Pirvulescu vs. Ceausescu

First: sincere congrats to Tihamer for the subjects he tackles on his blog (I also used a previous post of his as inspiration - and material- for writing my recent post on 'Magyarorszag'). An excellent idea of Dan to invite him to the ClujBlogRoll !

I had a previous post on the excellent documentary potential of YouTube, inter alia, on issues related to Ceausescu and his regime. This one here could be seen as a sequel to that entry. Moreover, I also wrote about the very informative material on Romania hosted by the US Library of Congress. The event captured in this YouTube material (appearing first in Tihi's post mentioned above) is shortly described in that US Library of Congress material, here. I take out the corresponding excerpt:

"The Twelfth Congress witnessed an unprecedented attack on Ceausescu's personal leadership by a former high-ranking party official, Constantin Pirvulescu, who openly opposed Ceausescu's reelection as general secretary, accusing him of putting personal and family interests above those of the party and the country. He accused the congress of neglecting the country's real problems in its preoccupation with Ceausescu's glorification. Observers noted that this unprecedented attack came from a man who could not be accused of pro-Soviet sentiments, because he had been a staunch defender of PCR autonomy. Nor could he, at the age of eighty-four, be accused of personal ambition. Pirvulescu's remarks were, according to press reports, evidence of discontent in the party ranks. Pirvulescu was stripped of his delegate credentials, expelled from the congress, and placed under strict surveillance and house arrest. "

The same Pirvulescu was later one of the 'retired senior communist officials" who signed the March 1989 letter against Ceausescu's regime. The precise excerpt:

"In March 1989, a letter addressed to Ceausescu criticizing his dictatorial policy reached the West. Written by a group of retired senior communist officials, it accused Ceausescu of violating international human rights agreements, including the 1975 Helsinki Final Act (Helsinki Accords); ignoring the constitutional rights of citizens; mismanaging the economy; and alienating Romania's allies. The signatories called for a halt to the systematization program of destroying rural villages and forcibly relocating peasant families (see Land , ch.3). The letter was signed by former General Secretary Gheorghe Apostol; former Politburo member and Deputy Prime Minister Alexandru Birladeanu; Constantin Pirvulescu, a co-founder of the PCR; Corneliu Manescu, a former Romanian foreign minister and onetime president of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly; and Grigore Raceanu, a veteran party member. Many analysts considered the letter the most serious challenge to Ceausescu's rule to date. The regime relocated and isolated all signatories and reportedly subjected them to other repressive measures. The United States expressed official concern for their safety, and several other Western governments subsequently limited their relations with Romania. "

By the way, you need to be very attentive (so I have to congratulate myself: I was!) to notice one of the very few (I say) mistakes of this material on Romania available at the US Library of Congress, since one name is missing from the list of the persons who signed. This letter is indeed known in Romania as "Scrisoarea celor 6" (English: "The letter of the 6") and there are only 5 people mentioned. The forgotten one (maybe voluntarily?- then it would be interesting to see why) is the late Silviu Brucan.

But once again, here's the YouTube video (for me this is amazing: it is the very first time I see this and so it will be most likely for most of you- truly fantastic documentary evidence!) depicting the intervention of Pirvulescu at the 12th Romanian Communist Party Congress (unfortunately the clip is missing the end of the 'debate', maybe somebody who has that could put it up on YouTube?- somebody in the comments section on YouTube says that the sequel of has another 17 minutes). Of course, if somebody had the time to write down everything that was said there in English, our foreign guests would profit more. I might come back to this post with specific comments on the speeches.

YouTube on Ceausescu

In my opinion Google made an amazing deal by buying YouTube with only $ 1.65 bn ( now come to think of Mark Cuban, who claimed that "only a moron would buy YouTube"; btw, my feeling is that YouTube will have a completely different fate than Napster, although some accuse it already of infringement on copyright laws- and this was "the shadow of death" for Napster...). The best part of the deal for YouTube fans is that YouTube will continue to operate independently, with no change in practice, despite becoming formally part of Google. Which is excellent! Why is that? Because the resources within YouTube seem to be truly unlimited and- causing that- the free access both in terms of uploads and downloads seems to be the best policy to implement.

Speaking of interesting video footage on YouTube, today I'll give you an overview of some materials with great documentary value, about the former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. And I hope there'll be many more uploaded in the near future.

• The fast execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu in late December 1989, with the following, equally fast, burial. Just as showed on TV in those times. Probably the only time when I saw this entirely was back in '89 when I was 10 years old and pretty much sensed only the "movie" part of it. Thanks to the YouTube user who put this up on YouTube (only a couple of days ago). I wonder whether all the people in this videoclip (including some of the voices) have been since identified (for instance as potential witnesses, given the many things left unclear concerning details of the execution etc).
• The first part of the (in)famous last (attempt to a) speech by Nicolae Ceausescu. Haven't seen this for a while. I wonder whether somebody could put up also the second part of this speech. Couldn't trace it yet on YouTube. One idea would be to translate everything (also in the other clips) in English (I am not aware of anybody having done this before)- perhaps with another occasion..
• Something I have never seen before: a short videoclip summarizing the visit of US President Nixon to Romania, from August 1969. Saving comments for some other time, one single remark for now now: Nixon's pronunciation of the few Romanian words in this clip is a total disaster. Since I assume he really wanted to say this in Romanian, he could have used some preparation in advance (or alternatively choose something easier and shorter).
• Nicolae Ceausescu's swearing-in ceremony as President of the Socialist Republic of Romania, from 1974 (this was when the function of the "President" of the republic was de facto created; Ceausescu had been already in full control of the political power since 1969, as state council president and supreme military commander, and in partial control already since 1965, when, as the Communist Party's first secretary, he had become one of the members of the triumvirate succeding Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej)

The US Library of Congress on Romania

To my shame (and my ultimate frustration) I have only found this excellent, objective, accesible, compact source on Romania very recently. My overall impression: this is the best snapshot on Romania's historical, geographical, social, political, economic and military aspects I've ever run into, devoid of futile passions, gross incompetencies and other such features that plagued every single such study that I consulted before. The qualified use of extensive and diverse sources (including studies published by the Romanian "specialists" in the communist era), the presentation of adverse perspectives when uncertainty over issues is far from being eliminated (eg. the description of the history, demography, social and political contexts of Transylvania) and the clear acknowledgement of the study's limitations (such as general lack of data sources and reliable information on the internal situation in the 1980's) are particularly strong points of this research. I was very much surprised to find much more about certain issues (eg. amazing details from the demographic policies of the communist regime after the 1950's or much more on the policies regarding ethnic minorities etc.) than I had actually imagined before starting. And the best part is that everything seems to concur with previous (most often partial) information I had from the few sources I considered sufficiently objective.

There should be (there will be!) enough room to comment/discuss/ expand on particular topics touched on here, but for now I highly recommend you to go through this material. I simply couldn't stop reading it all, once I started (fortunately, it is sufficiently concise to make such an endeavour plausible). This material has been in hardcopy within the US Library of Congress until relatively recently- 2003- when apparently it was also made available online, together with similar studies on many other countries, all part of research commissioned by the US Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998. These studies are the so-called "Area Handbooks" of the US Libray of Congress.

As the authors claim, the study was concluded in 1989, hence the events from December '89 and the period thereafter in Romania are not covered. However, there is a small section of the study that tries to overview the "awakening". One could perhaps start with that. Although in my opinion this is not necessarily characterized by the same professionalism as the main body of the study (justifiable on the grounds that it was written ex-post the main study), I very much agree with its partial conclusions and the main line of analysis employed. Moreover I think the title chosen for this chapter is inspirational: indeed we were then almost free. Unfortunately, we also remained almost free until the very moment. Before debates ignite on whether this is a mishap and part of our destiny or whether we did it with our own hand, here's a proposal for a bet: will the next study of the Library of Congress find us still almost free?

! (added 11th of October 2006) Meanwhile I found out also the official Library of Congress site for this source. Inter alia, it also has an updated country profile for Romania, from July 2005.

Nascuti la comanda

Probabil ati auzit de sau chiar ati vizionat documentarul "Nascuti la comanda. Decreteii" in regia lui Florin Iepan. Cel putin TVR1 l-a difuzat aparent in mai 2005 si Sandra Scarlat a scris destul de informativ despre film si decret in Ev. Zilei. Din pacate nu am avut ocazia sa vad acest film documentar, deci nu voi vorbi per se despre asta, dar va fi legat de aceasta tema si pe coordonate mai...academice.

Cristian Pop-Eleches, lector (assistant professor) la Columbia University in SUA, are doua lucrari, extrem de interesante si bine scrise, legate de impactul economic al decretului lui Ceausescu privind interzicerea avorturilor in 1966. Atat de interesante incat una dintre ele va aparea in curand in Journal of Political Economy (unul din jurnalele top 5 in economie/econometrie ca impact la nivel mondial) si a doua a fost si ea trimisa spre publicare, probabil tot intr-un top journal. In plus, Steven Levitt (despre cercetarea stiintifica- extrem de variata si incitanta- a caruia voi spune mai multe si cu alte ocazii), medaliatul John Bates Clark in 2003, a inceput capitolul "Unde au disparut criminalii?" din recentul sau best-seller Freakonomics (scris in colaborare cu jurnalistul Stephen Dubner), cu o sectiune intitulata " Ce a invatat Nicolae Ceausescu- pe pielea lui- despre avorturi" si il mentioneaza pe Pop-Eleches cu aceste studii la referinte. Dar intorcandu-ne la lucrarile lui Pop-Eleches, voi vorbi aici foarte pe scurt si pentru publicul larg (deci ignorand partile tehnice si prezentand doar concluziile, in cea mai simpla forma), despre cea care va aparea in JPE in curand si pe care o mai puteti gasi pe site-ul autorului pana la publicare- cand drepturile asupra ei vor fi cedate JPE si va trebui sa aveti jurnalul sau acces la editia online pentru a-l putea citi.

Lucrarea se intituleaza (traducere ad-literam) "Impactul Interzicerii Avorturilor asupra Rezultatelor Socio-Economice ale Copiilor: Evidenta din Romania". Daca in SUA mai ales s-au facut recent o serie de studii legate de impactul legalizarii avorturilor, studii asupra impactului politicii opuse, adica interzicerea avorturilor, au fost mult mai putine, motivul principal fiind desigur lipsa datelor in acest sens (prea putine tari au implementat in timpuri recente asemenea politici) . Decretul lui Ceausescu din 1966 din Romania se dovedeste a fi un experiment natural fantastic din acest punct de vedere. Ma asteptam sa fie cineva care sa atace aceasta problema si fara indoiala a fi roman in contextul acesta iti ofera un avantaj comparativ, deci mai mult ca sigur ca ar fi fost un economist roman de top- si iata ca Pop-Eleches este primul (ok, mi-a luat-o inainte:-) ) si merita desigur toate felicitarile! Cateva cuvinte deci despre metodologia si concluziile acestei lucrari.

Studiile de pana acum din SUA referitoare la impactul legalizarii avorturilor indica faptul ca acei copii care s-au nascut dupa legalizare (deci cei "doriti" pentru ca alfel s-ar fi putut recurge la avort) sunt mult mai putin predispusi sa traiasca singuri sau in saracie; in acelasi timp ei consuma mai putine substante interzise (droguri); printre ei sunt mult mai putine cazuri de graviditate in adolescenta si sunt mult mai putini predispusi sa comita crime. In particular, referitor la aceasta ultima constatare, Steven Levitt are o serie de lucrari publicate in care doveste ca, de departe, cel mai important factor in reducerea neasteptata in anii '90 a criminalitatii incredibile din SUA anilor '80 (cand toti expertii au pronosticat cresterea acesteia si haosul total) a fost legea legalizarii avorturilor. Care sunt deci rezultatele lui Pop-Eleches pentru introducerea legii de interzicere a avorturilor in Romania in 1966, sunt ele conforme, mutatis mutandis, cu ceea ce au constatat economistii americani?

Putina istorie: in 1966 in Romania a fost adoptata brusc ( la doar un an de la instalarea lui Ceausescu la putere)- Romania fiind anterior una dintre cele mai liberale tari din lume din acest punct de vedere: avorturi legale si fara cost in primele 3 luni ale sarcinii- legea interzicerii avorturilor. Practic atat avorturile cat si planificarea familiala au fost complet interzise de regimul Ceausescu, ele fiind permise doar femeilor de peste 45 de ani, femeilor cu mai mult de 4 copii, femeilor cu probleme de sanatate si femeilor care au ramas gravide in urma violului sau incestului. Aceasta politica a fost mentinuta practic (cu modificari nesemnificative) pana la caderea comunismului din decembrie 1989. Impactul pe termen scurt al decretului Ceausescu a fost enorm: de exemplu, citand cifrele din Pop-Eleches (2005), rata de fertilitate a crescut de la 1.9 la 3.7 copii pe femeie intre 1966 si 1967. Rata fertilitatii a continuat sa creasca, pentru a se stabiliza la inceputul anilor '70 pentru urmatorii 20 de ani, la un nivel mai inalt decat tari cum ar fi Ungaria, Bulgaria sau Rusia. Dupa '89 fenomenul a avut loc in revers, cu un impact imediat, peste 1 milion de avorturi (!) avand loc doar in 1990, asta la o populatie de putin peste 22 milioane.

Ideea studiului din acest context este sa se compare rezultatele (educationale, socio-economice) copiilor nascuti putin dupa decretul lui Ceausescu cu cei nascuti cu putin inaintea intrarii in efect a decretului. Decretul a fost promulgat la 1 octombrie '66 si a devenit efectiv lege in decembrie '66. Cresterea enorma in rata fertilitatii a fost observata incepand cu iunie '67. Din iulie si pana in octombrie '67 rata medie lunara a nasterilor a fost de 3 ori mai mare decat in perioada ianuarie-mai 1967. Exact aceasta este tehnica de identificare a lui Pop-Eleches: o importanta parte a acestor copii nu s-ar fi nascut daca ar fi fost acces liber la avorturi, in continuare. Folosind un procent, arbitrar selectat, de 15% din recensamantul populatiei din 1992, Pop-Eleches(2005) se concentreaza deci pe generatia celor nascuti intre ianuarie si octombrie 1967 (cu cei in cauza fiind deci in jur de 25 de ani in 92), avand in total mai mult de 55,000 de observatii. Fara a intra in multele si maruntele amanunte tehnice (extrem de importante insa pentru lucrare, cei foarte interesati interesati si in metodologie ar trebui deci sa le parcurga in lucrarea respectiva cu mare atentie, practic acestea sunt cele mai importante pentru succesul academic al lucrarii), voi prezenta doar concluziile principale ale lui Pop-Eleches in cele ce urmeaza.

Desi, in medie, copiii nascuti in 1967 chiar dupa ce avorturile au devenit ilegale obtin mai bune rezultate educationale si pe piata muncii decat cei nascuti chiar inainte de intrarea in efect a decretului, Pop-Eleches arata ca aceasta se datoreaza compozitiei grupului de femei care au copii in perioada respectiva: femeile educate din mediul urban au fost mai predispuse la avorturi inainte de schimbarea politicii din '66, deci imediat dupa decret, o mai mare proportie a copiilor s-au nascut in familii urbane si educate. Controland insa pentru acest factor cu o serie de variabile tinand de background-ul familial, statutul socio-economic al parintilor etc, rezulta ca in realitate "decreteii" au avut atat rezultatele educationale cat si cele de pe piata muncii mai slabe decat cei nascuti inainte de intrarea in efect a decretului. Asta confirma de fapt cele gasite in studiile anterioare in SUA si in alte parti (vezi mai sus); cu alte cuvinte rezultatele sunt consistente cu perspectiva ca acei copii nedoriti in timpul sarcinii au rezultate socio-economice mai slabe cand devin adulti, relativ la cei doriti (si deci "planificati"). In plus, pentru mai multa sustinere a argumentului de mai sus, Pop-Eleches (2005) arata ca desi pe termen scurt femeile educate au fost cele mai afectate de interzicerea avorturilor, pe termen lung, in perioada '67-'89, femeile mai putin educate au avut clar cea mai mare crestere a ratei fertilitatii, rezultat al politicilor de crestere a natalitatii impuse de Ceausescu (in legatura cu decretul din '66 acesta spunea, in stilu-i propagandist, ca, parafrazez, "cei ce se sustrag de la a avea copii sunt dezertori care abandoneaza legile continuitatii nationale"). Acest rezultat al studiului sugereaza intre altele si faptul ca femeile mai educate sunt mult mai eficiente in atingerea fertilitatii dorite (deci in materie de planning), chiar si atunci cand metodele de contraceptie sunt dificil de procurat sau chiar interzise. Pop-Eleches mai ofera probe si in ceea ce priveste fenomenul de aglomerare a scolilor, ca rezultat al numarului foarte mare de copii nascuti in urma interzicerii avorturilor si ca generatiile nascute dupa intrarea in efect a decretului au avut o rata de mortalitate infantila mai mare, iar criminalitatea acestor generatii, comparat cu cele precedente, a crescut.

Nu voi mai vorbi aici de lucrarea-pereche a lui Pop-Eleches, "Oferta de Metode Contraceptionale, Educatia si Fertilitatea: Evidenta din Romania", accesibila pe moment tot pe site-ul sau, unde autorul dovedeste, intre altele, ca accesul la metode contraceptive si la avortul legal sunt determinanti cantitativ semnificativi ai ratei fertilitatii, mai ales pentru femeile mai putin educate.