban area, but this variable is
less important than ethnic origin and education. Roma ethnic origin has a substantial
influence, regardless of education: Roma people graduate earlier and set up a family
sooner, if we include here concubinage, too (Table 6), although they start working at
almost the same age as non-Roma people.
An interesting hypothesis in line with the public visibility enjoyed by early
marriages in the traditional Roma communities could say that the main tension in a
Roma family is generated by the opposition between the children obligation to go to
66
school and their starting of a family life, and not a working life, as young couples are
most probably helped by their parents. But this assumption is contradicted, at least at
the exploratory level, by data in Table 1 and Table 2, which show that there is an
important average gap between the age of their first marriage and the age of leaving the
school system of approximately 5 years in young Roma males and 3.5 years in young
Roma females. Such a gap doesnt allow assuming that premature leaving school is due
to marriage. This is rather the failure of the schooling system to capture the interest of
young Roma children who drop school without being forced to neither by family life,
nor by the desire to work. The tables show an average gap of approximately one year
and a half for young Roma males and two years for Roma females between the moment
they drop school and the moment they take a job.
Table 1. Beginning of maturity in young males. At what age did you (years old)
finish
school?
marry / started have your left from

start
your first
first child parents
working?
concubinage?
home?
19
15
20
21
16
19
14
19
20
15
18
24
25
20
18
Romanianised Roma
Other kind of Roma
Other ethnic group (Romanian,
Hungarian, etc.)
Underlined differences and those between Roma and non-Roma people are statistically
significant for p=0.01
In Table 1 we can also notice that young Roma people who declare themselves
Romanianised Roma differ statistically from the other young Roma as for the age
when they gradually entered maturity and they are generally positioned between them
and the other ethnic groups. There are small differences in the case of young
Romanianised Roma females, but they are not statistically significant.
Table 2. Beginning of maturity in females: At what age did you (years old)
finish
school?
marry / started have your left from

start
your first
first child parents
working?
concubinage?
home?
14
17
19
17
16
14
17
18
17
16
17
20
22
19
18
Romanianised Roma
Other kind of Roma
Hungarian, etc.)
Total
15
19
20
18
17
Differences between Roma and not-Roma are statistically significant for p = 0.01; those
between Romanianised Roma and the other Roma are not significant
Table 3. Dependence of the maturity age on gender, ethnic origin, education and generation: At
what age did you (multiple regression standardised coefficients; the dependent variable is the
optimum age, the independent ones are on the rows)
finish
school?
67
marry /
have your left from
started your first child parents
start
working?
(R2 - Variant explained by the model 19)

Respondents gender
Roma ethnic person
Respondents age
Respondents last graduated school
first
concubinage?
(35%)
(35%)
(34%)
.060
-.350
.065
.249
-.190
.105
.347
.246
-.194
.115
.334
home?
(9%)
.119
-.090
.101
.175
(20%)
-.051
-.015
.113
.377
(in
applicable)
.073
.009
Urban area
.087
.113
.136
Age at which the mother finished school
.287
Underlined coefficients are statistically different from zero for p=0.01
Differences between generations

How do generations of age categories differ as far as the beginning of their
maturity is concerned, if we take them as a whole? In Roma people, we can see that the
proportion of women who get pregnant before the age of 18 (approximated form the
proportion of those who gave birth to the first child at the age of 18 or earlier) decreases
starting from the older generation to the younger ones, but these differences are not
statistically relevant in the RIB sample, so they might be explained by a mere chance.
Over half of the Roma women have conceived their first child before the age of 18 (see
Table 1). Out of the total non-Roma women, about 16% have conceived a child before
the age of 18.
Table 1. Proportion of under age pregnant women according to their age category
Age category
Had their first child at 18

or earlier
20-29
51
30-39
52
40-49
55
50 and over
61
Differences between age categories are statistically significant for p=0.05
There is no relevant difference between generation as regards the age the Roma
subjects graduated/dropped school neither in women, nor in men.
The absence of substantial differences between generations concerning the
beginning of maturity is confirmed by the comparison of the data about the subjects to
those they offer about their parents. For example in Roma women we see that the
average age when they started different aspects of their adult life is very close to that of
the mothers of the sample persons (Table 18).
19
In the interpretation of the percentage of explained variance, in all the regression models of this
analysis, we have to take into account the fact that the regression models have been carried out on the
totality of Roma and non-Roma subjects of the survey, which means that the Roma proportion is much
over-represented compared to the national level. This is why the Roma ethnic origin variant contributes
a lot to the explanation of the effect variable variation.
68
Differences of conceptions
The differences of the personal experience are associated to different
conceptions about the optimum age for the start of the adult life. For example, people
who became parents very early think it is good for a girl or a boy to marry much earlier
that the other subjects. The most important characteristics which determines the
optimum age of maturity are the ethnic origin and education level. Regardless of their
education level, Roma people think that the maturity age should be younger; people of
lower education are of the opinion that the start of the adult life should be earlier than in
those having a higher education level, regardless of their ethnic origin (see Table 2).
The residential environment exerts a small influence on these conceptions regarding
young women, and does not affect young men at all, which indicates a surprising
homogenisation of the family models in the rural and urban areas, when we take into
consideration education and other relevant variables.
Table 2. Which do you think is the most appropriate age to (standardised multiple regression
coefficients; the dependent variable is the optimum age, the independent variables are on the rows)
Get married
Women
(R2 - Variance explained by the model) (32%)

Roma
Respondent
Respondents age
At what age did you have your first
child?
Respondents gender
Men
Have a child
Women
Men
(35%)
(26%)
(30%)
-.305
.272
-.327
.248
-.223
.248
-.260
.233
.074
-.090
.100
.023
-.014
.149
.065
-.093
.160
.021
-.033
.205
.135
.147
.088
.108
Underlined coefficients are statistically significantly different from zero for p=0.01
Marriage
The marital status depends surprisingly less on ethnic origin, especially after the
age of 30. As for young people (18 29) we see that almost two thirds of the non-Roma
people are unmarried, while only one third of the Roma young people are not married.
The other third are involved in concubinage relations, not in registered marriages. The
share of officially married young people is the same for Roma and non-Roma people,
namely approximately one quarter. It might be that the reference to stable relations with
partners of the opposite gender is different in Roma and non-Roma young people and in
this case it will be translated differently in their answers in the questionnaire. For
example, most probably some of the non-Roma people involved in stable relationships
consider themselves not married, while the same kind of relation can be easier
described by Roma people as concubinage, because they are more familiar with this
word and kind of relations.
In all the other age categories we see that the share of formal marriages plus the
share of undocumented marriages is the same, regardless of ethnic origin:
69
approximately 90% in the age category 30 39, 85% in 40 49 and 70% in the 50 and
over. The non-Roma people choose more often to formalise their stable relations so the
share of married people who have no documents is higher in Roma respondents (Table
1). In those over 50 the share of widowed persons is the same in both Roma and nonRoma.
Table 1. Are currently (%)
18-29 years
30-39 years
40-49 years
50 de years and
over
Other
Roma
Other
Roma
Other
Roma
Other
Roma
ethnic
ethnic
ethnic
ethnic
origin
origin
origin
origin
Unmarried
8
3
4
4
3
1
68
33
Documented marriage
24
26
78
57
78
61
68
55
Undocumented
8
39
10
33
7
25
2
17
marriage,
concubinage
Divorced, separated
0
2
4
5
6
6
2
2
Widowed
0
0
0
2
5
5
26
25
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Both in Roma and non-Roma, the share of unmarried people is significantly

higher in men than in women; the share of re-married people does not differ
significantly by gender. Almost 15% of the Roma people are re-married (with or
without documents) compared to 9% of the Romanian people which indicates a
slightly lower stability of the marital relation in Roma couples (Table 19).
Children
Both the ethnic origin and the education level have an important influence on
the number of children a women has. Another relevant variable is the start of the family
life: people who have had their first child earlier had in average more children and
this is also an intuitive observation. The positive influence of age is also due to the
unfinished character of the phenomenon which is in progress young women had less
time to give birth to children than the elder ones. So this is not a difference of
generation.
Table 2. How many (born alive) children had you?
Partial correlation
coefficients
2
(R )
(21%)
Roma person
.190
70

-.150
respondent
Residential area
-.035
Respondents age
.224
At what age did you have your first
-.189
child?
Underlined coefficients are statistically significantly different from zero for p=0.01
Table 1 shows that, in general and without taking into account the differences
of education level, Roma women are more likely to be found in the category of mothers
having four, five, six and more children. Approximately 40% of the interviewed Roma
women gave birth to at least four children, compared to almost 12% of women of other
ethnic origin.
Table 1. Number of alive born children (female respondents)(%)
Other ethnic Roma

origin
None
17
11
One
27
14
Two
33
20
Three
11
17
Four
5
15
Five
4
10
Six and over
3
13
Total
100
100
Family planning
In Table 1 we can see that the share of Roma women who had at least one
abortion is of approximately 35% and slightly higher than the proportion of the nonRoma women in the same situation: the experience of repeated abortions is more
frequent in Roma women. Differences are not big, but they are statistically significant.
This comparison shows that the Roma women make efforts for family planning like the
non-Roma ones; but the method of abortion, which is much wider spread in Romania
than the use of contraceptives, is limited because it may have negative effects on
womens health and because of its moral implications and general problems raised in
the family.
Table 2 Number of abortions (%)
None
One
Other ethnic Roma

origin
71
7
71
64
8
Two
Three
Four
Five and over
Total
9
6
6
7
3
5
5
10
100
100
About 15% of people of Roma origin use contraceptive means compared to

almost 25% in other ethnic groups. School education is partly accountable for this
difference, as in both ethnic groups persons with a higher education level use more
frequently contraceptive methods than the persons with a lower education level.
Nevertheless, Roma women having a medium level education resort significantly more
rarely to contraception than the non-Roma ones of the same education level (Table 1).
Table 1. Do you use any method to avoid getting pregnant? (% affirmative answers, by categories
of school education)
Categories of education level

No school
Primary
Upper primary school
Apprentices, lower High School,
Vocational school
Post high school, University
Total
Other ethnic Roma

group
- (21 cases)
5
15
33
10
9
15
22
34
- (11 cases)
25
13
As for the choice of contraceptive methods, Roma women state more frequently
that they use female methods (pill, injection, membrane) than women of other ethnic
origin, in which the use of condom is more frequent (Table 2).
Table 2. Methods of family planning - % answers of the subjects who apply contraceptive methods
Other ethnic Roma

group
Natural methods (abstinence, calendar, withdrawal)
22.2
27.3
Feminine methods (pill, injection, membrane)
37.2
46.1
Condom
40.6
26.6
Total
100.0
100.0
Family ideal
The share of Roma women who do not want any more children is the same as in
the other ethnic group, namely approximately 75%. But in the group of those who still
want children, the Roma women want more children (see Table 3).
The share of people who want more children is higher in men than in women,
probably a reflection of the asymmetric effort made by parents to raise their children.
For example, while only 25% of the Roma women want more children, the respective
72
share of Roma men is 45% and over one third of the Roma men want to have at least
three more children. It is thus unavoidable for the negotiations in the family couple, be
they implicit or explicit, on their descendents, to ignore mens desire, especially
because women have no real access to means of family planning and their family
pattern is a rather traditional one.
Table 3. How many more children do you want ?
Women
Other ethnic
group
None
One
Two
Three or more
Total
Roma
76
8
5
11
100
Men
Other ethnic
group
Roma
75
65
56
5
5
3
3
7
5
17
23
36
100
100
100
The dominant family pattern regardless of ethnic belonging is the 1-2children

family (Table 13) which is shared by approximately two thirds of the non-Roma and
half of the Roma people. The share of those saying that it is good for a family to have
no children is close to zero. About 20% of the Roma and non-Roma people think it
better for a family to have 2-3 children. More numerous families are seen as desirable
by only 13% of non-Roma and 30% of Roma families.
School
Roma children go to school to a much lesser extent than the other children. For
example, Table 14 shows the average number of children who do not go to school by
childs age ant parents ethnicity.
With the help of the Table we can calculate the approximate occurrence of
children who do not go to school. For example, of the total of children between 0 6
years of age in the non-Roma households, 48% do not go either to kindergarten or preschool compared to 80% of the Roma children. As for the children between 7 and 11
in the sample households, 19% of the Roma children do not go to school, compared to
2% of the Romanian children. In children over 11 years of age, 39% do not go to school
in Roma households and 9% in the non-Roma households.
If we take into consideration all children in the subjects households we can see
based on the information in the database how many they are in total an how many
of them go to school or to kindergarten, according to their age category (Table 4).
28.4% of the children between 11 and 15 in the Roma group do not go to
school. These data are in line with the estimates based on the Family Budgets Survey of
2001, according to which 27.9% of the Roma children between 7 and 14 do not go to
school (Grigora 2000). The estimates made in the Family Budgets Survey of Roma
children between 8 and 16 show that in 2004 the share of those who did not go to
school was 25.7% and in 2003 31.3% (Zamfir, Briciu et al. 2005, p. 48).
73
Table 4. Distribution of children who do not go school in the subjects households by ethnic
categories and ages (the summation of the variables values for the subjects of the sample)
Roma
Non-Roma
(summation) (summation)
1221
295
978
141
Number of children under 7 in the household

Of which: children between 0-6 which do not go the
kindergarten/preschool
Number of children between 7 11 in the household
Of which: children between 7-11 which to not go to school
Number of children between 11 15 in the household
Of which: children between 11-15 which to not go to school
846
162
745
290
252
6
252
22
We shall also note the share of parents with children who do not go to school.
Of the total Roma parents who have children between 7 11 years old, approximately
20% have one child in this category, who does not go to school compared to 3% in
other ethnic groups. If we increase the age interval to 7 15, approximately 30% of the
Roma parents have one child who does not go to school, compared to 8% parents of
other ethnic origin. People in the category of Romanianised Roma differ significantly
from the Roma persons with other identifications, and their children not going to school
are a lower share (10% - 20%, respectively, see Table 5).
Table 5. Parents with children who do not go to school by age categories and ethnic identification
(% affirmative answers)
They have one child who does

not go to school aged
between
7-11
7-15
Romanianised
Roma
Other kind
of Roma
Total
Roma
10
21
24
37
19
31
Other ethnic groups

(Romanian,
Hungarian, etc.)
3
8
Generally speaking the share of Roma children who do not go to schools

situated far away (over 4 km) is significantly lower that the share of children of other
ethnic origin in the same situation probably because of lack of transportation means
which would help them do this (See Table 16 and Table 17).
The low school attendance in Roma children compared to the other children
during the last two generations can be also noticed in the differences of school
education between the Roma population and the population of other ethnic origin (See
Table 6). As a matter of fact, half of the Roma people have gone to the primary school
or havent go to school at all, while post-high school and university education is even
scarcer. These data confirm once again the conclusion of many similar researches in
this field namely the chronic failure of the Romanian school system to integrate
Roma children and youngsters.
Table 6. Variation of school education by ethnic origin.
Other ethnic
group
74
Roma
No school
Primary
Upper primary school
Apprentices, lower High School,
Vocational school
Post high school, University
Total
2
11
24
48
23
28
33
15
15
1
100
100
These differences in school attendance for the adult generations and their
children are visible in spite of a relatively similar valorisation of education. When asked
to which extent school years are important for success in life, 20% of the Roma
respondents think that this is true to a small or very small extent, compared to 10% of
the Respondents of other ethnic origin (Table 7). Differences are bigger when the
question is more pragmatic. In the hypothetic situation of a parent whose child
graduated 8 classes, almost 55% of the Roma subjects would advice him to go on to
High school, compared to 90% of other ethic groups, while almost one quarter of the
hypothetical Roma parents would advise him to start working, compared to 5% of other
ethnic groups (Table 8).
Table 7. To which extent do you think education (school years) is important for life success?
Other ethnic
group
To a very small extent
To a small extent
To a great extent
To a very great extent
Roma
6
4
9
17
31
43
54
36
100
100
Table 8. If you had a child who had just graduated the primary 8-year school, what would you
advise him to do:
Other ethnic group Roma

87
53
7
19
4
23
2
5
100
100
to go to high school
to go to the vocational, apprentices school
to start working
no advice
It is interesting to note that inside the Roma population parents whose children do not
go to school answer the same as those who have no children when asked about their
advice. We can see here a clear rupture between beliefs and behaviour. The capacity of
the Roma parents to translate into practice their values and evaluations of education is
lower than in the non-Roma parents. Although school as an institution through its
interface with parents, namely teachers, emphasises very often the lack of motivation
75
and interest of Roma parents in their children education, it is clear that the valorisation
gap of school education explains only partially the school failure of Roma children. The
size of the school exclusion is very serious and its structural dimension cannot be
overlooked: it is above all a failure of the system and not an individual one.
Raising children
Roma parents prefer to a greater extent to have a boy than the non-Roma
parents; at least in the case when a family has only one child, one third of the
interviewed people of Roma origin think it would be good be for it to be a boy,
compared to 15% of the other ethnic groups. The preference for a daughter is
distributed equally almost 12% what differs here is the share of those who answer:
it doesnt matter (See Table 9).
Table 9. If a family can have only one child, do you think it would be better to have a girl or a boy?
Girl
Boy
Doesnt matter
Total
Other ethnic group Roma

12
13
16
37
73
50
100 100
Roma mothers breastfeed their new born children longer than mothers of other
origin; they breastfeed their baby in average 13 months, compared to 9 months in other
mothers. Nevertheless the age at which the infant becomes familiarised with other food
(fruit, bread, vegetables etc.) is the same, regardless of ethnic origin: six months and a
half.
As for the corporal punishment, practices are similar for Romanian and Roma parents.
There are small differences regarding a slap over the back, as Roma parents are more
reluctant; harsher methods (slap over face or beating with an object) are equally
disapproved of (Table 10)
Table 10. Have you every given your last child
A slap over back?

Other ethnic
group
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Total
A slap over
face?
A beating with a
belt or something
else?
Roma
21
37
28
15
100
25
52
73
34
29
18
17
8
33
3
1
9
100
100
100
76
Experience of death
Death of a child
The tragic experience of the death of a child is still frequent in Romanian
families: almost 10% of the non-Roma subjects and 15% of the Roma ones have had
such an experience, and approximately 3% of the parents in both categories have
mourned several times after their children (see Table 11).
Table 11. Have you had a child who died?
Other ethnic
group
None
One
Two or more
Total
Roma
89
8
3
100
84
13
4
100

The difference between Roma and non-Roma subjects is significant; it can be
explained on one hand by the probability effect, for the parents who have more children
than the others, but also by the more difficult living conditions the former are
confronted with. A comparison between the two causes is difficult in the framework of
this survey. We can notice that the non-Roma women in the sample had a total number
of 1234 children and underwent the experience of 103 deaths, which means that approx.
8.5% of the children brought to life by non-Roma women in the sample have died. As
for the Roma women who had children, the total number of the born alive is 2223 of
which 182 deaths; approximately 8.2% of the children brought to life by Roma women
have died. The two figures are very close, which indicates that, even if there are
increased death risks in case of Roma children, these are not very high.
Death of an adult
Te information we have in the database on this experience are indirect. As we
could see in Table 1, the average number of elderly people of Roma households is
smaller than that of the other households. As we cannot talk about o norm of young
families splitting away from the elderly ones which is stronger in Roma people, it is
most probably that this difference is due to the lower life expectancy of Roma
population. As for widowhood, it has the same share in Roma and non-Roma
populations.
Conclusions
The couple and family behaviour of Roma people differ considerably from
those of non-Roma people in several aspects the most clear are the beginning of
maturity and descendents. Young Roma people become adults and parents earlier than
the non-Roma ones, and Roma families have more children. It is interesting to note that
in this respect the desire to have a more numerous family is more frequent in Roma
men than women. Roma women also make efforts of family planning which are
comparable to other ethnic groups, but less efficient, as they resort more often to
abortion.
77
The other aspects of the couple relations are very similar in Roma and nonRoma people, as for example the occurrence of (formal and informal) marriages and the
attitude to the corporal punishment applied to children. The couple relations in nonRoma people are more frequent formal than in Roma couple and they are also slightly
more stable.
As for children, their school attendance varies a lot according to their ethnic
belonging. The Romanian educational system is far from coping with the deficit of
education, generations after generations of Roma are confronted with although this is
not a new problem, neither is it unknown. As a consequence, the resources Roma
children and youngster of today will have to adapt to a changing social environment are
severely limited. Without State support for school and vocational education in
childhood and young years, Roma young generations will continue entering life with an
acute need for family and public support, which will characterise their entire life.
Annexes
Table 12. Beginning of maturity: data about subjects mother
Have you Have you got married Have you Have you Have
graduated / set up concubinage had your left your started
first child? parents working?
school? relations?
home?
Romanianised Roma
13
17
18
17
15
Other kind of Roma
12
17
18
17
14
16
20
21
19
17
Hungarian, etc.)
Differences are statistically significant for p=0.01; those between Romanianised Roma and
other Roma people are not significant
Table 13. How many children is it good to be in a family?
Other ethnic
group
1-2 children
2-3 children
3-4 children
4-5 children or more 20
Total
Roma
68
19
6
7
100
47
24
12
17
100
Differences are statistically significant for p=0.01;
Table 14. In the household are there (Average values, depending on ethnic identification)
0-6year old children who do 7-11year old children who 11-15year old children who
not go to school
do not go to school
do not go to school
Other ethnic group .11
.00
.02
Roma
.69
.11
.20
20
Including answers like: As many as God wishes.
78
Table 15. Number of subjects marriages (% by genders)
Ethnic belonging
Other ethnic
group
Marriages
None
One
Two
Three and more
Total
Men
18
73
7
2
100
Women
11
81
7
2
100
Roma
None
One
Two
Three and more
Total
16
68
11
5
100
10
76
11
3
100
Table 16. Distance to school for the youngest child in the household (km)
Other ethnic
group
0-1 km
2-3 km
4 km and over
Total
Roma
51
58
25
34
24
8
100
100
Table 17. How does the child go to school ?
Other ethnic
group
Walking
School bus
Family car
Total
Roma
73
94
17
5
6
2
3
0
100
100
Literature
Grigora, Vlad (2002). Excluziunea social n cazul populaiei de etnie rom. Analiz
a datelor din Ancheta Bugetelor de Familie 2001. Lucrare de master nepublicat [Social
exclusion of Roma nationals. An analysis of the data in the Family Budget Survey
2001. Masters degree work (Unpublished)].
Zamfir, Ctlin (coord.), Briciu, Cosmin et. al. (2005). Dignoza srciei i a riscurilor
79
n dezvoltarea copilului din Romnia. Academia Romn, Institutul de Cercetare a

Calitii Vieii. Disponibil on-line pe site-ul ICCV la adresa URL: [Diagnosis of
poverty and risks in child development in Romania. Romanian Academy, Institute for
the Research on Life Quality; available on the ICCV site URL]
http://www.iccv.ro/romana/articole/Saracia_copilului_oct_2006.zip
80
Human and Social Capital in Roma Population

by Gabriel Bdescu
Are Roma people poorer than other people in Romania? The surveys in which
Roma peoples financial and material resources are compared to those of the other
ethnic groups in Romania highlight every time important differences to the detriment of
the former. The chapter Dwelling conditions and financial problems in the Roma
population in this volume shows clearly that Roma people have, in average, less
money, live in overcrowded houses, built of poor quality building materials and have
less access to basic utilities (sewage, gas, water, power).
What is the situation of Roma people regarding other resources than the
financial and material ones? To which extent do they have access to useful information
and skills which would help them live better and may be compensate for the scarce
level of the other resources? How much can they rely on family, friends and
acquaintances help and how easy is it for them to cooperate with other people to solve
their problems? Or, as they use to say in sociological terms, how much human
(information, skills, knowledge) and how much social (useful relations, capability to
cooperate) capital have Roma people compared to other people in Romania?
Roma peoples human capital

Why do Roma people tend to be poorer than the other people who live in
Romania? Roma leaders often identify as an important cause the lower education level
of Roma people compared to other ethnic groups. Indeed, the data of this research
indicate a quite different educational structure of Roma people compared to the others:
23% of the Roma respondents have no education at all, 27% graduated four classes,
33% eight compared to 2% with no education, 11% who graduated four classes and
24% who graduated eight classes in the other ethnic groups taken together; 95% of the
Roma people have not graduated high school, compared to 60% of the other
respondents (see Table 15 in Chapter Family life).
Moreover, Roma people seem to have less benefited of an increase of their
education level in time as it happened in the other ethnic groups of Romania. In the
survey data the difference between the education level of the persons under 40
compared to those of people over 40 is much smaller in the case of Roma people than
in the other respondents. Even among the younger Roma people, 95% have not
graduated the high school and 21% have no education at all (Table 1).
Table 1. Relation between ethnic origin (Roma/non-Roma), school education and
age
Age
> 40
no education at all
primary school
upper primary school
81
Ethnic origin
Non-Roma
Roma
18
167
2.3%
26.3%
136
212
17.7%
33.4%
209
169
27.2%
26.7%
Total
185
13.2%
348
24.8%
378
26.9%
> upper primary school, <

high school
high school
higher education
Total
< 40
no education at all
primary school
upper primary school
> upper primary school, <
high school
high school
higher education
Total
172
22.4%
171
22.2%
63
8.2%
769
100.0%
4
.8%
10
2.0%
95
18.7%
129
25.3%
216
42.4%
55
10.8%
509
100.0%
68
10.7%
14
2.2%
4
.6%
634
100.0%
159
20.9%
176
23.1%
291
38.2%
96
12.6%
33
4.3%
6
.8%
761
100.0%
240
17.1%
185
13.2%
67
4.8%
1403
100.0%
163
12.8%
186
14.6%
386
30.4%
225
17.7%
249
19.6%
61
4.8%
1270
100.0%
Which are the causes of these differences? There are several possible
explanations which do not exclude themselves mutually. People decide to invest in their
own or their childrens education when they think that this will result in benefits for
them and when they can afford it.
According to the research data, Roma tend to attach less importance to school
education than the members of other ethnic groups. 36% of the Roma people are of the
opinion that education (school years) are important for the life success of the
individual, while this opinion is shared by 54% of the members of the other ethnic
groups. 50% of the Roma respondents say that they would recommend their own child
to go to high school after graduating the first eight classes, while there are 85% of other
ethnic groups saying that.
Another possible explanation of these differences in educational aspirations
might be that investment in education is perceived as having less results in the case of
Roma people. In other words, it is less profitable to invest money in your own
vocational training or your childrens if you are of Roma ethnic group than if you were
of another one. Is it true? Do data in the RIB survey back the idea that Roma people
have less to gain from school education than the members of other ethnic groups? Yes
and no. The following graph shows that an increased education level tends to result in
almost the same increase of income for both Roma and non-Roma. But at the same
education level, Roma people have generally lower incomes than the others.
82
Figure 1. Relation between education level and incomes in Roma and non-Roma
people
Venituri
Etnie
Roma
Alta etnie
0
Educatie
Another possible reason of the lower level of educational aspiration in Roma

people might be related to their lower incomes. When people cannot afford something
they tend to minimise its importance. Are data backing this explanation? Yes, but to a
limited extent. The survey data show that richer people send their children more
frequently to school and encourage them to continue learning both in Roma and nonRoma population. The difference between the two ethnic groups persists when we
compare persons with similar incomes. Roma people in the highest income category
give answers which are similar to those of the Romanians in the lower income category.
Table 2. Relation between ethnic origin (Roma/non-Roma), educational
aspirations (recommend / do not recommend continuing learning) and the income
level (very low/low/high/very high)
Material
resources
Very low
Recommend
continuing
learning
Ethnic
origin
Non-Roma
Roma
Yes
30
28.8%
74
338
55.9%
267
368
51.9%
341
No
71.2%
104
100.0%
31
44.1%
605
100.0%
145
48.1%
709
100.0%
176
No
Total
Low
Recommend
83
Total
continuing
learning
Yes
Total
High
Recommend
continuing
learning
No
Yes
Total
Very high
Recommend
continuing
learning
No
Yes
Total
16.7%
155
43.2%
191
33.7%
346
83.3%
186
100.0%
44
14.7%
256
56.8%
336
100.0%
82
40.6%
120
66.3%
522
100.0%
126
25.1%
376
85.3%
300
100.0%
45
7.5%
552
59.4%
202
100.0%
28
24.6%
86
74.9%
502
100.0%
73
10.3%
638
92.5%
597
100.0%
75.4%
114
100.0%
89.7%
711
100.0%
Another possible category of explanations of the lower level of the educational

aspirations in Roma people take into account the social context they are confronted
with. The respondents who perceive society as being ruled by discriminatory rules,
where laws are not the same for everyone, and those who think that there are other
criteria for success in life, not only work and personal effort tend to recommend more
rarely than the others the continuation of learning over the upper primary school.
Among Roma people who say that laws are not enforced equally for everyone and there
are citizens who are wrongly dealt with there are 49% who recommend going to high
school, compared to 58% in the other Roma subjects. Similarly, among the Roma
people who think luck, connections and breaching the law are more important to make
money in Romania than work, there are 51 who recommend high school, compared to
58% of them who say that work and personal effort are required.
The cultural context plays a less important role in establishing a desirable
educational level. There is a positive relation between the age of marriage and the age
they think it desirable for a young person to get married today (see also the chapter
Family life). In Roma people, both the respondents age and the age seen as
appropriate for marriage are in average lower than in other subjects (18 compared to 22
for the marriage age, and 20 compared to 23 as a recommended age). At the same time,
people who think that a younger age is more recommendable for marriage tend to
recommend more rarely the continuation of learning over the upper primary school
(Figure 2). 51% of the Roma respondents think men should get married before 21
compared to 12% of the other subjects. Only 25% of those who think men should get
married before 21 recommend continuing learning over the upper primary school,
compared to 50% of those who recommend a marriage age over 21.
84
Figure 2. Relation between the most appropriate age when a girl should get
married and the recommended education level.
1.2
1.0
nivelul scolar recomandat
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
varsta cea mai potrivita pentru casatorie
School education is one of the most frequent indicators used to approximate the
level of a persons human capital. Starting from the information about respondents
foreign language knowledge data of the present research enable us to build one more
indicator to complete information about the last graduated school and offer a clearer
image of their useful knowledge and skills. Table 3 illustrates the clear differences
between Roma and other subjects when we consider their foreign language knowledge:
10% of Roma people state that they can participate in a conversation in at least one
foreign language (other than Romanian, Hungarian or Romani) compared to one third
of the other respondents. It is true that if we include Romani among the foreign
languages, there is no more difference between the categories of subjects, but the
advantages provided by this language on the Romanian or foreign labour markets tend
to be lower than in the case of other foreign languages.
Table 3. Share of those who state that they can participate in a conversation in one
or more foreign languages (other than Romanian, Hungarian or Romani), by
ethnic origin (Roma / non-Roma)
ROMA
other ethnic
groups
860
66.6%
232
18.0%
148
11.5%
51
4.0%
1291
100.0%
No foreign language
One foreign language
Two foreign languages
Three or more foreign languages
85
Total
Roma
1285
90.7%
69
4.9%
38
2.7%
25
1.8%
1417
100.0%
2145
79.2%
301
11.1%
186
6.9%
41
1.5%
2708
100.0%
Besides the advantages offered by a better workplace on the labour market, in

case of a temporary migration foreign language skills favour the effects of the social
learning, including acquiring new skills, knowledge and attitudes, which are part of a
persons human and social capital. While half (53%) of the respondents who had
worked abroad and are not of Roma origin speak a foreign language, only one quarter
(24%) of Roma people who worked abroad say that they speak a foreign language.
The social capital of the Roma population

There is a wide consensus in the social science about the fact that some
attitudes, social networks and rules of behaviour can offer a significant advantage to
those who have them and, by aggregation, to their communities. Several recent studies
indicate that both the economic and the democratic development have a common shared
determinant, namely the social capital level, a concept referring to aspects of the
social organisation like networks, norms and trust, which facilitate coordination and
cooperation in order to get mutual benefits (Putnam 1993 p. 36).
Family, friends and acquaintances a person can count on, when trying to solve
personal problems or issues of common interest, is one of the forms of the social
capital, which occurs frequently in Romanian society. The communist period has fully
contributed to the development of connections and acquaintances required to solve the
most different issues, from getting food to access to medical care, jobs, dwelling etc.
Although they are not so important after 1989, some kinds of social networks
maintained their character of a resource, that of social capital, especially because the
poor functioning of some of the post-communist state institutions.
Figure 3 illustrates the existence of a positive relation between the subjects
relationship capital and his/her economic condition both in Roma (correlation
coefficient r = 0.4) and in non-Roma ones (r = 0.4). The association of the two factors
may be explained by a cause-effect of relations and incomes, but also vice versa but it
is plausible (and consistent with the results of other surveys) that the economic success
is at least partially the result of the relational capital.
86
Figure 3. Relation between income and an indicator of

connections/acquaintances 21
Venituri
Etnie
Roma
Alta etnie
0
Relatii / cunostinte
The survey data show that people of Roma ethnic origin tend to have less useful
connections than other ethnic groups for each of the above mentioned situations
(sickness, Court of Justice, Town Hall, police, getting a credit, getting a job, in
business, abroad, in contact with the County institutions). The average number of
different kinds of such connections is almost three times higher in the non-Roma than
in the Roma population: 1.7 vs. 0.6. Table 4, where we consolidated the answers to
each of the nine kinds of relations/connections illustrates that the highest differences
concern help in the world of justice, business and getting a credit.
Table 4. Types of useful connections of Roma/non-Roma people
Do you have any connections/relations on which you can count?
Non-Roma (%
affirmative
answers)
Roma (%
affirmative
answers)
in case of sickness, for consultation, treatment, surgical intervention
36
15
in the Court of justice, with notaries, lawyers
16
in the Town Hall
23
14
in the police
21
21
Subjects have been asked if they have acquaintances/connections on which they can rely in case of
illness, in Court, at the Town Hall, police, to get a credit, to get a job, in the business world, abroad, in
their contacts to the County authorities. The indicator is the number of affirmative answers.
87
to get a credit
12
to get a job
17
in the business world
14
abroad
23
in the County institutions (Prefecture, County Council)
The relation between the ethnic origins and the relational capital is maintained,
but at a lower rate, when we check on the effect of the educational level (Table 5).
Table 5. Relations between the relational capital (number of useful connections),
ethnic origin (Roma / non-Roma) and the educational level
no education
primary
upper primary
> upper primary <
high school
high school
higher education
Total
Non-Roma
.59
.83
1.35
1.60
Roma
.36
.51
.63
1.27
Total
.38
.59
.92
1.49
1.97
3.16
1.69
1.40
2.50
.65
1.91
3.11
1.15
The useful connections of Roma people do not differ only in their lower density
compared to those of other ethnic groups, bur we can also notice a higher importance of
the role played by family, neighbours and friends. 55% of the Roma respondents say
that they sometimes borrow money or objects or are helped in their household activities
by their relatives, compared to 44% of the respondents of other ethnic groups. In case
of neighbours and friends, the share is 44% in Roma and 37% in the other populations.
When respondents are asked if they think one can succeed in life by him/herself
or other peoples help is more important, more educated persons and higher income
ones tend to say more often that success is possible by yourself. Only 30% of Roma
think they can succeed by themselves, compared to 43% of the non-Roma, but when we
check statistically on the income effect, there is no more difference.
Trust in other people is another frequently studied component of the social
capital, as it is seen as one of the main factors which explain best why some groups
succeed in identifying their common problems and how they can be solved, while
others dont. Many authors have described and suggested a complex typology of the
different forms of trust in institutions and confidence in other persons. Generalised
trust, seen as trust to people whom we dont know and who are probably different
(Uslaner 1999), is mostly discussed and seen most often as a relevant form of trust in
transactions in economy and peoples readiness to get involved in civic activities. The
positive effects associated to a high level of generalised trust are extremely diverse.
There are many researches which bring arguments in favour of generalised trust being
88
an important ingredient of the democracy level and stability of a democratic regime.

The mechanisms through which trust may influence the quality of democratic
processes are complex and they include several components. A high level of
generalised trust is appropriate to peoples active involvement in associative activities
which, either directly or indirectly, tend to result in a more efficient and more
democratic administration, both at the local level ant at the level of the entire society.
Moreover, people who had a higher level of trust tend to observe laws to a higher
extent, are less inclined to avoid paying their taxes and readier to donate money or time
to nongovernmental organisations. Last but not least, societies characterised by a high
level generalised trust tend to have a higher degree of liberalisation and a faster
economic growth.
When asked if they trust other people or the members of their family, Roma
respondents do not differ significantly from the others. The share of those who say that
they trust is about 24%, a consistent result with those given by other surveys in the last
years, which situate Romania among the countries with a low trust level. When asked if
there are among their acquaintances people who are not their relatives but on whom
they could count in need, almost one third of the total samples answer say yes. There is
an important difference between Roma and non-Roma: 43% of the Roma people have
no such acquaintances compared to 28% of the non-Romas. The average value of the
acquaintances number is 3 in Roma, 4 in non-Roma, respectively.
There are differences in the level of trust to other people: the share of those who
trust more or very much their neighbours is 53% in Roma and 61% in the others; trust
in people of other religion is 20% vs. 27; trust in people of other ethnic origin is 20%
vs. 27%
We can see that there is a slight deficit in Roma people, which stays the same
when we compare people of similar socio-demographic characteristics.
Some researches have indicated a determination relation between a persons
level of optimism ant the social capital dimensions. People who believe that their life
will be better tend to have more trust in their own forces, to be more open to interaction
with different people or institutions. Moreover, data show important differences
between the optimism level of Roma people compared to the others. 26% if the Roma
respondents are of the opinion that they will be living better in one year, compared to
36% of the other respondents. When we compare persons with similar incomes,
differences tend to change their sign, as Roma people are slightly more optimistic that
the respondents of other ethnic origin.
Conclusions
How much human and social capitals have Roma people, compared to the other
people in Romania? The analyses in this chapter have highlighted the clear difference
between the two categories of population: Roma people tend to be less educated, they
know foreign languages to a lesser extent, they can rely less on the help of
acquaintances networks, and find it more difficult so cooperate with other people to
solve their problems.
Which are the reasons of this cultural deficit? An important part of the answer
takes into account the inter-conditioning of the human, social, financial and physical
capitals. Low income people living in poor conditions can afford only minimum
89
investments in their own human and social capital an in that of their families and this
keeps their chances to increase their well being rather low. Roma people have lower
educational aspirations, even when they are compared to people of the same incomes,
although the investment in human capital tends to be equally profitable for all ethnic
groups.
Another category of explanations takes as a starting point the fact that Roma
people often perceive society as being ruled by discriminatory rules, where laws are not
the same for everyone and almost all the state institutions treat Roma people worse than
Romanians. As a consequence the effort to acquire human and social capital is seen as
bigger by Roma people than by the other ethnic groups. In particular, data show that the
tradition of the Roma people to marry at a very young age tend to discourage people to
continue going to school.
In conclusion, which are the mechanisms which hinder the reduction of the
human and social capital deficit in Roma people? First of all this is the discrimination
against Roma by the state institutions, which has a negative effect on the Roma cultural
resources. Bo Rothstein shows that non-discriminatory treatment by the public
institutions has a positive effect not only on the trust in institutions but also on the
social trust among minority groups (Rothstein 2006, 2000). At the same time, the
exposure to diversity may have a positive effect on the social capital.
A great portion of the literature on the social capital states that social trust
increases as a result of the contacts between different categories of people (Marschall
and Stolle 2004), but there are some recent works emphasising that not any kind of
interaction has positive effects. Pettigrew (1998, 66) brings arguments in favour of the
statement that besides diversity, contacts should take place between equal status groups,
shared goals and experiences of cooperation situations. Hence reducing intolerance
against Roma would have a positive effect on their cultural resources.
LITERATURE
Rothstein, Bo. 2004. Social Trust and Honesty in Government: A Causal Mechanism
Approach, in Janos Kornai, Susan Rose-Ackerman and Bo Rothstein (eds),
Creating Social Trust: Problems of Post-Socialist Transition. Palgrave Macmillan
2004.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1998. Intergroup Conflict Theory, Annual Review of
Psychology, 49:65-85.
Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions n Modern Italy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Marschall, Melissa and Dietlind Stolle. 2004.. Race and the City: Neighborhood
Context and the Development of Generalized Trust, Political Behavior, 26:126154.
Uslaner, Eric. 2006. Does Diversity Drive Down Trust? Paper presented at the
Conference on Civil Society, the State, and Social Capital, Bergen, Norway, May
11-13, 2006
90

Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fundaia pentru o Societate Deschis

Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor

2007 Fundaia pentru o Societate Deschis (FSD)

Cercetarea a fost realizat de Fundaia pentru o Societate Deschis sub egida

Barometrul Incluziunii Romilor

Cine sunt romii?

Tabelul 1. Ce fel de rom suntei?

Limba matern romani

Desigur, aceste rspunsuri nu reflect neaprat criteriile efectiv folosite de

Dac un tnr are tatl rom i

Dar dac un tnr are tatl romn i

Aceste rspunsuri sunt surprinztoare dac avem n vedere istoria de asimilare a

Grania dintre etnii

ca romnii i romii s se cstoreasc ntre ei, fa de 25% care cred c e ru s se joace

elevii romi i cei

Este de asemenea interesant c educaia subiectului nu influeneaz semnificativ

Ci romi sunt n Romnia?

Tabelul 7) o dovad a presiunilor de mascare a etnicitii exercitate asupra

Populaie total Romi

Estimrile neoficiale ale altor observatori sunt diverse. n 1993, Institutul de

Dac v gndii la cei care triesc n zona n

Site-ul Institutului Naional de Statistic http://www.insse.ro

Este interesant de observat n

ne-romii ctre contacte interetnice n relaiile de vecintate, colarizare i joac a

Subiectul este rom

Alt etnie Etnic rom (%)

Da, poate s nu fie

Tabelul 13. Ai accepta ca fiul sau fiica dvs. s se cstoreasc cu o persoan de

Rom romnizat Alt fel de rom

Alt etnie (romn, ungur etc)

Estimarea medie Estimarea median

Stare de spirit, instituii, opiuni politice ale romilor din

Ct de mulumit() suntei n general de felul n care trii?

Cifrele reprezint procente.

Nemulumirea respondenilor apare pe fondul percepiei de ctre majoritatea lor

Cifrele reprezint procente.

O situaie similar n ceea ce privete diferenele de percepie asupra evoluiei

Cifrele reprezint procente.

Din intersecia rspunsurilor la cele trei ntrebri obinem o tipologie a

Fa de acum un an viaa este

Fa de acum un an viaa este

Cifrele reprezint procente.

n mod evident, resursele materiale reprezint principala surs de insatisfacie.

Cum apreciai veniturile actuale ale gospodriei dumneavoastr?

Nu ne ajung nici pentru strictul necesar

Cifrele reprezint procente.

Cifrele reprezint procente.

Cifrele reprezint procente.

Diferenele pn la 100% sunt N/NR

La nivel central, Consiliul Naional pentru Combaterea Discriminrii (CNCD)

sau mai degrab proast despre

Consiliul Naional pentru Combaterea Discriminrii se bucur de o notorietate

sau mai degrab proast despre

Percepia existenei unor segmente de ceteni care sunt defavorizai n Romnia

Legea se aplic la fel pentru toat lumea

Sursa: BIR-FSD, decembrie 2006

Lideri, partide i opiuni politice

Dac duminic ar fi alegeri parlamentare cu ce partid sau alian

Totui, marea majoritatea a respondenilor nu reuesc s indice cu exactitate un

A fost folosit o ntrebare deschis, neasistat.

Organizaiile politice ale romilor au n continuare probleme de notorietate chiar

Ct ncredere avei dvs. n ?

Dincolo de problema de notorietate, dar legat de aceasta, este i una de lips a

Imparatul Iulian 1,2 1,8