Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

A regional agricultural efficiency convergence assessment in Romania – T

Appraising differences and understanding potentials
Luminita Chivua, Jean Vasile Andreib,*, Marian Zahariab, Rodica-Manuela Gogoneac
a
National Institute for Economic Research "Costin C. Kiriţescu", Romanian Academy, Casa Academiei Române, Calea 13 September, No. 13 Bucharest, Romania
b
Petroleum - Gas University of Ploiesti, Faculty of Economic Sciences, B-dul, Bucuresti, No.39, 100680, Ploiesti, Prahova, Romania
c
The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 15-17 Dorobanti St., Sector 1, 010552, Bucharest, Romania

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study proposes an assessment of the regional agricultural efficiency convergence potential across the
Agricultural efficiency Romanian development regions during a period of sixteen years (from 2001 to 2017). Using the Cobb-Douglas
Cobb-Douglas function and the cluster analysis, it investigates the agricultural development and efficiency in the development
Marginal productivity regions of Romania, based on the available official datasets. The main aim of the research is to appraise the
Output
potential of these seven development regions (Bucharest – Ilfov Region was excluded), and to understand the
Labour
Capital
differences between them, from the perspective of agriculture’ future, and the impact agriculture can have on the
sustainable development of each region, through a new domestic agricultural paradigm. The results suggest that
agriculture has a major impact on the development of a region as a whole, and that, in the absence of future
reform measures in agriculture, the regions will be highly affected by their agricultural underperformance.

1. Introduction
In modern economies, agriculture, despite of its diminishing role in
assuring economic growth and resilient development, continues to fulfil
the numerous economic and social attributes in the rural space and to
expand its multifunctional dimension in rural communities. Although,
agriculture has reduced its weight in the Gross Domestic Product and
the monetary contribution to economy, it still remains the major ac-
tivity in rural communities and for the rural population, which is still
captive to this activity, as it is argued in (Andrei and Dragoi, 2019;
Bularca and Toma, 2018; Barbu, 2017; Mănescu et al., 2016). On the
other hand, Nowak and Kaminska (2016), while analysing agricultural
competitiveness of the EU 27 during 2009–2011, reviles the conclusion
that there is a close interdependence between the level of development
of the national economy and the degree of competitiveness of the
agricultural sector. Also, as (Andrei and Dragoi, 2019), remarks, during
the last transition period and on its way to achieving the functional
market goals, Romanian agriculture has experienced radical structural
changes in both land ownership structure and farming activities.
Two authors (Crecană and Crecană, 2019) also pointed out that
economic growth often causes significant changes to fundamental
economic structures, thereby requiring the enforcement of transfor-
mation patterns in several sectors, agriculture included. In their ana-
lysis of regional competitiveness in relation to Romania, (Clipa and
Ifrim, 2016) claim that the reform process, overlapping the economic
crisis, generated significant regional disparities, sometimes worsened
them, or, in some cases, even reduced or stopped the convergence
process. Török (2017), on the contrary, argues that the unequal evo-
lutions in the economy may be largely influenced by well-tailored in-
terventions designed to ensure a more even geographical distribution
and the strengthening of territorial cohesion.
A large process like state property restructuring, followed by pri-
vatisation and the restitution of landed property to former owners
brought severe transformations of the pricing mechanisms and of the
perception of economic and social circumstances. These developments
can be seen in the market behaviour of traders (at microeconomic
level), placing the agri-food products (Končar et al., 2019) and in the
instruments and mechanisms used by government in its strategic po-
licies (at macroeconomic level). All of this caused structural modifica-
tions of agriculture as a whole, which further triggered problems in
each of its components (Ciutacu et al., 2015). Still, in numerous studies
(Jurjević et al., 2019; Grubor et al., 2018; Vasile et al., 2017; Sima and
Gheorghe, 2017; Radulescu and Ioan, 2015; Hubbard et al., 2014),
agriculture is presented as one of the strategic pillars for the Romanian
domestic economy, which continues to be one of the significant eco-
nomic branches of Romania, both as a contributor to the gross domestic
product, and as a provider of jobs. As also noted by (Kucsicsa et al.,
2019), numerous social, economic, and political changes occurred in

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andrei_jeanvasile@yahoo.com (J.V. Andrei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104838
Received 23 June 2019; Received in revised form 11 May 2020; Accepted 7 June 2020
Available online 14 June 2020
0264-8377/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Chivu, et al.
Romania after 1990, which brought about great structural and func-
tional transformation in the land use patterns. In turn, these triggered
the modification of economic potentials, with repercussions on the
environment, farm land management, and the degree of land use. As
(Ciutacu et al., 2015; Andrei and Andreea (2018);Andrei et al., 2020)
argued in their studies, the evolution of the Romanian agriculture and
of the agricultural production system reflects mainly the reform pro-
cesses` effects occurred on the last thirty years of domestic experinces,
which massively transformed the national economic structures and the
land ownership, agricultural holdings and rural landscape. The con-
tinuing decrease of performance and competitiveness indicators level in
the agricultural production, was mostly determined by a massive un-
dercapitalization and structural transformation of agricultural sector.
From this perspective, the national agriculture has been transformed
from an intensive economic sector, highly mechanized and fertilized,
with highly skilled workforce, into a subsistence agriculture due to the
the total crash of investment in the entire Romanian economy.
Recent studies (Andrei et al., 2020) have revealed significant re-
gional differences in the productive potential of agriculture in the EU
Member States, which derive from variations in geographic and natural
conditions, type of agricultural production, fragmentation of agri-
cultural land, population and economic development. The greatest
disproportions were noted in land productivity (Constantin, 2017;
Oncioiu, 2014), whereas the differences observed in capital and labour
productivity (Wong, 2019; Aceleanu et al., 2015) were less pronounced.
As (Pawlewicz and Pawlewicz, 2018) indicates, the worker productivity
and investment in fixed assets are the key determinants of the pro-
ductive potential as well as of competitiveness in the agro-food sector.
In this context, the agricultural sectorial productivity is largely de-
termined by the configuration of its agricultural land. This explains why
structural changes of landed property have generated the economic and
social issues Romania is facing at present (Otiman, 2012). The excessive
fragmentation of farm land, paralleled by a low degree of associative
initiatives, has caused a paradoxical dual effect: the emergence of a
large number of subsistence and semi-subsistence farmsteads, and a
very low number of producers capable to penetrate the market
(Manjunatha et al., 2013; Luca and Ghinea, 2009).
A recent study (Ren et al., 2019) provides evidence that farm size
has a substantial influence on agricultural sustainability from the per-
spective of economy, environment and society. The authors claim that
“some literature sources argue that small farmers can ensure food
production through intensive farming with new technology (Zhang
et al., 2016), but at substantial transaction costs”. Even if the authors
recognize that the article does not quantify all impacts of farm size,
robust evidence from their work and existing studies suggest that ad-
dressing farm size is a critical way to promote development of sus-
tainable agriculture.
In Romania, it can point to authors like (Toderoiu, 2014), who fo-
cused their concerns on multi-criterion analyses of aggregate efficiency
involving the three elements (land, labour and capital) (Toderoiu,
2014), for the purpose of raising productivity of farming so that this
could help reduce social costs of food, but also authors who question
whether the current structure in which the agricultural sector functions
can be viewed as an opportunity or as a hazard for the competitiveness
of the agro-food sector (Tudor, 2014), with most of the pros and cons
leading to the latter.
Identifying the current structural problems confronting Romanian
agriculture can help find the means by which this important sector of
the country’s economy could rise at least to the standards of European
agriculture. This means that farming in Romania must reach the com-
petitiveness level enabling it to face the tough competition, and the
high level of legislative, institutional and economic competence of the
other EU countries. (Popovici and Toma, 2018)
As (Daymard, 2018) argues, a critical role and place in achieving
competitiveness is to be played by the efficiency of agricultural pro-
duction. Understanding how the production factors work in agriculture
2
Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838
will help ease the transition of labour in this sector towards production
and services (Daymard, 2018). Similarly, the use of the Cobb-Douglas
production function to run a statistic estimate of the relationship be-
tween inputs and outputs explains how inputs are converted into out-
puts, as well as the partial efficiency of labour and capital as a means of
approaching the long-term specifics of agro-economics. The calculation
of the Cobb-Douglas regression as an instrument to express the effi-
ciency of the production factors in agriculture was an important step
towards creating development strategies, all the more so as it was im-
plemented at regional level (Zaman and Goschin, 2007).
With the growth of the efficiency of the agricultural production as
an aim of any reasonable national economic policy, reducing the gap
between the agricultural performances of the country’s regions has
been, in the past years, a priority in any economic development plan of
Romania. Having in mind that, according to Eurostat (2019a,b), one out
of three farms in the EU 28 is located in Romania, and that 20 % of the
number of active farmers in the 28 member states live and work in
Romania, the issue of assessing Romanian agriculture’s competitiveness
is a complicated task, but all the more necessary.
Agricultural efficiency has been widely studied and numerous per-
spectives and assumptions have been made in literature. Many of the
studies conducted at the regional level, such as this one, focused on
identifying the factors that impress the divergence of the level of pro-
ductivity and including efficiency, highlighting the existing pro-
ductivity gaps. Thus, studies were undertaken that analysed agri-
cultural efficiency both at country level (Ženka et al., 2016; Nowak and
Kaminska (2016); Martín-Retortillo and Pinilla, 2015), regional
(Giannakis and Bruggeman, 2018; Smit et al., 2015) and farm level
(Bercu (2014); Andersen, 2017; Andrei and Andreea (2018); Michler,
2020). Agricultural efficiency is the combined result of the efferents
deposited at all three micro, macro and intermediate levels.
The development of the regional competitiveness of Romanian
agriculture will presume an important degree of sectorial potential
capitalization, contributing equally to the reduction of social dis-
parities. Starting from the asumption that agriculture does not only
involve food production, but also affects the agricultural land man-
agement, the use of available resources in rural areas, increasing the
degree of agricultural competitiveness will allow both modernization of
rural communities and diversification of rural activities.
This research intends to identify and outline patterns of specific
geographical areas, identify the factors that lend their influence to the
efficiency of farming on a local level, and thereby, on competitiveness
of Romanian agriculture at a national level. A better understanding of
the local contingencies that shape agricultural output is of the essence
for us to have a better view of the causes that break the development of
agriculture and the formulation of a comprehensive strategy designed
to address the real needs of this economic sector. In this context, our
structural-territorial analysis has used as working instrument the
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics [Nomenclature des unites
territoriales statistiques (NUTS)], published by the European Statistical
Office (Eurostat, 2019a,b), European Communities (2000) and (The
European Parliament and The Council of The European Union, 2008).
In order to make our analysis easy to understand, of the three levels of
aggregation we have chosen the middle level, i.e. Romania’s territorial
division into development regions (Fig. 1).
The present research is designed into five well-structured sections,
as follows. The article starts with a survey of the dedicated literature
(Section 1), which represent the introduction of the study, continues
with an inventory of data bases underlying our study, and a description
of the methods used, such as the Cobb-Douglas function, linear re-
gression models, clustering method (Section 2), an efficiency analysis of
labour and capital as prerequisites of agricultural output, the curve of
the grain output/hectare, the output of vegetal and animal produce,
and ends with results and comments and a post evaluation alerts and
remarks (Section 3). The Section 4 contains the ‘conclusions’ and it
makes a summary of the data identified and analysed herein, which we
L. Chivu, et al.
Fig. 1. Administrative and physical planning of Romania’s territory, according to NUTS 2.
Source: based on: Regiunile de dezvoltare ale României (2020)
hope may serve as perspective for propounding adequate strategic
measures to increase the level of agricultural production in each region
of the Romanian economy). In section five the research limits and
further directions of investigation are presented. Based on these figures,
we shall be able to see (and, hopefully, understand) the significant gaps
between regions.
2. Materials, model and methodology
The agricultural efficiency convergence assessment was conducted
on only seven of the eight regions of Romania. Starting from the state of
facts above, the research addressed, in detail, the issue of efficiency in
regional pattern, based on a number of indicators viewed as significant
for the assessment of efficiency in agriculture: Output of agricultural
industry, Net Value Added at Basic Prices, Fixed Capital Consumption,
Total Yield of Production Factors, Grain Yield per Hectare, Crop
Output, and Animal Output. Bucuresti-Ilfov Region was left out of the
study when the Cobb Douglas function confirmed that a comparison
with the other regions was not possible and does not lead to relevant
statistic results. This is mainly due to the relatively small area of this
region, and due to great discrepancies between the results of farming in
the Bucuresti-Ilfov Region and the other development regions, all of
which would make the comparison unrealistic.
As stated above, this study analyses the efficiency of agricultural
production in its regional expression. For this purpose, it was conducted
based on sets of data compiled from Eurostat statistics database
Eurostat (2019a,b), EDB (2019b), a and from the National Institute of
Statistics of Romania (INS) (INS, 2019), for the period 2001–2017. The
graphs for the eight development regions of Romania are based on the
estimation of the production functions starting from the series of data
available for the analysed timeframe (Eurostat, 2019a,b). For this
purpose we have used the Cobb-Douglas production function rendered
3
Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838
in the classical form as (Felipe and Adams, 2005):
Y=aL K (1)
In equation (1), Y is the Output of agricultural industry (OAI),
where L stands for the Net Value Added at Basic Prices (NVAD), K
stands for the Fixed Capital Consumption (FCC), and a stands for the
total yield of the production factors. The positive constants α and β are
the output elasticity of labour and capital and they reflect the respon-
siveness of production to the changes in the production factors. The
sum ( + ) shows how production changes as a result of the mod-
ification of both factors. In this case, if:
+ = 1 the production function has constant returns to scale
(CRS).
+ > 1 increasing returns to scale (IRS)
+ < 1 decreasing returns to scale (DRS)
On the other hand, if the Output of agricultural industry in one
development region (region if i = 1, 8 ), is expressed in the terms of
Equation (1), then Yi represents the marginal productivity of labour
Li
(MPL), in development region i, and Yi represents the marginal pro-
Ki
ductivity of capital (MPK) in the same region.
The values of parameters a, α and β were calculated through the
linearity of Function (1) using the method of the least squares. To verify
the statistic import of this model, we have applied Test F. Seeking a
confidence level of 95 %, we configured the Test for the following
hypotheses:
H01: Significance_F > 0.05 model not statistically significant
H11: Significance_F < 0.05 model is statistically significant
To try the statistical significance / relevance of the three parameters
(a, α and β) we used Test t, based on the following hypotheses:
H02: P_value > 0.05 value of parameter does not vary significantly
from zero (statistically not relevant)
H12: P_value < 0.05 value of parameter varies significantly from
L. Chivu, et al.
zero (statistically relevant)
A second method of comparative analysis was applied to the curve
of the grain yield per hectare (GYPH) in 2001–2017 (INS, 2019). For a
development region (k), GYPHk was determined by reporting the pro-
duction volume (APGRk) to the surface cultivated with grain cereals in
the respective development region (AGRRk). This resulted in the fol-
lowing matrix: G = (gkt ) k = 1,7 . Starting from which we tested the ex-
t = 1,17
istence of, and calculated, the regression functions of the type:
GYPHk (t ) = c0k + c1k t + ,
p
N (0, 1),
In Eq. (2), coefficient c1k expresses the annual average quantity that
modifies GYPHk.
The validity of the regression model (2) and the statistic relevance
of parameters c0k and c1k were verified with the aid of Test F and, re-
spectively, Test t, based on the hypotheses referred to above.
Cluster analysis was the third method used in the comparative
analysis of efficiency in the agriculture of the eight development re-
gions of Romania. We used it at the beginning (2002) and the end
(2017) of the reference timeframe. The cluster analysis was based on
the series of data provided by (INS, 2019) with regard to the three main
sectors of the agricultural industry: Crop Output (CROP), Animal
Output (ANOP) and Agricultural Services Output (SVOP), for the eight
development regions (p) of Romania. The resulting matrixes were:
Y2001 = (y2001ij )i = 1,3, j = 1, p , Y2017 = (y2017ij )i = 1,3, j = 1, p
The following transformation was applied to matrixes Y2001 and
Y2017:
p p
yij yj y
j = 1 ij
z ij = , where yj = , =
j
j p
Proximity Matrix was obtained using Euclidian distance, as in
(Zaharia et al., 2017):
p national level, we obtained a production function of the DRS type
W = (wjl )j = 1, p, l = 1, p , wjl = (z il z ij )2 , i = 1, 3, l = 1, p , j
j=1
i, k i, wii = 0
The methodology selected for highlighting the purposes of this
study is centered to reveal the degree of efficiency of the agricultural
output in each of the eight development regions, to help determine the
discrepancies between regions and find solutions to reduce the gaps, in
the attempt to raise the efficiency of Romania’s agricultural output to
EU-28 standards.
3. Results and discussion
Due to low agricultural production indicators, with parameters
going down the scale year after year since 2005 (except for the years
2011, 2013, and 2014), the level of efficiency in agriculture is very low
at country level, which places Romania on a very unsatisfactory posi-
tion in the hierarchy of European agricultural producers. It is in this
context that the need was felt for a more detailed analysis of efficiency
at regional level, based on several indicators that can be considered
relevant for the agricultural production. While considering the values of
the three variables, OAI, NVAD and FCC for each year, we have pro-
ceeded to a three-dimensional distribution in the shape of a dotcloud
(Fig. 2). This type of distribution shows differences expressed as dis-
tances between the results of the variables for each particular year.
A much clearer image of the differences so recorded appears
through a broader analysis of them by each development region. As
such, we determined and analysed the characteristics of the serial data
used for the estimation of the production functions with the help of
indicators obtained through descriptive statistics. The results reveal
Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838
that, in almost all the eight development regions of Romania, all the
three variables have representative average values. This is confirmed by
the values below 35 % of the variance coefficient (Table 1). An ex-
ception from this is the Bucuresti-Ilfov Region, whose variance coeffi-
cient of 39.40 % indicates that the average value of approximately 40
mil. lei of the NVAD is not representative.
The calculation for the Outputs of Agricultural Industry (OAI), in-
dicates that the highest average production is the one obtained in the
West Region, which has the lowest level of territorial distribution. At
t = 1, 17, t2001 = 1 the other extreme is Bucuresti-Ilfov Region, featuring the highest de-
gree of production scattering, although this region has a record of the
(2)
lowest production.
The South-Muntenia Region has the lowest scattering level of the
Net Value Added at Basic Prices (NVAD), its average value being sig-
nificant by comparison to the other regions / values, while the North-
West Region has the highest variance coefficient, which leads to a much
greater distribution scattering of the NVAD variable in the region’s
territory. A low regional territorial scattering of the Fixed Capital
Consumption (FCC) can be noticed in the South East Region (Table 1)
and the lowest in the North-West Region.
The efficiency with which the Labour and Capital factors were used
to obtain the Output of Agricultural Industry in Romania and in each of
its development regions was calculated using the Cobb Douglas pro-
duction functions (Table 2).
Of the eight development regions, no valid model could be derived
(Significance_F = 0.7503 > 0.05), therefore we have accepted the null
(3)
Hypothesis H01, meaning that the model is not statistically relevant. It is
yet worth noting that this development region has some distinctive
features deriving from the presence in its territory of Romania’s capital
city, Bucharest, and its suburbs.
j=1
(yij yi )2 Our study included only seven development regions, with
, i = 1, 3
Bucharest-Ilfov being excluded from the comparative analysis due to its
p 1
(4) very small territory and the serious gap between its agricultural pro-
duction and the output of the other regions, which makes the com-
parison irrelevant. The production functions for the other development
regions and for Romania permit a good modelling of the OAI curves. At
( + = 0.98 ), which indicates a 1.991 average marginal productivity
(5) of labour, and a 2.783 average marginal productivity of capital.
Knowing that α = 0.56, an increase by 1% of the labour factor will
generate an increase of the OAI by 0.56 %. Similarly, a 1% increase of
the capital factor will make the OAI grow by 0.42 %.
A first distinction detected between the seven development regions
is a CRS production in two of them (North-West and South-East), and a
DRS production in the other five. Moreover, while the value of the scale
coefficient (α + β), in South Muntenia is close to 1 (0.96), in the other
regions the scale coefficients are around 0.9, with the lowest of them in
the Centre Region: 0.88.
Other significant differences have been detected in respect of the
marginal productivity rates of the production factors. For example, the
MPL (marginal productivity of labour) oscillates from 1.560 in the West
region (α = 0.43) to 2.407 in the South Muntenia region (α = 0.60),
while for the MPK (marginal productivity of capital), the classification
is reversed: the lowest value (2.167) is recorded in the South Muntenia
Region, and the highest (3.225) in the West Region, which explains why
the West Region lay the accent on capital, while South Muntenia fo-
cused on labour.
An important and relevant indicator in the comparative analysis of
the efficiency of agricultural production is the grain cereal production
per hectare.
The serial data regarding the average output per hectare, by de-
velopment region (INS, 2019), have been further examined with the aid
of indicators that reveal the development features of the various de-
velopment regions of Romania (Table 3). The average output per hec-
tare recorded for almost all the regions of the country are statistically
relevant, if we consider that the values of the correlation coefficients
4
L. Chivu, et al. Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838

Fig. 2. Distribution in space of the values of variables OAI, NVAD and FCC during the reference time period, and focal records and Nearest Neighbours for 2015 at
Romanian level.
Source: authors` own design

Table 1
Characteristics of the serial data used to estimate the production functions for each development region of Romania.
Source: authors` own computations
Indicators Region

NW C NE SE SM BI SW W

OAI Mean 2095 1915 2741 2657 3055 188 1840 1769
Std.Er. 78 67 99 129 122 12 65 66
Std.Dev 220 191 281 365 346 35 183 186
Variance 48,459 36,329 78,986 132,929 119,536 1215 33,345 34,695
V (%) 10.51 9.95 10.25 13.72 11.32 18.59 9.92 10.53
NVAD Mean 590 553 919 709 762 40 560 490
Std.Er. 61 47 61 50 44 6 41 32
Std.Dev 172 132 174 140 123 16 116 90
Variance 29,444 17,322 30,161 19,717 15,192 243 13,568 8043
V (%) 29.07 23.80 18.89 19.81 16.17 39.40 20.78 18.29
FCC Mean 350 288 318 403 514 35 322 258
Std.Er. 23 17 17 15 30 2 17 17
Std.Dev 66 48 49 43 84 5 49 48
Variance 4416 2271 2399 1835 7079 27 2384 2260
V (%) 19.01 16.57 15.38 10.63 16.36 14.81 15.15 18.46

are less than 35 %. This is true for all but the South-West Region, where
the variation coefficient is the highest (35.21 %), which shows a wide
distribution of production rates within the region, although this region
recorded the lowest yield of all regions. Despite the fact that the highest
yield per hectare is in the West Region, the lowest level of distribution
of production was recorded in the North West Region.
Based on the regional data, and on their characteristics determined
as above, we developed mathematical models of the curve of Grain
Output per hectare in the period 2001–2017, and verified their actual
existence (Table 4).
The curve of the grain cereal production in most of Romania’s de-
velopment regions, except for South-West Oltenia Region, has an as-
cending trend according to a linear regression model. The linear evo-
lution trend is confirmed both by the Fischer function values, which are
higher than 4.54, the value of the critical function, and by the values of
Significance F, which are smaller than the significance threshold of
0.05, in which case we accept the alternative hypothesis H11. To better
view the production trends by regions, with the aid of linear regression
models, we have transposed them in graph form (Fig. 3).
By contrast to the other regions, South-Muntenia is the region with
the most significant growing trend, with a production fluctuating be-
tween 1131 Kg/ha in 2007 and 5606 Kg/ha in 2017. This course is
illustrated by the evolution line of the average production of grain
cereals of 136.57 Kg/ha, which is statistically significant, if we consider
a P-value of 0.0062 as being smaller than the significance level of 0.05,
which determines the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis H11.
A close evolution trend can be noted in the South-East and North-
East regions, where the average grain cereal production was 109.48 Kg/
ha for South-East, respectively 96.74 Kg/ha for North-East. Similarly,
the differences between the minimum and maximum productions are
also small, with fluctuations between a minimum of 1121 Kg/ha in the
South-East region, and 1481 Kg/ha in the North-East region in 2007,
and, respectively, between a maximum of 5206 Kg/ha in the South-
East, and a minimum of 4998 Kg/ha in the North East, in 2017. The
critical probability values of 0.0255 and 0.0143 being smaller than
0.05, confirm the fact that the production rates are statistically sig-
nificant.
The Center Region, with an average grain cereal production of
75.69 Kg/ha, which is statistically significant (P-value = 0.0092 <
0.05), is represented also through a rising trend. This trend is

5
L. Chivu, et al. Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838

Table 2
The results of the production functions estimates that indicate the efficiency with which Labour and Capital were used to obtain the Output of Agricultural Industry in
Romania and in its eight development regions.
Source: authors` own computations
Region Significance_F Coeff. t Stat P-value Type of function MPL MPK

Romania 0.0002 ln(a) 1.73 2.61 0.0476 DRS 1.991 2.783

α 0.56 11.58 0.0001
β 0.42 7.93 0.0005
North_West 0.0001 ln(a) 1.58 2.71 0.0423 CRS 2.097 2.641
α 0.57 12.67 0.0001
β 0.43 7.31 0.0008
Center 0.0005 ln(a) 2.24 3.44 0.0185 DRS 1.816 2.554
α 0.51 9.64 0.0002
β 0.37 5.20 0.0035
North_East 0.0004 ln(a) 2.07 3.37 0.0200 DRS 1.746 2.925
α 0.58 10.24 0.0002
β 0.33 5.22 0.0034
South-East 0.0000 ln(a) 1.69 8.82 0.0003 CRS 2.170 2.695
α 0.58 30.72 0.0000
β 0.42 11.41 0.0001
South Muntenia 0.0000 ln(a) 1.83 5.48 0.0028 DRS 2.407 2.167
α 0.60 15.18 0.0000
β 0.36 9.86 0.0002
Bucuresti-Ilfov 0.7503 – – – – – – –
South-West Oltenia 0.0034 ln(a) 2.05 2.30 0.0694* DRS 1.685 2.316
α 0.50 6.42 0.0014
β 0.40 4.04 0.0099
West 0.0081 ln(a) 2.30 2.34 0.0667* DRS 1.560 3.225
α 0.43 3.71 0.0139
β 0.46 4.58 0.0060

* Statistically relevant parameters for a 95 % level of confidence.

determined in relation to the evolution of the annual grain production
per hectare, which scored a minimum of 2461 Kg/ha in 2012, and a
maximum of 4835 Kg/ha in 2017.
Other two regions, West and North-West, have followed pretty
much similar trends, their lines being quite close. The annual fluctua-
tions of the yearly grain cereal / ha between 2602 Kg/ha and 5099 Kg/
ha have prompted us to calculate a regression coefficient that resulted
in an average annual growth of 86.85 Kg/ha for the West region. In the
North-West region the average annual growth production of 2366 Kg/
ha is lower than the one in the West region, and the annual fluctuations
of the grain production were between 2480 Kg/ha and 4937 Kg/ha.
Like in most of the regions, the minimal productions were recorded in
2007, and the maximum ones were recorded in 2017. Both regression
coefficients so calculated are statistically significant, and the values of
the critical probabilities (0.0061 and 0.0342) are smaller than the 0.05
level of significance.
If we compare the results for the eight development regions
(Table 1), we find that no valid linear regression model has resulted for
South-West Oltenia. The result obtained for a Significance_F of 0.0564,
which is higher than the 0.05 level of significance, has led to the ac-
ceptance of the null hypothesis H01, and this invalidated the model,
confirmed by the same value of the P-value, which shows that the re-
gression coefficient of 97.74 kg/ha of the model is not statistically
significant.
In order to run a comparative analysis of the efficiency of agri-
cultural activities in Romania’s development regions, we used as a
starting point the data series regarding the agricultural production by
sectors and development regions (INS, 2019). The comparative analysis
required the grouping of the regions in relation to their Crop Output
(CROP) and Animal Output (ANOP) both in 2001, and in 2017.
Knowing that the initial data series were based on the then current
prices, we recalculated them according to the consumer price index for
the year 2017 (INS, 2019).
For the purposes of the cluster analysis for the years 2001 and 2017,
we first tested the homogeneity of variance of the data series corre-
sponding to the three main sectors in each development region.
The results in Table 5 indicate that for SVOP we must deny the
homogeneity hypothesis for the years 2001 and 2017. Taking into ac-
count this characteristic, as well as the fact that the share of this sector
in the overall value of the agricultural production is rather low, the
cluster tests were conducted in consideration of the two main sectors:
crop and animal.
For the year 2001 (Table 6), the results obtained by applying the
Test of Homogeneity of Variances (values 0.862 and 0.595 being higher
than the significance level of 0.05) and ANOVA, with values 0.028 and
0.013 being lower than 0.05, indicate that the two variables, CROP and
ANOP, are sufficiently significant to be considered part of the clusters.
The clustering method made it possible for us to group the regions

Table 3
The main characteristics of the regional serial data regarding the evolution of the grain production during the period 2001-2017.
Source: authors` own computations.
Indicators Development Regions

NW C NE SE S SW W

Mean 3423 3407 3158 3141 3364 2977 3748

Std.Er. 150 152 204 249 264 254 167
Std.Dev 619 626 840 1025 1087 1048 690
Variance 383,380 391,679 704,951 1,051,316 1,182,113 1,098,331 475,570
V 18.09 18.37 26.58 32.64 32.32 35.21 18.40

6
L. Chivu, et al. Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838

Table 4
The results of the linear regression model used to estimate the Grain Output per hectare in the years 2001-2017.
Source: authors` own computations
Development region F Sig. F Acc. H Coeff. t Stat P-value Acc. H

North-West 5.42 0.0342 H11 c0 2854.46 10.27 0.0000 H12

c1 63.19 2.33 0.0342 H12
Center 8.92 0.0092 H11 c0 2725.52 10.50 0.0000 H12
c1 75.69 2.99 0.0092 H12
North-East 7.68 0.0143 H11 c0 2287.63 6.39 0.0000 H12
c1 96.74 2.77 0.0143 H12
South-East 6.15 0.0255 H11 c0 2155.71 4.76 0.0003 H12
c1 109.48 2.48 0.0255 H12
South Muntenia 10.10 0.0062 H11 c0 2134.73 4.85 0.0002 H12
c1 136.57 3.18 0.0062 H12
South-West Oltenia 4.28 0.0564* H01 c0 2097.08 4.33 0.0006 H12
c1 97.74 2.07 0.0564* H02
West 10.19 0.0061 H11 c0 2966.82 10.64 0.0000 H12
c1 86.85 3.19 0.0061 H12

* Statistically relevant parameters for a 95 % level of confidence.

in three clusters: A, B, C. Given the fact that the statistic relevance

criteria are fulfilled for all the three clusters so formed, we identified
the average values of the Crop Output (CROP) and Animal Output
(ANOP) corresponding to the clusters in 2001 (Table 7).
Cluster C is composed of two regions, North-East and South-
Muntenia, and includes the highest values of both types of production,
which places it at the top of the classification.
The average value of the Crop Output is 1,151.349 mil.lei subject to
a 95 % probability rate of a successful crop. This would fall within the
Fig. 3. – Trend lines of average grain yield per hectare in development regions.
confidence range of 328,482.48 mil. Lei and 1,974,215.52 mil.lei. As
Source: authors` own design
far as the Animal Output is concerned, the calculated average value is
lower than that of the Crop Output, namely it is 682.247 mil. lei, which
Table 5 falls within the confidence level of a minimum of 349,064.90 mil.lei
Test of Homogeneity of Variances for the series of data recorded at regional and a maximum of 1,015,429.10 mil.lei.
level in 2001 and 2017 for CROP, ANOP and SVOP. The graph in Fig. 4 is a representation by a dot cloud of production
Source: authors` own computations.
clusters, which illustrates not only the bi-dimensional positioning of the
2001 2017 regions within Romania, but also the discrepancies, sometimes wide,
between each cluster of regions, or between regions.
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
Cluster A, which is comprised of only one region (North-West),
CROP 0.018 1 4 .900 0.371 1 4 0.575 comes second in the classification, with average values of 903.786
ANOP 0.543 1 4 .502 3.444 1 4 0.137 mil.lei for Crop Output, and 576.709 mil.lei for Animal Output.
SVOP 17.189 1 4 .014 24.855 1 4 0.008 The lowest average values of the Crop Output (827.142 mil.lei) and
Animal Output (447.240 mil. lei) have been determined for Cluster B,
which is formed of four regions: Center, South-East, South-West
Table 6
Oltenia, and West. The 95 % Confidence Interval for Mean Crop Output
The results of verifying the hypothesis of variables CROP and ANOP belonging
ranges between 328,482.48 mil.lei and 1,974,215.52 mil lei, and for the
to clusters, with the aid of the Test of Homogeneity of Variances and ANOVA
Animal Output, the lower and upper value limits are: 364,150.21
(year 2001).
Source: authors` own computations. mil.lei, respectively, 530,329.79 mil.lei.
The results obtained by repeating the method of determination of
Test of Homogeneity of Variances ANOVA
region clusters in relation to the production values of the Crop Output
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. F Sig.F and Animal Output, for the year 2017, are slightly different. In the first
application of this methodology, the result of the CROP and ANOP as
CROP 0.034 1 4 0.862 10.004 0.028 variables belonging to the established clusters is the same as in 2001,
ANOP 0.332 1 4 0.595 15.882 0.013
with the results of the Sig. to the Test of Homogeneity of Variances
being higher than the 0.05 level of significance, and in the case of
ANOVA, Sig. F being lower than the specified value (Table 8).
Table 7
The application of the second phase of the cluster forming metho-
The structure and characteristics of the three clusters in 2001.
Source: authors` own computations
dology leads to different results, namely the formation of four clusters,
in 2017: Cluster A, comprised of the regions Nord-West, Center, and
Cluster Development region CROP ANOP West; Cluster B, formed of the North-East Region; Cluster C, formed of
Thousands lei Thousands lei
the regions South-East, South-Muntenia; Cluster D, consisting of one
A North-West 903,786 576,709 region, South-West Oltenia. To comply with the statistical significance
B Center, South-East, South-West Oltenia, 827,142 447,240 conditions for all the four clusters formed in 2017, we continue to de-
West termine the mean values of the Crop Output (CROP) and Animal Output
C North-East, South-Muntenia 1,151,349 682,247
(ANOP) (Table 9).
The structure and characteristics of the clusters in 2017 are different

7
L. Chivu, et al. Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838

Fig. 4. Focal records and nearest neighbors of the clusters at 2001 level.
Source: authors` own design

Table 8 from the ones in 2001. In 2017 one can notice, in Table 6, a more
The results of testing the hypothesis of the CROP and ANOP variables belonging uniform scattering of the average values of the Crop Output (CROP) and
to certain clusters, with the help of the Test of Homogeneity of Variances and Animal Output (ANOP). The classification of the regions by clusters in
ANOVA (2017). relation to the variable considered in the analysis differs for Crop
Source: authors` own computations. Output from the Animal Output. As for the bi-dimensional positioning
Test of Homogeneity of Variances ANOVA of regions in clusters from the perspective of the distribution of the
CROP and ANOP productions, the same discrepancy can be noticed
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. F Sig.F
between the regions of a cluster, or between the clusters themselves,
CROP 0.004 1 3 0.952 27.516 0.011 with quite large gaps between them, like in the case of Clusters A and C,
ANOP 1.420 1 3 0.319 9.566 0.048 but also between these two clusters and the other two (Fig. 5).
In 2017, the average value of the Crop Output of 10,682.312 mil. lei
brings Cluster C to the top position. The value was determined in re-
Table 9 lation to the minimum of 10.216.169 mil.lei of the South-East Region
The structure and characteristics of the clusters in 2017. and the maximum of 11,148.454 thousands lei for the South-Muntenia
Source: authors` own computations. region. The average value of the production so calculated is statistically
Cluster Development region CROP ANOP significant, because the limits of the confidence range have positive
(Thousands lei) (Thousands lei) values (lower: 4,759.409 mil lei and upper: 16,605.214 mil lei), for a
degree of certainty of the results of 95 %. The classification continues
A North-West, Center, West 5,410,025 3,330,616
B North-East 7,633,000 4,596,793
with Cluster B, i.e. the North-East region, where the average value of
C South-East, South-Muntenia 10,682,312 3,614,121 the Crop Output is 7633 mil.lei, followed at a distance of only 205.740
D South-West Oltenia 7,427,260 2,376,539 mil.lei by Cluster D, containing the South-West Oltenia Region.
Cluster A, with the regions North-West, Center, West, comes last in

Fig. 5. Focal records and nearest neighbors of the clusters at 2001 level.
Source: authors` own design

8
L. Chivu, et al.
the hierarchy, with an average value of the Crop Output of 5,410,025
mii lei, which is statistically significant, if we have in view the
Confidence Interval for Mean 95 % ([3,860.218 mil.lei; 6,959.831
mil.lei]), here again with the positive sign for the lower and upper
limits.
The classification of the regions in respect of their Animal Output,
shows, in Table 6, a relatively uniform distribution of values by clusters,
if we consider the results as not too far apart. The regions’ classification
is different from the CROP classification, namely there is a reversal of
the slots between clusters C and B, and clusters A and D. For the vari-
able of this type of production (ANOP), Cluster B (North-East region)
the average value is 4,596.793 mil lei, ranking it the first. Second comes
Cluster C, where the production is in the worth of 3,614.121 mil. lei,
calculated as an average between the values of the Animal Output of
3,424.859 mil.lei in the South-East region, and 3,803.382 mil. lei in
South-Muntenia. It is worth noting that this average value is also sig-
nificant for a 95 % certainty of the results, which is confirmed by the
positive signs of the certainty range taken between a lower limit of
3,424.859 mil lei and an upper limit of 3,803.382 mil.lei. This results in
a difference of 283.505 mil.lei less than the result of Cluster C, in which
case the average value of the Animal Output for Cluster A places Cluster
A in the third place of the classification. The Animal Output values for
the regions North-West, Center, and West permitted the identification
of a significant mean, if we consider the positive values of the certainty
range([2,869.195mil.lei; 3,564.163 mil. lei]) with an Animal Output
worth of only 2,376.539 mil. lei calculated for the South-West Oltenia
region, Cluster D falls to the last place in the ranking.
The chronic lack of competitiveness of Romanian agriculture in the
past three decades has its roots in the frequent, unproductive, and in-
efficient fragmentation of land ownership, in the persisting shortage of
production means and working capital in the case of a very large
number of farmsteads, and a rural population that is now outnumbering
the agriculture’s catering capacity (Chivu, 2002). The transition from
state-owned collective farms to private ownership of land, opened to a
market economy, has been far from smooth, and failed to make room to
a modern and highly competitive agricultural structure able to con-
verge with the agriculture of the other EU member states. (Micu et al.,
2015).
Rusu (2017), when analysing rurality patterns viewed from the
perspective of competitiveness typologies specific of Romania, dis-
covered a reverse ratio between rurality and competitiveness/pros-
perity. This means that the higher the level of rurality is, the lowest the
local competitiveness is. Or, in other words, the prevalence of the
agricultural economy and of farm activities, in rural areas, cause a low
level of competitiveness, due to the low value added generated in this
sector, due, in its turn, to the intensively manual features specific of
farm work.
Although agriculture, in Romania’s case, continues to be a basic
activity, which carries a considerable weight for the rural communities,
as pointed out by some researchers (Anghelache, 2018; Croitoru et al.,
2018; Raicov et al., 2016; Barbu, 2015; Tudor and Alexandri, 2015), the
levels of sectorial competitiveness, and the distribution of agricultural
activities vary from one region to another.For example, as demon-
strated in the calculations above, South-Muntenia has come out as the
most efficient region in the agricultural production classification. Al-
though the Cobb Douglas function works as DRS production function,
the scale coefficient (α + β), with a value almost close to 1, expresses
the high level of the efficiency of agricultural production. This means
that, in this region, the agricultural sector’s response to the changes in
the production factors (capital, labour) occurred at its highest. This
assessment is proven true by the results of the linear regression model,
which show a significant average growth over time of the grain cereal
per hectare, and of the high amounts of vegetal and animal crops that
brought this region to the top position both in 2001, and in 2017 (an
exception having been made in terms of Animal Output in 2017, when
this region came second). Our classification of the development regions
9
Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838
by the efficiency of their agricultural production continues with the
regions South-East and North-East, through the analysis of their results
with the help of the three comparative methods. The CRS production
function for the South-East region indicates the highest level of effi-
ciency of the agricultural production.
Disparities in agricultural efficiency, as explained in the literature
dedicated to this subject (Sauer and Balint, 2008; Bojnec et al., 2014;
Nowak et al., 2015), have multiple causes, arising not only from the
typology of farm crops, and the variable intensivess of land use, but also
from the uneven technical efficiency, the technologies employed, and
the available capital. From this perspective, the results point to these
regions’ (South-East and North-East) good speed of response to the
changes in the basic production factors: capital and labour. Compared
to the other development regions, these regions take the second place in
the production of grain cereals per hectare; for vegetal crops, as part of
Cluster B, they came third in both reference years (2001, 2017), and for
the animal output, as part of Cluster C, they ranked first in 2001, and
second in 2017.
If compared to the other development regions of Romania, the
South-East features rich natural resources, a high agricultural potential,
food processing facilities already existing in its area for vegetables and
fish, the location of several agro-industrial parks, operational wholesale
markets favoured by a flourishing trade, which all explain the high
efficiency of the agricultural activities in this region. However, there
are differences between the various areas of the region, arising from the
unequal availability of workforce, the inequality of technical and ma-
terial endowment, the feeble association initiatives, the lack of ex-
perience in qualifying for, and working with, fund allocations for land
reclamation works. As duly demonstrated in some of the dedicated
studies (Boldea et al., 2012; Paun et al., 2013; Galluzzo, 2018; Mack
et al., 2018), the list of drawbacks would not be complete without
adding the rudimentary, in places, means of production, with a low
level of mechanization, the hardships encountered by land owners who
attempt to rise above the subsistence or semi-subsistence level to a
successfully marketable production.
Although the North-East Region has a DRS production function,
which means a rather moderate efficiency, the response of the agri-
cultural sector to the changes of capital and labour have been relatively
vigorous. This appears in the results that place this region third in the
production of grain cereals per hectare (mostly due to the value of the
regression coefficient of the linear model), but also in the positioning of
this region at the top of Cluster C for the vegetal crop in the two re-
ference years, and, in Cluster B, on the second place for the animal
output in 2001, and on the first place in 2017. This region also stands
out from the other six regions from the view point of its technological,
biological, and ecological know-how. Here, productivity also comes
from the use of varieties of plants and animal breeds that are genetically
superior.
What the Center and West regions have in common are the low
efficiency levels of the agricultural production. This becomes evident
from the DRS type of production that places them 4th and 6th in the
grain cereal output, and also from the positions taken by these regions
in the aggregated clusters: in Cluster B, third place for the vegetal
output in 2001 and 2017, and in Cluster A, fourth for the animal output
in 2001, and third in 2017.
In the Center region, the elements contributing to efficiency, as
much or as little as it was, and which local investors turned to their
advantage, were: the availability and diversity of raw materials, the
readiness of large local markets, and the high demand for local pro-
ducts. However, efficiency is still low, which makes it mandatory to
address a multitude of problems that farming here stumbles over, to
find the right measures tailored to the specifics of this region.
As some authors (Burja and Burja, 2015; Vlad et al., 2015; Cocheci,
2016) have found, the low efficiency of the agricultural production in
the West Region is the outcome of a combination of factors leading to a
lack of competitiveness: an amalgamation of large and small landed
L. Chivu, et al.
properties, a very low interest in associative practices, and, where they
exist, a poor level of the skill to turn them into profitable ventures, poor
irrigation facilities, poor technical endowment.
However, with a high orientation of its traditional products to the
regional and external markets, with its high potential for the production
of organic food, the high potential for the modernization of the infra-
structure needed for a better degree of mechanization of farm works,
transportation and utilities, the region requires adequate strategies,
capable to respond to its needs. Such strategic decision should have in
view means to support the development of local irrigation systems, the
technological upgrading of the facilities for the drainage of stagnant
water, for the catchment and embankment of torrential water affecting
agricultural land, a better endowment with farm machinery, the de-
velopment of the infrastructure for the storage, distribution, and mar-
keting of farm produce and food. (Consiliul Dezvoltării Regionale
(2015), Regional Development Plan. West Region, 2014–2020)
The analysis conducted in this study has revealed the special case of
the North-West and South-West Oltenia regions. The North-West
Region can boast a relatively high efficiency of its agricultural pro-
duction. Other authors (Ungureanu et al., 2016; Voicilaş, 2017; Stejărel
et al., 2018) have also noticed that this is the effect of the important
role played by the two factors, capital and labour, which generate a CRS
type of production, and less a result of the output of grain cereal (fifth
place), or of the vegetal and animal crops (which place it second, third,
and fourth in Cluster A, with low average outputs both in 2001, and in
2017). The place this region holds among the other six regions is the
effect of a fragmented production structure, which made it difficult for
farmers to market their products.
Also, noted in official working papers (MADR, 2014; MADR, 2015b,
a), and in dedicated literature (Alexandri and Luca, 2014; Kostov and
Davidova, 2017; Felici et al., 2018), this is worsened by a dysfunctional
technical and organizational pattern that bore its negative effects on the
level of technical facilities, all of them as a result of an inefficient local
and regional management of agro-business. Adding to these were the
rise in the costs of the production factors, the pronounced imbalance
between the prices of such factors (fertilizers, pesticides, seed, me-
chanized farm works, etc.) and the market prices of farm products, all of
which gradually depleted farmers of their capital power. Another pe-
culiarity of this region, with an equally adverse effect on its efficiency,
is the consumption pattern. In the semi-subsistence farms, most of the
production is consumed by the family, which accounts for the low
marketing rate, and, as a consequence, for the low income deriving
from sales. A logical conclusion, therefore, is that the challenges the
agriculture of the North-West Region is confronted with also derive
from an undercapitalisation on animal breeding, vegetable growing,
from a modest degree of processing of farm produce, a low added value,
and polluting working methods.
The South-West Oltenia region fares the worst, with the weakest
production function, due to a very low level of its response capacity to
the changes in the two basic production factors, capital and labour.
Some authors (Ontel and Vladut, 2015; Ursu and Cofas, 2016) argue
that this region is marred by negative weather conditions, such as
drought, which impair the level of agricultural productivity.
The analysis of its grain cereal production per hectare renders it
insignificant among the other regions. And yet, the vegetal and the
animal output was not so bad considering the third place it gained in
both reference years in Cluster B, and places second and first in Cluster
D, in the reference years 2001 and 2017, for the former and the latter
types of agricultural production.. This situation has been caused by the
scanty agro-business infrastructure the region’s agriculture would re-
quire to thrive. Although the region is rich in large areas of fertile soil
perfectly fit for modern farming techniques, farming it has a low
profitability rate due to the fragmentation of farm land into small
properties and the low degree of mechanization of farm work, etc.
10
Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838
4. Conclusions
The purpose of this research is to bring to the readers’ attention the
disparities between the efficiency of the farm production in the various
development regions of Romania, and help decision-makers draw up
and implement regional agricultural development schemes. This re-
search was conducted on the eight development regions of Romania, so
that the efficiency of Romanian agriculture could be better seen in its
evolution in time, in the pursuit to enable decision-makers to put in
place development schemes capable to respond to the country’s actual
needs, and to provide adequate solutions to each regional pattern. The
data presented in the section above reveal the unequal levels of com-
petitiveness across the national economy.
The study began by identifying a low level of the economic effi-
ciency of Romanian agriculture in comparison with the rest of Europe,
with the aid of specific indicators: real income of factors in agriculture
per annual work unit, real net agricultural entrepreneurial income per
unpaid annual work unit and net entrepreneurial income of agriculture.
The index of each of these indicators for Romania was compared to the
mean value of each indicator for the EU28, against the scattering of the
indices of each country on the map of Europe. The decremental course
of each annual index from the 2005 benchmark (an exception being the
indices for the years 2011, 2013, 2014) demonstrate the low level of
performance and the meager efficiency of Romanian agriculture. The
reserach further addresses the curve of the grain yield per hectare, with
the aid of linear regression models, and makes a comparative study of
the output of vegetal and animal produce, by clusters.
The discrepancies between the regions with regard to the efficiency
of agricultural activities demonstrate how imperative it is to have in
place responsible strategies enabling this economic sector to perform in
a sustainable manner.
A much better understanding of regional agricultural efficiency
convergence assessment in Romania and appraising differences for
understanding potentials can be both a prerequisite in promoting
functional tools and policies in capitalizing the national agricultural
potential but also especially in implementing a much more sustainable
agricultural model and appropriate to reality.
The study highlights the great challenges that demands for a highly
competitive domestic agriculture. Besides the limitation of the concept
the high efficiency of the agricultural production derives mainly from
this region’s greater area of farmland than that of the other develop-
ment regions. The results are also owed to a better management than in
other regions, which aptly blends local and regional strategic decision.
As an example, despite the serious issues arising from the structural
imbalance between the large farms and the small farms, from the ex-
tensive fragmentation of land, the small land owners’ reluctance to
associate, the modest entrepreneurial initiatives to reclaim degraded
soil, the deficit of modern agricultural machinery and advanced pro-
duction know-how, the absence of, or the precarious, irrigation net-
works, all these stumble blocks have been smoothed out or solved more
successfully than elsewhere due to a better approach by the relevant
decision-makers.
Finally, as a leading conclusion, it seems that rather than any sec-
torial policy development, the chaotic decisions adopted in agriculture,
endowment with technical capital, low investments, problems on land
ownership, land fragmentation aging population and creation of less
resilient rural economy and communities contributed to deepening the
regional productivity gaps and implicitly on the agricultural competi-
tiveness. As such, we have observed in the study, the problems emerged
immediately after the decomposition of the agricultural exploitation
structure. Also, an uneven distribution of agricultural productivity and
implicitly of agricultural competitiveness at regional level in Romania,
determined either by too small and fragmented support to agricultural
sector or by the lack of specific infrastructure or extreme meteor-
ological phenomena such as drought or floods
L. Chivu, et al.
5. Research limits and further directions of investigation
Investigating the regional agricultural efficiency convergence across
Romanian development regions was a complex research activity that
required a multi-point approach from the perspective of the metho-
dology employed and the statistical data that were used for designing
the research model. The authors acknowledge the existence of some
research limitation determined by the employed methodology and data
sets used. For the future, extending the datasets and statistical variables
employed, and also refining the methodology by adding new compo-
nents, may improve the results and reduce the limitations.
Credit author statement
The manuscript is the result of a team work of all the authors. All
authors have equal contributions in conceptualization, designing, data
acquisition, investigation, analysis and interpretation of data and re-
sults, drafting the article. All the authors have commonly discussed and
agreed to submit the manuscript to the journal.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.
104838.
References
Aceleanu, M.I., Molănescu, A.G., Crăciun, L., Voicu, C., 2015. The status of Romanian
agriculture and some measures to take. Theoretical & Applied Economics 22 (2).
Alexandri, C., Luca, L., 2014. Implications of agrarian structures upon the agricultural
supply in Romania. Procedia Econ. Financ. 8, 17–24.
Andersen, E., 2017. The farming system component of European agricultural landscapes.
Eur. J. Agron. 82, 282–291.
Andrei, J., Andreea, I.R., 2018. A trade-off between economics and environment re-
quirements on energy crops vs. Food crops in Romanian agriculture. Custos E
Agronegocio On Line 14 (3), 61–82.
Andrei, J.V., Dragoi, M.C., 2019. The Common Agricultural Policy and Romanian
Agriculture. CABI International, Nosworthy Way, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Andrei, J.V., Popescu, G.H., Nica, E., Chivu, L., 2020. The impact of agricultural per-
formance on foreign trade concentration and competitiveness: empirical evidence
from Romanian agriculture. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 21 (2), 317–343.
Anghelache, C., 2018. Structural analysis of Romanian agriculture. Roman. Stat. Rev.
Suppl. 66 (2), 11–18.
Barbu, C.M., 2015. The Romanian "agricultural power" in the European context. Acad. J.
Econ. Stud. 1 (3), 27–37.
Barbu, C.M., 2017. Romanian agriculture in a „Delicate” situation in the european con-
text. Acad. J. Econ. Stud. 3 (2), 12–18.
Bercu, F., 2014. Evolution of Agricultural Cooperatives in Romania in 2014, MPRA Paper.
University Library of Munich, Germany. retrieve from: https://www.econstor.eu/
handle/10419/111640, Accessed:[03.02.2019].
Bojnec, Š., Fertő, I., Jámbor, A., Tóth, J., 2014. Determinants of technical efficiency in
agriculture in new EU member states from Central and Eastern Europe. Acta Oecon.
64 (2), 197–217.
Boldea, M., Parean, M., Otil, M., 2012. Regional disparity analysis: the case of Romania. J.
East. Eur. Res. Bus. Econ. 2012, 1.
Bularca, E., Toma, E., 2018. Structural change in the Romanian agriculture: implications
for the farming sector. Scientific Papers Series-Management, Economic Engineering
in Agriculture and Rural Development 18 (2), 59–66.
Burja, C., Burja, V., 2015. The financial performance of agricultural holdings in Romania-
regional analysis. Annales Universitatis Apulensis: Series Oeconomica 17 (1), 82.
Chivu, L., 2002. Competitivitatea În Agricultură, Analize Şi Comparaţii Europene. Centrul
De Economie Comparată Şi Consens. Academia Română Editura Expert, Bucureşti.
Ciutacu, C., Chivu, L., Andrei, J.V., 2015. Similarities and dissimilarities between the EU
agricultural and rural development model and Romanian agriculture. Challenges and
perspectives. Land Use Policy 44, 169–176. retrieve from: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837714001859, accessed:
[02.03.2019].
Clipa, R.I., Ifrim, M., 2016. Measuring regional competitiveness. The case of Romania.
The annals of University of Oradea. Economic Sciences 1, 103–111.
Cocheci, R.M., 2016. Analysis of restrictive environments in the South-West Oltenia de-
velopment region. Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii 7 (4), 321–340.
Consiliul Dezvoltării Regionale, 2015. Regional Development Plan. West Region. pp.
2014–2020. retrieve from: https://adrvest.ro/attach_files/Strategia%20PDR
%202014-2020.pdf, accessed: [02.03.2020].
Constantin, F., 2017. Study on the evolution of labour productivity in Romanian agri-
culture compared to some EU countries. Quality 18 (S2), 135–140.
11
Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838
Crecană, D.N., Crecană, C.D., 2019. Increasing the performance of agricultural holdings
in Romania, an imperative for their management. Revista de Management Comparat
International 20 (2), 112–121.
Croitoru, G., Mieilă, M., Cicea, C., 2018. The competitive position of the Romanian
agriculture. Econ. Agric. 57 (Special nu), 161–169.
Daymard, A., 2018. Economic Policy and Surplus Labour in Agriculture. retrieve from:
https://afse2018.sciencesconf.org/192826/document, Accessed:[01.02.2019]. .
EDB, 2019a. European Commision, Eurostat, Database, Economic Accounts for
Agriculture by NUTS 2 Regions[agr_r_accts]. retrieve from:https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/data/database, Accessed:[01.03.2019]. .
EDB, 2019b. European Commission, Eurostat, Database, Economic Accounts for
Agriculture - Agricultural Income (indicators a, B, C) (aact_eaa06). retrieve from:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database, accessed:[01.03.2019]. .
European Communities, 2000. The Manual on the Economic Accounts for Agriculture and
Forestry EAA/EAF 97 (Rev. 1.1). retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
cache/metadata/Annexes/aact_esms_an3.pdf, accessed:[01.03.2019]. .
Eurostat, 2019a. Agricultural Accounts. retrieve from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
web/agriculture/data/database, accessed:[01.02.2019]. .
Eurostat, 2019b. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics. retrieve from: https://ec.
europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-books/-/KS-FK-18-001, accessed:
[01.03.2019]. .
Felici, F., Gramillano, A., Floria, A., Mazurencu–Marinescu Pele, M., Nistor, R., 2018.
Lessons Learned From the Early Implementation of the 2014-2020 Romanian Rural
Development Programme (No. 2038-2018-2977). .
Felipe, J., Adams, F.G., 2005. "A theory of production" the estimation of the Cobb-Douglas
function: A retrospective view. East. Econ. J. 31 (3), 427–445.
Galluzzo, N., 2018. Emigration and poverty in romanian regions by an analysis of effi-
ciency. Rom. J. Popul. Stud. 12 (1), 57–70.
Giannakis, E., Bruggeman, A., 2018. Exploring the labour productivity of agricultural
systems across European regions: a multilevel approach. Land Use Policy 77, 94–106.
Grubor, A., Milicevic, N., Djokic, N., 2018. Serbian organic food consumer research and
bioeconomy development. Sustainability 10 (12), 4820.
Hubbard, C., Luca, L., Luca, M., Alexandri, C., 2014. Romanian Agriculture Since EU
Accession: Has Membership Made a Difference? (No. 712-2016-48544). .
INS, 2019. National Institute of Statistics, Statistical Data, Agricultural Branch Production
by Sectors, Ownership Form, Macroregions, Development Regions and Counties -
AGR206A. retrieve from: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/
tables/insse-table, accessed: [02.02.2019]. .
Jurjević, Ž., Bogićević, I., Đokić, D., Matkovski, B., 2019. Information technology as a
factor of sustainable development of Serbian agriculture. Strat. Manag. 24 (1), 41–46.
Končar, J., Grubor, A., Marić, R., 2019. Improving the placement of food products of
organic origin on the AP Vojvodina market. Strat. Manag. 24 (3), 24–32.
Kostov, P., Davidova, S., 2017. One Size Does Not Fit All: an Empirical Investigation of the
Romanian Agriculture Production Function (No. 1916-2017-1383). .
Kucsicsa, G., Popovici, E.A., Bălteanu, D., Grigorescu, I., Dumitraşcu, M., Mitrică, B.,
2019. Future land use/cover changes in Romania: regional simulations based on
CLUE-S model and CORINE land cover database. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 15 (1), 75–90.
Luca, L., Ghinea, C., 2009. O Ţară Şi Două Agriculturi. România Şi Reforma Politicii
Agricole Comune a UE. CRPE Policy Memo, pp. 4. retrieve from: https://www.crpe.
ro/o-tara-si-doua-agriculturi-romania-si-reforma-politicii-agricole-com, accessed;
[03.02.2019].
Mack, G., Fintineru, G., Kohler, A., 2018. Do rural development measures improve vitality
of rural areas in Romania? AgroLife Sc. J. 7 (2), 82–98.
MADR, 2014. Ministerul Agriculturii Şi Dezvoltării Rurale, Strategia De Dezvoltare Rurală
a României 2014-2020. retrieve from: http://www.madr.ro/docs/dezvoltare-
rurala/programare-2014-2020/Strategia-de-dezvoltare-rurala-2014-2020-versiunea-
I-22-nov-2013.pdf, accessed:[05.032.2020]. .
MADR, 2015a. Ministerul Agriculturii Şi Dezvoltării Rurale DRAFT Analiza SWOT Planul
Național Strategic 2021 - 2027. retrieve from https://www.madr.ro/docs/
dezvoltare-rurala/PAC_dupa_2020/2020/DRAFT-Analiza-SWOT-Plan-National-
Strategic-2021-2027.pdf, accessed:[05.03.2020]. .
MADR, 2015b. Ministerul Agriculturii Şi Dezvoltării Rurale, Strategia Pentru Dezvoltarea
Sectorului Agroalimentar Pe Termen Mediu Si Lung, Orizont 2020-2030. retrieve
from: https://www.madr.ro/docs/agricultura/strategia-agroalimentara-2020-2030.
pdf, accessed:[05.03.2020]. .
Mănescu, C., Cristina, A.F., Sicoe-Murg, O., Găvruța, A., Mateoc, T., Toth, A., Mateoc-Sirb,
N., 2016. Analysis of the importance of agriculture sector in Romanian economy.
Scientific Papers Series “Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and
Rural Development 16 (1), 271–278.
Manjunatha, A.V., Anik, A.R., Speelman, S., Nuppenau, E.A., 2013. Impact of land frag-
mentation, farm size, land ownership and crop diversity on profit and efficiency of
irrigated farms in India. Land Use Policy 31, 397–405.
Martín-Retortillo, M., Pinilla, V., 2015. On the causes of economic growth in Europe: why
did agricultural labour productivity not converge between 1950 and 2005?
Cliometrica 9 (3), 359–396.
Michler, J.D., 2020. Agriculture in the process of development: a micro-perspective.
World Dev. 129, 104888.
Micu, A.R., Alecu, I.N., Micu, M.M., 2015. Analysis of Romanian Agricultural
Cooperatives Structure in 2014. In Agrarian Economy and Rural Development-rea-
lities and Perspectives for Romania. 6th Edition of the International Symposium. The
Research Institute for Agricultural Economy and Rural Development (ICEADR),
Bucharest, pp. 455–459.
Nowak, A., Kaminska, A., 2016. Agricultural competitiveness: the case of the European
Union countries. Agric. Econ. 62 (11), 507–516.
Nowak, A., Kijek, T., Domańska, K., 2015. Technical efficiency and its determinants in the
European Union. Agric. Econ. 61 (6), 275–283.
L. Chivu, et al.
Oncioiu, I., 2014. Increasing agricultural productivity and sustainable development. Rom.
Biotechnol. Lett. 19 (3), 9385.
Ontel, I., Vladut, A., 2015. Impact of drought on the productivity of agricultural crops
within the Oltenia Plain, Romania. Geogr. Pannonica 19 (1), 9–19.
Otiman, P.I., 2012. Romania’s present agrarian structure: a great (and unsolved) social
and economic problem of our country. Agric. Econ. Rural Dev. 9 (1), 3–24.
Paun, I.O., Mateoc-Sirb, N., Manescu, C., Mateoc, T., Vasile, G.O.S.A., Banes, A., 2013. A
study of Romania’s territorial division and regional development. Revista de cerce-
tare si interventie sociala 43, 80.
Pawlewicz, A., Pawlewicz, K., 2018. Regional differences in agricultural production po-
tential in the European Union member states. Proceedings of the 2018 International
Conference Economic Science for Rural Development no. 47 Jelgava, LLU ESAF, 9-11
May 2018, pp. 483-489.
Popovici, V., Toma, R.A., 2018. Convergence of romanian and european union agriculture
- evolution and prospective assessment. Ovidius University Annals, Economic
Sciences Series 18 (1), 239–247.
Radulescu, C.V., Ioan, I., 2015. Sustainable development of Romanian agriculture within
the context of European Union’s requirements. The USV Annals of Economics and
Public Administration 15 (1 (21)), 57–62.
Raicov, M., Goşa, V., Fuchs, A., 2016. The importance of agriculture in the development
of Romanian economy. Review on Agriculture and Rural Development 5 (1-2),
58–63.
Regiunile de dezvoltare ale României, 2020. Morado Consulting- Regiunile De Dezvoltare
Ale României. retrieve from: https://images.app.goo.gl/S7YgBC24hfXEuWMLA,
accessed: [03.02.2020]. .
Ren, C., Liu, S., Van Grinsven, H., Reis, S., Jin, S., Liu, H., Gu, B., 2019. The impact of
farm size on agricultural sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 357–367. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.151.
Rusu, M., 2017. Rurality and competitiveness typologies: analysis at the county level in
Romania. Scientific Papers: Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture &
Rural Development 17 (1), 367–374.
Sauer, J., Balint, B., 2008. Distorted prices and producer efficiency: the case of Romania.
J. Product. Anal. 29 (2), 131–142.
Sima, V., Gheorghe, I.G., 2017. A multi-criterial analysis of national competitiveness:
evidences for a resilient economy. Industrija 45 (2), 45–64.
Smit, M.J., van Leeuwen, E.S., Florax, R.J., de Groot, H.L., 2015. Rural development
funding and agricultural labour productivity: a spatial analysis of the European Union
at the NUTS2 level. Ecol. Indic. 59, 6–18.
Stejărel, B., Carmen-Olguţa, B., George, U., Adrian, U., 2018. Agricultural and touristic
potential of the north-eastern development region-Romania. Econ. Agric. 58 (1 Book
1), 47–53.
The European Parliament and The Council of The European Union, 2008. REGULATION
(EC) No 176/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Of 20
February 2008 Amending Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 on the Establishment of a
Common Classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) by Reason of the
12
Land Use Policy 99 (2020) 104838
Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union. retrieved from: https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008R0176&qid=
1583597174745&from=RO, accessed:[05.03.2019]. .
Toderoiu, F., 2014. The Romanian agro-food sector,supplier and client of national
economy. Procedia Econ. Financ. 8, 704–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-
5671(14)00148-8.
Török, I., 2017. Competitiveness of Romanian regions in the spatial structure of the EU.
December In: IOP Publishing. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental
Science Vol. 95. pp. 052013 No. 5.
Tudor, M.M., 2014. Utilization of land resources in agriculture,opportunity or risk for
Romanian agro-food sector competitiveness. Procedia Econ. Financ. 8, 720–728.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00150-6.
Tudor, M.M., Alexandri, C., 2015. Structural changes in Romanian farm management and
their impact on economic performances. Procedia Econ. Financ. 22, 747–754.
Ungureanu, G., Boghiţă, E., Bodescu, D., Moraru, R., Vîntu, C.R., 2016. Studies regarding
the development of agricultural production in the NE region of Romania. Lucrări
Ştiinţifice 59 (1), 255–260.
Ursu, A., Cofas, E., 2016. The territorial analysis of agricultural production structure. Case
study: region South-West Oltenia. Scientific Papers: Management, Economic
Engineering in Agriculture & Rural Development 16 (1), 535–542.
Vasile, A.J., Mihai, M., Mirela, P., 2017. Transformations of the Romanian agricultural
paradigm under domestic economic policy reforms: an analysis during 1960–2011.
Land Use Policy 67, 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.008.
Vlad, I.M., Tudor, V., Stoian, E., Micu, M.M., 2015. Farms regional economic develop-
ments identified in the FADN panel. In the research institute for agriculture economy
and rural development. International symposium. Agrarian economy and rural de-
velopment: realities and perspectives for Romania. Proceedings. The Research
Institute for Agriculture Economy and Rural Development 128.
Voicilaş, D.M., 2017. Opportunities and threats in North Eastern Romania,SWOT analysis
in Suceava and botoşani counties. Agric. Econ. Rural Dev. 14 (2), 175–184.
Wong, L.F., 2019. Agricultural Productivity in the Socialist Countries. Routledge.
Zaharia, M., Pătrascu, A., Gogonea, M., Tănăsescu, A., Popescu, C., 2017. A cluster design
on the influence of energy taxation in shaping the new EU-28 economic paradigm.
Energies 10 (2), 257.
Zaman, G., Goschin, Z., 2007. The intensity of using production factors in Romania.
Estimates from cobb-douglas and CES models. Roman. J. Econ. 25 (2 (34)), 5–21.
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/doaj/12205567/2007/00000025/
00000002/art00001.
Ženka, J., Slach, O., Krtička, L., Žufan, P., 2016. Determinants of microregional agri-
cultural labour productivity–Evidence from Czechia. Appl. Geogr. 71, 83–94.
Zhang, W., Cao, G., Li, X., Zhang, H., Wang, C., Liu, Q., Chen, X., Cui, Z., Shen, J., Jiang,
R., Mi, G., Miao, Y., Zhang, F., Dou, Z., 2016. Closing yield gaps in China by em-
powering small holding farmers. Nature 537 (7622), 671. https://www.nature.com/
articles/nature19368.