Roma Rights and Funding Structures in Romania: A critical perspective

1
Ioana Florea

This article explores the undesired negative effects produced by unsuitable Roma rights funding
mechanisms employed in Romania for the last 15 years. At the same time, it is an individual
testimony reflecting the author’s experience as both a researcher on Roma issues and a grass-
roots activist for disadvantaged groups. Beyond its critical tone, it aims to contribute to a more
constructive approach in the future towards efficient and sustainable funding mechanisms in the
social domain. It is based on the belief that critical analysis is a necessary step in the
improvement of any action or strategy.

Double perspective over social interventions and Roma issues

While seeking answers to questions such as “Have EU funds been effectively deployed to
address Roma rights? Have available funds been used efficiently or effectively? What impacts
are visible? What evaluation has been conducted?” the testimony-article will illustrate
observations gathered in the last four years and ideas shared through debates with some
important people in the Roma inclusion domain: Gabor Fleck,2 leading researcher and activist on
Roma issues in Romania and Hungary; Cosima Rughini ,3 leading statistician and expert in
policies for disadvantaged groups in Romania; Miruna Tîrc , anthropologist and activist with over
four years experience in Roma disadvantaged neighbourhoods; C lin Manea, Roma political
leader (vice-president of the Roma Party in Romania), social activist and expert in political
science; and Elena Radu, Roma activist, teacher and coordinator of Roma school mediators in
Bucharest.

The conclusions thus reflect the author’s direct work experience in the last four years, both as a
social activist in one disadvantaged neighbourhood with a Romani majority (“Aleea Livezilor
ghetto” in Bucharest) and as a social researcher, involved during 2006-2008 in the nationwide
“Come Closer” sociological research module of the project “Strengthening Capacity and
Partnership Building to Improve Roma Condition and Perception”, in the frame of the PHARE
2004 Program.

Having the aspect of a testimony, the present paper does not claim to be an exhaustive objective
analysis, but a possible perspective, based on secondary analysis of a multitude of data sources:
personal field observations and diaries, field diaries of more than 30 anthropologist performing in-
depth research in Roma settlements, unstructured interviews and discussions with the above
mentioned personalities in the field, unstructured interviews and discussions with Roma and non-
Roma dwellers in Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Ploie ti, Tîrgu Mure , Timi oara and in smaller rural
areas around the country.
4
On one hand, as a social activist, the author has helped Komunitas Association (Miruna Tîrc
being its President) since 2007 to develop non-formal civic education projects for about 150
children in the School no 136, in Aleea Livezilor ghetto-like neighbourhood of Bucharest (Elena
Radu being the school mediator here). Through this work, the author was permanently witnessing
the real-life situation of Roma households in Bucharest marginal neighbourhoods and was
contributing to local / punctual educational processes.

1
Ioana Florea, currently PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Bucharest, with a master degree in
anthropology and community development, achieved in 2008. She has been performing qualitative field
research in disadvantaged areas since 2003 and she has been a social activist since 2006, working for the
grass-roots Komunitas Association in Bucharest. ioana.floreaa@gmail.com.
2
Researcher for the United Nations Development Program, The World Bank, Hungarian and Romanian
governmental programs, several university institutes in Romania and Hungary.
3
For full CV: https://sites.google.com/site/cosimarughinis/
4
www.komunitas.ro
On the other hand, as a research assistant for the “Come Closer” sociological research
module/unit (Gabor Fleck being the research coordinator, Cosima Rughini being the senior
expert) of the “Strengthening Capacity and Partnership Building to Improve Roma Condition and
Perception” project, in the PHARE 2004 Program frame, the author was collaborating with 30
anthropologists (about 10 of them with internationally recognized studies and expertise)
performing in-depth field research in 36 different Roma communities around Romania. The
“Come closer” research, developed during 2006-2008, combining in-depth community studies
with nationally representative surveys, with focus-groups, and with surveys on all Romanian local
authorities, is the most recent and most complete social study on the situation of Roma in
5
Romania. Through this work, the author of this article was informed about the multitude of social
exclusion mechanisms affecting Roma households around the country and was contributing to
the development of social policy/ national strategy recommendations, to combat exclusion.

Thus, the objectives of the author’s work as an activist – local, punctual, micro-social
transformations – complemented the objectives of her work as a researcher – contributions to
building macro-social, structural transformations.

Assessing issues of human rights and empowerment in Romanian Roma communities/

neighbourhoods from two perspectives – the micro-social and respectively the macro-social level
– the author was enabled to witness the general (and generalized) gaps and blockages between
these two levels: to observe how the processes of needs assessment, funding, project
implementation, evaluation, multiplication of best practices are affected by poor translations,
precarious understanding and coordination between the micro- and macro-social perspective.
The main negative effect produced by the mentioned gaps and blockages is that macro-social
level interventions and programs hardly correspond to the local real-life situations, needs and
resources at the micro-social level.6

Exploring the impact of inefficient funding mechanisms and learning from past mistakes

The conception, implementation, results and evaluation of the project “Strengthening Capacity
and Partnership Building to Improve Roma Condition and Perception” implemented with support
within the PHARE 2004 Program form an illustrative study case for the analysis of Roma rights
programmes and funding mechanisms in Romania. The information available online about the
7
project is quite reduced – a short summary on the website of the project applicant and the
general requirements for applicants on the website of the General Governmental Secretariat, the
managing authority;8 all other links/pages are “under construction”, although the funding scheme
ended about two years ago.

5
The final report of this research was published as “Come Closer: Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in
Present-day Romania” and is the most cited work in this article, as the most recent and most complete
study available about Roma in Romania.
6
Argument to be found in several studies in connected fields; to name a few of them: C lin Berescu and
Mariana Celac, eds., Locuirea i s cia extrem . Cazul Romilor [Housing and extreme poversty. The case
of Roma]. (Bucharest: “Ion Mincu” University Publisher, 2006). Adriana Diaconu, Urban regeneration in
post-communism – architects' vs. artists' standpoints. Va urma (To be continued) project, Bucharest 2005 –
2007 (Karlskrona: Conference Paper “Culture and the City”, 2007). Gabor Fleck and Cosima Rughini ,
eds., Come Closer: Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present-day Romania (Bucharest: Human
Dynamics, 2008). Cosima Rughini , Cunoa tere incomod : Interven ii sociale în comunit i defavorizate
în România anilor 2000. [Unconvenient knowledge: social interventions in disadvantaged communities in
the 2000s Romania] (Bucharest: Printech Publisher, 2004). Manuela St nculescu and Ionica Berevoescu,
rac lipit, caut alt via ! [In Deep Poverty, Looking for a New Life!] (Bucharest: Nemira Publisher,
2004).
7
http://www.humandynamics.org/reference/strengthening-capacity-and-partnership-building-improve-
roma-condition-and-perception.
8
http://www.sgg.ro/docs/File/UIP/doc/procurement_notice2004.pdf.
The Program was opened by the Romanian Government – representing the “client” or main
beneficiary – with European pre-accession Funds based on the PHARE scheme of strategic
projects, through a call for proposals; the Program awarded 4,500,000 Euros to the winning
project. The winner of the call was a proposal submitted by a consortium of Romani NGOs,
conducted/managed by a consulting company.

Despite the fact that PHARE funds are public funds and thus full information about their use
should be available to the large public, as in all such calls for proposals, the reasons why this
particular project was chosen as the winner were not publicly explained. This represents the first
gap – lack of transparency and communication – between the macro-social level, where the
project was conceived/conducted, and the targeted micro-social level of real-life needs.

The Roma NGOs forming the consortium were long established Roma rights and Roma inclusion
NGOs, which previously conducted many projects and keep conducting several today. Similarly,
the consulting company previously managed several projects in Romania and keeps managing
some today. This is a key fact from three points of view: first, because the way these
organizations conceived and implemented this particular PHARE supported project reveals clues
on their general action pattern throughout the years; second, because as implementers and
managers of several projects, they became receivers of a significant amount of public money
throughout the years; third, because the accumulation of money and project management
experience granted them an advantage over other NGOs competing for funding, leading them to
more money and experience and, thus, close to monopoly.

However, the real-life situations, needs and resources in settlements with high percentage of
Roma population are diverse and require different approaches, different kinds of interventions,
and different skills from the implementers. For this reason repetitive patterns of interventions blur
and homogenize the micro-social diversities, for which they cannot cater.

One might argue that organizations with rich past experience in the field are the most suitable
ones to continue receiving funds to keep implementing wider projects, and that monopoly over
funding is not really a danger. But there are several challenges to this approach: can the social
impact of large social interventions/projects be efficiently evaluated, thus to consider it
undoubtedly positive and worth receiving more support? Can unequal resources among
organizations lead to a democratic civil society, when civil society has to be an egalitarian
9
resources redistribution system? Can participative citizenship be promoted when financial
resources are managed by only few organizations? In Romania, funds have been/are mostly
distributed to few large organizations and consortiums, with formally good CVs, without finding a
proper answer to these challenges.

The “Strengthening Capacity and Partnership Building to Improve Roma Condition and
Perception” project had a training module, a public campaign module and the sociological
research module already described. The detailed use of the public funds was not made
transparent and the allocation of money for different actions/modules was not made public.

The training module offered courses for local authorities’ representatives to learn how to
conceive, submit and implement social inclusion projects. There is no public document illustrating
the selection procedures, the number of participants, the number of Roma participants (self-
identified as Roma), their local status (function in the local governments), the number of Roma
inclusion projects actually implemented in their localities, after the training period. Two members
of the overall project team mentioned that, to their knowledge, most of the participants were non-
Roma, sent randomly by the local authorities, for a pleasant free weekend in the resorts where
10
the trainings were taking place; but these are only informal data. In order to avoid

9
Marian Preda, Politica social româneasc . Între s cie i globalizare [Romanian Social Policy.
Between poverty and globalization] (Ia i: Polirom Publisher, 2002).
10
Author interviews, Bucharest, June 2007.
misinterpretations, to clarify the impact of the training sessions and their efficiency, the project
implementing actors should have made the formal data publicly available.

There was no actual knowledge built directly inside the communities/ neighbourhoods, but only
through chosen representatives or elites, gathered outside their communities, in other working
contexts; the ambivalent relationship between Roma elites and the Roma population will be
discussed in detail in the next sub-chapters. Through this approach, the Roma target groups were
actually given a passive role in the process of their own inclusion and their own rights reclaiming;
marginalized members of the Romani community hardly benefited directly; the few Roma that
benefited from the project were already more integrated and with low risks of social exclusion. In
other words, the gap between one macro-social-scale intervention and the everyday micro-social
needs actually contributed to the low level of empowerment – hence the passivity – of the Romani
end-line beneficiaries.

The research unit produced a combined qualitative (focus-groups with Roma leaders, focus-
group with social workers in Roma communities, in-depth anthropological research in 36 Roma
communities around the country, with different situations) and quantitative social analysis
(nationally representative survey and survey of all local authorities) of social exclusion
mechanisms affecting Roma settlements, with policy recommendations. The resulting paper11
now serves mostly the academic world; its reflection in policy and large scale interventions is not
visible, and the client (the Government) did not actually implement the resulting policy
recommendations. There was no obligation for the client to do so; but in this situation, the
questions for social policy building are: 1) if the Government does not follow recommendations
resulting from real-life assessments and expert-conducted research, on what other grounds does
it take measures and does it develop strategies? 2) what does social research serve for, and why
are experts and researchers included (and well paid) in the frame of public policy?

The public campaign was aimed at improving the general perception of the Roma by the majority
of the population. Its main results were a TV clip, a poster, and a slogan against Roma
discrimination. During the last months of the project and project campaign, at the end of August
2007, one event opened large debates about Roma – non-Roma everyday relationships: In the
city of Timi oara, a non-Romani man stabbed and killed his Roma neighbour, citing his motivation
as the fact that the Romani family was listening to loud Roma music. Different media channels
12
reported the incident in different ways and, while different opinion groups and personalities
reacted in different ways to the reports and stories, the controversy went on for weeks: many
opinion groups condemned the Roma and considering the crime as less of a crime because of
being directed against a Romani individual, while the few Romanian Human rights NGOs were
trying to balance these strongly racist discourses. Part of the PHARE program team and project
campaign unit was in Timi oara at that exact time, visiting a Roma culture festival. They did not
take a strong public position regarding the incident and thus lost an important opportunity,
embedded in the micro-social realities of the moment, to transmit the message of solidarity and
equality that the campaign aimed to promote. There was no obligation for the campaign team to
react, but its lack of voice, its lack of solidarity with the few Human rights NGOs taking position,
shows once more the gap between the “inclusion”, “human rights”, “cohabitation” grand concepts
and discourses developed at the strategic level, inside the project offices, on one side, and the

11
Gabor Fleck and Cosima Rughini , eds., Come Closer. Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present-day
Romanian Society (Bucharest: Human Dynamics, 2008).
12
Alina Sabou, “Fight at the Edge of Timi oara. He Stabbed his Roma Neighbour”, România liber , 31
August 2007, Social section, available at: http://www.romanialibera.ro/actualitate/eveniment/si-a-
injunghiat-vecinul-rom-104932.html (accessed 31 August 2010); Realitatea, “One Dead and One Wounded
in Timi oara Fight”, Realitatea TV, 30 August 2007, Social section, available at:
http://www.realitatea.net/video_173462_un-mort-si-un-ranit-intr-o-altercatie-la-timisoara_84935.html
(accessed 31 August 2010); Lucian Ursule u, “After a Noisy Party, One Timi oara Gypsy killed by a
Romanian”, Gândul, 30 August 2007, Events section, available at:
http://www.gandul.info/eveniment/tigan-timisoara-omorat-roman-896621 (accessed 31 August 2010).
reality of Roma – non-Roma everyday encounters and extreme micro-social encounters,13 on the
other side.

Still, on the project small webpage, it is mentioned that “Perceptions of the Roma by the majority
14
population were improved”; how can this project result be evaluated? Considering the conflicts
in Italy and in France during the last years, this claim of improvement is especially fragile. In
addition, the project website claims that “Roma awareness of their rights and obligations
increased” – again an impact hard to measure and a claim hard to be made; this claim also
ignores the diversity of Roma rights and obligations, according to their age, gender, status
(Children Rights, Women Rights, adult citizen rights etc.).

These facts also illustrate that the general evaluation system for social projects in Romania is
quite poor – even if the same website states that an evaluation system is already operational. As
in the case discussed here, the project evaluations are rather internal ones – the main evaluator
being the client, the Romanian Government in this case. Without public access to project
selection procedures and without public scrutiny over project results, how can public funds really
be public and how can public policy really be public? This is the challenge for future funding
mechanisms, especially for social issues.

The overall structure of the project inclines for most of its money to be allocated to economic
networks un-linked (hotels, catering, design companies) or only indirectly linked (local authorities,
media, experts, elites) to Roma settlements. How did the project team avoid this mechanism? Did
it manage to avoid it at all? There is no official proof for this, while informal data suggest that
15
indeed most of the money were inefficiently used. In a wider perspective, this suggests an
economic blockage between the micro-social, community needs and the macro-social level
programmes.

Improving the condition and perception of Roma in Romania is a long-term and costly process,
relying on a multitude of factors, institutions and social actors. Roma rights and empowerment are
positioned at the centre of this process. This high level of difficulty and complexity calls for a high
level of efficiency: we can not settle for less. This is especially so because the danger in such
situations – when the impact of the project is not really measurable and the evaluations lack
transparency – is that the negative side-effects (explored later in this article) could outrun the
desired positive impact.

In ambiguous situations, when the success and long-term impact of a social project/ programme
relies on too many unknown, under-analysed, uncontrollable variables, statistician Cosima
Rughini considers no action to be better than any action. To put it simply, she argues that not
spending money, human power and hope is much more efficient than risking and loosing, through
“trial-and-error” programmes.16

Of course, not all programs and (bigger) projects suffer the shortcomings to be presented below;
and of course, the project had some positive effects. There were even worse cases in the last
decades of Roma rights and inclusion programs. But the “trial-and-error” process in which one

13
For example, after the incident, some of the non-Roma neighbours declared very good relationships with
the victim’s family, while others expressed understanding for the killer.
14
Human Dynamics “Strengthening Capacity and Partnership Building to Improve Roma Condition and
Perception” http://www.humandynamics.org/reference/strengthening-capacity-and-partnership-building-
improve-roma-condition-and-perception.
15
Author interviews, Bucharest, June 2007.
16
Cosima Rughini , Cunoa tere incomod : Interven ii sociale în comunit i defavorizate în România
anilor 2000. [Unconvenient knowledge: social interventions in disadvantaged communities in the 2000s
Romania] (Bucharest: Printech Publisher, 2004).
learns from mistakes is an extremely costly process in social policy and intervention; a
17
constructively critical approach would help avoid repeating mistakes.

Other macro-scale programmes, previous to the one presented above, did not achieve the
desired positive impact on Roma communities, but consumed resources and directed them
towards social and economic networks remotely linked to Roma communities. The general failure
in achieving the desired impact and incapacity to adapt to the real-life – continuously changing –
needs and local resources can be observed today in the persisting disadvantaged position of
Roma communities in Romanian society, in persisting stereotypes (present in the mass-media as
well).

Moreover, the cumulated long-term negative effects of resourceful but ineffective programs have
been observed throughout the country by anthropologists in the “Come closer” research unit,
through in-depth and group interviews; and also by activists involved in smaller grassroots
projects, actually working inside the target Roma communities/ settlements/ neighbourhoods,
through participative observations and group debates, associated to the implementation of
grassroots projects.

The following of this article highlights the most widespread but also the most correctable negative
side-effects produced through inefficient use of funding, in Roma inclusion programs.

Negative effects of past funding patterns at micro-social level

After many years of Roma funding and Roma rights discourses, the people expected some
change for the better; change which hardly occurred in the everyday lives of the targeted
population as a result of the discourses and plans.

The first undesired side-effect upon the Roma population directly or indirectly affected by projects
funded until now is the general loss of trust in elites, researchers, projects and NGOs – who, from
outside their offices, are perceived as either incapable of solving the problems or unwilling to
change the status-quo. This is followed by envy and greed triggered by an awareness that huge
sums of money are employed in Roma rights and inclusion programs, money channelled through
remote economic networks (hotels, catering companies, advertising companies, researchers,
lawyers etc.) combined with disappointment and unchanged everyday hardships. These
undesired effects are accompanied by the loss of hope and diminishing desires to become
involved in community actions or projects.18 This triad of negative effects was more pronounced
in urban areas, where knowledge about European funding was more widespread and where the
socio-economic, locative, and symbolic-status differences between the targeted Roma population
and the project initiators were deeper.

Caught in this triad, Roma participants in past projects or research started to ask for financial
rewards in exchange for answering questionnaires or for allowing their children to participate in
social projects, they started refusing participative initiatives, and stopped voting for minority
parties – despite the fact that such initiatives have been – at least initially – designed with the
19
goal to improve their situation. This growing refusal to cooperate with other structures further
closes their social networks, access to resources, means to reclaim rights and to express
themselves – resulting in deeper exclusion.

In this context, in some Romani communities, local elites are formed: these are the few
individuals who choose to open themselves towards other structures and, observing the

17
Elena Zamfir and C lin Zamfir, eds., iganii, între ignorare i îngrijorare [Gypsies, between ignoring
them and worrying over them] (Bucharest: Alternative, 1993).
18
Gabor Fleck and Cosima Rughini , eds., Come Closer. Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present-day
Romanian Society (Bucharest: Human Dynamics, 2008).
19
Author interviews with C lin Manea and Elena Radu, Bucharest, March 2007.
advantages, gain monopoly over the associated social networks. This phenomenon was
20
observed by anthropologists both in urban and rural areas. The local elites – instructed and
called “mediators”, “facilitators”, “representatives”, “local experts” etc. through different programs
– benefit from the advantages offered by their position. At some point, their welfare (economic
level, contacts, knowledge etc.) outranks the general level of welfare locally and thus they may
stop actually representing the other Roma around them and stop being representative for their
community. There are several mechanisms for this phenomenon: a) the local elites begin to
ignore the community’s needs in favour of their own, more direct, needs; b) they leave the
locality, engaging in more complex forms of work, distancing themselves from the everyday life of
the community; c) they change their identity discourses, according to the expectations of their
financial supporters, thus becoming unrecognizable in their own community; d) they do not
manage to represent their entire community, but just a part of it (their keen or the better-known
members of the community), thus contributing to an undesired division/loss of solidarity inside the
community.21

Looking even further, intellectual Romani elites and public personalities are expected to represent
Roma at a higher level and in front of the non-Romani majority. This expectation, combined with
the above mentioned temptation of individual gain, present in many Roma rights programs,
creates a powerful pressure leading to the alienation of most Roma personalities from the rest of
22
the Roma population: either through the opportunities to gain prestige and wealth as an
individual (a high-status representative), through a lack of time to remain in contact with the local
communities, or through well-intended but homogenising discourses of representation – “we, the
Roma…” – which blur the real diversity of Roma households and allow stereotypical
23
interpretations.

Of course, not all Roma personalities suffer this alienation; but the people’s trust in them and the
people’s direct connection with them keeps weakening – which enhances the risk for the
24
alienation to occur, even in the heart of Roma rights NGOs.

Roma rights programmes offer the opportunity for different non-Romani Romanians and even
non-Romanian “Roma experts” to work in Roma inclusion projects – researchers, NGO members,
professors, local authorities’ councillors, and policy makers. As a micro-social level effect of
inefficient funding, the risk grows for these people to be affected by the same alienation
mechanisms as the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph. By gaining prestige and money or
by employing homogenising discourses, they generate individual benefits for themselves rather
than social change for everyone’s benefit, thus deepening the gap between themselves and the
population they should advocate for.

The above described side-effects are embedded in a passive approach towards the targeted
group, characterising most programmes addressing Roma issues in Romania. This passive role

20
Gabor Fleck and Cosima Rughini , eds., Come Closer. Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present-day
Romanian Society (Bucharest: Human Dynamics, 2008).
21
Paul Cengher, Romii de vatr din Tîrgu Mure (Research Report, 2007). Gabriel Troc, Report on the
Roma community research in Sîntana de Mure , Mure county (Cluj-Napoca, 2007).
22
Hana Synková, “Claiming legitimacy in/of a Romany NGO”, in Multi-disciplinary Approaches to
Romany Studies, ed. Michael Steward and Márton Rövid (Budapest: Central European University Press,
2010).
23
For example, this happened to the declarations of one Romani political leader towards the media,
concerning the usage of the term “Roma” – as reflected in the article by Andrian Mogo , “ i Romii se
ig nesc între ei” [Even the Roma are Gypsies to each other], Jurnalul Na ional, 10 March 2009,
Campaigns section, available at: http://www.jurnalul.ro/stire-tigan-in-loc-de-rom/si-romii-se-tiganesc-intre-
ei-145879.html (accessed September 2010).
24
Hana Synková, “Claiming legitimacy in/of a Romany NGO”, in Multi-disciplinary Approaches to
Romany Studies, ed. Michael Steward and Márton Rövid (Budapest: Central European University Press,
2010).
given to the target group by the designed programmes legitimises the creation of well-paid
functions or prestigious positions (local facilitators, councillors, project managers and experts,
public relation experts, social researchers, public servants in new dedicated governmental
departments) on behalf of disadvantaged Roma and Roma found in difficulty. The paradox of few
well-paid experts catering for the needs of large disadvantaged groups is a typical negative effect
25
of inefficient social policy. The situation is also dangerous when these privileged but “selfish”
functions are gained by Roma representatives, who instead of becoming “social media” for
community voices actually become individual voices and loose the trust of the communities.
Targeted disadvantaged groups hardly gained direct access to resources offered through
programs.

This polarized relationship between the target population and their labelled defenders creates
another layer of exclusion, actually increasing the gap between social groups or posing new
barriers and proving the weakness of human rights programmes in Romania.

Negative effects of past project funding at the mezzo- and macro-social level

The formation of diverse stereotypes and negative attitudes towards Roma, in everyday
Romanian society, is caused by complex factors, through several social mechanisms, in
26
continuous transformation. These processes are more diffused and unstable but at the same
time more generalized and spread across social groups, in comparison to those mentioned thus
far. The failings of previous macro-scale costly programs on Roma rights, Roma equality, Roma
perception in Romania, have had an indirect contribution to such negative processes.

On one hand, non-Romani disadvantaged groups, sometimes even neighbouring Romani

households, are pushed towards a specific form of negative attitude. Becoming aware (through
the mass-media or by word to mouth) of the large funding opportunities on Roma issues, many
develop attitudes of envy, as they have no means to reclaim their own rights through available
funding programmes as poor, disabled, isolated, homeless etc.. At the same time, they cannot
see an actual improvement of their Romani neighbours’ situation or that they don’t actually know
the final benefits of such funding programs. The solidarity with Roma living in similar conditions or
facing similar problems is weakened.27 The already frequent28 question “why them and not us?”
breaks the micro-social level solidarities, networks and understanding among Roma and non-
Roma, while transforming Roma in “the Others” and thus opening the gate for further
discrimination.

On the other hand, non-Roma in better economic and social situations are pushed towards other
manifestations of negative attitude. A common perception – fuelled by the media – is that the
state or the European institutions give away money to protect “lazy” Roma who refuse legal,
formal work, while taking away harsh taxes from the honest hard working non-Roma such as
themselves. This perceived injustice resulting from Roma funding opportunities – through their
lack of transparency and superficial public communication – creates a strong background for

25
Marian Preda, Politica social româneasc . Între s cie i globalizare [Romanian Social Policy.
Between poverty and globalization] (Ia i: Polirom Publisher, 2002).
26
The most mentioned ones in stereotype and discrimination analysis: the media and different channels of
propaganda, the education system, biased generalizations of personal extreme experiences, generalization
of the most visible practices, economic differences.
27
Manuela St nculescu and Ionica Berevoescu, rac lipit, caut alt via ! [In Deep Poverty, Looking for
a New Life!] (Bucharest: Nemira Publisher, 2004); Miruna Tîrc , Research Report, Aleea Z br i
(Bucharest, 2008).
28
Author individual and group interviews with about 200 Roma and non-Roma in disadvantaged
neighbourhoods, Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Ploie ti, and Lehliu, March-December 2007.
discrimination, in yet another vicious circle. In this light, the funding mechanisms and their results
29
are seen to reproduce exactly the phenomena they aim to diminish.

Analysing the formal frame of macro-social level programmes and funding in Romania, two other
negative effects could be discussed: the growing superficiality in evaluation and opportunism in
conception. Superficiality concerns the governmental agencies and national level NGOs, which
consider spending the available funding30 and achieving the quantitative results as satisfying
indicators for the success of programmes and projects, disregarding the qualitative aspects and
31
the in-depth, long-term indicators . This superficiality blurs the line between what has been done
already and what needs to be done in the future, thus maintaining the custom to settle for less.
Opportunism concerns the institutions (NGOs, local authorities, consortiums, schools etc.)
conceiving projects and submitting proposals for Roma funding mechanisms and programs
without a real interest in solving problems or empowering communities, motivated by the
generous funds available.32 Opportunism does not necessarily lead to the most inefficient
projects,33 but it lowers the social value of solidarity, voluntarism, mutuality in the relationship
between the target groups and the funded institutions, with long-term negative side-effects (the
previously mentioned social gaps).

Another side effect of the inefficient macro-level funding mechanisms concerning Roma rights in
Romania is corruption; this is a generalized issue in Romania, concerning most sources of foreign
funding, not only those dedicated to improving the conditions for Roma. The director of the
European Social Fund34 management institution was recently dismissed and European funds
35
temporary blocked, due to irregularities and accusations of corruption; different institutions
monitor and reveal the frequent irregularities involved in macro-level funding decisions and
practices36. C lin Manea, experienced evaluator of macro-level decisions and practices
concerning Roma rights funding, considers the concentration of large funds under the
management and benefit of only few institutions to be at the heart of the corruption, while the
division into punctual funds, managed and used by more institutions and organization, could
break both the corruption and monopoly mechanisms37.

From critique to solutions

29
Laura Surdu, Mecanisme de construc ie i deconstruc ie a stigmatiz rii, în cazul romilor din România
[Mechanisms of construction and deconstruction of stigmatization, in the case of Romanian Roma], Quality
of Life, 1-2/2010 (Bucharest: Romanian Academy Publishing House).
30
The level of “fund absorption” is usually in the centre of program evaluations and competition among
national/ international institutions and lately even among the new European states.
31
As an example, the application procedures to access financial support through the European Social Fund
include only quantitative and immediate indicators (www.fseromania.ro).
32
Author interviews with Gabor Fleck, C lin Manea, Elena Radu, Bucharest, October 2007 and February
2008.
33
Among other, two case studies in Bucharest illustrate this effect: 1) “Rahova. To be continued” long-term
project, as analyzed by Ioana Florea, “Public Space and Urban Life Quality”, Social Work Review, number
1-2/2009: 63-76; and 2) the short-term projects in School no. 135 (author observations, Bucharest, October
2009, and interview with coordinator of Bucharest school-mediators, Elena Radu, Bucharest, October
2009).
34
Main funding source for social inclusion, including Roma inclusion, in contemporary Romania
(www.fseromania.ro).
35
Wall-street Journal, “Comisia Europeana a suspendat fondurile UE catre AMPOSDRU” [The European
Commission suspended the EU funds to AMPOSDRU], 1st April 2010, Economic section.
36
Among others: “Save the EU funds from the politicians”, eurofonduri.wordpress.com; Activewatch
project “Transparency of the European Funds in Romania, 2010” www.activewatch.ro/stiri/Buna-
guvernare/Transparen-a-fondurilor-europene-n-Rom-nia-2010-270.html.
37
Author interview, Bucharest, March 2007.
Recalling the recommendation given by sociologist Cosima Rughini since 2004, not trying any
solution might be a solution as well. Starting from this seemingly extreme approach – valid for
extreme situations – a number of other solutions unfold.

The “Come closer” research report recommended a change of focus from funding exclusively
directed at Roma towards thematic issues, such as: minority rights, cultural expression,
combating social exclusion, combating discrimination. This alternative approach would include
other social groups and other social issues in funding schemes and in concerted actions. Roma
would loose their priority status, but only in form and not in action – as the micro-social, real-life
problems would be still strongly reflected in the thematic issues eligible for funding.

This recommendation has been agreed and supported by the most cited and most experienced
anthropologists working in Romani communities as the core-solution against the “ethnicization” of
social problems such as poverty, illiteracy, crime.38 Gabor Fleck of the “Come closer” research
has argued during several interviews that ethnicization is actually the strongest and deepest form
of discrimination and stereotyping suffered by Roma; this process is actually fuelled, unwillingly,
by exclusive Roma funding, while funds directed towards solving the actual social problems,
across different ethnicities, would be more effective.39

The “Youth in Action” European Program offers a good example of efficient funding: almost 100%
absorption in only four years of activity in the Romanian space; local initiatives spread across the
country, not affected by monopoly; coverage of different social issues; innovative approaches;
small projects conceived mostly by community “insiders”, thus building community participatory
capacity; involving mostly young people, thus preparing the next generations for an active
attitude; involving mostly volunteer work, thus enriching the social value of solidarity and mutuality
among people from different social groups.40 This kind of Programme – financing local, small-
scale initiatives – has had until now a rather peripheral position in the funding schemes, but their
overall positive impact is considered to be clearer and already more visible than the ambiguous
impact of programmes considered to be “strategic”.41 A shift of attention towards this kind of
funding mechanism is recommended in the future, using the good practice example of the “Youth
in Action” Program.

A further shift proposed by social researchers is a better balance between expert fees and
programming in social projects, especially in projects concerning disadvantaged groups and
human rights abuse. In the frame of such projects, the huge difference between the entitled
“experts”, together with management positions, on one side, versus the field workers, those in
direct contact with the beneficiaries, on the other side, should be drastically reduced and aligned
to Romanian economic standards. Thus will be avoided situations in which money is the only
motivation for conceiving and working in social and human rights programmes. As a

38
Michael Stewart, “Deprivation, the Roma and ‘the underclass’”, in C.M. Hann, ed., Postsocialism.
Ideals, Ideologies and practices in Eurasia (London: Routledge, 2002); Enik Magyari-Vincze, Research
paper on Social Exclusion of Roma. Timisoara case study. (2008, at
http://www.euro.ubbcluj.ro/structura/pers/excl_romi.pdf); Andreas Wimmer, How (not) to think about
ethnicity in immigrant societies: A boundary making perspective (University of Oxford, Centre on
Migration, Policy and Society: Working paper no.44).
39 Author interviews with Gabor Fleck, Bucharest, October 2007.
40
Statistics available at: http://ec.europa.eu/youth/glance/glance1544_en.htm;
http://www.tinact.ro/statistici-studii.
41
Among others: William Fisher, Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices, Annual
Review of Anthropology, number 26 (1997): 439-464. Marian Preda, Politica social româneasc . Între
cie i globalizare [Romanian Social Policy. Between poverty and globalization] (Ia i: Polirom
Publisher, 2002). Cosima Rughini , Cunoa tere incomod : Interven ii sociale în comunit i defavorizate în
România anilor 2000. [Unconvenient knowledge: social interventions in disadvantaged communities in the
2000s Romania] (Bucharest: Printech Publisher, 2004).
consequence, solidarity and mutuality may be better valued in the project teams and in the
relationship between project teams and target groups. Projects and programmes based on such
values have significantly less probability to produce negative long-term side-effects. Aligning the
remuneration of first-line-workers (in direct contact with the target groups) with the remuneration
of trainers, public representatives, office personnel, will recognise the equal importance of the two
directions of action and will enable better cooperation between them. Even more importantly, it
will encourage actual work in the targeted settlements, thus creating local, communitarian
knowledge and opening the ground for participatory action.

Indeed, setting the ground for participatory action is a difficult step but it must be taken at some
point to achieve the desired and long-waited results for Roma and other disadvantaged groups.
That will be the moment when the rather passive and fixed “human rights” concept, protected
mainly by outsiders advocating for the insiders, will develop into “empowerment”, a participatory
and active concept producing change from inside the targeted groups, while not allowing the
huge waste of millions of Euros.