Map of Clientelism in Romania (2004-2021)

Other maps of political clientelism: Republic of Moldova | Georgia | Map of political migration in Romania (2012-16)
Profile of clientelism in the region: read here

If you want to support this further research you can donate here.

About the map and Index of clientelism

The map and the reports illustrates how all governments used clientelistic instruments and abused public resources in order to consolidate their capacities and to stay in power. We built an index of the political clientelism that correlates the amounts allocated with the party affiliation of the mayors. The map shows the allocations from the Government (HG transfer decisions) and payments (transfers) to the mayors and county councils from the Reserve and Intervention Funds, as well as from funds managed by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MDRAP).


These amounts represented in 2008 about 70% of the investments at local level, that is the bulk; the rest are EU funds (read here an analysis of allocations and procurement from EU funds). Unlike the latter, however, where there are clearer selection rules and an external auditor (the EU Commission), these instruments are national and discretionary, the amounts being allocated by the government. In other words, it is the best ground for measuring pure political clientele.

In 2007, a mayor of power had three times more chances to receive money from the Government than one from the opposition, while in 2012-2016 the ratio reached 2x.

Read here the reports in which we show how the money was allocated and who received it:

EFOR 2013 annual report: special issue  (RO)
Political clientelism 2002-2016 (RO)
Who received the money from PNDL in the first half of 2018? (RO)
EFOR ANNUAL REPORT: The bazaar governance (EN)

Public procurement

In addition to the allocations, EFOR found that public procurement procedures are implemented by the beneficiaries (mayors and county councils presidents) with low transparency. In each of the 11 counties that we have studied, a group of 4-5 companies gets 50-60% of the funds. In the case of procurement from the Reserve Fund, there are local or regional monopolies, especially when most of the procurement take place through direct procedures or negotiation without publication.

Read the reports about public procurement from PNDL

Money and procurement: where did the PNDL contracts end up?
Money and procurement: where did the contracts from PNDL 2 end up?

Political migration

In September 2014, OUG 55/2014 was issued, which allowed the migration of a number of 554 mayors and other local elected officials before the presidential elections. 2014a represents the period from January to September 2014, and 2014b from October to December 2014; Read more about migration

Political timeline

For a better understanding of the political configuration, please use the following timeline. The dates of the local elections are the following: 1-15 June 2008 (PDL), 10 June 2012 (USL), 5 June 2016 (PSD), 27 September 2020 (PNL)

Statistics regarding the implementation of PNDL

February 2020, source

How to use the map

> Select the data categories you want from the menu on the right
> The color legend can be found on the left, below. On the map you will not find USL as a separate option, but only the party from which the mayor came from (PSD, PNL, PC), according to the data when the union was dissolved.
> The size of the bubble shows how much money a municipality or county council received. The size of the bubbles is proportional to the size of the sum. The dimension is related to both the total amounts and the number of inhabitants (per capita) in the respective localities, according to the demographic data at the National Institute of Statistics for each year.
> Passing the cursor over a locality or county council will show the amount received by the respective administration, broken down by sources. The party displayed is the one where the mayor was in the year you selected
> For feedback and bug reports please email us at [email protected]

* In terms of payments, the map includes transfers from MDRAP for PNDL expenses for the cold season (from the Reserve Fund), amounts for county and communal roads (2005-2011), the Environmental Fund (water-canal, green areas, 2008-2011), schools (2007-2010), HG 577/1997 (roads, water in the countryside, 2004-2012), OG 7/2006 (bridges, water-canal, sports fields in the countryside, 2007-2012). We did not include the allocations to the central administration from the Reserve / Intervention Fund (to the ministries, for example) except where the final beneficiary from the local administration could be identified in the decision, the transfers for the purchase of minibuses, the funds for the churches (through the Secretariat for Cults)

Data source: MDRAP,, web pages of central electoral bureaus, requests according to Law 544/2001, mass media, Institute of Statistics

Other sources