HUNGARIANS OF ROMANIA: DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMICS FOR THE PAST ONE AND A HALF CENTURY

8/9/2019 HUNGARIANS OF ROMANIA: DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMICS FOR THE PAST ONE AND A HALF CENTURY

1/11

HAO, Nm. 34 (Primavera, 2014), 115-125 ISSN: 1696-2060

Historia Actual Online2014 115

HUNGARIANS OF ROMANIA: DEMOGRAPHICDYNAMICS FOR THE PAST ONE AND A HALF

CENTURY

Istvn Horvth

Babe-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, RomaniaE-mail: [email protected]

Recibido: 16 Abril 2013 / Revisado: 3 Noviembre 2013 / Aceptado: 22 Enero 2014 /Publicacin Online: 15 Junio 2014

Resumen:En los ltimos 150 aos, la dinmicademogrfica del grupo de los Hngaros deRumana (la mayora viviendo en la provinciahistrica de Transilvania) ha sido espectacular.El artculo presenta esta dinmica analizando elcontexto de los altos y bajos en cuanto alvolumen y aportacin de este grupo de losHngaros de Rumana. Los cambiosdemogrficos naturales, la migracin, laasimilacin y la lgica de la clasificacin tnicaq sufri varios cambios, ha determinado loscambios en volumen de esta poblacin. Esteartculo es una anlisis longitudinal de lamanera en el cual cada uno de los aspectosmencionados ante-riormente ha contribuido a ladinmica demogrfica cambiante (crecimiento ydecrecimiento del volumen y de la proporcin)de la minora Hngara de Transilvania.

Palabras clave: Hungarians of Romania,demographic dynamic of the Hungarianminority in Transylvania, demographic changes,assimilation, ethnic classification.

______________________

1. LONG TERM DEMOGRAPHIC

TRENDS

ransylvania1 as a medieval principalitywas from the beginning of itsfoundations (10th 11th centuries) by

the Hungarians was an ethnically rather he-terogeneous structure and during its earlyhistory the ethnic landscape of this territorybecome even more complex. Thus beneath

Hungarians, representing a considerable strata ofthe population, coexisted considerable segmentsof Romanians, different Slavic populations,

thereafter starting with the early 13th centurydifferent Germanic populations settled. Basi-cally the pre-modern period the Hungarians,Romanians and the Germanic populationsrepresented the most significant ethnicsegments. However the later immigrant popu-lations like the Jews (significant presence fromthe 16th century), the Armenians and the Roma(Gypsy) should be mentioned too.

Starting with the 19th century, the ethnicstructure of the population become the object of

a rigorously structured demographic discourseand mindful ethnic policies articulated withindifferent national projects pursued first by theHungarian state (until 1918 when Romania takecontrol over Transylvania), thereafter by theRomanian authorities. The result was a gradualreduction of the ethnic, linguistic and religiousdiversity of the province, the richness of acolorful and complex ethnic map beingconsiderably abridged to our days. Consideringboth: the focus of the paper (the demographicdynamics of ethnic Hungarians of Transylva-nia), and the fact that a detailed analysis of theprocess of overall ethnic diversity reductionwould exceed the limits of this paper, only someaspects of the decline in diversity will behighlighted.

First we will present the long term demographicevolution of the Hungarian popu-lation inTransylvania and highlight severalmethodological aspects relevant for interpretingthe figures as provided for different period oftime. After that, in three separate subchapters(one focusing on Transylvania under Hungarianrule, the other two on Transylvania underRomanian rule) we will analyze the dynamic

T


2/11

Hungarians of Romania... Istvn Horvth

116 Historia Actual Online2014

and highlight the major causes of the increase ordecrease of the ethnic Hungarian population ofthis province.

2. THE INCREASE AND DECREASE OF

TRANSYLVA-NIAS ETHNIC HUNGA-

RIAN POPULATION BETWEEN 1896-2011

Starting with the mid 19thcentury the institutionof modern census was introduced in Hungary,

and also the Romanian state systematicallyorganized censuses after taking control overTransylvania in 1918. Thus there is a systematic,methodologically relatively consistent series ofdata based on which the demographic dynamicof the ethnic Hungarians can be reconstructedfor the last one and a half century.

Table 1. The evolution of the number and share of the Hungarian population in Transylvania

and Romania between 1869 and 2011

Census yearHungarians in Transylvania Hungarians in Romania

N % N %1869 1,052,300 24.991880 1,007,425 25.10

1890 1,198,147 27.181900 1,433,252 29.561910 1,653,943 31.641930 1,349,563 24.45 1,423,459 9.971956 1,558,254 25.06 1,587,675 9.081966 1,597,438 23.77 1,619,592 8.481977 1,691,048 22.55 1,713,928 7.951992 1,603,923 20.77 1,624,959 7.122002 1,415,718 19.60 1,431,807 6.602011 1,224,937 18.91 1,237,746 6.50

Compiled by author. Data until 1992 based on Varga2, for 20023and for the year 2011 used the provisory data of2011 census published by the Romanian National Institute for Statistics4.

As observable in Table 1 the number of theethnic Hungarians of Transylvania graduallystarted to increase in the last decades of the 19 thcentury with a considerable increase in the firstdecades of the 20th century. The decrease isseemingly higher than the average populationdynamic within the province since the share ofthe Hungarian within the province increases too.However the first (reliable) census taken afterthe incorporation of the province to Romania in1930, reveals a rather dramatic decrease.

Compared with 1910, in 1930 the number ofethnic Hungarians shrunk by 18.4%, and theHungarians share within the overall populationof Transylvania lowered from 31.64% to24.45% in 1930. The data for the communistregime (lasting in Romania between 1945-1989)the number of Hungarians constantly increased,however their share within the province andcompared to Romanias overall populationdecreased. The first census taken after the fall ofthe communist regime reveals a decreasingtendency of the absolute volume of theHungarians, and also a constant decrease of theirshare compared both with the province and thecountrys overall population.

Of course such dynamic has a multitude ofreasons some of them are demographic in thevery strict sense of the notion, being related tochanges in fertility and mortality, or related toterritorial mobility. Others are related tomigration, identity and/or language shift. Thesewill be highlighted in the following subchapters.However some of the causes of the variabledynamic of the number of the Hungarians arerelated to the manner and logic how different

censuses were taken in different period of time.

Census enjoys the aura of providing an accurateand incontestable mirror of the (ethnic) structureof a population. Nevertheless the figuresprovided by census are often contestedespecially by subordinated ethnic groupscontesting the accuracy of the figures on ethnicstructure. However, though not exceptional, israre when behind such contestation is ademonstrable blatant fraud, consisting in adeliberate and systematic distortion of thereality, like altering the declaration of peoplesduring the registration or statistical processingof the data. States have no need of such


3/11



techniques since they not just control theinfrastructure of production of ethnic statistics(successfully claiming to be decisive andlegitimate authority in this field), but also theyemploy census not just as fact finding process,

but as technologies of truth production5. Viathe formulation of census questions and

categories census takers are imposing a logic ofdefinition of ethnic identity and logics ofethnically categorize the subjects6. This meansthat states decides what cultural/identitycharacteristics are registered, how to defineethnic belonging, what categories are consideredmajor ethnic categories, and what groupidentifications are to be considered assubordinate in relation with these majorcategories7.

The series of data above presented in Table 1 are

somewhat misleading (but not erroneous)because of the fact that Hungarian andRomanian census takers had different views onwhat ethnicity means and how should beregistered. Hungary registered mother tongue asmajor and criteria to ascertain peoples (ethnic)identity8, and mother tongue was defined interms of function and competence as the bestknown and/or most frequently used language. Indue circumstances peoples shifting theirdominant language, for example from Armenianor from Yiddish to Hungarian, (rather frequentin the second half of the 19th century) whereregistered as Hungarian speakers and assumedbeing Hungarian. On the other hand Romanianstate introduced at the census a questionreferring to peoples (cultural) nationality9,meant to capture the dominant ethno-nationalaffiliation of peoples from Romania, that (after1918) incorporated Transylvania. Ethnicity inthis case was defined in terms of descent, asense of ones ethno-cultural origins. ThoughRomanian census registered, beside nationality

/ethnicity mother tongue too, this was implicitlyconsidered as a less important indicator ofpeoples ethnic affiliation, especially because ofthe language shift processes occurred inTransylvania during the Hungarian rule. Tounderstand the statistical significance of thedifferent manners of defining ethnicity duringthe census lets consider the case of the Jews from Transylvania! Linguistically largelyassimilated during the second half of the 19thcentury, but in majority still of Israeliteconfession10 where (implicitly) counted by the

Hungarian censuses as Hungarians. But at thetime of the Romanian census from 1930, basedon their religious affiliation, Transylvanian

Hungarian speaking Jews were directed (insome cases by using some forms of pressure11)to identify as having Jewish nationali-ty/ethnicity.

Thus the Table 1 includes the figures on mothertongue (subsumed) as ethnicity until 1910

(while Transylvania under Hungarian rule), andthereafter (from 1930) based on the declarationof nationality/ethnicity. Though Romaniancensus asked also for mother, it would havebeen a possibility to present the data seriesbased on the similar criteria. However we preferto assume this inconsistency while in theimagination of the states the statistics arereflecting the reality. Both Hungary andRomania not just simply registered but in acertain sense shaped the statistical realitiesresulted after a given census, but both statesrelied on the figures and advocated them as thelegitimate figures based on the classificatorylogic they used while planning the census. Thusin none of the cases we cannot speak of anarrow-minded manipulation of figures inaccordance with a given national interest, and inboth cases we can raise questions on the validityof classifications. But in none of the cases weshould not make abstraction that employingthese logics of classifications, states created atthe censuses different constitutive contexts for

the social selves12

, especially for the fluididentities. For example the Transylvanian Jews,who received during the 19thcentury the right tonaturalize as Hungarian citizens employed as astrategy of integration the full enculturation tothe Hungarian culture, even assumed, at least inpolitical terms, a sense of Hungariannationhood. Thus they identified at the censuswith the category Hungarian while behaving inthe narrower linguistic and larger cultural senseas Hungarians, and having a certain sense ofbeing Hungarian, (even if not in terms of

descent, but in terms of political loyalty).However the same persons, under different stateauthority facing a different logic of ethnicclassification, one that expressly stressed onorigins, on ethnic affiliation based on descent,adopted a different strategy for ethnicidentification, indicating for the census takersthat they are Jews. Not these persons whereinsincere when shifted between categories, butthe dominant identity politics of the statesorganizing the census was different. They justconformed to two different logics.

The purpose of excursus was not to raisequestions on the reliability of the series of data


4/11



presented in Table 1, but to contextualize themand open a perspective for one of the expla-natory elements of the dramatic decrease in thenumber of Hungarians as revealed the data ofthe 1910 census (taken by Hungarians) and theone taken in 1930 by Romanians.

3. DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMICS OFTRANSYLVANIAN HUNGARIANS UNTIL

1918

In the second half of the 19th century all overEastern Europe a rapid increase of the popu-lation was registered. Due to the improvementsof the food supply, effective implementation ofa set of public sanitation reforms the fertilityrates increased, the life span of the peoplesgrew. Transylvania was not an exception, the

statistics revealed the signs of the firstdemographic transition in this region too. Onlyin four decades, between 1869 and 1910, theoverall population of the province increasedwith somewhat more than 1 million souls, from4,210,536 persons in 1869 to 5,228,180 in191013. The rates of population increase for thisforty years where rather differentiated for themajor ethnic groups. While the population of thewhole province increased by 24.2% in thisperiod, the increase for Hungarians ofTransylvania was outstanding 57.2%, the

Romanians increased by 24.2% and theGermans by 12%. This ethnically differentialincrease has several different sources: ethnicallydifferentiated fertility and migratory patternsand the direction of assimilation that favored theincrease of the Hungarian speaking population.

First if we consider the Hungarian Romaniandifferences in fertility we should highlight thatthere was a difference in the rhythm ofdemographic transition. The increase of the birthrates manifested first among Hungarians, and

only, after several decades (at the beginning ofthe 20th century) among Romanians. Theexplanation is related to the socio-economicorganization of ethnic differences inTransylvania for that period. The Hungarianswhere more urbanized and, as a trend, lived ineconomically more prosperous regions than theRomanians, thus in regions where the course ofthe modernization (that induced the process ofdemographic transition) had an earlier impact14.However such explanation is not necessarilyvalid in the relation between Hungarians andSaxons (the earliest German colonist of theprovince), since Saxons were economicallymore prosperous group than the Hungarians.

However it seems that some explication can bemade based on religious differences. TheEvangelicals from Transylvania had rather lowfertility rates, while the Roman Catholics andthose belonging to the other protestantdenominations had relative high ones15. And thebulk of the Saxons where Evangelic while the

Hungarians belonged to other protestantdenominations or to the Roman Catholic church.

The population increase of this period resulted amajor socio-economic problem. The workingopportunities offered by the local and the newlystructured capitalist labor market proved to beincreasingly insufficient for a dynamicallygrowing population16. In due circumstanceslocal societies from Transylvania get connectedwith the major migratory flow of the period, themigration of Europeans to United States.According to Varga between 1869-191 fromTransylvania 520 thousand peoples migrated toAmerica and the number of returnees wasestimated to be around 200 thousand17. Howeverthe population loss due to emigration wasethnically differentiated, the Germans wereoverrepresented within the migrant population,the share of the Romanians was proportionatewith the share of this population withinTransylvanias overall population, but the ethnicHungarians were less connected to this

migratory stream, at least as was predictablefrom their share in the population of thisprovince18.

The second half of the 19thcentury represented acontext of a fervent nation-building process inHungary. However the project of the politicalelites was only partly uphold by the economicdynamics. The economic transformations of thatperiod engendered a process of urbanization andother economically motivated mobility pro-cesses. However these progressions had only a

limited territorial impact in general in Hungary(if compared with other Western Europeanstates engaged in nation-building process), andparticularly in Transylvania. Only some regionswere socially transformed by the industrialcapitalism, in many parts of the province onlylimited impact was observable. Many local,traditional societies were virtually unaffected bythis process. Nevertheless in those urban centersand regions where economic developmenttransformed social relations, the national projectwas successful, at least the German and especial

Jewish inhabitants responded positively to theoffer to connect with the Hungarian nation, asproposed by the elites19, resulting a rather


5/11



considerable process of linguistic, culturalassimilation, and, in many cases emotionalidentification with Hungarian nation20. Asmentioned large scale economic development,and the subsequent social transformation wereless specific to Transylvania, nevertheless insome urban centers and economically

developing regions assimilation as a collectivestrategy was specific too. This was the caseespecially in the western part of Transylvaniawhere especially the Jewish population, and therelatively recently colonized Germanicpopulations (the Schwab) shifted to Hungarian21.These processes in the context of the abovementioned logic of statistical registration at theHungarian censuses (the language use wasconsidered as the criteria for cultural nationality/ ethnicity) contributed to the above averageincrease of the Hungarians in this period.

Thus the ethnically differentiated fertility ratesand migratory patterns, the successes of nation-building process (at least in the larger urbancenters) attracting other ethnic groups to becomeculturally Hungarians, doubled by a specificlogic of registration of ethnicity at the censuscontributed (in the second half of the 19thcentury) to the prominent increase of the numberand share of ethnic Hungarians withinTransylvania

4. DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMICS OF

TRANSYLVANIAN HUNGARIANS IN

ROMANIA BETWEEN 1918-1945

At the peace treaties concluding the First WorldWar Transylvania was awarded to Romania. Aspreviously presented the change of the stateauthority over the province generated a dramaticdecrease in the number of Hungarians. Thefigures of the 1930 Romanian census comparedwith the 1910 Hungarian one reveal a decrease

by 18,4% of the volume of the ethnicHungarians and a comparable decrease as re-gards their proportion within the province totalpopulation. The sources for this transformationare multiple; one of them, the changes of thelogic of registration of the ethnic identity wasalready highlighted. However this might nothave been the foremost source explaining thesubstantial population loss. At the end of the wartogether with the retreat of the Hungarian armyfrom Transylvanian territories a significantsegments of civilian authorities and a part of thepopulation withdraw too. After the end of warand instatement of the Romanian rule othersegments of the population choose to secure

their existence in the territories left underHungarian control. After the consolidation of theRomanian rule, and the legal reinforcement atthe peace treaties of the status of the province,for the inhabitants was offered the possibility toopt between the Romanian and Hungariancitizenship. Again some choose the Hungarian

citizenship and consequently mowed to theterritories under Hungarian control. Thusbetween 1918-1922 approximately 200 thousandpeoples moved from Transylvania to theterritories kept under Hungarian rule22. Thoughthere is no evidence regarding the ethnicaffiliation of these refugees, but given thecircumstances is more than probable that thebulk of this population was ethnic Hungarian.

The second source of decrease was the alreadymentioned change in the technique ofregistration of ethnic identity at the census. In1910 out of the 182,489 persons of Israeliteconfession from Transylvania 72-73% declaredHungarian as mother tongue, thus according tothe logic of Hungarian censuses they werecounted as Hungarians. But in 1930, whenRomanian census takers introduced the censuscategory (cultural) nationality/ethnicity, out of192,833 persons assuming to belong to theMosaic religion, going along with theclassificatory logics of the Romanian state,

identified mostly (92.6%) with the ethniccategory of Jewish23.

Romanian state initiated and/or supporteddifferent mobility processes of the ethnicRomanians from rural to urban centers, from theOld Kingdom (understood here as the territoriesunder the Romanian authority before 1918) andTransylvania. These processes modified theethnic makeup of the cities, until dominated byHungarians. Thus in 1910 the share ofHungarians in the province was of 31.6%, but

the share of Hungarians among urban dwellerswas 64.6%, while the share of Romanians wasonly of 17.7% (while their share in the overallpopulation of the province was above 55%). In1930 the share of Hungarians in the urbancenters fall down to 37.9%, and those ofRomanian rose up to 34.9%. However even ifthe Romanian state succeeded to impose amilitary and a civilian administrative stratummarking the fact of controlling these fields, butthe Hungarians and in some cities the Germans(Saxons) successfully preserved their economic

and social positions. Thus the Transylvanianurban centers, at least in this period, had apeculiar logic of ethnic stratification: Romanians


6/11



being influential while controlling theadministrative and military power of the state interritory, Hungarian (and in some cities theSaxon) elites maintaining their dominance interms of wealth and prestige24.

However even if these territorial mobility

processes induced by the Romanian state did notaffected (at least in that period) the ethnicbalance of the province did induced a newprocess that in long term had a significantimpact on the ethno-demographic composition,and subsequently on the demographic evolutionof Hungarians in the province: the ethnicintermarriages. Though for the period before1918 the phenomena of ethnically mixedmarriages is documented25, the incidence of thisphenomena was not remarkably high and limitedto some mixed areas of the province. Theincrease of the ethnic heterogeneity of the cities,and the above described structure of ethnicstratification contributed to the slow but steadyincrease of the ethnic intermarriages in the urbanareas of Transylvania26. Though we have no dataas on the ethnic affiliation of the personsresulting from such marriages but an unbalancedscenario for ethnic socialization it seems muchprobable than a balanced one. The unbalancedscenario means that the share of persons born insuch families assuming the ethnicity of the

parent belonging to the politically dominantethnic group was, as a trend, higher than theshare of those assuming a minority ethnicaffiliation27. This inaugurated an enduringprocess of intergenerational assimilation ofHungarians28, meaning that the Hungarianpersons contracting marriage with a Romanianpersons did not (or rarely) switched theiridentity, but the offspring, in most of the cases,where already registered as Romanians.

The Second World War engendered other

mobility processes, contributing to furtherdecrease of the Hungarian population fromTransylvania. In August 1940 Transylvania wassplit in two. The northern part was reintegratedto Hungary, and the southern part kept underRomanian authority. This situation engendered aprocess of voluntary population exchangebetween the northern and southern part of theprovince. Thus 220 thousand ethnic Romaniansfled from north to south, and 190 thousandethnic Hungarians in the inverse direction29.However after the Second World War northern

Transylvania was reintegrated to Romania, andin the circumstances of the retreat of Hungarianadministration and other war events another 100

thousand persons (mostly ethnic Hungarians)left Transylvania heading to Hungary30.

As data presented in Table 1 reveals during thecommunist period (lasting between 1945-1989),as a general trend the number of Hungariansincreased, but their share in the population of

Transylvania decreased constantly. The otherpowerfully consequential demographic trendwas the change of ethnic proportions of theTransylvanian cities, Hungarians becomingminority in all the major cities of the province.

As regards the three-four decade of increase ofthe absolute number of the Hungarians inTransylvania could be explained by the fact thatin several regions inhabited by Hungarians thepatterns of the first demographic transition(increasing or at least a considerably highfertility and the prolonging of the life span) lifepersisted. And in the mid sixties, when fertilitystarted to drop, severe measures of populationpolicies (severe limitations of the legal abortionpossibilities) meant to boost fertility whereimplemented31. However starting with the firsthalf of the eighties (the last years ofcommunism), such measures proved to beineffective, the average number of children bornto a Hungarian woman dropped below repla-cement level (bellow 2.1.2.2 children per

woman)32

.

However even if during the whole period theincrease of the Hungarian population was thespecific trend their share within the populationof the province continuously decreased. One ofthe elements explaining this was alreadyhighlighted: within Transylvania the demo-graphic transition had a regionally andethnically differentiated dynamic. The regionsinhabited by Hungarians where the first (startingwith the second half of the 19th century)

manifesting demographic patterns specific tostage two of the demographic transition model(declining death rates, relative high andincreasing birth rates). In the Transylvanianregions inhabited by Romanians this process ofdemographic expansion manifested decidedly atthe beginning of the 20th century and lastedsomewhat longer than in some of the regionspopulated by Hungarian. In other parts ofRomania the specific improvements (in terms offood supply, access to healthcare and education,etc.) engendering the demographic expansion

take place even more lately. Thus in terms ofoverall population dynamic, both withinTransylvania and in Romania, the ethnic


7/11


8/11



structures of the Transylvanian cities, alsocontributed to these changes36.

But beside the change of the ethno-demographicstructure of the Transylvanian cities anotherproblem affected even deeply the situation ofHungarians of Transylvania: the weakening of

the economic and social positions within theurban area. The communist regime abolished theprivate property over the means of production.This meant that the logic of ethnic stratificationspecific for the Transylvanian urban areasduring the period between the two world warswas considerably reshaped. The economic pillarsustaining the position of Hungarians in theurban areas become state owned and itscoordination passed to the state and partyadministrators. Though in the first decade of thecommunism Hungarians where well representedamong this strata, their presence in timediminished. Thus in the circumstances in whichpossibility to accumulate economic capital wasseverely limited, the major ground for socialdifferentiation and stratification was thecloseness to the administrative and politicalapparatus. Since starting with the end of thefifties the ethnic selectivity of recruitmentbecome more and more effective, the position ofHungarians within the social structure becomegradually marginal.

Thus the relative fast changes of the ethnicmakeup of the Transylvanian cities (activelybacked by state), accompanied by a gradualexclusion from the power structures of thecommunist regime of the Hungarians, generatedan increasing frustration in the cities, engen-dering enduring patterns of ethnic competitionthat surfaced rather passionately after thebreakdown of the communism37.

The increasingly mixed population structure and

the above highlighted asymmetric ethnicstratification contributed to a considerableheightening of the ethnically mixed marriages.Thus 17.5% of ethnic Hungarians (marrying in1965) get a non-Hungarian (mostly Romanian)partner. The incidence of intermarriages in theurban area being 2.3 times higher than in thevillages38

During the communism not just the internal, butthe external migration had too a specific ethnicdimension. In spite of the policies pursuing to

impose severe limits on the internationalmobility of the average citizen, high amount ofpermanent, legal emigration took place39.

Nevertheless this migration was rather selectivein ethnic terms; first the Jews were allowed toemigrate, thereafter, following a bilateralagreement between Romania and Germany, theethnic Germans started to emigrate to their kin-states40. At the end of the period, starting with1986/87 the Hungarians to started to migrate to

Hungary, however if Jews and Germansmigration was regular, closely administered bythe Romanian authorities, the migration of theHungarians was largely irregular, most of thecrossing illegally the borders and applying forasylum in Hungary. Thus in the last years of thecommunism 70-80 thousand Hungarians fled toHungary, inaugurating a migratory process thatlasted (even after the breakdown of thecommunism) more than a decade41.

Though the communist period represented acontext of population increase for Hungarians,since the fertility of the Romanians wassomewhat higher, the relative share ofHungarians within Romanias and Transylva-nias overall population constantly diminished.The internal mobility processes represented anopportunity of further increase of the share ofthe Romanians within cities, decades beforelargely dominated by Hungarians. The fact thatthis process occurred in the circumstances of astrongly centralized, bureaucratic coordination

of the state, only augmented the stressHungarians experienced, assuming this processas a social engineering of the Romanian state,intending to marginalize the Hungarianminority. In the last decade of the 45 yearsperiod the decrease in volume of the Hungarianscome to an end. The fertility rates of theHungarian women dropped below replacementrate, and in the last years of the communism theemigration of Transylvanian Hungarians toHungary run high.

5. CURRENT TRENDS ANDDEMOGRAPHIC PROSPECTS

The change of the political regime in was ratherquickly followed by the change of theTransylvanian, Romanian demographic regime.And, during the nineties, a process ofdemographic decline inaugurated42. Theliberalization of abortion, the eased access tovarious contraceptive methods, combined withthe difficulties of the economic transition(harshly affecting large segments of thepopulation) contributed to the drastic decline ofthe fertility (see Figure 2!), and a rather slowincrease of the life span. In the context of the


9/11



liberalization of the possibilities for travelingabroad, and the gradually eased access tovarious Western European countries labormarkets43 a large scale emigration of theRomanian citizens commenced. At the end of1910, almost 2.8 million foreign residents of

Romanian origin were registered all over theworld, the bulk of them in Europe44. Thus in twodecades (between 1992-2011) the countrysoverall population decreased by 14.5%.

Figure 2 Total Fertility Rate for Romania, for the period 1980-2010

45

The decrease of the Hungarian population forthis period was even more drastic. In almost twodecades (1992-2011) the number of Hungariansdrops by almost 400 thousand souls, 23.6%. Thereasons for the more heightened demographicdecline of the Hungarians (compared with thetrends at country level) are multiple. On, onehand as an enduring trend (during the secondhalf of the 20th century) Hungarian population,compared with the country average had lowerfertility rates. But the fertility rates of theHungarian females fall below populationreplacement level during the 1980s46. While

such decline under the critical level of the totalfertility rate of 2.2 children per woman, becomespecific for the whole population of Romaniaonly at the beginning of the 1990s (see Figure2!). These discrepancies in fertility, cumulatedin time, resulted a less favorable age structure ofthe Hungarian population. Compared with thegeneral population the share of fertile agegroups within the Hungarian population waslower. Thus not only that woman in fertile agedelivered less and less children, but at the

beginning of 1990s the share of Hungarian

females in fertile age was bellow the Romanianaverage.

Emigration also contributed to the decrease ofthe Hungarian population in this period: first interms of reducing the overall volume of thepopulation, second by affecting the age structureof the population. Thus at the end of the 1980s,between 1987-1991 approximately 83 thousandTransylvanian Hungarians emigrated westwardRomania, between 1992-2002 the number ofemigrating ethnic Hungarians was approxi-mately 65 thousand47, for the period 2002-2007the number of Transylvanian Hungarian migrswas approximated to 111 thousand48 Thusbetween 1992-2002 approximately 176 thousand

ethnic Hungarians of Transylvania emigrated. Itshould be emphasized that migrs as a generaltrend were mostly young adults49, thus theirdeparture affected the age structure of theTransylvanian Hungarian population, bylowering the volume of the fertile age groups,thus indirectly contributing to the furtherdecrease of the volume of this population.

The patterns of intermarriages (already pre-sented before) did not change significantly, after198950. Between 17-20% of the Hungarians

contracting a marriage in the given year chooseto marry with a non-Hungarian (mostly ethnicRomanian) person. And roughly one third of the

2,4

2,4

2,2

2

2,2

2,3

2,4

2,4

2,32,2

1,8

1,61,5

1,4

1,4

1,31,31,3 1,31,3 1,31,2

1,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,31,3

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010


10/11



children resulted from this intermarriages areregistered as Hungarians51, meaning that theethnic socialization within ethnically mixedfamilies is more favorable for Romanians, thanfor Hungarians.

Thus in the last two decades Hungarians of Ro-

mania faced a large scale population loss. Theforemost cause of this process is the taking up ademographic behavior specific to the seconddemographic transition, the deliberate reductionof fertility52.

The demographic prospects of the TransylvanianHungarians are grimmer than the generalEuropean or the Romanian context. Demo-graphic projections have no positive (populationincrease) scenarios for the following decades,foreseeing a continuous (moderate or rathersevere) population loss. The moderately goodnews is that the fertility of the Hungarianfemales started to increase, from the minimallevel of the total fertility rate of 1.2 children perwoman (registered at the beginning of themillennium), still even the more optimisticscenarios are not predicting a higher level of1.7-1.8 children per woman (the populationreplacement level would be 2.1 2.2). Themigration of the ethnic Hungarians is less likelyto radically diminish, however it seems that in

the last years the, the migration rates of theRomanias Hungarian population were lowerthan the migration rates specific to the wholepopulation. The rates of mixed marriages whererather constant in the last two decades and lesslikely to drop in the future, thus, theintergenerational assimilation via intermarriageswill continue. Thus, according to a realisticscenario of population projection in 2032 thenumber of ethnic Hungarians of Romania willbe approximately 1 million out of a 18.1 millionpopulation for the whole Romania53.

NOTAS

1 In this paper when using Transylvania Im notlimited to the medieval territory of this principality,

but including all the territories that in 1918 weretransferred from Hungary to Romania.2 Varga E. rpd, Fejezetek a jelenkori Erdlynpesedstrtnetbl, Budapest, Pski, 1998.3 INS (Institutul Naional de Statistic),Recensamntul populaiei si al locuinelor 18-27martie 2002. Structura etnic si confesional,

Bucureti, Institutul Naional de Statistic, 2005.4 INS (Institutul Naional de Statistic), Populatiastabila dupa etnie, pe judee, categorii de localiti i

localiti found at:http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2(Visited august 2012).5 Urla, Jacqueline, Cultural politics in an age ofstatistics: numbers, nations and the making of Basqueidentity, American Ethnologist, 1993, Volume 20,

818-843.6Kertzer, David I. and Arel, Dominique, Censuses,identity formation, and the struggle for political

power, In: Kertzer, David I., et al. (eds), Census andIdentity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, andLanguage in National Censuses, Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press, 2002, 1-42.7 Horvth Istvn, Az etnikai kategrik s aklasszifikci vltoz logikifogalmi rendszerezsiksrlet, Erdlyi Trsadalom, 2006/2, 101-118.8Arel, Dominique, Language categories in censuses:

backward- or forward-looking? In Census andIdentity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity, and

Language in National Censuses, Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge University Press, 2002, 92-120.9Understood as ethnic affiliation.10 Gid Attila, ton. Erdlyi zsid trsadalom- snemzetptsi ksrletek (19181940), Cskszereda,Pro-Print Knyvkiad, 2009.11 Gid Attila, A kolozsvri zsidsg a ktvilghbor kztt, unpublished PhD Thesis, Cluj-

Napoca, Babe-BolyaiUniversity, Faculty ofEuropean Studies, 2011.12Urla, Jacqueline, Cultural op. cit. 820.13 Primary data from Varga E., rpd, Fejezetekop. cit.14

Szsz Zoltn, Gazdasg s trsadalom a kapitalistatalakuls korban, In Szsz, Zoltn (ed.), Erdlytrtnete 1830-tl napjainkig, Vol.3, Budapest,Akadmia Kiad, 1987, 1574.15Idem 1573.16Venczel Jzsef, Erdlyi fld - Erdlyi trsadalom,Budapest, Kzgazdasgi s Jogi Knyvkiad, 1988[1942].17Varga E., rpd, Fejezetek op. cit., 131.18Idem 154.19 In its first stage the Hungarian idea of nation didnot emphasized the importance of Hungarian origin,had no focus on ethnic component, nationhood was

merely defined in cultural terms, stipulating thatembracing the Hungarian language and culture was aconvincing gesture of the will to be member of theHungarian nation.20 For the case of Hungarys Jewish population seeKardy Viktor, Zsidsg, asszimilci s

polgrosods, Budapest, Cserpfalvi, 1997, 151-195.21 For the case of the Transylvanin Jews see GidAttila, A kolozsvri op cit.22 Ronns, Per, Urbanization in Romania. AGeography of Social and Economic Change SinceIndependence, Stockholm, 1984, 104.23Gid, Attila, A kolozsvri zsidsg.. op cit., 35.24

Livezeanu, Irina, Cultural politics in GreaterRomania: regionalism, nation building & ethnicstruggle, 1918-1930, Ithaca, Cornell UniversityPress, 1995.


11/11



25 Pdurean, Corneliu and Bolovan, Ioan (eds.),Cstoriile mixte n Transilvania. Secolul al XIX-leai nceputul secolului XX, Arad, Editura UniversitiiAurel Vlaicu, 2005.26 Rmneanu, Petru, Problema cstoriilor mixte norasele din Transilvania n perioada de la 1920-1937,

Buletin eugenic i biopolitic, 1937, Vol. 10-12.27 Since census reserved no category for those ofmixed origin.28 Szilgyi N. Sndor, Az asszimilci s hatsa anpesedsi folyamatokra, In Kiss, Tams (ed),

Npesedsi folyamatok az ezredforduln Erdlyben,Kolozsvr: Kriterion Knyvkiad, 2004, 157-235.29 Stola, Dariusz, Forced Migration in CentralEuropean History, International Migration Review,1992, Vol. 26 (1992/2), 332.30 Stark Tams, Migrcis folyamatok a msodikvilghbor alatt, In Kisebbsgkutats, 2001, Vol.4/2001, 37.31

Kligman, Gail, The Politics of Duplicity.Controlling reproduction in Ceauescu's Romania,Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, University ofCalifornia Press, 1998.32Kiss Tams and Csata Istvn, A magyar npessgelreszmtsnak a lehetsgei Erdlyben, InDemogrfia, 2007, Vol. 50(4/2007), 364.33Turnock, David, The Pattern of Idustrialization inRomania, In Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers, 1970, Vol. 60, (1970/3), 557-559.34 Primary data from Varga E., rpd, Fejezetekop. cit., 192.35ibidem.36

Gallagher, Tom, O critic a centralismului euat ia egoismului regional din Romnia, In Andreescu,Gabriel and Molnr Gusztv (eds.), Problematransilvan, Iai, Polirom, 1999, 102.37For a general overview and a revealing case studysee Brubaker, Rogers, et al., Nationalist Politics andEveryday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town,Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press,2006.38 For the data on mixed marriages for 1965 seeRonns, Per, Urbanization op.cit. 108.39 Horvth Istvn, Country profile Romania, FocusMigration country profiles, 2007, Vol. 9 (September

2007), 1-10.40Horvth Istvn, Romania and Moldova, migrationmid-19th century to present, In Ness, Immanuel (ed.),The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration,Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2013. Online version:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444351071.wbeghm460/full (March 2013)41 For an overview see Horvth Istvn, Vltozkrnyezet llandsul trendek?, In Horvth, Istvn(ed.), Erdly s Magyarorszg kztti migrcisfolyamatok, Kolozsvr, Scientia Kiad, 2005, 9-132.42 Gheu, Vasile Declinul demografic i viitorul

populaiei Romniei. O perspectiv din anul 2007

asupra populaiei Romniei n secolul 21, Buzu,Alpha MDN, 2007.43In 2002 the EU countries remove the visa regime,until compulsory for the Romanian citizens. In 2007

Romania become EU member state, its citizens (withsome, minor and transitory exceptions) could traveland work freely within the territory of other EUmember states.44 Horvth Istvn, Migraia internaional acetenilor romni dup 1989, In Rotariu, Traian and

Voineagu, Vergil (eds.), Inerie i schimbare.Dimensiuni sociale ale tranziiei n Romnia, Iai,Polirom, 2012, 215.45 Sources INS, Evoluia natalitii i fertilitii nRomnia to be foundhttp://www.insse.ro/cms/files/publicatii/Evolutia%20natalitatii%20si%20fertilitatii%20in%20Romania_n.

pdf (visited March 2013)46Kiss Tams and Csata Istvn, A Magyar op.cit.364.47Horvth Istvn, Vltoz krnyezet op.cit. 59.48Kiss Tams and Barna Gerg, Npszmlls 2011.Erdlyi magyar npeseds a XXI. szzad els

vtizedben. Demogrfiai s statisztikai elemzs,Studii de atelier n cercetarea minoritilor naionaledin Romnia, 2012, Vol 43, 69.49 Gdri Irn and Tth Pl Pter, Bevndorls s

beilleszkeds, Budapest, KSH NpessgkutatIntzet, 2005.50Horvth Istvn, The incidence of Intermarriages inTransylvania between 1992-2005, Inclinations andPatterns of Intermarriage, In Ilu, Petru (ed.),Dimensions of Domestic Space in Romania, Cluj-

Napoca, Presa Universitar Clujean, 2008, 107-126.51 Kiss Tams and Barna Gerg, Npszmlls2011 op.cit. 48.52

Kaa, D. J. van de, et al., The second demographictransition revisited: theories and expectations,Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1988.53 Kiss Tams and Csata Istvn, Evolution of theHungarian population from Romania. Results andmethodological problems Working Papers inRomanian Minority Studies, 2008, Vol. 1, 62.

Documents

HUNGARIANS OF ROMANIA: DEMOGRAPHIC DYNAMICS FOR THE PAST ONE AND A HALF CENTURY