The University as a Regional Integrator. The Case of UBB within the Framework of Northwestern Development Region of Romania.

Maniu, Mircea Teodor ; Burca-Voicu, Monica Ioana

Introduction

Most of the interpretations focusing on the realities of the Romanian society, following 1989, were directly or indirectly placed, or at least perceived, as existing only and only under the aegis of a dominant, at that peculiar moment, mainstream of economic thought. Development and accordingly developmental economics with relevant EU consistence increasingly took the floor of the debate. Within this stampede of ideas and actions, often flavored with puzzling mimetic libertarian inflexions, the issue of regional development and its path was introduced to the public agenda only almost a decade later. At a time when a sui generis neo-Keynesianism that was heavily illustrated by the "stop and go" economic and social discourse of the mid and late '90s, the regional approach took specific forms, not seldom distorted by both major and petty political interests.

The fact that no matter how clear and appropriate a regional economic model appeared to be, how comparative economics throughout EU indicated mostly potential gains on this road, regionalization could not effectively gather momentum in Romania due to a plethora of economic, social and cultural factors. Moreover, both previous to 2007, the moment of accession to EU and during the following years, we witnessed a sort of exogenously induced distortion in allocating resources, to be attributed to the strong will to absorb more and more EU funds. This frenzy of becoming eligible for funding was particularly noticeably since the scheme of Development Regions was put in place in 1998. The framework, conceived at that time, but still in place, with the same administrative features, consequently influenced, not necessarily in a positive way, the regional economic landscape, but to some extent also the Romanian economy as a whole. Universities also faced a true dilemma: to pursue, in terms of research, what they evaluated as be real developmental needs, or go for what seemed to be easier accessible EU funding, for collateral topics.

It is obvious that we do not have proper means in order to capture decently the essence of the Romanian economic environment during transition and the seven years of EU membership. The lack of satisfaction of the Romanian society concerning this almost a quarter of century of rather erratic evolution was attributed many times to the reality that the domestic political establishment was too poorly educated towards market economy mechanisms and proper territorial administration in order to manage professionally and ethically sound such a complex task. But the reality that a comprehensive framework of public institutions and civil society was not actually responsive enough, as in the case of comparable countries, seems to us to be a more appropriate answer to the laggard regionalization approach in the country.

On our short insight, we were mostly driven by the fact that the Universities nowadays have sharply redefined their role, by exceeding their traditional standing as educational landmarks and/or research coordinators and have become key innovation generators, gradually getting more and more implicated as regional accelerators in the development of the competitiveness level of the regions they belonged to.

The main purpose of this paper is to attempt to investigate the potential role to be played by the largest and most complex university in present day Romania and consequently identify the possibilities to act not only as a traditional Humboldtian higher education institution, as it defines itself, but as a true social integrator, in pure managerial style, on this track combining various domains' regional perspectives. Catching historical, economic, social and overall cultural dimensions and framing them into a regional pattern, that could be branded as heterodox, could have important benefits in terms of policy design at regional scale and will at least have a stronger explanatory force for the setbacks and liabilities of today. As regionalism is indeed today a macro-phenomenon deviating from the principle of non-discrimination, (1) we see a great institutional competitiveness potential here. Not to mention the prospective to disseminate initiative of the kind throughout Romania, as our discourse, embedded in a "good practice case" could be relevant nationwide.

Mainframe for the regional approach in Romania

EU's cohesion policy as presented and implemented during the budgetary framework 2007-2013 clearly indicates the propensity of the European political establishment towards more equilibrium between the 271 regions of the Union by pushing those levers able to trigger growth and development at a pace able to accomplish the catch up during the macrocycle of approximately 3-4 budgets. The impact of the crisis and the new roadmap priorities reshaped without doubt the cohesion policy and accordingly the convergence tactics that were adopted by specific countries in order to climb on the ladder of European welfare. Though the Lisbon Strategy was reconsidered in 2005, precisely aiming to improve the competitive position of EU's regional economy by fostering growth, employment and overall competitiveness, delivering the so-called "Lisbon Objectives", epitomized by sustainability, innovation and knowledge society proved to be much more difficult. (2)

The Romanian case is emblematic from this perspective. The 2007-2013 budget allocated for Romania was almost 20 billion Euros under the Convergence Objective 1 and 455 million Euros under the European Territorial Cooperation Objective. (3) But while more than 80% of the funding went towards the so called Convergence Regions, those areas under 75% of EU's average income, (4) obviously this being the case of Romania, we cannot but judge harsh the outlook of fund absorption, where data a controversial, but most assessments indicate less than 20%. It is obvious that the system in place has some embedded flaws, otherwise this inability to manage the flow of EU funds properly would be simply inexplicable, especially since the whole regional policy of the country has been often described as a classical exogenous effect of "Europeanization", thus specifically designed for this purpose. (5)

The first move towards regionalization in the country was encapsulated, in the early 90s, in a Green Card concerning regional development and lately in the Law of Regional Development (151/1998-modified in 2004). (6) No professional investigation or consultation with local administrators, not to mention civil society, and Romania was "split" into 8 development regions with an average population of 2.8 million. The tactical move was indeed to create a territorial frame of NUTS II type in Romania, almost explicitly conceived in order to absorb EU funding. (7) Although, theoretically, the pattern was much inspired from the 1976 National Territorial Plan, which imposed a development model having as main target diminishing the differences between counties and historical provinces as macro-regions, the results, observed 15 years later, are quite ambiguous, to say the least.

The 1968 administrative grid, namely the counties (judete) one, is still in place today, and was lightly "tuned" through the forceful association of the administrative bodies of the counties in order to make operational the absorption scheme. Forty years later, more precisely in 2008, in a completely different social and economic environment, exactly before the crisis broke, Romania's National Strategy, initiated back in 1999 was under public scrutiny, precisely due to the observed lack of managerial and administrative assets necessary to fulfill the ambitious tasks of 2020, as a benchmark for convergence at 2007 EU average levels of development, and 2030 as benchmark for real convergence with the levels of development to be reached by EU at that precise moment.

Within this erratic milieu of regional approaches, the situation of the Northwestern Development Region of Romania (NWDR) is illustrated both by commonalities and peculiarities. Administratively gathering 6 counties (Cluj, Bistrita, Salaj, Maramurec, Satu Mare and Bihor) of the historic Greater Transylvania (thus including the provinces of Cricana and Maramures) NWDR is the largest in terms of population and the second developed region of the country in terms of GDP. One should acknowledge that the essence of the regional approach in NWDR since its creation consisted mostly in actions designed to increase the attractiveness of the whole region and provide a reasonable ground for specific higher value added producing investments. In comparative terms NWDR lost the runoff for FDIs during the 90s, so the liability of lacking a proper manufacturing base was gradually replaced by the propensity to attract services and medium and high tech industries.

But a second liability, proves to be unsolvable under the present day conditions. It consists in the region's administrative inability to perform essentially as a suitable vehicle for the creation and distribution of wealth, in order to build a more competitive region, in a EU comparative framework. This leads to the interrogation about the effectiveness of the process of regionalization and about embarking a different path when it comes to the governance of the process. Within this juncture our university can play a much larger role on, let's say, concentric trajectories: in the town, expanding activities it already provides for the community; micro-regionally (in the metropolitan area of Cluj); regionally, throughout NWDR; inter-regionally, namely along the track of the projected A3 highway; macro-regionally (Transilvania + Banat + Bucovina, for instance); or even in trans-border frameworks, operational with the neighbors Hungary and Ukraine. In this paper we will stick to the NWDR perspective.

UBB operator and integrator of regionalization in NWDR

Our view on the matter starts with the thorough analysis of the Development Plan of the NWDR 2014-2020. (8) From page 119 on, the strategy, with a horizon of 20 years namely until 2034, points up the priorities of the region, correlated to the generic Regional Development Plan (PDR) of Romania, EU territorial convergence objectives as well as the main targets of the 2020 Strategy. It is obvious to us that the content and structural organization of the strategy implies the fact that it must be worked out by a large number of stakeholders, just as modern theory of agency (9) considers appropriate for such a leadership type of professional discourse, as a comprehensive territorial strategy would be. Or, to stay camped in the area of EU programmatic documents, as stipulated in the Multilevel Governance Charter of the Committee of the Regions, (10) this action should be built through proper partnerships and fully taking advantage of the principle of subsidiary approach.

It is precisely this perspective we would like to enhance, when stating that a university such as ours could perform a truly difficult operation, when attempting to become a valid integrator for various tasks resulting from any comprehensive strategy. But, just as proven during the work on another project, of conceiving a niche strategy, project unfolding right now (April 2014), the multilayered Development Strategy of Cluj-Napoca 2014-2020, conceived as a joint work of several entities of the local civil society under the leadership of UBB, participative democracy implies affirmative action from the side of qualified institutions. A PEST type of analysis, (11) embedded in this project indicates how well positioned could be such an institution within the framework of both conceiving and making operational a complex territorial strategy. Moreover, we rely in our assessment on the fact that is well known that regionally administered communities of various kinds are either linked by obvious pecuniary interests, which is evidently the case of business communities, or by less evident features such as local pride, specific ideals, or other forms of identity and community spirit that always have a binding effect.

Another important correlated aspect would be linked to an issue that Michael Porter has stated regarding the manner in "which the most prosperous regions do not only export natural resources, or only physical products, but intellectual capital in various forms", being representative through their "specialization in a range of clusters," which they define as "geographically proximate groups of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by customer, supplier or other relationships." (12) It is precisely this "intellectual market" where a university, as an institution with good PR, generated by prestige it enjoys, could act as a so called "risk minimizing tool" in the process of forging a more competitive community. It should have therefore the potential to overshadow, or even eliminate much of the intermediate levels of decision and consequently enabling a more efficient pattern for social and economic processes that occur within its maneuver space. Such a higher education institution could generate a "feeling of belonging", thus unleashing social energies necessary to increase of the quality of life in that region.

We can also state here that universities are responsible for the: human capital market gains or even failures (as derived from their research priorities, teaching skills, etc.); the level in which they succeed in becoming attractors of external capital and investment; for the correlations generated between skills, innovation and community; or why not, for the integrative capacities of the national policies at the level of the regional economic entities. (13) Beside their innovative importance, we should also mention here the technology transfer through patenting and licensing of their intellectual property rights. A university has also an important impact on the local or regional community development through their student's or even their own spin-offs or through the construction of science-parks. (14) It is also a hidden secret that, driven by industry and demand of the regional development tracks, a university can generate significant alumni networks with important benefits for its economic community, by adapting the teaching skills, curricula and profiles. (15)

Having this said, we will try to bring to the stage the assets of UBB, assets which would allow us to explore at least on two main tracks:

1. Strategic tracks that would be generated through organizing the territory of NWDR as a developmental pool of social activities.

2. Strategic tracks that would emerge out of the needs of specific industries or domains that could be highly influential for the overall development of NWDR.

While we believe that the first track should fall mostly in the responsibility of the public administrators, the civil society should undertake or at least a process of tutoring, through appropriate channels, of the various opportunities that can be foreseen in that region. As a public university, acting by default (as inscribed in its Charter) as operator and integrator for various kinds of activities, UBB could and should do at least, in our opinion, the following:

1. Issue a document stating the strategic priority of regional development for our university. Make sure that relevant political and administrative deciding bodies are fully informed about the prospects of the approach. Generate critical mass of public perception through proper media channels.

2. Involve, in various procedural forms, our major stakeholders on this path. The first layer of stakeholders should be, as international experience proved in so many cases, our alumni.

3. Adopt a "task force" working system for the issue of integrating regional topics into the inter and trans-disciplinary curricula and research plan of our university. Building on the experience of project writing, each department could and should generate the blueprints of their expertise in a specific field of teaching and/or research.

4. Generate or enhance networking research operations with major universities, domestic and foreign. Adopt and adapt topics and working procedures that are already proven as functional elsewhere.

5. Use the potential offered by the network of territorial subunits of UBB to design the framework of the regional research Transylvania wide from scratch. In this manner some large projects, such as investigating the economic and social consequences of the change of habitat following the building of highways, could be much easily achieved.

6. Start the comprehensive research with investigating the public sector, regional wide. No decent PEST type of research was ever conducted (at least in NWDR) for the public sector, while this is valid for the business environment. Study also the mutual impact of these to intersecting sectors.

7. Generate a long term partnership with institutions that are involved in conceiving and applying methodological procedures (Regional Development Agency, local statistical offices, chambers of commerce, governmental decentralized structures) and which will witness an increased role in a regional development, as international experience demonstrates.

8. Adopt internal patterns of operating that would allow the switch of research themes towards education, and also the opposite. Make available the most important topics for the graduate and especially postgraduate levels.

9. Revitalize LLL system precisely in this area, which is strongly appealing for many people that severed their links with the university for various reasons during the years.

10. Investigate the option of getting appropriate funding for distinctively financing the approach. Both public and private sources, domestic and foreign should be scrutinized. Generate a win-win scheme with the potential sponsors and donors.

A case of academic management and social outreach

During the last decades, the role of higher education institutions in the assessment of the position of towns and regions where they are located is constantly rising. The democratization and consequent spread of university education would be an important vector of social outreach and also territorial preeminence, in comparative terms, of that place. It is quite important to distinguish between formal and informal leadership of such a place, and the options each contributor to this process can offer. Having a stock of sufficient yet uncommitted resources, and especially well educated and properly trained individuals make a huge difference. (16) To a certain extent, reflecting the history of the region, UBB has become in time a model of multiculturalism and multilingualism. Embodying a traditional academic model and an innovative functional structure, the university could be branded as a flagship of the Romanian higher education system. Why not perform better, namely with easily identifiable results, also in terms of social outreach?

UBB is headquartered in Cluj-Napoca, right in the heart of the historical province of Transylvania, addressing primarily the educational needs of individuals from the region, but gradually from all across Romania, and in small but firm steps from Central and Eastern Europe. The main campus of UBB is located in the city of Cluj-Napoca, (population around 400.000 inhabitants (17) supplemented each year by around 80.000 students). The university extensions, operating under the aegis of UBB are located in 12 Transylvanian cities: Bistrita, Gheorgheni, Miercurea Ciuc, Nasaud, Odorheiu Secuiesc, Satu Mare, Sfantu Gheorghe, Sibiu, Sighetu Marmatiei, Targu Mures, Vatra Dornei and Zalau. Obviously, this regional sprawl is a complementary addition to the clustering model it provides for the six public universities in town, gathered into a consortium.

This situation generates two kinds of benefits for UBB: on the one hand it allows to manage more efficiently the clustered assets, already in place in Cluj-Napoca and gather momentum along with the partners in the consortium, and on the other hand to enhance substantially the role of subsidiaries (extensions) throughout NWDR and wider, while conducting and implementing common policies. It should be said that such an approach comes at a time when relevant sources point to the fact EU's regionalization process triggered a sort of return to pre-national frames, frames that developed a specific historic solidarity. It is within this juncture that regional competitive advantage, far beyond the institutional EU funds absorbing scheme now in place in Romania, becomes capital lucrative issue. (18) As a responsible entity, UBB should back the idea that regional development consists mostly not in attracting more funds that our neighboring regions, which is not bad at all, but in becoming more competitive as a larger territorial unit and consequently imposing our trademark on a larger market.

Getting UBB more involved in the area of regional development implies in our opinion a couple of administrative steps that could reshape institutionally our university in the years to come. First of all, we believe that reuniting the present day three entities tackling with the issue of regional development under the same institutional hat would be extremely beneficial for our purposes. A potentially named UBB Transylvanian Institute for Regional Research, reuniting the present day Centre for Regional Research of the Faculty of Geography, the Centre for Business Advancement and Regional Development of the Faculty of Economics and Business and the Centre for the Study of Territorial Development of the Faculty of European Studies, could make a significant difference in properly allocating resources and conceiving an aggregated working plan. Such an entity could be gradually raised to the status of think tank.

Secondly, we believe that the entire system of graduate education (MA level) should change, namely it should be a correlated focus on regional issues. Having in mind the example of American land grant universities, by default consultants of local legislators and administrators, concentrating their efforts primarily towards the social and economic issues of the place of their location, we strongly advice in this respect. As we already know, a few barriers can significantly diminish the role played by the universities at regional level blocking them in their attempt to try to become an important actor within the regional development process, instead of being only located in the region. For instance, we should take into account the fact that some of the national education policies do not reflect the regional needs of the business environment. For instance the number of the allowed student enrollment is such an example, being correlated more with the national strategy, than to the regional needs of the labor market, entrepreneurial environment or absorption capacities of the local enterprises. (19) Also, the legal framework of the Romanian higher educational system is not flexible enough at this stage in order allow a new vision concerning the necessary differentiation of the graduate studies from the undergraduate ones, but at least preparatory measures should be conceived by UBB in these directions. Such an approach could be also forwarded towards the national consortium of the prominent public universities (Academica) for the purpose of generating a nationwide lobby.

Last but not least, and we will metaphorically say in this respect that reinventing the wheel seems to us excessively time consuming and unprofitable, the international dimension of the issue. Whatever has been applied or experimented in the area of regional development in recent days in Romania would be, in our opinion, unfortunately still firmly rooted in previous to 1989 territorial schemes and administrative, not to say political, mentalities of the past. The evolution of the domain, as much as it can be tracked, occurred mostly having domestic benchmarks, with the rational exception of the EU funds absorption issue. While throughout Europe various adopted patterns give more or less results, our country seems reluctant in conceiving at least pilots of regionalism anchored to some alien experience. In this context we believe that adopting as a priority for research, scientific discourse, conferences, etc. this particular theme, of how regional development fared in comparable and less comparable countries, could make a difference too.

Conclusions

Quoting again from Michael Porter: "universities and research centers institutionalize entrepreneurship and ensure a steady flow of new ideas" we believe we are wrapping up the completion of local economic strengths through academic ones. Moreover the whole business environment benefits by the institutionalization of the innovative process by building strong universities and research centers, implicated in the regional development. (20) It is precisely this porterian view we had in mind when underlying in this paper a very important reality: we should be guided on our future path by the reality that there is a proven correlation between the prosperity of the regional economies and the soundness of their HEIs. The universities do have a leadership role in creating the necessary framework for the successful collaboration between the private and public sector, between national and regional frameworks. There is no other institution to be unveiled as a more suitable integrator for the purpose of eliminating the barriers existing on the path of economic regional development. (21)

UBB must conceive nowadays its relationship with the society as a way of both contributing to the technical, economic, scientific, social, and cultural development of the local and surrounding communities as well as of identifying new challenges and opportunities for the institution, town and region, especially with regard to the adaptation of its social outreach in order to respond to the ever increasing social needs of various communities. Acknowledging its obligation to use its intellectual assets in order to make a significant contribution to the social and economic development of the region and the country, UBB should perceive the fact that effective organizational culture changes should be implemented while enrolling on this path.

Bibliography

1. Arbo, Peter; Benneworth, Paul (2007), Understanding the Regional Contribution of Higher Education Institutions: A Literature Review, OECD Education Working Papers No. 9, OECD Publishing, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/161208155312], 3 April 2014.

2. Ayres, Sarah (2014), "Place-based leadership: reflections on scale, agency and theory", in Regional Science, Regional Studies, vol.l, no.l, 21-24.

3. Beer, Andrew, Clower, Terry (2013), "Mobilizing leadership in cities and regions", in Regional Science, Regional Studies, vol.l, no.l, 2-17.

4. Brown, Douglas (2002), Insatiable Is Not Sustainable, Westport, CT: Praeger.

5. Camera Deputatilor (2004), LEGE nr. 315 din 28 iunie 2004 privind dezvoltarea regionald in Romania, [http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_ pck.htp_act_text?idt=56280], 3 April 2014.

6. Cluj-INSSE (2012), Comunicat de presa, 2 februarie 2012 privind rezultatele provizorii ale Recensamantului Populatiei si Locuintelor din 2011, [http://www.cluj.insse.ro/cmscluj/files%5Cdeclaratii%5CComuni cat%20CLUJ%20-%20DATE%20PROVIZORII%20RPL%202011.pdf], Janury 2013.

7. Comitetul Regiunilor (2009), Carta alba a Comitetului Regiunilor privind guvemata pe mai multe niveluri, Bruxelles.

8. Daianu, Daniel (2000), Incotro se indreapta tarile postcomuniste?, Iasi: Polirom.

9. EC (2011), Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide, September, [http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/ presenta/universities2011/universities2011_en.pdf], 3 April 2014.

10. European Parliament (2011), Background Document on Structural And Cohesion Funds, Directorate-General For Internal Policies, Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs, [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sure/dv/sure_20110210_3bnsoc_/sure _20110210_3bnsoc_en.pdf].

11. Herschel, Tassilo; Newman, Peter (2002), Governance and Europe's city regions, London and New York: Routledge.

12. Katsarova, Ivana (2010), Regional Development. Economic, Social and Territorial Situation of Romania, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policies Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, European Parliament, Brussels, [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ RegData/etudes/note/join/2010/438617/IPOL REGI_NT(2010)438617_EN.pdf];

13. Kroll, Henning; Baier, Elisabeth; Stahlecker, Thomas (2012), Thematic Paper 4: Tlie Role of Universities for Regional Innovation Strategies, Regional Innovation Monitor (RIM), to the European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General Directorate D-Industrial Innovation and Mobility Industries13 March, [http://ec.europa.eu/ enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/sites/ default/files/report/tp4_the_regional_role_of_universities_final.pdf], 3 April 2014.

14. Maniu, Mircea Teodor (2013), "Development Reframed: Comments on the 2013 Romanian Regionalization Approach", in Studio Europaea, no. 3, July-September, 5-18.

15. MDRAP-Ministerul Dezvoltarii Regionale si Administratiei Publice (2013), Planid de Dezvoltare al Regiunii Nord Vest, Bucuresti, December.

16. Porter, Michael (2001), Clusters of Innovation: Regional Foundations of U.S. Competitiveness, Monitor Group ontheFRONTIER Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness, [http://www.isc.hbs.edu/pdf/COI_National.pdf], 3 April 2014.

17. Porter, Michael (2007), Colleges and universities and regional Economic development: A strategic perspective, Forum for the Future of Higher Education, Cambridge, Mass, [http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ ff0710s.pdf], 3 April 2014.

18. Traistaru, Iulia; Carmen Pauna (2003), "The Emerging Economic Geography in Romania", in Iulia Traistaru, Peter Nijkamp, Laura Resmini (Eds.), The Emerging Economic Geography in EU Accession Countries, Aldershot: Ashgate, 242-283.

19. UBB-Universitatea Babes-Bolyai (2014), Strategia de dezvoltare a municipiului Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca un loc al democratiei participative, Coord. Chirca, A., Kantor, I., Petrovici., N., Proiect.

20. Veugelers, Reinhilde; Del Ray, Elena (2014), The contribution of universities to innovation, (regional) growth and employment, European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE) Analitical Report No. 18, prepared for the European Commission, January, [http://www.eenee.de/eeneeHome/EENEE/Analytical-Reports.html], 3 April 2014.

21. *** (2003), Engines of Economic Growth. The Economic Impact of Boston's Eight Research Universities on the Metropolitan Boston Area, New York: Appleseed, [http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/03.13/photos/EconomicR eport-full.pdf], 3 April 2014.

Mircea Teodor Maniu Monica Ioana Burca-Voicu *

* Dr. Mircea Maniu is an Associate Professor with the Department of European Studies and Governance, Faculty of European Studies at Babes-Bolyai University. Contact: mmaniu@euro.ubbcluj.ro.

Dr. Monica Ioana Burca-Voicu is an Assistant Professor with the Department of European Studies and Governance, Faculty of European Studies at Babec-Bolyai University. Contact: mvoicu@euro.ubbcluj.ro.

(1) Douglas M. Brown, Insatiable Is Not Sustainable, Westport: Praeger, 2002, pp. 201-209.

(2) Mircea Teodor Maniu, "Development Reframed: Comments on the 2013 Romanian Regionalization Approach", in Stadia Europaea, no. 3, July-September, 2013, pp. 5-6.

(3) Ivana Katsarova, Regional Development. Economic, Social and Territorial Situation of Romania, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policies Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, European Parliament, Brussels, 2010, p. 20, [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2010/438617/IPOLREG I_NT(2010)438617_EN.pdf], 3 April 2014.

(4) European Parliament, Background Document on Structural And Cohesion Funds, Directorate-General For Internal Policies, Policy Department D : Budgetary Affairs, 2011, pp. 7-8, [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/sure/dv/sure_2011021 0_3b nsoc_/surc_20110210_3bnsoc_cn.pdf], 3 April 2014.

(5) Daniel Daianu, Incotro se indreapta tarile posteomuniste?, Iasi: Polirom, 2000, pp. 109-156.

(6) Camera Deputatilor, LEGE nr. 375 din 28 iunie 2004 privind dezvoltarea regionala in Romania, 2004 [http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text7idN56280], 3 April 2014.

(7) Iulia Traistaru, Carmen Fauna, "The Emerging Economic Geography in Romania", in Iulia Traistaru, Peter Nijkamp, Laura Resmini (Eds.), The Emerging Economic Geography in EU Accession Countries, Aldershot: Ashgatc, 2003, pp. 242-283.

(8) MDRAP-Ministerul Dezvoltarii Regionale si Administratici Publico, Planul de Dezvoltare at Regiunii Not'd Vest, Bucurecti, versiunea decembrie 2013, pp. 119-130.

(9) Sarah Ayres, "Place-based leadership: reflections on scale, agency and theory", in Regional Science, Regional Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2014, p. 3, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2013.869424], 22 April 2014.

(10) Comitetul Regiunilor, Carta alba a Comitetului Regiunilor privind guvernanfa pe mai multe niveluri, Bruxelles, 2009, pp. 5-7.

(11) UBB-Universitatea Babes-Bolyai, Strategic! de dezuoltare a municipiului Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca un loc al democratic participative, Coord. Chirca, A., Kantor, I., Petrovid., N., Proiect, 2014, pp. 5-7.

(12) *** Engines 0f Economic Growth. The Economic Impact of Boston's Eight Research Universities on the Metropolitan Boston Area, Appleseed, New York, 2003, p. 16, [http://www.news.harvard.edu/gaicette/2003/03.13/photos/EconomicReport- full.pdf], 3 April 2014.

(13) Peter Arbo, Paul Benneworth, Understanding the Regional Contribution of Higher Education Institutions: A Literature Review, OECD Education Working Papers No. 9, OECD Publishing, 2007, pp.55-57, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/161208155312], 3 April 2014.

(14) Reinhilde Veugelers, Elena Del Ray, The contribution of universities to innovation, (regional) growth and employment, European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE) Analitical Report No. 18, prepared for the European Commission, January 2014, pp. 45-48, [http://www.eenee.de/eeneeHome/EENEE/Analytical-Reports.html], 3 April 2014.

(15) Henning Kroll, Elisabeth Baier, Thomas Stahlecker, Thematic Paper 4: The Role of Universities for Regional Innovation Strategies, Regional Innovation Monitor (RIM), to the European Commission, Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General Directorate D Industrial Innovation and Mobility Industries, 13 March 2012, p. 60, [http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional- innovation/monitor/ sites/default/files/report/tp4_the_regional_role_of_universities_final.pdf], 3 April 2014.

(16) Andrew Beer, Terry Clower, "Mobilizing leadership in cities and regions", in Regional Science, Regional Studies, vol. 1, no. 1,2013, pp. 5-9, [http://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21681376.2013.869428],18 December 2013.

(17) Cluj-INSSE, Comunicat de presa, 2 febmarie 2012 privind rezultatele provizorii ale Recensamantului Populatiei si Locuintelor din 2011, 2012, pag. 2, [http://www.cluj.insse.ro/cmscluj/files%5Cdeclaratii%5CComunicat%20CLUJ%20-%20 DATE%20PROVIZORII%20RPL%202011.pdf], January 2013.

(18) Tassilo Herschel, Peter Newman, Governance and Europe's city regions, London and New York: Routledge, 2002, pp. 25-28.

(19) EC, Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide, September 2011, p. 3-4, [http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/universities2011/ universitie s2011_cn.pdf], 3 April 2014.

(20) Michael Porter, Clusters of Innovation: Regional Foundations of U.S. Competitiveness, Monitor Group on the FRONTIER Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness, 2001, pp. Xiii-Xivp and 82, [http://wvvw.isc.hbs.cdu/pdf/COI_National.pdf], 3 April 2014.

(21) Michael Porter, Colleges and universities and regional Economic development: A strategic perspective, Forum for the Future of Higher Education, Cambridge, Mass. 2007, pp. 41-43, [http://net.educause.edu/ir/ Iibrary/pdf/ff0710s.pdf], 3 April 2014.