THE STATE AND DYNAMICS OF ECOECONOMY IN ROMANIA. REMARKS AND PERSPECTIVES.
Why this dichotomy? At first glance, you might say that with factors of production equipment would differentiate economies, in terms of the size and structure of the aggregate supply. Also, the size and dynamics of the needs is likely to favour disadvantaged or an economy in its relations with other economies. Or, as it is stated many times in the socio-political, geopolitical and geostrategic position, there are factors determining the ratio of forces between economies. Without exceptions, all these factors must be discussed in terms of mutual interdependence, complementarity, and complicity.
As a result of the development of cutting-edge technologies, the scientific research, the unprecedented influence of media on behaviour of consumer decision-making, the ratio between resources and needs, the availabilities and needs, suffers the strong distortion, which makes the assault on economic production of goods to meet the needs, to be particularly strong. This assault has direct repercussions on how to combine economic resources, both own and acquired, and respectively needs convergent implications of the productive sector in order to supply to the demand level. The problem lies, on the one hand, in the efficient management of own resources and syndicated in the context of the continuous reduction of the conventional energy resources and the adjustment of demand in relation to its purchasing power and, on the other hand, in the management of the balance of trade imbalances, the balance of payments at the level of countries, as a result of the discrepancy between export and import.
The advantage of globalization lies in the mobility of the factors of production in order to cover the demand of economic goods in those economies where endowment with factors of production is insufficient, in which case the import is preferable. Modern economies are global economies the relative position of which is determined by the market competitiveness and efficiency ratios. We cannot exclude imports, but they are done when the relative cost of a unit production on the domestic market is the relatively higher cost of product on the market, or when the demand for factors of production may not be covered by the internal market. What is inefficient and un equivalent is the increase in imports within those countries which own factors of production but the level of production capacity does not cover partly the demand level, both quantitatively and qualitatively. What would be the reasons?
Firstly, it is the lack of orientation of economic operators in relation to the size and structure of the application, the ability to absorb it. The stimulation of the production should be correlated with the rate of the increase of consumers' real incomes, but also with the presumptive increase in relation with the presumptive loan limit of the banking and nonbanking systems. Financial-banking system can maintain artificially the demand increase by adjusting the income, which would boost the domestic production capacity or the import of goods. Secondly, it is the low dynamics of labour productivity, either as a result of the lack of adequate production facilities, the correlation of the investment plan with the structure of the offer or as a result of the combination of inefficient production factors, which have the effect of an uncompetitive production externally, in other words the failure of meeting the internal and external demand.
Also, there are certain restrictions on domestic production capacity of intensifying, such as political factors (conflict of interests with regard to facilitating the import of certain goods or economic factors; excessive bureaucracy), social factors (existence of a differentiated social structure that requires supporting disadvantaged social classes, which requires increasing public spending gains, i.e. adjusting fiscal policy), the degree of involvement of civil society in changing people's mentality as regards the act of production and consumption addressing productive sphere as an opportunity and not as a priority in the act of consumption.
In this context, the economy thank s to its actors, looks for solutions to optimize the ratio between needs and possibilities in line with the natural environment, taking into account the quantitative restrictions of the monetary and financial nature, such as the boomerang effect caused by the excesses of any kind.
At the same time, in the context of conventional resources shortages and irrational use of resources that together have generated waste, pauperism, it is necessary to create mechanisms through which to identify with the laws of nature that govern it, to use natural resources in sustainable manner, to devise strategies through which utilisation of free goods to give balance and limits the production process mainly owing to natural grade, absorption of sustainable products in the environment. This natural way of dealing with the economy is identified with eco-economy.
This analysis starts with the indicators identified in the previous chapter, grouped in accordance with 10 main themes of ecoeconomy: socio-economic development, sustainable production and consumption, social inclusion, demographic shifts, public health, energy and climate change, sustainable transport, natural resources, global partnership, and good governance.
As for the socio-economic development indicator considering both quantitative aspects of the Economic Development (investments, savings rate of the households), as well as qualitative, in the form of research and development expenditures, eco-efficiency indexes, energy intensity of the economy, relevant for the Innovation, competitiveness and eco-efficiency indicator, as well as the aspects that characterize the level of employment at the country level, including measures aimed at integrating young people who don't have a job are not present in forms of education (Young people neither in employment nor in education or training (NEET)), or the unitary cost of the nominal labour.
In our analysis we have submitted GDP per capita as an indicator to characterize the developmental level, being an indicator of falling and in the HDI (human development index).
The growth of GDP per capita in the analyzed period was due to an investment contribution, as a result of the translation of Romania's economy from the transition economy to the emerging economy. At the same time, budget allocations to areas such as education, health, sustaining infrastructure development policies have led to increased business-to-business expectations, entrepreneurship, with a direct effect on living standards. The need for training, through adaptability of the educational system to the requirements of the labor market, will decisively contribute to increasing education and interfering with the quality of life.
The importance of sustainability lies in the marginal benefit in human development, whereby incomes through the redistribution process, contributes to facilitating human development. Through human development actually it is understood the extent to which the individual reaches a certain standard of living by identifying its subjective, objective, and factual needs, generated by the economic, social, political, and cultural awareness of the ways of satisfying their reporting to existing and potential resources. Individuals, engaged in a workable economic system, develop their capacities and powers to concure the income required to satisfy societal needs. It should be noted that the scope of the needs exceeds the sphere of material needs, the tendency being to cover the needs of security, justice, governance (participation in community life, involvement in decision-making processes), education, culture, arts, and multiculturalism.
Ecoeconomy transforms the benefits of ecology and bio economics into economic policies which gives sense and rationality in economic activity, both at the level of consumption, as the defining act that supports a market economy, as well as at the level of the allocation, as a way to reduce societal inequalities.
The problems mankind is facing, from those related to the irrational use of natural resources, reaching their limits and generating increasing greenhouse gases, global warming, the intensification of natural disasters, to those generating economic crisis, prolonged recession, unemployment, structural deficits with repercussions on the quality of life, make necessary a rethinking of the economic system on the basis of rational, ethical, ecological. Naturally, ecoeconomy becomes an integrative concept which can manage unitarily environmental, social, economic, or ethical issues.
The allocation issue is obvious, especially for the fact that without effective allocation, production might lie more than the marginal cost, which would mean the waste of resources and energy etc. We believe that the allocation can be integrated into paradigms of development/growth and completely different from the traditional approach. The issue of allocation lies in the size of the scale and intensity of the increase, which takes perverse effects on a finite ecosystem, as the Earth's ecosystem, which cannot support a continuous growth of savings through the introduction of new and new needs.
Basically ecoeconomy is a complex process, integrator, generator of wealth that sustains not only to meet the vital needs of the people but also incorporating, in the measures of improving the standard of living and the quality of life of those aspects pertaining to noncommensurable individual freedoms, safety, honesty, morality, equality of opportunity, respect, and honour. Hence, thanks to ecoeconomy there is a particular attention for emphasizing the human dimension of the development policies as well as the qualitative approach of the economic growth policies on ensuring the sustainability of development and strengthening the links of causality between economic growth, human development and the natural environment.
The concept development signifies a fundamental feature of life: living beings develop throughout life, which means that they evolve. The development is a subsystem of the system of life (Capra Fritjof, 2005); evolutions within this system refer to the new forms of spontaneous order, which confers dynamism, evolution, and creativity. The development is also a living system, with its own internal structure, being in a permanent form of evolution. For this reason, a series of events with local specificities and different intensities of the concept of development can be identified.
The presentation of the two indicators reveals that Romania has to advance in terms of development, both through investments to support sustainable development, and through education and training. Ecoeconomy constitutes a chance for Romania for the purposes of the ambitions of the Europe 2020 strategy, by creating a sustainable and inclusive economy, competitive EU economies in relation to the fact that natural resources can be used eco-efficiently, sustainable jobs can be created through the rational use of land, the use of cutting-edge technologies in the creation of products, promoting them and opening new markets. The indicator that highlights sustainable economy benefits, focused on valuing natural resources according to sustainable principles, is the index of eco-innovation.
Romania is found to have recorded lower values of the indicator comparable to the developed countries of the EU, which shows the progress concerning the incorporation of innovation and research into the use of resources, labour and capital from the perspective of the production in order to cover needs in accordance with the sustainable principles.
 Ayres, Robert and Jeroen vand den Bergh, and John Gowdy (2000), "Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability", http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/98103.pdf;
 Capra Fritjof, (2005), Development and Sustainability, www.ecoliteracy.org
 Chichilnisky, G., (1998), "Sustainable development and North-South trade", Published in: Protection of Global Biodiversity (0198): pp. 101-117, http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8894/;
 Chichilnisky, Graciela (1995), "The economic value of the Earth's resources", MPRA Paper No.8491;
 Commoner, Barry (1980), Cercul care se inchide, Politica Printing House;
 Daly, Herman E. (1997), "Georgescu Roegen versus Solow/Stiglitz", Ecological Economics 22;
 Danciu A.R., Niculescu Aron I.G., Gruiescu M., (2007) Statistics and econometrics, "Enciclopedica" Publisher, Bucharest;
 Dietz, Simon and Eric Neumayer (2006), "Weak and Strong Sustainbility in the SEEA: Concepts and Measurement", Ecological Economics 61 (4), http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/3058/1/Weak_and_strong_sustainability_in_the_SEEA_(LSERO).pdf;
 Goodland, R. (1996). The Concept of Environmental Sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 26;
 Gowdy, J. and Mesner, S. (1998). The Evolution of Georgescu-Roegen's Bioeconomics. Review of Social Economy, Vol.LVI, No.2, http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/ARE298/Readings/goodland.pdf http://homepages.rpi.edu/~gowdyj/mypapers/RSE1998.pdf;
 Pearce, David and Giles Atkinson (1998), "The concept of sustainable development: An evaluation of its usfulness ten years after Brundtland", Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Vol.134 (3);
Oana Mihaela Vacaru (1*) Cristina Teodora Balaceanu (2) Mihaela Gruiescu (3)
(1*) corresponding author, PhD Candidate, the Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Romania, firstname.lastname@example.org
(2) Professor of Economic, "Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University in Bucharest, email@example.com;
(3) Associate Professor of Statistics and Econometrics, Romanian American University / Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Table 1. Real GDP/inhabitant, Euro Real GDP/ inhabitant, Euro Country\year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 UE-28 26200 26200 25000 25400 25800 25600 25600 Belgium 34000 34000 32900 33500 33900 33700 33500 Bulgaria 4900 5300 5100 5100 5200 5300 5400 Czech 15200 15400 14600 14900 15200 15000 15000 Republic Denmark 46200 45600 43000 43500 43900 43700 43400 Germany 32100 32500 30800 32100 33300 33400 33400 Estonia 13300 12600 10800 11000 11900 12600 12800 Ireland 40700 39000 36500 36400 37200 37200 37600 Greece 22700 22600 21500 20300 18500 17200 16800 Spain 24500 24400 23300 23200 22900 22300 22000 France 31500 31400 30300 30800 31200 31200 31200 Croatia 11200 11500 10600 10500 10500 10300 10200 Italy 28700 28200 26500 26800 26900 26000 25400 Cyprus 24200 24500 23300 23000 22600 21700 20400 Latvia 10200 9900 8600 8500 9200 9700 10000 Lithuania 9800 10100 8700 9000 9800 10300 10800 Luxembourg 82900 80800 75100 77900 78100 75600 76900 Hungary 10300 10400 9700 9800 10000 9900 10100 Malta 15500 16000 15500 15900 16200 16500 17000 The 38900 39400 37700 38000 38500 37900 37600 Netherland Austria 35700 36100 34700 35200 36100 36200 36100 Poland 8600 8900 9100 9400 9900 10000 10100 Portugal 17200 17200 16700 17000 16700 16100 16000 Romania 6100 6700 6300 6300 6400 6400 6700 Slovenia 18600 19200 17500 17700 17800 17300 17100 Slovakia 11900 12600 11800 12400 12800 13000 13200 Finland 37200 37300 34000 34900 35600 34900 34500 Sweden 40400 39800 37400 39400 40100 39700 39800 Great 30500 30100 28700 28900 29200 29400 29800 Britain Country\year 2014 2015 UE-28 25900 26300 Belgium 33800 34100 Bulgaria 5500 5700 Czech 15200 : Republic Denmark 43700 43900 Germany 33800 34100 Estonia 13200 13400 Ireland 39500 42300 Greece 17000 17000 Spain 22400 23100 France 31100 : Croatia 10200 10400 Italy 25300 25500 Cyprus 20100 20600 Latvia 10400 10800 Lithuania 11200 11500 Luxembourg 78200 80500 Hungary 10500 10900 Malta 17500 18400 The 37900 38500 Netherland Austria 36000 36000 Poland 10500 10900 Portugal 16300 16600 Romania 6900 7200 Slovenia 17600 18000 Slovakia 13500 14000 Finland 34100 34200 Sweden 40300 41600 Great 30400 30900 Britain Source: processed after www.eurostat.org Table 2. Human development index, 2015 Countary HDI Life Number of The main expectancy school years promoted at birth estimated as school years promoted Value years years years 2014 2014 2014 2014 Denmark 0.923 80.2 18.7 12.7 The Netherland 0.922 81.6 17.9 11.9 Germany 0.916 80.9 16.5 13.1 Ireland 0.919 80.9 18.6 12.2 Sweden 0.907 82.2 15.8 12.1 Great Britain 0.907 80.7 16.2 13.1 Luxemburg 0.892 81.8 13.9 11.7 Belgium 0.89 80.8 16.3 11.3 France 0.888 82.2 16 11.1 Austria 0.885 81.4 15.7 10.8 Finland 0.883 80.8 17.1 10.3 Slovenia 0.88 80.4 16.8 11.9 Spain 0.883 82.6 17.3 9.6 Italy 0.873 83.1 16 10.1 Czech 0.87 78.6 16.4 12.3 Republic Greece 0.865 80.9 17.6 10.3 Estonia 0.861 76.8 16.5 12.5 Cypruss 0.85 80.2 14 11.6 Slovakia 0.844 76.3 15.1 12.2 Poland 0.843 77.4 15.5 11.8 Lithuania 0.839 73.3 16.4 12.4 Malta 0.839 80.6 14.4 10.3 Portugal 0.83 80.9 16.3 8.2 Hungary 0.828 75.2 15.4 11.6 Letonia 0.819 74.2 15.2 11.5 Croatia 0.818 76.2 14.8 11 Romania 0.793 74.7 14.2 10.8 Bulgaria 0.782 74.2 14.4 10.6 Countary Gross domestic income per capita Euro 2014 Denmark 44,025 The Netherland 45,435 Germany 43,919 Ireland 39,568 Sweden 45,636 Great Britain 39,267 Luxemburg 58,711 Belgium 41,187 France 38,056 Austria 43,869 Finland 38,695 Slovenia 27,852 Spain 32,045 Italy 33,030 Czech 26,660 Republic Greece 24,524 Estonia 25,214 Cypruss 28,633 Slovakia 25,845 Poland 23,177 Lithuania 24,500 Malta 27,903 Portugal 25,757 Hungary 22,916 Letonia 22,281 Croatia 19,409 Romania 18,108 Bulgaria 15,596 Source: data processed from www.eurostat.org
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Vacaru, Oana Mihaela; Balaceanu, Cristina Teodora; Gruiescu, Mihaela|
|Publication:||Journal of Information Systems & Operations Management|
|Date:||Nov 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||THE ELIMINATION METHOD OF FOURIER-MOTZKIN IN LINEAR PROGRAMMING.|
|Next Article:||UNIVERSE SIMULATORS.|