|
Árpád Varga E.
Hungarians
in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995
Original
title: "Erdély magyar népessége 1870-1995 között"
Published in Magyar Kisebbség 3-4, 1998 (New series IV), pp. 331-407.
Translation
by Tamás Sályi
Linguistic editing by Rachel Orbell
Published
by Teleki László Foundation. Budapest, March 1999
Occasional Papers 12
(Editors Nándor Bárdi, László Diószegi, András Gyertyánfy)
The aim of this study is to contribute to the elaboration of the
demographic history of present-day Transylvania by
publishing sources partly or completely unexplored until now. The study
therefore provides information about the demographic history of ethnic
Hungarians in Transylvania focusing on three major
aspects, the first of these aspects being dealt with more comprehensively
than the other two. Firstly (after an outline of the official statistics
available), changes in the number of ethnic Hungarians in Transylvania over
the last one and a quarter centuries are examined with regard to the natural
and real increase in the total population. Next, urbanisation, as a major
modifier of the ethnic picture, is analysed statistically, with a focus on
migrations which follow urbanisation, especially the influx of Romanians from
the Transcarpathian region.(These chapters rely on the following studies:
Varga E. 1994b; 1994a, 1997.) Since a new approach to the sources has been
used, it was considered appropriate to include detailed technical and
methodological explanations and several figures. Owing to the limited scope
of the present study there is no detailed analysis of the development of the
population in terms of location (areas, settlements, density): nor does the
study discuss changes in social structure and other demographic features -
partly due to the shortage, or absence, of information. These are outlined in
the final chapter (an expanded and modified version of an article published
in Hitel 3, 1996) and are based on the 1992 census, which reflects recent
conditions.
Main demographic sources
In order to examine ethno-demographic tendencies in the territory of
present-day Transylvania, major "officially authentic" data sources
can be obtained partly from the Hungarian censuses carried out between 1869
and 1910 and in the year 1941 (in the northern part of divided Transylvania),
and partly from the Romanian censuses conducted after Romania took over the
territory. Before modern censuses, only that taken by the Austrians for
military purposes in 1850/51 provides direct, fully authentic information
about ethnic relations, since it included questions relating to nationality.
However, these detailed figures only refer to historical Transylvania.
The politically cautious 1869 census did not yet include questions about
nationality but did take account of religion. If we look at the religious
distribution of the population and bear in mind contemporary estimates, we
can attempt to give approximate figures for ethnic proportions at the time of
the census. From 1880, the Hungarian censuses obtained information about nationality
by means of questions concerning native language - that is, the language
spoken most readily and most fluently. In addition, these surveys also
revealed how many people in different ethnic and religious groups spoke
languages other than their mother tongue. The range of languages involved in
the process therefore became wider and wider at each new survey. In 1941,
Hungarian experts even included a direct nationality criterion in the
questionnaire. Summaries of the census results always presented detailed
figures regarding the distribution of native languages (or nationalities) and
religions even in villages, and the living conditions of the different
nationalities were outlined in tables.
In the enlarged Romania,
the first nationality survey was carried out during the 1930 census.
Previously, in 1919, the temporary Transylvanian Governing Council had
organised data collection in the Hungarian territory occupied by the Romanian
army. One and a half years later in Transylvania,
which by that time had been adjudged to Romania
by the Great Powers, the local under-secretary of state for the Ministry of
the Interior carried out a census for public administration purposes. Of the
1919 census, which was based on reports made by parish councils, only
provisional county data have been preserved. Nevertheless, these data covered
population distribution in terms of both nationality and religion. The 1920
census, which also covered nationality, was published in a collection of data
on settlements. In these censuses a rather vague, politically motivated
criterion, that of "descent according to people", was used to
determine nationality. The procedure was often simply based on an analysis of
names, or alternatively ethnic status was identified with religion. The same
criterion, which was not completely free of racist connotations, was applied
by the Romanian Ministry of the Interior in 1927 in its attempt to conduct
"a general survey of the population" on a national basis. The
statistical office's refusal to co-operate meant that the hastily carried out
registration was doomed to failure, and detailed figures were never
published.
The census conducted in 1930 met international statistical requirements in
every respect. In order to establish nationality, the compilers devised a
complex criterion system, unique at the time, which covered citizenship,
nationality, native language (i.e. the language spoken in the family) and
religion. While no information was requested regarding knowledge of other
languages questions were deliberately posed regarding the possession of an
"understanding" of Romanian. The publication of the census results
was somewhat delayed, but the data were abundant and included figures for
ethnic and religious distribution in each village. The two volumes containing
details of occupational groups at local (village, town) level according to
nationality, as well as an analysis of schooling at local levels, represent
an important source of information. The 1941 census, prepared with the same
accuracy, included a survey of multilingualism for the first time in the
history of Romanian censuses. However, due to the war these results, like
many others, remained unprocessed. Only major local data concerning the
"ethnic origin" of the population were issued.
The first census in Romania
after World War II was conducted in 1948, together with an agricultural
survey which was intended to prepare the way for land collectivisation. Some
of the demographic results from this census, which was similar to previous
censuses in terms of its study criteria, were processed later, but only major
preliminary data regarding the size and native-language distribution of the
population in counties and towns were published. Afterwards, a census based
on a Soviet model was conducted in 1956, followed by others using more modern
methods and more substantial study programmes in 1966, 1977, and 1992.
Information was requested on nationality and mother tongue on each occasion,
and in 1992 even religion was once again included after an absence of
forty-five years. Of these data, however, local- (village-) level figures
were only published for 1966, and for decades the volumes were unavailable to
the public. Thus, until recently, the 1956 ethnic and native-language data,
broken down according to medium-sized administrative units and towns, and
still relatively detailed, formed the basis of post-war Romanian nationality
statistics. It is generally agreed that these statistics provide a more
accurate picture of the real conditions than do the data of a decade later.
Both the 1956 and the 1966 census reports (comparing the urban and rural
population at county level, and, in 1966, at rajon and town level, too)
reveal a correlation between nationality and native language. In 1956, data
concerning social structure and education among the different nationalities
were elaborated at county level according to settlement type. In 1966, the
social distribution of different ethnic groups was given only in a national
breakdown, whereas education related figures were also published in a county
breakdown. The 1966 census was unique in that it contained questions on both
place of residence and place of birth, since data were grouped according to
date of arrival in the place of residence. A knowledge of the date of change
of residence provides a rough idea of how periods of internal migration,
which significantly modify the ethnic map, can be differentiated in time. In
addition, a comparison of county figures provides an illustration of the
territorial distribution of migrations in certain periods.
The real ethnic data of the 1977 census were only revealed one and a half
decades later. Until that time, only the extremely distorted county-level
figures were available, which were unsuitable for in-depth analysis. The
delayed publication of the real figures and the absence of any village
breakdown or other details are regrettable, since the ethnic picture provided
by the 1977 census in Transylvania is relatively
authentic and can be compared most easily to the 1956 data. However, place of
birth statistics in the 1977 census, which were obtained at the halfway point
of the peak of migration fever, still provide important information about the
direction and extent of internal migrations over the previous decade.
The 1992 census was carried out at a time when the turbulence following
the collapse of the previous political system - a collapse which had been
accompanied by enormous external and internal population movements - had
already abated. An analogy with the surveys conducted after the war would
seem obvious. The ethnic consequences of this "tabula rasa" are
summarised in a special volume which gives details of population distribution
according to nationality, native language and religion. In addition, the
overlapping of nationality and native language, as well as of nationality and
religion, is illustrated numerically in a county breakdown according to
settlement type. (Correlations are also included between nationality and
native language in a breakdown for towns.) It also provides, although in a
national breakdown only, a comprehensive picture of the demographic
conditions of the different ethnic groups, a unique occurrence in the history
of Romanian ethnic statistics. Although the 1992 village-level ethnic and
religious data have not yet been published, they are available to
researchers.
In the Hungarian censuses, data for military personnel were not processed
at village level before 1900. The retrospective tables given here therefore
show the number of civilians present in 1880 and 1890; the number of both
civilians and military personnel in 1910; and, in 1900, both the number of
civilians and the total population. Given that the military population was
relatively small (only 0.6 to 0.7 per cent in the territory in question),
this does not greatly affect the comparability of these periods. The Romanian
censuses give a figure for the resident population, from which those who have
been "temporarily" present, and to which those who have been
"temporarily" absent, over an extended period of time, are
subtracted and added respectively. This fine adjustment means that the
quantitative difference between the resident population and the population
actually present is insignificant. In 1956, the total resident population
registered was 8,620 persons fewer than the number of inhabitants present (in
towns, 11,781); and in 1966, the resident population was 2,184 persons fewer
(208 more in towns). A comparison of the 1977 census figures and the
population returns published in statistical yearbooks reveals that, as a
result of an increase in internal population mobility, in 1977 nearly 130
thousand more inhabitants (in towns, 300 thousand) were registered in
Transylvania than had been estimated previously, based on the resident
population recorded in 1966. The difference was particularly striking in the
so-called "closed" towns, in which settling was subject to the
obtaining of a permit. Subsequently, in official statements the criteria were
adjusted to the real situation and, in addition to the resident population
defined above, the number of inhabitants with a registered permanent address
was taken rather than the number of persons present. The population actually
present has, in practice, been referred to as the "resident population"
in statistical returns since 1977. In 1981, the number of persons actually
present was 96,313 higher (in towns, 246,903) than the number of persons with
a permanent residence in the same place; and in 1992, the figure was 45,107
persons (in towns, 130,708) higher.
The Hungarian Statistical Office provided demographic data with reference
to religion (from 1890 to 1893), and later (in 1897, and from 1900 to 1918)
to native language also. (An analysis of mixed marriages was included from
the beginning of this century.) The figures were given at local
administrative level until 1912 (or until 1915 for natural population changes
with respect to native Hungarians), and at regional level between 1913 and
1918. Local-administration-level data on emigration and remigration were
published between 1899 and 1915. Emigrants were registered from the beginning
of this period, and remigrants from 1905, on the basis of native language,
homeland and destination. Every year between 1920 and 1937, with some minor
interruptions, the Romanian statistics service published the main results of
population changes with respect to denomination according to region and type
of settlement. The ethnic data regarding natural population changes are
available for the period between 1920 and 1923, and between 1933 and 1942.
(From 1934 the data are also available at county level and include monthly
figures.) Figures showing the natural growth of the different nationalities
were also published between 1931 and 1939 at county level, and in both parts
of Transylvania after its division according to the
Vienna Award. International migration statistics (emigration, immigration and
remigration with respect to nationality, citizenship and country) were first
published annually between 1926 and 1942, and this practice was resumed after
the 1989 changes (emigration data according to nationality have been recorded
since 1975; data with respect to destination from 1980; and remigration
figures according to nationality or provenance from 1990). The key figures
for population changes with respect to nationality have not been published in
Romania for
two generations, although some minor information has been leaked
occasionally.
Population development in Transylvania
between 1869 and 1995
Population development in present-day Transylvania
from 1869 to the present is illustrated in Table 1. (The table contains basic
data published in census reports and statistical yearbooks as well as figures
relating to different areas and periods which are required for the
calculation of population changes.)
Table
1
Population development in Transylvania
1869-1995
|
31 Dec. 1869a
|
4,224,436
|
25 Jan. 1948g
|
5,748,546
|
|
31 Dec. 1880a
|
4,032,851
|
1 Jan. 1956
|
6,219,600
|
|
31 Dec. 1890a
|
4,429,564
|
21 Feb. 1956
|
6,232,312
|
|
31 Dec. 1900a
|
4,840,722
|
1 Jan. 1966
|
6,727,900
|
|
31 Dec. 1900
|
4,874,772
|
15 March 1966
|
6,736,046
|
|
31 Dec. 1910b
|
5,262,495
|
1 Jan. 1966h
|
6,711,456
|
|
31 Dec. 1910
|
5,259,918
|
15 March 1966h
|
6,719,555
|
|
1919
|
5,208,345
|
5 Jan. 1977
|
7,500,229
|
|
Dec. 1920c
|
5,114,214
|
1 July 1977i
|
7,531,130
|
|
Dec. 1920d
|
5,133,677
|
1 July 1985i
|
7,915,841
|
|
29 Dec. 1930
|
5,548,363
|
1 July 1989i
|
8,033,633
|
|
31 Jan., 6 April 1941e
|
5,912,265
|
7 Jan. 1992
|
7,723,313
|
|
31 Jan., 6 April 1941e,f
|
5,910,974
|
1 July 1992
|
7,709,627
|
|
25 Jan. 1948
|
5,761,127
|
1 July 1995
|
7,646,926
|
Italics:
calculated values
a Civilian population.
b Taking an undivided number of inhabitants in border settlements.
c Data for Battyánháza (Óbéb), Cenei/Csene, Soca/Karátsonyiliget,
Comloşu Mic/Kiskómlós, Checea/Kőcse, Lăţunaş/Lacunás, Jamu Mare/Nagyzsám,
Beba Veche/Óbéb, Pustiniş/Öregfalu, Cherestur/Pusztakeresztúr, Uivar/Újvár,
Jombolia/Zsombolya occupied by Serbia, and those of Iam/Jám are missing.
Busenje/Káptalanfalva, Jaša Tomić/Módos, Medja/Párdány, belonging to Yugoslavia at present, are included.
d Figure relating to final borders and based on the 1910
settlement data listed above, according to the 1930 administrative situation
(without the 1,151 inhabitants of Coşna/Kosna and Cârlibaba
Nouă/Radnalajosfalva).
e Data for the Romanian parts of Tiszalonka/Lunca la Tisa/Luh and
Técső/Tyacsiv in Máramaros/Maramureş county are not known, so the two parts
are included with the 1930 figures.
f According to the 1930 and 1948 administrative situation.
g 1956 administrative situation.
h Present administrative situation.
i Official data based on the 1977 census without illegal
emigration.
Sources:
Magyarország népessége községenként
(...) az 1869. évi népszámlálás alapján, táblázat. A magyar korona
országaiban az 1881. év elején végrehajtott népszámlálás főbb eredményei
(...) 1882: pp. 9-331. A magyar korona országainak helységnévtára 1892: pp.
18-656. Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 1902: pp. 280-455, 1912: pp. 280-457,
581-629. Popa
- Istrate 1921: p. 156. Martinovici - Istrati 1921: pp. 7-52. Recensământul
general al României din 29 decemvrie 1930 1938: pp. XXXII-XXXIII.
Recensământul general al populaţiei României din 1941 6 aprilie (...) 1944:
p. XI. Az 1941. évi népszámlálás (...) 1947:
pp. 498-690. Golopenţia - Georgescu 1948: pp. 39-41. Biji - Nichita 1957: p.
11. Recensămîntul populaţiei din 21 februarie 1956. Rezultatele generale
1959: p. 4. Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 15 martie 1966 1968:
Volumes relating to counties in Transylvania.
Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 15 martie 1966 1969: p. 2.
Measnicov - Trebici 1978: p. 31. Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 5 ianuarie
1977 1980: p. 6. Anuarul statistic al Republicii Socialiste România 1986: p.
13. Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992 1994: p. 1.
Anuarul statistic al României 1990: p. 52, 1993: p. 686, 1995: p. 748.
Because of the geopolitical situation in the region, it is worth studying
the comprehensive figures for population growth in conjunction with the
figures for the historically connected neighbouring territories (Table 2). In
those territories which were taken from Hungary
and attached to Romania
population growth between 1870 and 1992 can be regarded as average for Europe.
Over the last century or more the number of inhabitants in these territories
has almost doubled, as has the population of present-day Hungary.
During the same period, the number of Romanian citizens living in the
Transcarpathian region has more than tripled. Population growth in the three
regions was also different before World War I. In the Transcarpathian region,
for instance, real population growth was three times higher than in Transylvania.
(This was partly due to the demographic crisis in the 1870s, when the
population decreased by 5 per cent in present-day Transylvania.)
The population of Transylvania increased slightly over
the subsequent four decades, and the 1948 figure indicates a stagnation
compared with the figures for Hungary
and Transcarpathia. The slower growth was caused by wars: population growth
in the period including World War I was more modest, and during the Second
World War, the decrease was significantly higher than in Hungary
or in the Transcarpathian region. In the subsequent three and a half decades,
however, there was a significant increase in the Transylvanian population,
with the average annual growth rate exceeding the comparable Hungarian rate,
and, between 1970 and 1980, even the figure for Transcarpathia This upward
trend changed to a negative trend at the end of the 1980s. The Transylvanian
population was somewhat smaller in 1992 than at the beginning of the previous
decade. Meanwhile, Hungary's
population also started to decrease, and the growth rate of the
Transcarpathian population was also one-third of the figure of a decade
earlier.
Table
2
Population development in Transylvania, Hungary, and the Transcarpathian region 1870-1992a
|
Year
|
Population (x thousand persons)b
|
Index (1870 = 100)
|
Average annual growth or decrease (%)c
|
|
|
Trans-
sylvania
|
Hungary
|
Trans-
carpathia
|
Trans-
sylvania
|
Hungary
|
Trans-
carpathia
|
Trans-
sylvania
|
Hungary
|
Trans-
carpathia
|
|
|
|
1870
|
4,224.4
|
5,011.3
|
4,500.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
1880
|
4,032.9
|
5,329.2
|
4,750.0
|
95.5
|
106.3
|
105.6
|
-0.42
|
0.56
|
0.54
|
|
1910/12
|
5,260.0
|
7,612.1
|
7,507.0
|
124.5
|
151.9
|
166.8
|
0.88
|
1.18
|
1.41
|
|
1930
|
5,548.4
|
8,685.1
|
8,732.4
|
131.3
|
173.3
|
194.0
|
0.27
|
0.66
|
0.84
|
|
1941
|
5,912.3
|
9,316.1
|
10,202.9
|
140.0
|
185.9
|
226.7
|
0.63
|
0.70
|
1.51
|
|
1948/49
|
5,761.1
|
9,204.8
|
10,111.5
|
136.4
|
183.7
|
224.7
|
-0.37
|
-0.15
|
-0.13
|
|
1956
|
6,232.3
|
9,861.0
|
11,257.1
|
147.5
|
196.8
|
250.2
|
0.97
|
1.15
|
1.33
|
|
1970
|
7,032.6
|
10,322.1
|
13,220.0
|
166.5
|
206.0
|
293.8
|
0.84
|
0.30
|
1.12
|
|
1980
|
7,725.0
|
10,709.5
|
14,476.4
|
182.9
|
213.7
|
321.7
|
0.94
|
0.37
|
0.91
|
|
1990/92
|
7,723.3
|
10,374.8
|
15,060.3
|
182.8
|
207.0
|
334.7
|
0.00
|
-0.32
|
0.34
|
Italics:
estimated values
a According to present borders. Transylvania and the Transcarpathian region are separated
according to administrative borders at the time of the censuses.
b Population as of the date of the censuses which were usually
carried out at about the same time. Exceptions are 1970 and 1980 for Transylvania and the Transcarpathian region where mid-year
figures are given, and 1956 for Hungary, where the value calculated refers to conditions at
the beginning of the year. The initial figures for Transylvania and also for present-day Hungary are from the beginning of the year in which the
censuses were carried out. The same figure for the old Romanian kingdom was
calculated at the end of the year.
c Growth or decrease since the previous date. Figures are taken
from the middle of the period.
The population development outlined above can be shown in greater detail
in a breakdown reflecting the sources of real population growth (that is,
natural growth and migration). These factors are given in Table 3 for Transylvania
and in Table 4 for Transcarpathia, a region which has also had strong
demographic links with Transylvania.
Table
3
Real and natural population growth and the difference between the two values
in Transylvania
between 1869 and 1995
|
Period
|
Real
|
Naturala
|
Difference
|
Real
|
Natural
|
Difference
|
|
|
growth or decrease(-)
|
between real and natural growth
|
growth or decrease(-)
|
between real and natural growth
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
1870-1880b,c
|
-191,585
|
-55,280d
|
-136,305
|
-4.2
|
-1,2
|
-3,0
|
|
1881-1890b,e
|
396,713
|
432,479d
|
-35,766
|
9.4
|
10.2
|
-0.8
|
|
1891-1900b
|
411,158
|
403,026d
|
8,132
|
8.9
|
8.7
|
0.2
|
|
1901-1910
|
387,723f
|
477,437
|
-89,714
|
7.6
|
9.4
|
-1.8
|
|
1911-1920
|
-125,090g
|
140,800h
|
-265,890h
|
-2.4
|
2.7
|
-5.1
|
|
1921-1930i
|
414,700
|
482,508
|
-67,800
|
7.7
|
9.0
|
-1.3
|
|
1931-1941i,j
|
362,611
|
386,865
|
-24,254
|
6.3
|
6.7
|
-0.4
|
|
1941-1948i,j
|
-149,847
|
125,000k
|
-274,900l
|
-3.7
|
3.1
|
-6.7
|
|
1948-1955m
|
471,050n
|
...
|
...
|
10.0
|
...
|
...
|
|
1956-1965
|
508,300o
|
481,487
|
26,800
|
7.8
|
7.4
|
0.4
|
|
1966-1976p
|
788,773r
|
715,423
|
73,350
|
10.1
|
9.2
|
0.9
|
|
1977-1985s
|
415,612t
|
374,422
|
41,190t
|
6.3
|
5.7
|
0.6
|
|
1985-1989s
|
117,792t
|
140,782
|
-22,990t
|
3.7
|
4.4
|
-0.7
|
|
1989-1991s
|
-310,320
|
41,030
|
-351,350
|
-15.7
|
2.1
|
-17.8
|
|
1992-1995s
|
-76,387
|
-34,355
|
-42,032
|
-2.8
|
-1.3
|
-1.5
|
Italics:
calculated values
a Calendar years.
b Civilian population.
c Real decrease allowing for probable lack of data in the 1880
census: approx. 162 thousand. Natural decrease without unregistered victims
of the cholera epidemic: approx. 90-100 thousand. Accordingly, migration
loss: approx. 60-70 thousand.
d In the case of counties divided by the border: calculated
values.
e Allowing for probable lack of data in the 1880 census, real
growth: approx. 367 thousand. Accordingly, migration loss: approx. 65
thousand.
f Real growth was calculated using the undivided population in
settlements divided by the border.
g Real growth was calculated by taking the 1920 population between
confirmed borders.
h Without war victims. If war victims are included, real growth
changes to a decrease of 29.7 thousand persons, and migration loss amounts to
95.4 thousand.
i Within the 1930 administrative borders.
j Between censuses.
k Estimated value in North Transylvania
(in related areas in Ugocsa/Ugocea and Máramaros/Maramureş counties and, in
1944, in the whole of North
Transylvania).
l Difference between immigration and emigration + war loss.
m According to 1956 administrative borders.
n Between 25 January 1948 and 1 January 1956.
o Between 1 January 1956 and 1 January 1966.
p According to present administrative borders.
r Between 1 January 1966 and 5 January 1977.
s Based on the population between two censuses with mid-year
figures and taking half of the natural growth in the year in question.
t Using officially calculated data based on the 1977 census,
without illegal emigration.
Sources:
Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények
1893b: pp. 70-73*. Magyar statisztikai évkönyv 1874-1875, 1877-1880,
1893-1916/1918. A népmozgalom főbb adatai községenként 1828-1900 1980: pp.
28-35, 44-51, 90-99, 110-119, 1984: pp. 30-51, 78-99. Magyar Statisztikai
Közlemények 1913: pp. 280-459. A népmozgalom főbb eredményei 1911-1920.
Manuilă 1938: p. 796, 1929: pp. VIII, XI, XV. Anuarul statistic al României
1928-1939/1940. Magyar statisztikai évkönyv 1941-1942. Statisztikai negyedévi
közlemények 1942-1944: 1-2. Thirring 1943: p. 358. A népmozgalom főbb adatai
községenként 1901-1968 1969: pp. 62-67, 124-129, 184-199, 314-319, 376-381,
436-451. Buletinul demografic al României May 1940-January/February 1948. Comunicări statistice
1947: p. 5-6. Anuarul demografic al Republicii Socialiste România 1967: pp.
22, 82, 1974: pp. 144, 238. Anuarul statistic al Republicii Socialiste
România 1975-1986. România. Date demografice 1994: pp. 124, 188. Anuarul statistic al României 1990-1996.
Table
4
Real and natural population growth and the difference between the two values
in the Transcarpathian region
between 1930 and 1995
|
Period
|
Real
|
Naturala
|
Difference
|
Real
|
Natural
|
Difference
|
|
|
growth or decrease(-)
|
between real and natural growth
|
growth or decrease(-)
|
between real and natural growth
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
1931-1941b
|
1,471784
|
1,312,912
|
158,872
|
15.1
|
13.5
|
1.6
|
|
1941-1948b
|
-92,653
|
258,350
|
-351,000c
|
-1.3
|
3.7
|
-5.0
|
|
1948-1955d
|
1,109,300e
|
...
|
...
|
13.1
|
...
|
...
|
|
1956-1965
|
1,117,000f
|
1,283,490
|
-166,500
|
9.5
|
10.9
|
-1.4
|
|
1966-1976g
|
1,692,807h
|
1,835,255
|
-142,448
|
11.6
|
12.6
|
-1.0
|
|
1977-1985i
|
749,314j
|
943,151
|
-193,837j
|
6.1
|
7.7
|
-1.6
|
|
1985-1989i
|
308,936j
|
366,553
|
-57,617j
|
5.1
|
6.1
|
-1.0
|
|
1989-1991i
|
-31,209
|
111,264
|
-142,473
|
-0.8
|
2.9
|
-3.8
|
|
1992-1995i
|
-52,697
|
-19,317
|
-33,380
|
-1.0
|
-0.4
|
-0.6
|
Italics:
calculated values
a Calendar years.
b Between censuses.
c Difference between immigration and emigration +war loss.
d According to 1956 administrative units.
e Between 25 January 1948 and 1 January 1956.
f Between 1 January 1956 and 1 January 1966.
g According to present administrative borders.
h Between 1 January 1966 and 5 January 1977.
i Based on the population between two censuses with mid-year
figures and taking half of the natural growth in the year in question.
j Using officially calculated data based on the 1977 census,
without illegal emigration.
Sources:
Between 1931-1940: Anuarul
demografic al Republicii Socialiste România 1974: pp. 142, 236. From 1941 on
the same as in Table 3.
The first column of Tables 3 and 4 gives real population growth or
decrease in different periods within changing administrative borders. The
second column gives the values for natural growth and decrease as a result of
the difference between the number of live births and deaths. If we substitute
the missing data with an estimated value reflecting between 26 and 28 per
cent of the national natural growth rate in Transylvania,
we find that natural growth in Transylvania between
1948 and 1955 may have coincided with real population growth. The third
column gives the difference between real and natural growth in different
periods. This figure provides information regarding fluctuations resulting
from internal and external migration, and, from 1911 to 1920 and from 1941 to
1947, includes both military and civilian losses (since demographic figures did
not include victims of war). A certain distortion of the migration figures in
the 1970s and 1980s, due to shortcomings in data processing, should be taken
into consideration (THIRRING 1963, p. 229; KATUS 1980, p. 271). Thus the real
migration difference during these periods is smaller than that indicated in
the table.
The data illustrate that, until recently, natural population growth was a
determining factor in Transylvania's real population
growth, apart from the period affected by the epidemic in the early 1870s and
some war years. The different factors causing natural population changes in
both regions are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Table
5
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvania from 1866 to 1995
|
Period
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth or decrease
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth or decrease
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
1866-1869a,b
|
608,218
|
484,171
|
124,047
|
37.6
|
29.9
|
7.7
|
|
1870-1880a
|
1,729,344
|
1,784,624
|
-55,280
|
38.1
|
39.3
|
-1.2
|
|
1881-1890a
|
1,775,238
|
1,342,759
|
432,479
|
42.0
|
31.8
|
10.2
|
|
1891-1900a
|
1,785,674
|
1,382,648
|
403,026
|
38.5
|
29.8
|
8.7
|
|
1901-1910
|
1,799,824
|
1,322,387
|
477,437
|
35.5
|
26.1
|
9.4
|
|
1911-1914
|
748,450
|
531,923
|
216,527
|
34.9
|
24.8
|
10.1
|
|
1915-1918
|
355,792
|
511,319
|
-155,527
|
16.5
|
23.7
|
-7.2
|
|
1919-1920
|
310,734
|
230,934
|
79,800
|
30.1
|
22.4
|
7.7
|
|
1921-1930
|
1,623,808
|
1,141,300
|
482,508
|
30.4
|
21.4
|
9.0
|
|
1931-1940
|
1,442,417
|
1,054,722
|
387,695
|
25.2
|
18.4
|
6.8
|
|
1941-1943c
|
360,770
|
306,430
|
54,340
|
20.3
|
17.2
|
3.1
|
|
1945-1947
|
364,722
|
310,337
|
54,385
|
21.0
|
17.9
|
3.1
|
|
1956-1965
|
1,134,174
|
652,687
|
481,487
|
17.5
|
10.1
|
7.4
|
|
1966-1976
|
1,515,087
|
799,664
|
715,423
|
19.4
|
10.2
|
9.1
|
|
1977-1985
|
1,131,893
|
741,720
|
390,173
|
16.3
|
10.7
|
5.6
|
|
1986-1988
|
371,179
|
262,575
|
108,604
|
15.5
|
11.0
|
4.5
|
|
1989-1991
|
321,025
|
263,568
|
57,457
|
13.4
|
11.0
|
2.4
|
|
1992-1995
|
328,305
|
370,449
|
-42,144
|
10.7
|
12.1
|
-1.4
|
Italics:
calculated values
a Based on calculated values in counties divided by
the border.
b Omitting data referring to the Banat military border territory.
c Based on values calculated in the parts of Ugocsa/Ugocea and
Máramaros/Maramureş belonging to Transylvania.
Sources: as for Table 3.
Table
6
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in the Transcarpathian
region from 1871 to 1995
|
Period
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth or decrease
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth or decrease
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
1871-1880a
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
35.6
|
31.3
|
4.3
|
|
1881-1890a
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
42.4
|
28.3
|
14.1
|
|
1891-1900a
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
41.1
|
29.2
|
12.0
|
|
1901-1910b
|
2,604,194
|
1,683,621
|
920,573
|
40.2
|
26.0
|
14.2
|
|
1911-1915b
|
1,570,474
|
912,904
|
657,570
|
42.3
|
24.6
|
17.7
|
|
1921-1930b
|
3,199,045
|
1,804,654
|
1,394,391
|
39.5
|
22.3
|
17.2
|
|
1931-1940
|
3,193,793
|
1,888,998
|
1,304,795
|
32.8
|
19.4
|
13.4
|
|
1941-1947
|
1,681,040
|
1,414,570
|
266,470
|
23.6
|
19.9
|
3.7
|
|
1956-1965
|
2,297,572
|
1,014,082
|
1,283,490
|
19.5
|
8.6
|
10.9
|
|
1966-1976
|
3,136,509
|
1,301,254
|
1,835,255
|
21.5
|
8.9
|
12.6
|
|
1977-1985
|
2,274,676
|
1,291,212
|
983,464
|
17.5
|
9.9
|
7.6
|
|
1986-1988
|
768,959
|
487,411
|
281,548
|
17.1
|
10.8
|
6.3
|
|
1989-1991
|
638,540
|
482,584
|
155,956
|
14.0
|
10.6
|
3.4
|
|
1992-1995
|
665,458
|
694,502
|
-29,044
|
11.0
|
11.5
|
-0.5
|
Italics:
calculated values
a Estimated value.
b In the territory of the Old Kingdom (Oltenia, Muntenia, Moldavia and Dobrudia between
1921 and 1930).
Sources:
Between 1871 and 1900: Gheţău 1997a: p. 29.
Between 1901 and 1930: Anuarul statistic al României 1922-1933. From 1931: as
in Tables 3 and 4.
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Hungary
entered the second phase of the so-called calculated demographic transition.
This model implies that in the first phase, where traditional demographic
conditions prevail, high birth and death rates result in a relatively low
rate of natural growth of between 5 and 10 per thousand. The mortality rate
then decreases while the birth rate remains unchanged or decreases slightly,
so the population growth rises to between 10 and 15 per thousand. In the
third phase, the birth rate decreases continually and therefore, with an
unchanged mortality rate, population growth also decreases. In Hungary
the demographic acceleration developed later than in Western
Europe. Another difference was that, almost parallel with the
decrease in the mortality rate, the birth rate also decreased. This near
coincidence meant that there was scarcely any second-phase provisional population
increase. The second phase was also delayed due to the devastating cholera
epidemic in the 1870s and a famine which decimated the population at the same
time, both of which struck the east of Hungary
as it was then, particularly Transylvania. Natural population
changes in present-day Transylvania as it entered the second phase of the
demographic transition (in the last two decades of the nineteenth century)
show that the fall in the birth rate, which was somewhat more marked than the
similar national (Hungarian) figure, was larger than the fall in the
mortality rate. This trend changed for the better only in the decade
preceding World War I, and then again for a short time in the early 1920s,
the latter reflecting normal post-war population changes. The low number of
births during World War I had a significant negative impact on demographic
changes. This appeared not only as a direct loss (in Transylvania
between 350 and 400 thousand fewer children were born than would normally
have been expected), but also as a later deficit resulting from the lower
number of potential parents. By the time those generations affected by the
war-related birth deficit reached child-bearing age between 1931 and 1940,
the live birth rate had decreased considerably, which, accompanied by the new
war-related birth deficit (although much smaller than the earlier one),
contributed to a fall in the number of babies born between 1956 and 1965.
(Previously, between 1948 and 1955, taking the natural population growth
estimated above and calculating a somewhat lower mortality rate in
Transylvania than the national average, the live birth rate must have been
higher by 3 to 4 per thousand, that is, over 20 per thousand.) At the same
time the mortality rate gradually decreased, stagnating at around 10 per
thousand before slowly increasing again. Altogether, natural population
development in present-day Transylvania has been
marked by a high degree of instability in terms of birth rate, influenced by
several factors. Accordingly, the relatively progressive values of between 9
and 10 per thousand for the population growth rate at the beginning of the
century were only reached after the wars and, following radical measures
introduced by the state to increase birth rates, at the turn of the 1960s.
Apart from the negative records reached during the war years, natural
population growth reached its lowest levels in the 1930s and 1980s, and in
recent years the national trend has become a fall in the population level
resulting from a falling live birth rate and a rising mortality rate. The
demographic transition described above occurred in the Transcarpathian region
after a delay of three decades. Live birth rates were higher and mortality
rates were usually lower here than in Transylvania.
During the demographic depression in the 1930s, for example, the average
natural population growth in the Transcarpathian region was twice as high as
in Transylvania, and even after 1948 it was, for three
decades, between 3 and 3.5 per thousand higher than the respective
Transylvanian figure. The negative balance of migration after 1956 (resulting
in a positive balance in Transylvania), indicates that after World War II
significant numbers out of the high population in the Transcarpathian region
had moved westwards through the Carpathians to establish new homes.
Population development with
respect to nationalities and the number of Hungarians between 1869 and 1992
The demographic metamorphosis in Transylvania is
closely connected with changes in the number of its major components, that
is, the various nationalities. An outline of this metamorphosis is given
below, focusing on the population development among Hungarians and Romanians
in different periods. Changes in relations between nationalities and
religions can be seen in Tables 7 and 8.
Table
7
The number of different ethnic groups according to native language and
nationality in Transylvania
between 1869 and 1992*
Index number (starting population =
100)
|
Year
|
Total
|
Hungar.
|
Roman.
|
German
|
Jewish, Yiddish
|
Other
|
Gypsy
|
Ukrain.
|
Serbian
|
Croat.
|
Slovak.
|
|
1869a
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0b
|
...
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0c
|
100.0
|
|
1880a,d
|
95.3
|
9.2
|
92.0
|
100.0b
|
...
|
105.6
|
107.3
|
86.3
|
115.0e
|
...
|
115.8
|
|
1890a
|
104.7
|
113.9
|
99.3
|
109.8b
|
...
|
111.3
|
116.4f
|
89.0
|
102.0
|
81.4c
|
124.6
|
|
1900a
|
114.3
|
134.9
|
107.1
|
114.3b
|
...
|
94.2
|
54.5
|
107.8
|
100.5
|
38.1
|
131.1
|
|
1900
|
115.2
|
136.2
|
107.6
|
115.5b
|
...
|
95.3
|
54.5
|
109.0
|
102.4
|
38.8
|
132.2
|
|
1910
|
124.2
|
157.2
|
113.3
|
112.0b
|
...
|
115.5
|
110.5
|
137.0
|
110.2
|
23.4
|
137,3
|
|
1919
|
123.7
|
131.0
|
119.8
|
102.4
|
100.0
|
98.2
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
|
1920
|
121.3
|
124.1
|
117.5
|
109.2
|
105.9
|
89.6
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
|
1930
|
131.1
|
140.3
|
129.5
|
107.4
|
65.0
|
103.3
|
79.4
|
144.6
|
89.3g
|
...
|
174.4h
|
|
1930
|
131.1
|
128.2
|
128.5
|
108.0
|
104.3
|
150.1
|
198.5
|
179.5
|
91.5g
|
...
|
201.5h
|
|
1941
|
139.7
|
164.9
|
132.4
|
106.3
|
48.3
|
139.6
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
|
1948
|
136.2
|
140.4
|
150.5
|
65.8
|
17.5
|
93.2
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
...
|
|
1956
|
147.7
|
153.5
|
163.9
|
74.2
|
5.7
|
86.6
|
69.4
|
175.6
|
92.1i
|
...
|
83.6
|
|
1956
|
147.7
|
148.1
|
162.8
|
73.3
|
25.6
|
119.5
|
142.5
|
191.1
|
95.6i
|
...
|
102.2
|
|
1966
|
159.6
|
154.5
|
184.0
|
74.5
|
0.7
|
86.0
|
58.3
|
219.4
|
87.1i
|
...
|
86.5
|
|
1966
|
159.6
|
151.8
|
183.6
|
74.1
|
7.9
|
102.1
|
89.4
|
223.6
|
91.8i
|
...
|
96.6
|
|
1977
|
178.1
|
160.7
|
209.6
|
69.3
|
4.6
|
143.8
|
223.7
|
259.2
|
70.3i
|
90.6c
|
93.5
|
|
1992
|
183.4
|
153.9
|
234.2
|
18.2
|
0.2
|
113.2
|
154.0
|
290.1
|
69.3e
|
...
|
80.5
|
|
1992
|
183.4
|
1524
|
228.9
|
21.7
|
1.6
|
186.4
|
368.5
|
305.3
|
59.4
|
49.1
|
86.0
|
*Within present
administrative borders
Bold type:
native language
Normal type: nationality
Italics: calculated values
a Civilian population.
b Including Yiddish native speakers.
c Croatians, Crassovanians.
d Those unable to speak are divided proportionally among the
nationalities.
e Serbians, Croatians, Crassovanians.
f According to the 1893 census of Gypsies the figure is 273.3.
g Serbians, Croatians, Slovakians.
i Serbians, Croatians, Slovenians, Crassovanians.
Table
8
The number of different denominations in Transylvania between 1869 and 1992*
Index number (Starting population = 100)
|
Year
|
Total
|
Orthodox
|
Greek Catholic
|
Roman Catholic
|
Calvinist
|
Lutheran
|
Unitarian
|
Jewish
|
Other
|
|
1869a
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
1880a
|
95.3
|
92.7
|
93.5
|
99.8
|
96.4
|
95.8
|
102.6
|
116.5
|
82.6
|
|
1890a
|
104.7
|
98.5
|
104.1
|
113.0
|
108.2
|
101.2
|
110.6
|
143.3
|
66.5
|
|
1900a
|
114.3
|
104.9
|
113.6
|
126.9
|
120.8
|
107.7
|
119.4
|
173.7
|
47.2
|
|
1900
|
115.2
|
105.4
|
114.1
|
128.3
|
122.0
|
108.8
|
120.3
|
174.9
|
48.3
|
|
1910
|
124.2
|
111.7
|
124.2
|
138.8
|
134.2
|
113.4
|
127.2
|
200.9
|
94.7
|
|
1919
|
123.7
|
112.9
|
128.1
|
128.3
|
133.3
|
115.2
|
124.8
|
189.1
|
258.6
|
|
1930
|
131.1
|
119.5
|
138.1
|
132.6
|
134.6
|
118.7
|
126.6
|
212.9
|
1,033.7
|
|
1992
|
183.4
|
333.3b
|
20.8b
|
120.5
|
154.0
|
24.4
|
140.7
|
3.1
|
7,480.0
|
*Within present
administrative borders
a Civilian population.
b Combined figure for Orthodox and Greek Catholics: 213.8.
According to the estimation made by Elek Fényes, the renowned Hungarian
descriptive statistician (FÉNYES 1839-1840; 1842, p. 52b), it can
be stated that in the 1830s and 40s a total of 62.3 per cent of the
population of present-day Transylvania were Romanian,
and only 23.3 per cent were native Hungarian speakers. At the time of the
1869 census it is estimated that the proportion of Hungarians and Romanians
was 24.9 per cent and 59 per cent respectively (VARGA E. 1997, p. 61). (Of
the 3.3 per cent decrease in the proportion of Romanians, 1 per cent occurred
among native Gypsy speakers who were regarded as Romanians by Fényes.) The
change in ethnic proportions was most striking in the Tisza/Tisa-Maros/Mureş
region, where the ratio of Romanians decreased by nearly 12 per cent in four
decades, while the ratio of Hungarians and Germans increased by almost the
same percentage due to resettlement in Banat.
As shown in Table 7, changes in the proportion of Romanians were greatly
influenced by the demographic catastrophe of the 1870s. The number of
Romanians fell by 200 thousand between 1869 and 1880, and two-thirds of this
decrease was caused by the demographic crisis of the decade (the remaining
third being due to migration and assimilation). Thus, in one decade the
proportion of Romanians fell by a further 2 per cent, almost as much as
during the previous three to three and a half decades (excluding the decrease
caused by the separation of the Gypsies). During the same period the
proportion of Hungarians within the total population increased by 1 per cent,
despite a slight fall in their actual number, to reach 25.9 per cent.
According to official native-language statistics between 1880 and 1910 the
proportion of Hungarian native speakers continued to increase the most
rapidly, in Transylvania as in all other parts of the
country. The growth rate here was not only twice as high as that of the
population as a whole, but it was also 3.7 per cent higher than the national
average for their rate of increase (calculated without Croatia-Slavonia). As
a consequence, the proportion of Hungarians increased from the 25.9 per cent
of 1880, to 31.6 per cent by 1910, while the proportion of Romanians decreased
from 57 to 53.8 per cent.
The significant changes in the ethnic spectrum in Hungary at the turn of
the century can be explained by three factors: 1. The natural population
growth of Hungarians was higher than that of non-Hungarian nationalities; 2.
The proportion of Hungarians emigrating was lower than the proportion of
non-Hungarians; and 3. Some non-Hungarians and most immigrants were
assimilated to the Hungarians (KATUS 1982, p. 18). These statements are true
with respect to the territory of present-day Transylvania.
There was yet another phenomenon which contributed to the fact that the
proportion of Hungarians in Transylvania increased
more rapidly than the national average: a positive balance of internal
nationality exchange in certain administrative units. The factors outlined
above are illustrated with demographic data from the last decade before World
War I, which is more or less relevant to the present territory as well.
As Table 9 shows, between 1901 and 1910 the number of Hungarian native speakers
increased far more rapidly than the total population (a higher figure was
only recorded in contemporary statistics for Ruthenians and Slovakians, both
very small in number). Half of the total natural growth occurred among
Romanians and 36.3 per cent among Hungarians. The high natural increase with
respect to Hungarians was partly due to their relatively lower mortality
rate, and partly due to the slightly higher than average birth rate, although
this was still proportionally lower than the Romanian birth rate. The
mortality rate among Romanians was highest of all the nationalities (apart
from a few fragments of ethnic groups not specified here). It is for this
reason that the number of Romanians increased considerably more slowly than
the number of Hungarians, despite the fact that the Romanian birth rate was
higher at the time.
Table
9
Live birth rates, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvania according to native languages
between 1901 and 1910
|
Native language
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth or decrease
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth or decrease
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
Total
|
1,799,824
|
1,322,387
|
477,437
|
35.5
|
26.1
|
9.4
|
|
Hungarian
|
559,552
|
386,109
|
173,443
|
36.1
|
24.9
|
11.2
|
|
Romanian
|
1,009,140
|
770,325
|
238,815
|
36.6
|
27.9
|
8.7
|
|
German
|
177,498
|
125,849
|
51,649
|
30.9
|
21.9
|
9.0
|
|
Other
|
53,634
|
40,104
|
13,530
|
28.8
|
21.5
|
7.3
|
Italics:
calculated values
Sources:
Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 1905: pp. 178-183, 340-345,
1907b: pp. 184-193, 346-355, 1910: pp. 184-193, 346-355, 1916a: pp. 244-249,
460-465. A népmozgalom főbb eredményei 1901-1910.
A comparison of the data for natural and real population growth highlights
further phenomena affecting the unequal proportions in terms of population
increase among the different nationalities. The difference between the two
numbers indicates the balance between external and internal migration in the
territory at the time as well as the negative or positive effects of
assimilation for the nationalities in question.
Table
10
Real and natural population growth and the difference between the two values
in Transylvania
between 1901 and 1910
|
Native language
|
Real
|
Natural
|
Difference between real and natural growth
|
Real
|
Natural
|
Difference between real and natural growth
|
|
|
growth or decrease
|
|
growth or decrease
|
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
Total
|
387,723
|
477,437
|
-89,714
|
7.6
|
9.4
|
-1.8
|
|
Hungarian
|
224,787
|
173,443
|
51,344
|
14.5
|
11.2
|
3.3
|
|
Romainan
|
144,854
|
238,815
|
-93,961
|
5.3
|
8.7
|
-3.4
|
|
German
|
-17,438
|
5,649
|
-69,087
|
-3.0
|
9.0
|
-12.0
|
|
Other
|
35,520
|
13,530
|
21,990
|
19.1
|
7.3
|
11.8
|
Italics:
calculated values
As shown in Table 10, only real growth among Hungarians and other native
speakers is higher than their natural growth. (The positive balance among
other native speakers indicates the increase in the Gypsy population on the
territory of historical Transylvania compared with the
1900 figures. The increase is due to the appearance of nomadic Gypsies, and
to different self-identification among Gypsies in 1910 at the expense of
other nationalities, mainly Romanians.) The negative Romanian and German
balance is the result of massive emigration. Statistics suggest that in the
period examined above emigration among the Romanian population was in
proportion to their numerical ratio; while the Hungarians were
under-represented, and the Germans over-represented, in terms of emigration
in the present-day territory of Transylvania.
The emigration deficit with respect to Romanians in the period, taking
unregistered immigration into account, was 80 thousand (KOVÁCS 1912, p. 798)
or, allowing for some hidden population changes (e.g. Gypsies becoming
statistically independent), somewhat less, but below 60 thousand (VARGA E.
1977, p. 77).
In terms of Hungarian native speakers, between 1880 and 1910 the
population gain above their natural growth in the region was between 180 and
200 thousand, while Romanian losses were between 130 and 150 thousand,
depending on whether we take the birth rate figures of the last decade as
retrospectively relevant, or calculate with the more balanced earlier figures
for nationality growth. The Romanian losses were mostly due to emigration,
which increased dramatically in the 1980s, especially in southern counties of
historical Transylvania and became a mass movement at
the beginning of the twentieth century. Hungarian population gains, on the
other hand, included a migration surplus. However, the exact value of this
cannot be determined, since we are unable to give a balance of internal
population exchanges between administrative units with respect to the present
borders. Nevertheless, the attraction of certain central points giving rise
to migration among regions is well known. In Krassó-Szörény/Caraş-Severin and
Hunyad/Hunedoara counties, where natural population growth was originally
low, mining areas and rapidly developing industrial centres attracted
Hungarians from a distance. Thus, in three decades their number multiplied
between 4.7 and 4.2 times. The proportion of Hungarians therefore increased
from 1.9 per cent to 7.2 per cent, and from 5.1 to 15.5 per cent for the two
areas respectively. A massive increase can be seen in certain areas of
Temes/Timiş and Torontál counties (the number of Hungarians increased 2.5
times, their proportion growing from 8 per cent to 16.6 per cent). In Arad
county, where the increase in proportions was average, the number of
Hungarians also grew rapidly (the figure in 1910 is 1.8 times higher than in
1880, with their proportion rising from 22.3 per cent to 29 per cent).
Similar data are available in Kolozs/Cluj county (1.7 times higher with the
proportion increasing from 33.2 to 38.9 per cent); in Szatmár/Satu Mare and
Ugocsa/Ugocea (where the proportion increased from 44.4 to 55.1 per cent);
and in the Bihar (Bihor) area, where the proportion of Hungarians rose from
39.8 to 44.4 per cent in spite of the high birth rate among local Romanians.
The rise in the number of Hungarian native speakers in Máramaros/Maramureş
also deserves attention: the number of Hungarian native speakers here
increased 2.1 times over thirty years, and the proportion grew by 5 per cent
to reach 19.4 per cent in 1910. At the same time, the serious local economic
and social crisis in Szeklerland is well demonstrated by the fact that here,
in the smaller language area of the eastern periphery of the country, in
Csík, Háromszék and Udvarhely counties, the population increase among
Hungarians fell far behind even the Transylvanian average because of losses
resulting from migration.
The population growth and the changes in ethnic proportions outlined above
were also influenced by the fact that assimilation enlarged the Hungarian
population. The main areas in which this process occurred were the rapidly
developing towns, with those assimilated being individuals who had become
estranged from their original, homogenous ethnic blocks, and who had drifted
far away from their place of birth and were rising into the middle class.
Hungarian expansion due to assimilation is illustrated by the process during
which the denominations became more Hungarian.
Table
11
The number of Hungarian native speakers per denomination between 1880 and
1910
|
Period
|
Total
|
Orthodox
|
Greek catholic
|
Roman catholic
|
Calvinist
|
Lutheran.
|
Unitarian
|
Jewish
|
Other
|
|
(x 1,000 persons)
|
|
1880a
|
1,009.4
|
11.2
|
31.6
|
366.8
|
468.2
|
23.6
|
52.4
|
54.4
|
1.2
|
|
1880a,b
|
1,046.1
|
11.6
|
32.7
|
380.6
|
485.0
|
24.5
|
54.3
|
56.2
|
1.2
|
|
1890a
|
1,201.2
|
13.0
|
42.3
|
434.6
|
547.2
|
26.0
|
58.8
|
77.5
|
1.8
|
|
1900
|
1,438.5
|
20.9
|
63.3
|
530.9
|
622.6
|
30.7
|
64.5
|
104.3
|
1.3
|
|
1910c
|
1,663.2
|
25.2
|
82.3
|
632.2
|
685.8
|
35.8
|
68.0
|
132.0
|
1.9
|
|
Index number (Starting population = 100)
|
|
1880a,b
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
1890a
|
114.8
|
111.4
|
129.5
|
114.2
|
112.8
|
106.1
|
108.2
|
137.9
|
145.9
|
|
1900
|
137.5
|
179.7
|
193.7
|
139.5
|
128.4
|
125.3
|
118.6
|
185.8
|
101.6
|
|
1910c
|
159.0
|
217.4
|
251.9
|
166.1
|
141.4
|
146.0
|
125.1
|
235.0
|
154.5
|
a Civilian population.
b Those unable to speak are divided proportionally among the
nationalities.
c Value calculated with regard to the undivided population in
settlements divided by the border.
Sources:
A magyar korona országaiban az
1881. év elején végrehajtott népszámlálás főbb eredményei, némely hasznos
házi állatok (...) 1882: pp. 508-623. Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 1893a:
pp. 256-307, 1907a: pp. 354-387, 1916b: pp. 248-281.
The growth index in Table 11 vividly illustrates that the number of
Hungarian native speakers belonging to "non-Hungarian" churches
increased much more rapidly than the number of Hungarian native speakers in
general, whereas the population growth among those who belonged to typically
Hungarian churches (Calvinists, Unitarians) was below the average. Among
Hungarian native speakers the highest increase was among Greek Catholics,
followed by Hungarian Jews and members of the Orthodox Church. According to data
for specific local areas, the Hungarian language gained ground in the Câmpia
Ierului/Érmellék area, in Szatmár/Satu Mare and Ugocsa/Ugocea counties; to a
smaller extent in Szeklerland among Greek Catholics; in Bihar/Bihor among
Orthodox believers; around Nagykároly/Großkarol/Carei and
Szatmárnémeti/Sathmar/Satu Mare; in Banat among Roman Catholic Germans; and
among the Jewish population in general. The expansion of the Hungarian
language did not make any real changes to the language borders, except in the
Szatmár/Sathmar/Satu Mare - Ugocsa/Ugocea area, where the 1910 census
revealed that the outlines of the Hungarian language area were more clearly
defined, as Greek Catholic Romanians and Ruthenians and Roman Catholic
Germans had exchanged their native languages for Hungarian. The adoption of
Hungarian was most intensive among the Yiddish speaking Jews who arrived in a
steady stream from Galitia and Bukovina from the
middle of the century and among whom the growth rate was very high. The
number of Hungarian native speakers belonging to the Jewish community in Transylvania
increased two and a half times by 76 thousand persons between 1880 and 1910.
Among native Hungarian speakers, during the three decades about 40 per cent
of the population gain above the natural increase (80 thousand persons) was a
result of assimilation. Two-fifths of those assimilated were originally
Orthodox and Greek Catholics, another two-fifths were Jewish, and the rest
were made up of Germans in Szatmár/Sathmar/Satu Mare and Banat,
as well as some smaller nationalities.
The ethno-demographic tendencies around the time of the 1910 census were
dramatically reversed after World War I as a consequence of the change in
political supremacy. Intensive emigration up to the beginning of the war and
war losses (see MIKE 1927, p. 627; WINKLER 1919, pp. 31-34) virtually
counterbalanced the demographic gain among Hungarians in the second decade of
the century. At the end of 1918, as the Romanian occupation resulted in a
flow of refugees, the number of Hungarians in Transylvania
started to fall. Up to December 1920, a total of 154.3 thousand persons
arrived in Hungary
from the occupied territory (THIRRING 1938, p. 390). At the time of the
Romanian census in 1920, the number of those remaining who had been
registered as Hungarian native speakers in the 1910 census could not have
been much higher than 1.5 million. However, the census recorded 200 thousand
fewer ethnic Hungarians than could be expected. The deficit was found mainly
in border counties and major centres of migration, but the census modified
the ethnic proportions in all those areas in which high numbers of Hungarian
native speakers belonging to "other religions" were living. In
order to achieve politically motivated "statistical justice", the
organisers took back the whole of the assimilation gain in the number of
those speaking Hungarian that had been recorded earlier by the Hungarian
censuses, something which had undoubtedly reflected their delayed ambitions
to create the nation state. The first official Romanian census reproduced the
conditions of the decades prior to the 1910 census, while being forward
looking at the same time. This is proved by the fact that the basic
nationality proportions registered then did not change essentially in the
subsequent decade.
According to official statistics, in the first four years of the new
regime 25.1 per cent of the total natural population growth occurred among
Hungarians, and 57.2 per cent among Romanians (Table 12). A significant fall
in the mortality rate and a rise in the birth rate after the war meant that
the total population increased at the same rate as between 1911 and 1914
(although the live birth rate did not reach the level of ten years earlier).
However, the decreasing natural growth rate, and especially the birth rate
among Hungarians (compared with earlier periods and other nationalities)
predict an unfavourable demographic change in this respect.
Table
12
Live births, deaths and the natural population growth in major ethnic groups
in Transylvania
between 1920 and 1923
|
Nationality
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand*
|
|
Total
|
676,413
|
465,784
|
210,629
|
32.6
|
22.4
|
10.2
|
|
Hungarian
|
161,336
|
108,438
|
52,898
|
30.1
|
20.2
|
9.9
|
|
Romanian
|
413,050
|
292,635
|
120,415
|
34.9
|
24.7
|
10.2
|
|
German
|
65,456
|
43,544
|
21,912
|
30.0
|
20.0
|
10.0
|
|
Jewish
|
19,501
|
10,530
|
8,971
|
26.5
|
14.3
|
12.2
|
|
Other
|
17,070
|
10,637
|
6,433
|
26.8
|
16.7
|
10.1
|
*Mid-period
population based on the nationality results of the census conducted in
December 1920 with natural population growth added to and deducted from the
census respectively, according to missing refugees (the 1920 natural growth
is divided proportionally among nationalities).
Source:
Istrate 1925: p. 115.
Population development according to ethnic groups between 1921 and 1930
can only be given indirectly, by means of the demographic data with respect
to denominations.
Table
13
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvania according to denominations
between 1921 and 1930
|
Denominat.
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
|
|
1921-1928
|
1921-1928
|
1921-1930
|
1921-1928
|
1921-28
|
1921-30
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per housand
|
|
Total
|
1,308,612
|
926,202
|
382,410
|
483,846
|
31.1
|
22.0
|
9.1
|
9.1*
|
|
Orthodox
|
444,729
|
343,443
|
101,286
|
131,027
|
30.0
|
23.2
|
6.8
|
7.0
|
|
Greek Cath.
|
375,807
|
242,929
|
132,878
|
171,100
|
36.7
|
23.7
|
13.0
|
13.2
|
|
Roman Cath.
|
210,141
|
153,740
|
56,401
|
68,896
|
29.0
|
21.2
|
7.8
|
7.6
|
|
Protestant
|
237,251
|
162,574
|
74,677
|
90,843
|
30.1
|
20.6
|
9.5
|
9.3
|
|
Jewish
|
37,288
|
20,310
|
16,978
|
19,958
|
25.7
|
14.0
|
11.7
|
10.9
|
|
Other
|
3,396
|
3,206
|
190
|
654
|
8.4
|
7.9
|
0.5
|
1.3
|
*This value is
based on an average figure re-calculated from the 1930 census, thus it
differs from the comparable figures in Table 5.
Sources:
Anuarul statistic al României
1923-1931/1932. Istrate 1929: pp. 681-683. Kovács 1929: pp. 1210-1211.
After an initial boom, the average natural population growth fell steadily
and rapidly each year, except for the years 1928 and 1930. The decrease in
birth rate was uninterrupted among Roman Catholics and Protestants, whereas
some occasional improvement could be found with the other denominations.
Since the mortality rate of the different denominations decreased at almost
the same rate, the natural population growth differences were determined by
birth rates. Accordingly, decrease in natural growth is most marked among
Protestants, Roman Catholics and Jews, somewhat weaker among the Orthodox
community, while the relatively smallest decrease can be found among Greek
Catholics. The figures are especially unfavourable with respect to
Hungarians, since the situation was at its most serious among Hungarian
denominations. Taking the values in column 4 of Table 13, we can attempt to
establish what proportion of the population growth over the ten years
occurred in the major ethnic groups. The calculation is based on the proportion
of Hungarian and Romanian native speakers in each denomination in 1910. These
figures can then be used to calculate what proportion of the natural growth
between 1921 and 1930 occurred in the two major ethnic groups within each
denomination (see KOVÁCS 1929). The result shows that out of the total
natural population growth of 483.8 thousand persons, an increase of 141.4
thousand persons (29.2 per cent) occurred among Hungarians, and double this
figure, that is, 277.6 thousand persons (57.4 per cent), among Romanians. (If
we adjust this result, which is optimal from a Hungarian point of view, to
Romanian data collection practices based on the concept of "descent
according to people", and accordingly subtract Jewish persons and
include Orthodox Hungarian native speakers among Romanians, the Hungarian
share in the natural population increase is reduced to approximately 115
thousand persons, while the Romanian share increases to 290 thousand
persons.) In order to calculate (even conditionally) the population balance
with respect to Hungarians, migration losses also have to be taken into
consideration. Between 1921 and 1924 there was an increase of 42.8 thousand
in the number of Transylvanian refugees registered in Hungary.
According to the official Romanian emigration statistics, the emigration,
immigration and remigration balance with respect to ethnic Hungarians or
Hungarian citizens was -8.7 thousand persons between 1926 and 1930. The real
number of Hungarian emigrants was increased by those who were regarded as
non-Hungarian - for example, Jews and Germans. Emigration was particularly
intensive in the first half of the decade, but we have only incomplete
information from this period (STATISTICĂ EMIGRĂRILOR DIN ROMÂNIA 1923, DIE
SIEBENBÜRGISCHE FRAGE 1940, p. 223). With this in mind, however, it is no
exaggeration to estimate that the deficit in the number of Hungarians
emigrating from Transylvania over ten years amounts to
at least 60 thousand persons. This number is nearly as high as the negative
balance of the real and natural population growth of the region illustrated
in Table 3. The census in late December 1930 found a maximum of 80 thousand,
or, allowing for the "decent according to people" criterion 55
thousand, more Hungarians in Transylvania than could be estimated for 1920,
or than the figure recorded in the census. The nationality returns in the
census, which stated that the number of Hungarians had increased to 1,353.3
thousand, just fulfil these low expectations. The figure of 1,480.7 thousand
for native speakers is closer to the estimation based on the 1910 data,
although this is still 100 thousand fewer than 1.6 million, the figure
generally accepted by moderate Hungarian statisticians (RÓNAI 1938, p. 97,
1939, p. 351; SCHNELLER 1940, p. 492). Interestingly enough, in 1910 the
total number of those whose identity was subject to controversy (Hungarian
native speakers belonging to the Jewish, Greek Catholic, and Orthodox
denominations, and Germans who became Hungarian in Szatmár) amounted to 264.1
thousand. This figure was roughly the same as the difference between the
estimated 1.6 million mentioned above and the number of Hungarians registered
by the 1930 census. Of these, 127.2 thousand spoke only Hungarian, while
114.5 thousand had Hungarian as their native language but also knew another
language which, because of their denomination, was taken to be their
"original" language. The number in this latter group is
approximately equivalent to the shortfall from the figure for native
language.
The data for population changes with respect to denominations in Transylvania
between 1931 and 1935 are shown in Table 14.
Table
14
Live births, deaths and natural population growth according to denominations
in Transylvania
between 1931 and 1935
|
Denomination
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural
growth
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural
growth
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
Total
|
732,462
|
531,567
|
200,895
|
25.9
|
18.8
|
7.1
|
|
Orthodox
|
247,770
|
195,649
|
52,121
|
25.3
|
20.0
|
5.3
|
|
Greek Catholic
|
228,324
|
144,255
|
84,069
|
32.0
|
20.2
|
11.8
|
|
Roman Catholic
|
108,858
|
84,460
|
24,398
|
22.7
|
17.6
|
5.1
|
|
Calvinist
|
82,904
|
60,992
|
21,912
|
23.4
|
17.2
|
6.2
|
|
Lutheran
|
30,033
|
21,744
|
8,289
|
21.6
|
15.6
|
6.0
|
|
Unitarian
|
8,304
|
5,777
|
2,527
|
23.9
|
16.6
|
7.3
|
|
Jewish
|
17,594
|
12,492
|
5,102
|
18.0
|
12.8
|
5.2
|
|
Baptist, Adventist
|
6,245
|
3,190
|
2,335
|
28.7
|
18.0
|
10.7
|
|
Other
|
2,430
|
2,288
|
142
|
*
|
*
|
3.1
|
Source: Anuarul statistic al României 1933-1937/1938.
The regional breakdown reveals that the most favourable figures for
natural population growth for all the denominations, with the exception of
Jews and Greek Catholics, were recorded in the territory of historical Transylvania.
Even the positive birth rate among the Orthodox community reaches 8.2 per
thousand here. The same figure for Roman Catholics and Calvinists is 8.4 per
thousand and 7.2 per thousand respectively. The birth rate among Greek
Catholics is highest in the Crişana/Körös and Maramureş/Máramaros areas (12.2
per thousand). In Banat, a further fall in the
originally low birth rate meant that not only the Jewish community and the
Unitarian and Greek Catholic segments, but also the dominant Orthodox
denomination began to experience a natural decrease (an annual average of
-0.9 per thousand). The Banatians, too (and the Germans in particular), among
whom the birth rate was traditionally low, reduced the average natural
population growth among Roman Catholics with an annual figure of 0.6 per
thousand. It is once again instructive to look at denominational data in
order to demonstrate ethnic differences in population changes, as well as to
check demographic statistics with respect to nationality. Using the method
applied above, the natural population growth among Hungarians over half a
decade can be established as 51.7 thousand persons (or 41.7 thousand if the
"descent according to people" criterion is used), while the same
figure for Romanians is 128.6 thousand or 134.8 thousand. As Table 15
indicates, according to this method the number of Romanians actually
increased during this time. The population growth among those officially
regarded as ethnic Hungarians is higher than expected, since the calculation
based on denominations produces a lower value than the real one due to the
low birth rate among the Germans.
Table
15
Live births, deaths and natural population growth according to nationality in
Transylvania
between 1931 and 1939
|
Nationality
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
|
|
1934-1939
|
1934-
1939
|
1931-
1935
|
1931-
1939
|
1934-1939
|
1934-
1939
|
1931-
1935
|
1931-
1939
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
Total
|
858,531
|
627,061
|
231,470
|
200,922
|
365,151
|
24.7
|
18.0
|
6.7
|
7.1
|
7.1
|
|
Romanian
|
548,515
|
392,899
|
155,616
|
130,903
|
241,661
|
27.1
|
19.4
|
7.7
|
8.0
|
8.1
|
|
Hungarian
|
180,160
|
133,299
|
46,861
|
44,813
|
77,592
|
21.3
|
15.8
|
5.5
|
6.5
|
6.2
|
|
German
|
66,013
|
55,429
|
10,584
|
8,891
|
16,925
|
19.8
|
16.6
|
3.2
|
3.2
|
3.4
|
|
Jewish
|
20,305
|
14,957
|
5,348
|
5,695
|
9,113
|
18.3
|
13.5
|
4.8
|
6.3
|
5.5
|
|
Russ., Ukr.
|
8,271
|
4,983
|
3,288
|
2,752
|
5,014
|
34.2
|
20.6
|
13.6
|
14.4
|
14.1
|
|
Other
|
35,267
|
25,494
|
9,773
|
7,868
|
14,846
|
24.7
|
17.9
|
6.8
|
6.8
|
6.8
|
Sources:
Anuarul statistic al României 1935/1936-1939/1940.; Buletinul demografic al
României May 1939-April 1940. Manuilă 1940: pp. 95-103.
The annual natural population growth rate among ethnic Hungarians between
1931 and 1933 was still 7.5 per thousand, but over the next six years it fell
by 2 per thousand, thus increasing the shortfall compared with Romanians from
1.3 per thousand to 2.2 per thousand. Thus the tendency of the 1920s towards
the equalisation of the growth rate in the two ethnically dominant
Transylvanian nationalities seems to have gained strength up until the early
1930s when it turned into a new inequality, this time to the advantage of the
Romanians. The growth rate among Hungarians fell from 11.2 per thousand (the
rate between 1901 and 1910), to less than half that figure, that is, 5.5 per
thousand. At the same time, the fall in the Romanian growth rate was only 1
per thousand, and the natural growth rate among the Romanian population still
reached an annual figure of 7.7 per thousand. (However, this value was
extraordinary only by Transylvanian standards, since the Romanian growth rate
amounted to 12.6 per thousand over the whole of Great Romania.) Although the
ethno-demographic statistical records were distorted to some extent due to
the lack of a clearly standardised criterion system, they basically followed
major tendencies. They demonstrate that the demographic turn-around with
respect to the two nationalities described above was due to the
disproportionately large difference between the fall in birth rates, since
the decrease in mortality rates was more or less equal (compared with the
first decade of the century the Hungarian rate fell by 9.1 per thousand, and
the Romanian rate by 8.5 per thousand). The annual birth rate among
Hungarians was 14.8 per thousand lower than it had been three decades
earlier. The same Romanian value was only 9.5 per thousand lower. This
phenomenon was probably also brought about by the accumulated population
losses among Hungarians, since the wave of refugees fleeing to Hungary after
the war compounded the decreasing birth rate caused by the low number of
those of child-bearing age (although this factor should not, of course, be
exaggerated). The annual average for Hungarian natural growth is only higher
than the Romanian figure in Banat (4.1 per thousand)
where the number of Romanians was falling at the time (-1.2 per thousand). On
the other hand, it is remarkable that the natural population growth rate
among Romanians (10.3 per thousand) was 1.5 times higher than that among
Hungarians (6.7 per thousand) even in the territory of historical
Transylvania, whereas in the Crişana/Körös and Maramureş/Máramaros areas the
rate was 2.5 times higher (8.6 and 3.2 per thousand respectively). This
suggests that we should be cautious when interpreting these data. Such a
great difference can only be explained by the fact that the architects of the
demographic statistics followed the practice of the 1930 census and based
their figures on the obscure "descent according to people"
criterion. With this in mind, and correcting the data with regard to
denominations, it can be seen that from the natural growth of the total
Transylvanian population between 1931 and 1940, which amounted to 386.8
thousand persons, some 250 thousand persons (64.6 per cent) may have been Romanian
and another 100 thousand (25.8 per cent) Hungarians. According to the
official nationality registration, the number of Hungarians increased to
1,430.9 thousand, during a period in which demographic tendencies were
officially regarded as undisturbed (MANUILĂ 1940, p. 97). However, allowing
for the data of the 1910 Hungarian census concerning native speakers, and
following the argument outlined above, we obtain a figure of 1.7 million.
The period between 1931 and 1941 was concluded by a further change in
political supremacy. Since the Second Vienna Award resulted in mutual
population movements in the region, it seems advisable to draw the ethnic
picture of divided Transylvania allowing for the new
border. Figures for natural population changes detailed in this way also
demonstrate that this border, running from the western edge of present-day Romania
to the southern curve of the Carpathians, lies along a demographic break-line
dividing the fertile north and north-west of Transylvania
from the southern and south-western parts where population growth was
decreasing (see Table 16).
Table
16
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvania between 1931 and 1941*
|
Territory
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
North
|
702,149
|
467,930
|
234,219
|
28.0
|
18.7
|
9.3
|
|
South
|
759,398
|
606,752
|
152,646
|
22.8
|
18.2
|
4.6
|
*Between 1 January 1931 and 31 January 1941 in North
Transylvania, and 1 January 1931 and 31 March 1941 in South
Transylvania
Sources:
Thirring 1943: p. 358. Anuarul
demografic al Republicii Socialiste România 1974: pp. 142, 236. Buletinul
demografic al României May-July 1941.
Table 17, illustrating real and natural population growth according to
major ethnic groups, reveals that the Hungarian census in North
Transylvania in late January 1941 practically reconstructed the
ethnic and native language situation as it had been before Trianon. The
reasons behind this phenomenon are almost impenetrably complex. According to
the registration made by the Central Office for the Control of Foreigners 100
thousand Hungarian refugees had arrived in Hungary
from South Transylvania by the date mentioned (A
ROMÁNIAI MENEKÜLTEK FŐBB ADATAI 1944, p. 410), which is also indicated by the
real and natural population balance. Most of them sought refuge in the north,
and almost as many persons arrived in the reannexed territory as moved to the
Trianon territory from South Transylvania (STARK 1989,
pp. 72, 74). As a result of these migrations, North Transylvanian Hungarians
increased by almost 100 thousand. In order to "compensate" for
this, a great number of Romanians were obliged to leave North
Transylvania. Of them, some 100 thousand had left by February
1941 according to the incomplete registration of North Transylvanian refugees
carried out by the Romanian government (TEROAREA HORTHYSTO-FASCISTĂ 1985, p.
143). Besides this, a fall in the total population suggests that a further 40
to 50 thousand Romanians moved from North to South Transylvania
(including refugees who were omitted from the official registration for
various reasons). If the difference between real and natural population
growth in the two main ethnic groups is adjusted according to migration gain
and loss respectively, the population balance among Hungarian native speakers
becomes +160 thousand, while the Romanian figure is -90 thousand. These
values reflect returns which differ from the previous census, that is, a reassimilation
gain among Hungarians, and a disassimilation among Romanians. The Hungarian
assimilation gain is made up of losses on the part of other groups of native
speakers, as shown in the last column of Table 17. The figures reveal that
more than half of the persons recorded as Yiddish native speakers in 1930
returned to the community of Hungarian native speakers. This tallies with the
corresponding figures of the 1910 census. Yiddish, then recognised as a
special German dialect, was spoken by 40.2 thousand Jewish persons who had
German as their native language in the counties in question in 1910 (with
respect to present-day Transylvania), whereas there
were 48.5 thousand Yiddish speakers in North Transylvania
in 1941. The changing of language was most typical among Romanians, nearly 90
thousand of whom were added to the total number of Hungarian speakers. As for
nationality, the Hungarian gain is much higher than gain based on native
language: that is, over 300 thousand. On the other hand, behind this figure
were instances, many of them in Máramaros/Maramureş and Szatmár/Satu Mare
counties, where in dozens of settlements many of those who had declared
themselves as Romanian now identified themselves as Hungarian, even though
they did not speak Hungarian at all (not did they in 1910). The 1941 Romanian
census data with respect to Hungarians in South Transylvania
are quite correct, since most ethnic groups whose identity was debated were
found north of the border and were thus recorded by the Hungarian census.
Their number was between 160 and 300 thousand, the range being somewhat wider
than ten years earlier.
Table
17
Real and natural population growth and the difference between the two values
according
to native language and nationality in North and South Transylvania
between 1930 and 1941a
(x 1,000 persons)
|
Major ethnic groups
|
Number of persons
|
Real
|
Naturalb
|
Difference between real and natural growth
|
|
|
in 1930
|
in 1941
|
growth or decrease(-)
|
|
|
a. In North Transylvania according to native language
|
|
Total
|
2,393.3
|
2,578.1
|
184.8
|
234.2
|
-49.4
|
|
Hungarian
|
1,007.2
|
1,344.0
|
336.8
|
80.0
|
256.8
|
|
Romanian
|
1,165.8
|
1,068.7
|
-97.1
|
138.0
|
-235.1
|
|
German
|
59.7
|
47.3
|
-12.4
|
1.5
|
-13.9
|
|
Yiddish
|
99.6
|
48.5
|
-51.1
|
3.5
|
-54.6
|
|
Other
|
61.0
|
69.6
|
8.6
|
11.2
|
-2.6
|
|
b. In North Transylvania according to nationality
|
|
Total
|
2,393.3
|
2,578.1
|
184.8
|
234.2
|
-49.4
|
|
Hungarian
|
912.5
|
1,380.5
|
468.0
|
62.0
|
406.0
|
|
Romanian
|
1,176.9
|
1,029.0
|
-147.9
|
146.0
|
-293.9
|
|
German
|
68.3
|
44.6
|
-23.7
|
4.2
|
-27.9
|
|
Jewish
|
138.8
|
47.4
|
-91.4
|
10.0
|
-101.4
|
|
Other
|
96.8
|
76.6
|
-20.2
|
12.0
|
-32.2
|
|
c. In South Transylvania according to nationality
|
|
Total
|
3,155.0
|
3,332.9
|
177.9
|
152.7
|
25.2
|
|
Hungarian
|
440.7
|
363.2
|
-77.5
|
21.1
|
-98.6
|
|
Romanian
|
2,031.0
|
2,274.6
|
243.6
|
110.2
|
133.4
|
|
German
|
475.6
|
490.6
|
15.0
|
13.3
|
1.7
|
|
Other
|
207.7
|
204.5
|
-3.2
|
8.1c
|
-11.3
|
Italics:
calculated values
a In North
Transylvania on 31 January 1941, in South
Transylvania on 6 April 1941.
b Values based on nationality figures until 1939. When native
language is recorded, it is corrected by estimation.
c Of this Jewish: -1 thousand.
Sources:
Thirring 1943: p. 358. Anuarul
demografic al Republicii Socialiste România 1974: pp. 142, 236. Manuilă 1992:
p. 145. Buletinul demografic al României May 1940-July 1941.
The population balance during World War II can be calculated by comparing
the 1941 and 1948 census returns with natural population growth in the
period. The result shows a real deficit of 275.6 thousand persons in terms of
the total population. This is the balance of the total losses and gains among
the different ethnic groups. The number of North Transylvanian Jews,
three-quarters of them Hungarian, is established at between 90 and 100
thousand (SEMLYÉN 1982, Part 6 p. 9; ERDÉLY TÖRTÉNETE 1986, p. 1757). Another
100 thousand may represent the number of Germans who fled to the West with
the withdrawing Hitlerist troops. Some 90 to 100 thousand Germans were sent
as workers to the Soviet Union by the Romanian
government to repair war damage. Most of them did not later return to their
homeland, but settled in Germany
or Austria
(ILLYÉS 1981, pp. 28-29). The number of Hungarians leaving Transylvania
for good in subsequent waves is also estimated at between 100 and 125
thousand by different sources (STARK 1989, p. 73). The sum of these losses is
higher than the figure based on the population balance mentioned above.
Consequently, another segment of the population experienced a significant
migration gain, for which no precise figures can be given without knowing
details of military losses. This gain obviously enlarged the Romanian
population and contributed to an estimated real increase of 400 thousand
persons (as regards native language), because of which the proportion of
Romanians, which had been almost stagnant until then, rose by 9 per cent to reach
two-thirds of the population at the time of the 1948 census. The number of
Hungarians in Transylvania fell from 1,743.8 thousand
to 1,481.9 thousand during this period according to the census. The
difference of over 260 thousand persons and their natural population growth
between the two censuses went to produce the total population deficit of
Transylvanian Hungarians, which includes those who were killed on the fronts
or as prisoners of war, the civilian victims of deportations, military
actions and reprisals, as well as those leaving the country for good. All
that can be deduced from this deficit, relying on different sources, is the
number of refugees, expatriates and deportees, that is, a total of 200
thousand. Not having any (even approximate) data, about the other Hungarian
victims of war, we can only presume that these losses did not exceed the
Hungarian natural population increase in the seven years. Theoretically,
these losses must have been the remaining 60 thousand missing from the
officially established number of Hungarian native speakers. Owing to the
destruction of Hungarian Jews, this deficit is much smaller than could be
ascertained from previous Romanian censuses. The difference still indicates
uncertainties in the estimation due to incomplete data about human losses. On
the other hand, it also witnesses to the survival of earlier reflexes such as
repeated attempts to separate members of certain population groups with dual
ethnic identity (mostly denominations using Greek rites, as local data show)
from Transylvanian Hungarians.
Over the next eight years, as shown in the 1956 census, native language
proportions did not change in practice in Transylvania.
Within the same administrative borders the number of Hungarian native
speakers increased by 137 thousand, and the number of Romanian native
speakers by 339.8 thousand between 1948 and 1956. The Hungarian real annual
population growth was 11 per thousand, that is, 1 per thousand higher than
the total population increase, even slightly exceeding the 10.8 per thousand
Romanian annual population growth. Part of the Hungarian population growth
seen in the 1956 census derives from a verifiable positive change in
declarations of nationality compared with the 1930 and 1948 censuses. It is
obvious from regionally analysed data that the Hungarian population growth
rate in Transylvania is above the average primarily in
the north-west border region, except in present-day Hunedoara county where a
higher rate occurred due to remigration into the mining area. In the
north-west, once the territory of Szatmár/Satu Mare) and Szilágy/Sălaj
counties, the number of Hungarian native speakers increased by an annual 16.1
per thousand, while the same figure for local Romanians, well-known for their
high birth rate, was only 7.5 per thousand. (The source of the 1956 data
adjusted to previous administrative units is László Sebők's Transylvanian
historical-statistical gazetteer. Computerised database, L. Teleki Foundation
Library and Documentary Service, Budapest.)
A closer study reveals that this unique outcome in the history of Romanian
censuses was due to the fact that ethnic groups that had earlier broken away
from the Hungarian native-speaking community now returned to it - although,
as shown in later censuses, only temporarily. Because of this temporary
assimilation gain for the Hungarians, their natural population growth was
lower than the real increase, although we do not know how much the birth rate
differed from the average in the region, since there are no figures for the
period.
Ethnic relations were challenged, but, with respect to the Hungarian and
Romanian positions at least, were only slightly modified along earlier
break-lines, by the repeated changes in political supremacy. A real
rearrangement of the ethnic spectrum has occurred since the 1956 census. As
shown in Supplementary Table 1, in 1956 the Hungarian population had once
again reached, for the first time since the beginning of Romanian censuses,
approximately the same levels as registered in 1910. Their proportion of the
total population had even increased (compared with 1930) with respect to the
nationality breakdown, nor did it fall below the lowest value recorded until
that time (in 1869) with respect to native speakers. Moreover, their position
in North Transylvania remained unchanged, even in the
towns, compared with 1930; there was even improvement in certain areas,
whereas the proportion of Romanians barely retained its two-thirds share. At
that time the increase in the proportion of Romanians was mostly due to their
intensive expansion, which meant their replacing those masses of Hungarians
who, although not forming compact groups, had left or had been forced to
leave Transylvania. This expansion was primarily
experienced in southern counties along the traditional "industrial
axis", and in German settlements already in the process of being
deserted (especially in Banat and North
Transylvania, around Bistriţa/Bistritz/Beszterce -
Reghin/Säschisch-Regen/Szászrégen, so it did not, in fact, occur at the cost
of Hungarians.
In the three and a half decades since that time, however, the proportion
of Romanians in terms of native speakers has increased by another 9.8 per
cent and by 8.6 per cent with respect to nationality. Thus, at the time of
the 1992 census, about three-quarters of the Transylvanian population was
made up of Romanians. The ratio of Hungarian native speakers (which is not
far above that of ethnic Hungarians) has decreased by a further 5 per cent,
and consequently in 1992 only one-fifth of the population was Hungarian.
These changes, however, cannot be followed in detail, as the demographic data
do not contain a nationality breakdown. An ethno-demographic approach can
only rely on regional demographic publications to some extent, although it is
clear from earlier corresponding data that it can be misleading to relate
population growth rates in the different counties directly to their
nationality ratios and then to project these values onto a national level.
Information leaked sporadically suggests that the population increase among
ethnic Hungarians in the last decades has been checked, unlike in earlier
periods, by a higher than average mortality rate. (Between 1934 and 1939,
when the birth rate among ethnic Hungarians was 3.4 per thousand lower than
that in Transylvania as a whole and 5.8 per thousand lower than the same
Romanian figure, a relatively satisfactory level of growth among Hungarians
was ensured by a mortality rate 2.2 per thousand lower than the Transylvanian
average and 3.6 per thousand below the Romanian figure.) In 1965, when the
national birth rate fell to an extremely low 14.6 per thousand in Romania,
and to 14.2 per thousand in Transylvania, the live birth rate among
Hungarians in Transylvania was 12.8 per thousand, while the Romanian figure
was 14.5 per thousand (ANUARUL DEMOGRAFIC 1967, p. 53). Thus the Hungarian
birth rate was only 1.4 per thousand lower than the Transylvanian rate and
1.7 per thousand lower than the Romanian average. In that year (using
calculations based on the mother's nationality), out of the 20,812 Hungarian
new-born babies, 20,675, that is, 99.3 per cent, were born in Transylvania.
Over the next eleven years the number of babies born to Hungarian families
was approximately 336 thousand (SEMLYÉN 1980a, p. 49), 333.5 thousand of whom
must have been born in Transylvania if we accept the
ratio mentioned above. Taking a mean proportion of the values of the two
censuses we obtain a birth rate of 18.8 per thousand, which roughly
corresponds with the Transylvanian average. During this period the Hungarian
population increased by 93.6 thousand persons in Transylvania,
an annual growth rate of 5.3 per thousand. From the figures for live births
and the 5.3 per thousand average real population growth between 1966 and
1977, we obtain, by a simple calculation, a mortality rate of 13.5 per
thousand, that is, 3.3 per thousand higher than the Transylvanian average.
However, there is no reason why we should accept this speculative result as
probable. Relying on demographic data between 1966 and 1985 in counties where
Hungarians formed a majority or lived in great numbers, we can only suppose
that as Hungarian birth rates in Transylvania slowly
sank below the average, mortality rates approached, or sometimes exceeded the
average (VARGA E. 1994c, pp. 80-81). Official information concerning the
natural population changes among Hungarians was only provided quarter of a
century later, when the national demographic situation had become critical:
the official version is that Hungarian mortality rates over the whole country
increased to 14.8 per thousand in 1992, while the birth rate reached only 9
per thousand (GHEŢĂU 1993). Although this alarming fact effectively documents
the dramatic outcome of nationality inequalities in the process of
demographic transition, it does not enable us to draw definite conclusions
about conditions a few decades earlier.
Owing to the forty-five year blockade on information on the natural
population growth of particular nationalities and its structure, we can only
rely on the real population development figures recorded in the censuses when
reviewing the dramatic changes that occurred in ethnic relations between 1956
and 1992. It is clear from Table 18 that the number of ethnic Hungarians
between 1956 and 1977 increased by only 132.7 thousand, thus Transylvanian
Hungarians did not increase more in these two decades than during the
previous eight years. It is also worth mentioning that the 1977 census
documentation flagrantly distorts the original records (NYÁRÁDY 1983, VARGA
E. 1996b) and takes only 1,651.3 thousand "ethnic Hungarians and native
speakers" into account. Thus it acknowledges the existence of just 93
thousand (only 35 thousand as native speakers) more Hungarians in Transylvania
than recorded twenty-one years earlier by the 1956 census. Bearing in mind
the chaotic, contradictory nature of the publications, earlier doubts about
the ethnic data supplied by the Romanian statistical service would seem to be
justified. It is not therefore surprising that this period saw the highest
number of different estimations regarding the number of Transylvanian and
Romanian Hungarians. Using general population trends and church
registrations, Hungarian specialists usually put this figure at between 2 and
2.2 million in the 1980s, immediately before the beginning of mass
emigration, flight and natural population decrease (DÁVID 1982; NYÁRÁDI 1983;
SÜLE 1988; ANTAL 1989; KOCSIS-KOCSISNÉ 1991; KLINGER 1991; SEBŐK 1992).
Members of the general public who were keen to know the facts were faced
with a "fait accompli" in the 1992 census, which, contrary to even
moderate expectations, registered a serious fall in the number of ethnic
Hungarians compared with the previous census. The decrease of 87.1 thousand
(or 89 thousand nation-wide) can only partly be explained by emigration.
According to data from the Ministry of the Interior, 63,427 ethnic Hungarians
had left Romania
legally since the previous census (ANUARUL STATISTIC 1993, p. 143). Taking
the results of the two censuses, natural population growth and official
emigration statistics, we find that the real migration loss for Romania was
at least twice as high as officially registered (VARGA E. 1994a, pp.
196-197). (This was partly due to the omission of many Romanian citizens who
were abroad at the time the census was carried out.) Thus the number of
Hungarians who had either left the country for good or who were merely away
from the country must have been higher than mentioned before. Taking the
multiplier referred to above, it probably reached 100 thousand. However, not
even this can explain the population deficit among Hungarians recorded in the
census, since their natural increase must have compensated to a great extent
for the losses caused by permanent or temporary emigration. Allowing for
natural population growth and migration, the Bucharest Statistical Service
registered 1,753.2 thousand Hungarians in Romania
on 1 January 1988 (FEHÉR
KÖNYV 1991, p. 2). (These records suppose a natural population growth of 63.5
thousand relying on the 1977 census which recorded 1,712.8 thousand ethnic
Hungarians, and they take the number of persons emigrating between 1977 and
1987 as 23.1 thousand. In this case, the annual rate of population increase
among Hungarians would be 3.4 per thousand compared with the 5.5 per thousand
average for the total Transylvanian population.) If we reduce this officially
established value by 40.3 thousand, that is, the number of emigrants between
1988 and 1991, and by a further 35 thousand, being the probable number of
unregistered illegal emigrants, we still obtain a total of 1,680 thousand
Hungarians - a figure that should have been found in Romania by the 1992
census. In fact, the census only registered 1,625 thousand Romanian citizens
as belonging to the ethnic Hungarians. Although natural population growth has
turned into a decrease in Romania
as well, and although this change must have occurred somewhat earlier among
Hungarians, it is not likely that the population gain among Hungarians in Romania,
which had accumulated up to the end of the 1980s, vanished in a few years.
All this considered, the number of Hungarians in Romania recorded at the time
of the census is at least 50 thousand fewer than can be calculated taking the
1977 census as a basis and allowing for natural and mechanical population
changes. The deficit can be attributed to different declarations of
nationality from those given in the previous census, that is, assimilation
(or reassimilation) shifts: one-third of the deficit seems to have gone to
enlarge the German and Gypsy communities, and two-thirds were probably
included among Romanians.
Table
18
The real population growth and decrease among Hungarians, Romanians and the
population in Transylvania
between 1948 and 1992*
|
Period
|
Total
|
Romanian
|
Hungarian
|
Total
|
Romanian
|
Hungarian
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
1948-1956
|
483,766
|
339,785
|
137,008
|
10.0
|
10.8
|
11.0
|
|
1956-1966
|
503,734
|
520,951
|
39,136
|
7.7
|
12.0
|
2.5
|
|
1966-1977
|
780,674
|
644,414
|
93,610
|
10.2
|
12.2
|
5.3
|
|
1977-1992
|
223,084
|
480,296
|
-87,125
|
1.9
|
5.9
|
-3.5
|
*Between two
censuses, according to the territorial system valid at the end of the decade.
Native language test 1948-1956, nationality test 1956-1992.
Major data for city development
and for the flow of Transcarpathian Romanians into Transylvania
Supplementary Table 2, tracing the development of ethnic relations in
Transylvanian towns, illustrates that ethnic structures, weakened by repeated
changes in political supremacy, were modified fundamentally only by the city
explosion during the "second urbanisation" based on massive
industrialisation. An outline of the process is given here, with a focus on
the nation-wide migration which brought great masses of Romanian people into
towns, as well as on the large-scale population exchange between the two
great regions of the country.
The sources of twentieth-century urban population growth in Transylvania
are illustrated in Table 19.
Table
19
The sources of urban population growth in Transylvania between 1900 and 1944a
|
Period
|
Real
|
Natural (-)
|
Migration difference
|
Administration changesb
|
Annual average growthc
|
|
|
growth or decrease
|
|
|
|
|
1901-1910
|
124,650
|
21,714
|
79,895
|
23,041
|
20.1
|
|
1911-1920
|
38,985
|
-12,483d
|
55,606e
|
-4,138
|
5.5
|
|
1921-1930
|
241,872
|
18,960
|
132,228
|
90,684
|
28.7
|
|
1931-1941
|
190,226
|
5,951f
|
169,321
|
14,954
|
18.0
|
|
1941-1948
|
-34,740
|
...
|
...
|
-1,839
|
-3.1
|
|
1948-1956
|
634,940
|
...
|
...
|
243,070
|
27.4
|
|
1956-1966
|
625,525
|
136,770
|
351,260
|
137,494
|
30.1
|
|
1966-1972g
|
623,325
|
...
|
...
|
240,556
|
36.8
|
|
1972-1976g
|
555,957
|
150,000
|
405,960
|
-
|
37.7
|
|
1977-1981g
|
424,293
|
165,040
|
259,250
|
-
|
25.0
|
|
1981-1985g
|
316,007
|
115,395
|
200,612
|
-
|
19.1
|
|
1985-1989g
|
269,598
|
...
|
...
|
59,184h
|
15.2
|
|
1989-1991g
|
-138,852
|
48,536
|
-187,388
|
-
|
-12.4
|
|
1992-1994g
|
3,112
|
10,177
|
-7,065
|
-
|
0.3
|
Italics:
calculated values
a Real growth between censuses; natural growth broken
down into calendar years.
b Number of persons in settlements that were declared towns, or
were attached to or separated from towns at the beginning of the period.
c Real population growth compared with mid-period figures per
thousand
d Between 1911 and 1918, and in 1920.
e Difference between immigration and remigration minus war losses.
f Between 1 January 1931 and 1 April 1941 (in North
Transylvania between 1 January 1931 and 1 August 1940).
g Taking the mid-year population for the years between the two
censuses and half of the population growth in the year in question.
h Newly established towns with end-period numbers.
Sources:
Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények
1902: pp. 280-455, 1912: pp. 280-457, 1913: pp. 280-459. A népmozgalom főbb
eredményei 1911-1920. Martinovici - Istrati 1921: Dicţionarul comunelor.
Manuilă 1929: pp. VIII, XI, XV. Anuarul statistic al României 1922-1939/1940.
Ionescu 1927: pp. 57-62. Recensământul general al populaţiei României din 29
decemvrie 1930 1938: pp. XLII, 116, 224, 234, 276, 416, 440. Buletinul
demografic al României May-November 1940, Mai-July 1941. Recensământul
general al Româniai din 1941 6 aprilie 1944: pp. 1-270. Az 1941. évi
népszámlálás 1947: pp. 498-690. Recensămîntul populaţiei din 21 februarie
1956 1960: pp. 17-158. Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 15 martie
1966 1968: Volumes relating to Transylvania. Cucu - Urucu 1967: Supplementary
Table. Anuarul statistic al Republicii Socialiste România 1973-1986.
Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 5 ianuarie 1977 1980:p. 616.
Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992 1994: p. 1. Anuarul statistic al României 1990-1995.
Urbanisation was dynamic in the first decade of the century as well,
although the rate of increase was more modest than later because of the lower
number of newly established towns. Nearly two-thirds of the growth was a
result of immigration. The ratio of migration increase to natural population
growth was 4:1. A total of 100.8 thousand Hungarians (81 per cent), or 88
thousand (86.6 per cent) not counting newly established towns, contributed to
the growth in urban population during the decade, and their natural
population growth reached 22.6 thousand persons. The difference between the
two figures is due to migration and assimilation gains among Hungarians. The
shift in ethnic proportions following the change of supremacy can partly be
attributed to forced reassimilation. (In the 1920 census, for example, 91.1
thousand urban Jews, whose mother tongue was Hungarian, were registered as
ethnic Jews.) However, it was also caused by flight and by the changeover in
terms of state administration, officials and the liberal professions, as well
as by an influx of Romanians coming from rural areas into the towns. Those
settlements which became towns were mostly made up of Romanians or were mixed
even at that time. Some of the migration gain experienced in the 1930s was
temporary, since it included refugees who had been forced to leave their
homes and who were lodged in towns on both sides. However, the fact that 53.5
per cent of migration gain was concentrated in the narrow strip of the South
Transylvanian industrial area, in the towns of Braşov/Brassó, Sibiu,
Hunedoara, Caraş-Severin, Timiş/Temes-Torontal and Arad counties, was a sign
of permanent change.
Obvious parallels can be found between urbanisation trends during the
peaceful years before World War I and after World War II as far as
proportions are concerned. In both cases, the proportion within urbanisation
of those belonging to the dominant nation was much higher than their proportion
in the existing urban population. The Hungarian share in urban population
growth between 1901 and 1910, calculated within the same administrative
system, was 86.6 per cent, while the same figure for Romanians was 88.5 per
cent between 1956 and 1966, and 87.3 per cent between 1966 and 1977. Between
1977 and 1992, the population growth among Romanians exceeded that of the
whole country in towns as well. As Hungarian historians clearly show, towns
at the turn of the century were "furnaces of assimilation to the
Hungarians". This demographically true statement about the dominance of
the official language is true for later periods as well, in so far as an
overwhelming majority of Transylvanian towns are now furnaces of assimilation
to the Romanians. The only difference - a difference which cannot be ignored
- is the intensity of these trends. Urban population growth in the first
decade of the century was a mere 101.6 per thousand (apart from in newly
established towns), while the same figure increased to 488 thousand after
1956. Over the next eleven years it rose to 938.7 thousand, and in mid-1989
it reached 950.7 thousand. Two-thirds of this tremendous growth was the
consequence of migration into towns, at least until the mid-1980s.
As an after-effect of the massive migration, the growth capacity of towns
also increased. The impact of the environment in pushing down birth rates was
delayed: in small- and medium-sized towns open to migration, and even in
relatively "closed" big cities with a large proportion of
autochthonous population, the higher birth rate among the newcomers remained
dominant for some time (SEMLYÉN 1980b, p. 194). From the 1970s on, as shown
by a comparison of Tables 5 and 20, in towns (and city-like settlements) live
birth rates approached the national average. As a result of relatively high
birth rates and mortality rates far above the average, the source of natural
population growth gradually shifted to urban areas. Between 1956 and 1966,
between 70 and 75 per cent of natural population growth occurred villages
(including settlements regarded as urban at the time but which were, in fact,
rural). This ratio fell to between 55 and 60 per cent between 1966 and 1977,
and dropped to between 20 and 25 per cent between 1977 and 1992. In this latter
period rural areas entered the phase of natural decrease from the original 40
to 45 per cent level.
Table
20
Live births, deaths and natural population growth in Transylvanian towns
between 1900 and 1994a
|
Period
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
Live births
|
Deaths
|
Natural growth
|
|
|
Number of persons
|
Annual average per thousand
|
|
1901-1910
|
176,806
|
155,092
|
21,714
|
28.0
|
24.6
|
3.4
|
|
1911-1914
|
78,169
|
65,690
|
12,479
|
28.1
|
23.6
|
4.5
|
|
1915-1918
|
45,600
|
71,893
|
-26,293
|
16.1
|
25.3
|
-9.3
|
|
1920
|
17,923
|
16,592
|
1,331
|
24.8
|
23.0
|
1.8
|
|
1921-1925
|
87,843
|
76,131
|
11,712
|
23.2
|
20.1
|
3.1
|
|
1926-1930
|
88,524
|
81,276
|
7,248
|
19.1
|
17.5
|
1.6
|
|
1931-1939
|
153,414
|
145,808
|
7,606
|
17.6
|
16.7
|
0.9
|
|
1956-1965b
|
366,705
|
199,124
|
167,581
|
14.0
|
7.6
|
6.4
|
|
1972-1976b
|
309,084
|
140,654
|
168,430
|
17.7
|
8.1
|
9.6
|
|
1977-1985b
|
605,686
|
304,568
|
301,118
|
16.2
|
8.1
|
8.1
|
|
1989-1991
|
174,785
|
112,302
|
62,483
|
12.8
|
8.2
|
4.6
|
|
1992-1994
|
132,927
|
121,720
|
11,207
|
10.0
|
9.2
|
0.8
|
a According to administrative units at the end of the
period.
b Including city-like settlements and together with fringe
settlements.
Sources:
Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények
1913: pp. 280-459. A népmozgalom főbb eredményei 1911-1920. Manuilă 1929: pp.
VIII, XI,
XV. Anuarul statistic al României 1922-1939/1940. Ionescu 1927: pp. 57-62.
Anuarul demografic al Republicii Socialiste România 1967: pp. 22-24, 82-84. Anuarul
statistic al Republicii Socialiste România 1973-1986. Anuarul statistic al
României 1990-1995.
The demographic "ruralisation" of the urban population was
caused by the growing number of incoming Romanians, many of them from the
Transcarpathian region. The only exception to this rule was Szeklerland. The
returns with respect to migration deficits in a regional breakdown suggest a
massive influx of people from the Transcarpathian region. (A summary of the
related data from Tables 3 and 4 can be found in Table 21.)
Table
21
The migration balance in the present territory of Romania
according to the two main regions
(x 1,000 persons)
|
Perioda
|
Romania
|
Transcarpathia
|
Transylvania
|
|
1901-1910
|
...
|
...
|
-89.7
|
|
1911-1920b
|
...
|
...
|
-265.9
|
|
1921-1930
|
...
|
...
|
-67.8
|
|
1931-1941
|
134.6
|
158.9
|
-24.3
|
|
1941-1948b
|
-625.9
|
-351.0
|
-274.9
|
|
1948-1955
|
-130.2
|
...
|
...
|
|
1956-1965
|
-139.7
|
-166.5
|
26.8
|
|
1966-1976
|
-69.2
|
-142.5
|
73.3
|
|
1977-1989c
|
-233.2
|
-251.4
|
18.2
|
|
1989-1991
|
-493.8
|
-142.5
|
-351.3
|
|
1992-1995
|
-75.4
|
-33.4
|
-42.0
|
a Migration balance based on the population on 1 January
(registered by census in 1941, 1948, 1977 and 1992; in 1989 and 1995,
mid-year figures).
b Difference between immigration and emigration + war losses.
c Based on official data following the 1977 census, excluding
illegal emigration.
Official records reveal a continual migration deficit in the country since
the end of World War II. Between 1956 and 1989, migration loss in the
Transcarpathian region exceeded the national value, while Transylvania
had a migration gain despite the fact that a large proportion of emigrants
(especially Jews, Germans and Hungarians) had left Transylvania.
The deficit caused by these emigrations was apparently compensated by people
coming from the former Old Kingdom. Including these,
the immigration gain from the Transcarpathian region from 1948 to 1955 can be
estimated at between 35 and 40 thousand; from 1965 to 1976 at between 120 and
125 thousand; and from 1977 to 1989 at 250 thousand, thus totalling nearly
half a million over the whole period. The number obtained in this way can be
further increased by several tens of thousands with regard to officially
unregistered legal emigration, as well as ethnic Romanians leaving Transylvania
before 1976. The real number of those arriving in Transylvania
is even higher than this, since it also includes people coming from the
Transcarpathians who moved into places previously inhabited by those moving
to the Transcarpathian region. The real weight, that is, the direct and
indirect demographic importance of Transylvanian inhabitants originating from
the Transcarpathian region, can be outlined using census data with respect to
place of birth (Table 22).
Table
22
The population of Transylvania according to place of birth and habitation: 1930,
1966, 1977, 1992
(Number and percentage)a
|
Year
|
Total
population
|
Born in present place of habitation
|
Born elsewhere in the country
|
Otherb
|
|
|
In the same county
|
Elsewhere in Transylvania
|
In Trans-
carpathia
|
|
|
Total
|
|
1930
|
5,548,363
|
4,105,376
|
74.0
|
788,695
|
14.2
|
414,855
|
7.5
|
68,650
|
1.2
|
170,787
|
3.1
|
|
1966
|
6,719,555
|
4,333,885
|
64.5
|
1,078,816
|
16.1
|
791,427
|
11.8
|
397,373
|
5.9
|
118,054
|
1.7
|
|
1977
|
7,500,229
|
4,640,685
|
61.9
|
1,329,210
|
17.7
|
916,289
|
12.2
|
532,905
|
7.1
|
81,140
|
1.1
|
|
1992
|
7,678,206
|
6,174,802 80.4
|
876,752
|
11.4
|
573,986
|
7.5
|
52,666
|
0.7
|
|
Of these, number of persons living in towns
|
|
1930
|
963,418
|
400,124
|
41.5
|
215.552
|
22.4
|
214,576
|
22.4
|
44,466
|
4.6
|
88,700
|
9.2
|
|
1966c
|
2,619,925
|
1,075,900
|
41.1
|
617.226
|
23.5
|
542,450
|
20.7
|
304,247
|
11.6
|
80,102
|
3.1
|
|
1977
|
3,558,651
|
1,499,878
|
42.1
|
891.960
|
25.1
|
672,488
|
18.9
|
435,254
|
12.2
|
59,071
|
1.7
|
|
1992
|
4,344,939
|
3,167,464 72.9
|
657,633
|
15.1
|
482,318
|
11.1
|
37,524
|
0.9
|
a 1930, 1966, 1977: population actually present; 1992:
those with a registered permanent address.
b Born abroad or did not respond.
c According to the administrative units introduced in 1968.
Sources:
Recensământul general al populaţiei
României din 29 decemvrie 1930 1940: pp. XXXIV-XXXVII, XLII-XLIX.
Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 15 martie 1966 1970: pp. 2-9,
18-25. Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 5 ianuarie 1977 1980: pp.
696-701, 720-725. Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992
1994: pp. 112-123, 130-141.
It can be seen that in 1930 only 68,650 persons born in the
Transcarpathian region were living in Transylvania.
Four and a half decades later this number rose to 532,905. On the other hand,
in 1930 some 176,381 persons, (289,791 in 1977) born in Transylvania
were registered in the Transcarpathian region. Thus the migration balance for
Transylvania was still negative in 1930, but later it
became positive. The outstandingly detailed publication containing 1966 data,
which sets out domestic population changes up until that date with reference
to period as well, also helps clarify the picture (see Table 23).
Table
23
Dates of residence changes in Transylvania in the 1966 census according to place of birth
|
|
Date of changing place of residence
|
|
|
Before 1945
|
1945-
1949
|
1950-
1954
|
1955-
1959
|
1960-
1966
|
No response
|
|
Total number
|
|
Living in Transylv., born
in Transc.
|
33,425
|
39,073
|
51,721
|
72,161
|
181,847
|
19,146
|
|
Living in Transc., born
in Transylv.
|
77,069
|
17,170
|
25,932
|
27,358
|
77,962
|
15,314
|
|
Domestic migration
balance
|
-43,644
|
21,903
|
25,789
|
44,803
|
103,885
|
3,832
|
|
Living in Transylv., born
abroad
|
54,432
|
20,202
|
10,596
|
9,827
|
12,819
|
6,062
|
|
Of these, persons living in towns
|
|
Living in Transylv., born
in Transc.
|
26,038
|
27,979
|
45,118
|
59,950
|
134,302
|
10,860
|
|
Living in Transc., born
in Transylv.
|
70,532
|
15,101
|
22,823
|
22,070
|
59,775
|
10,034
|
|
Domestic migration
balance
|
-44,494
|
12,878
|
22,295
|
37,880
|
74,527
|
826
|
|
Living in Transylv., born
abroad
|
36,555
|
13,775
|
8,411
|
7,284
|
8,690
|
3,403
|
Source: Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 15
martie 1966 1970: pp. 70-260.
Detailed records confirm that the domestic migration balance for Transylvania
became positive after World War II. Before that, a greater number of people
had moved to the Transcarpathian region from Transylvania
than vice versa. The year 1945 can be regarded as a watershed: earlier,
Transylvanian inhabitants born abroad included those who had come from Hungary.
After 1945, this number refers rather to immigrants from territory which had
belonged to Romania
before 1945. Between 1 January 1945
and 15 March 1966, some
345,000 persons settled in Transylvania (within the
present borders of the country) from the Transcarpathian region. If we take
into account the 50,000 persons coming from abroad (mostly from Transprut and
South Dobrudia), those who did not submit information about their place of
habitation and those who arrived after 1945 but were no longer alive and
consequently unregistered, we can state that the total number of persons
flowing into Transylvania from the Transcarpathian region amounted to 450,000
persons between 1945 and 1966.
Between the 1966 and the 1977 censuses the number of people living in Transylvania
and born in the Transcarpathian region increased by 135,532 persons. In order
to establish the number of immigrants, it is not sufficient to calculate the
difference between the two censuses. We also have to consider the number of
deaths in the intervening period. Taking a figure of 10.2 deaths per thousand
inhabitants, we find that it is one-tenth of the total number of immigrants.
By carrying out the necessary calculations, it can be concluded that between
1966 and 1977 approximately 183 thousand persons arrived in Transylvania
from the Transcarpathian region. With this in mind, the number of persons
moving from the Transcarpathian region into Transylvania
from the end of World War II until 1972 can be estimated at 630 thousand.
Using similar calculations we find only 74 thousand Transylvanians moving to
the Transcarpathian region between 1966 and 1977, and taking the whole period
from the end of World War II, this figure rises to a mere 250 thousand
Moreover, many of these immigrants must have belonged to ethnic minorities
(even if we presume that their proportion within the migration total was much
lower than their proportion in the existing population) without there being a
compensatory counter tendency from the Transcarpathian region, since the
proportion of non-Romanians in the Transcarpathian region was only 1.5 per
cent in 1966, the comparable figure being 32 per cent in Transylvania. As
shown above, the population exchange in terms of Transylvanian Romanians is
remarkable, especially if ethnic disproportions within domestic population
changes are considered. Their migration gains can be estimated at at least
400 thousand persons between 1945 and 1977, including counter migration as
well as the Romanian gain compensating the losses among ethnic minorities
caused by their migration to the Transcarpathian region.
The 1992 census recorded some 600 thousand persons living in Transylvania
and born in the Transcarpathian region, although no special details are
provided. Among them, 573,986 had a permanent dwelling. If we increase the
difference in their numbers between the two censuses by 95 thousand, a figure
based on the annual mortality rate of 11 per thousand, we reach an
immigration figure of a further 165 thousand persons over fifteen years. Thus
the number of persons moving into Transylvania from
the Transcarpathian region in the last half a century can be put at between
800 and 900 thousand, allowing for domestic and external migration data,
place of birth statistics and deaths in the period. With this important
figure in mind, we can venture to state that in the past few decades
Romanians coming from the Transcarpathian region (and their descendants) have
been able to compensate the population decrease of over one million persons
which was caused by war losses, repeated waves of flight and the continual
emigration of non-Romanians. Strictly according to the rules of calculation,
this statement may be questioned since without the inhabitants emigrating to
the Transcarpathian region the net migration gain for Transylvania is
scarcely above half a million. However, the conclusion above can be regarded
as true if we take into consideration the very intensive physical presence of
Transcarpathians (and their dominant mentality).
This presence is mostly to be experienced in towns, as shown in the 1977
place of birth records. Geographical mobility is not simply a process of
mobility between different areas or territories, but also between different
kinds of settlement, especially a movement from villages to towns.
Consequently, the population exchange between identical settlement types must
have been relatively modest in terms of inter-regional relations.
Unfortunately the data available do not allow us to make any in-depth
investigation. Relying on national statistical averages, however, we can
rightly suppose that centrifugal population changes mostly brought villagers
to the Transcarpathian region, while centripetal forces mainly caused those
people arriving in Transylvania to move into towns.
Because of these shifts the net migration gain in Transylvanian towns
temporarily reached, and sometimes even exceeded, the domestic migration gain
in the total Transylvanian population. Approximately one-fifth of the
migration gain in Transylvanian towns between 1956 and 1977, and nearly
one-third of that between 1977 and 1985, was derived from the Transcarpathian
region. This gain, which may appear insignificant compared with the whole
value, can be seen as a moderate, or in some places even a considerable gain,
where examined locally. In 1977, for example, 33.2 per cent of urban dwellers
in Braşov/Brassó county, 23.4 per cent in Hunedoara county, and 16.2 per cent
in Timiş/Temes county, were of Transcarpathian origin (i.e. had been born
there). It also indicates that migration from the Transcarpathian region was
primarily focused on the "migration buffer zone" in South
Transylvania. More than 80 per cent of those who moved here from
the Transcarpathian region were recorded in the three counties mentioned
above as well as in Caraş-Severin, Sibiu
and Arad counties. Although
domestic migration lines ran, by and large, from one end of the country to
the other, from those Transcarpathian regions which experienced natural
growth, people tended to move to neighbouring Transylvanian counties
(recently Cluj/Kolozs) and the industrial centres referred to above. Until
1977, migration from the Transcarpathian region only exercised an indirect
influence on the ethnic structure of towns traditionally regarded as
Hungarian by the general public (except in Harghita/Hargita and Covasna/Kovászna
counties). (A mere 4 per cent of city dwellers in North
Transylvania were born in the Transcarpathian region and no more
than 7 per cent of Romanians here were of the same origin.) Certain
indications, however, clearly demonstrate that forced urbanisation, delayed
after 1977, was accompanied by an aggressive settlement policy, no longer
motivated economically, aimed at North Transylvanian towns. The contribution
of (domestic) migration to urban population growth was very high, between 65
and 70 per cent in Bihor/Bihar and Cluj/Kolozs at the time (comparable only
to the southern counties mentioned earlier), and from 1981 also in Satu
Mare/Szatmár and Mureş/Maros counties. One of the main sources of migration
here is still the chain of Romanian villages surrounding these towns, but in
Cluj/Kolozs and Mureş/Maros counties urban population growth is being
increased to a greater degree than earlier by settlers coming from outside Transylvania.
In Szeklerland, of the new settlers coming from other counties those from the
Transcarpathian region formed a majority in this period. Although they
withdrew from Harghita/Hargita county, in the towns of Covasna/Kovászna
county their number doubled over one and a half decades.
Using place of birth statistics and relying on estimates, we can form a
picture of the role played by migration in the development of ethnic
structures in towns. The effect of migration into and from towns can be
inferred from the ethno-demographic conditions of counties with a population
outflow. Our starting point is the hypothesis that the ethnic structure of
settlers in towns corresponds with ethnic relations in their place of birth.
Of course, this is only a theoretical assumption, since we have no
opportunity to locate the (perhaps ethnically different) migration centres,
within those counties experiencing natural growth, from which people migrate.
Likewise, we have to ignore the ethnic aspects of those factors (economic,
social, political) which influence changes in place of habitation, especially
considering the fact that these movements were partly controlled and,
particularly in the "closed" towns, ethnically discriminative. We
have tried to compensate for the resulting distortions by establishing a
fictitious ethnic structure for inhabitants born elsewhere over the last half
a century on the basis of the 1977 nationality data (which reflected the
increasing dominance of the leading nationality). In 1977, out of 3,558.6
thousand city dwellers 2,058.8 thousand had their place of habitation
elsewhere in Transylvania. Among them, 892 thousand
were born in another settlement in the same county, 672.5 thousand in another
county in Transylvania, and 435.2 thousand in the
Transcarpathian region. Calculations suggest that two-thirds of those who came
from another Transylvanian county were made up of Romanians, and somewhat
more than a quarter of them were Hungarian. The number of Romanians is in
line with their proportions in Transylvania as a
whole, while Hungarians are over-represented compared with their proportion
in the region. This is related to the fact that Hungarian migration is
greatest from Covasna/Kovászna, Harghita/Hargita and Mureş/Maros counties (as
well as from Sălaj/Szilágy, Bistriţa-Nasăud/Beszterce-Naszód and Alba/Fehér
counties where Romanians form a majority). (These Szekler counties, which had
15 per cent of the total Transylvanian population in 1977, share 20 per cent
of the total population exchange among Transylvanian counties.) Transylvanian
Romanians, unlike Hungarians, have a significant migration hinterland outside
Transylvania as well, which essentially modifies the
overall picture. The 435.2 thousand persons born in the Transcarpathian
region practically doubled the number of Romanians who arrived in
Transylvanian towns from outside the county. At the same time, tens of
thousands of Hungarians left Transylvania for the
Transcarpathian region and, as ethnic data records, were lost to the
Hungarian community. Romanians born in other Transylvanian counties and in
the Transcarpathian region together total up to 80 per cent of the urban
population born outside their county of residence. (If we add persons coming
from the Transcarpathian region to those born in other counties, the
Hungarian share of newcomers drops to only 15 per cent.) The presence of
Transcarpathians increased the proportion of Romanians among settlers in
towns primarily along the borderline of the two regions, especially in
Braşov/Brassó, Hunedoara, and Caraş-Severin, as well as in Harghita/Hargita
and Covasna/Kovászna counties. Studying the migration balance of individual
counties we can see that in Covasna/Kovászna and Harghita/Hargita counties,
where the total balance was negative, there was a growth among the Romanians.
In Bihor/Bihar, Satu Mare/Szatmár and Mureş/Maros counties the Romanian
balance was also negative, although their presumed migration loss was smaller
than the corresponding Hungarian figure. Besides the areas mentioned,
considerable Hungarian migration was experienced from Sălaj/Szilágy county.
Hungarians swarming away from these areas found new homes in the towns of
Arad, Caraş-Severin, Cluj/Kolozs, Maramureş/Máramaros, Timiş/Temes, Sibiu,
Hunedoara and Braşov/Brassó counties in Transylvania. The inter-county
migration growth among urban Hungarians reached its highest values in the
last four counties mentioned above, with Hunedoara, and in particular
Braşov/Brassó, ahead, the latter having an intensive population exchange with
Covasna/Kovászna. Hungarian migrants settling in South
Transylvania arrived in their new homes along with hundreds of
thousands of people coming from the Transcarpathian region. It is not
surprising that these masses, estimated at several tens of thousands,
disappeared in the Romanian melting pot here as well as in the Transcarpathian
region. In this area in 1977 only the towns of Timiş/Temes and Braşov/Brassó
counties presented tangible Hungarian population growth.
Main demographic characteristics
for Hungarians based on the 1992 census
(The sources for the tables in this chapter
are as follows: Recensământul populaţiei si locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992
1994, 1995. Data not published in these volumes are from working papers made
for the internal use of the Statistical Office of Bucharest.)
The official number of ethnic Hungarians living in Romania
was 1,625 thousand at the time of the 7
January 1992 census. Demographic returns have reported a fall of
53 thousand since then. Only one-fifth of this figure can be accounted for by
the difference between emigration and remigration, the majority of the
decrease resulting from a high mortality rate. Accordingly, the number was
established as 1,572 thousand on 1
January 1996 (GHEŢĂU 1997b, p. 3).
A total of 98.7 per cent of Hungarians in Romania
live in Transylvania, where they form slightly more
than one-fifth of the total population. Some 45.1 per cent of Transylvanian
Hungarians (723.2 thousand) live in Szeklerland (Mureş/Maros,
Harghita/Hargita, Covasna/Kovászna counties); 24 per cent (385.3 thousand
persons) are concentrated on the ethnically mixed border area of the central
Hungarian settlement territory which extends over the Hungarian-Romanian
frontier (Satu Mare/Szatmár, Bihor/Bihar, Sălaj/Szilágy counties); and 30.9
per cent (495.4 thousand persons) live in language islands or blocks loosely
connecting the larger Hungarian language area with the smaller one, or are
scattered north and south of these language islands. The greatest population
decrease over the last fifteen years has taken place in the latter,
intermediate area (77.3 thousand persons). Fewer Hungarians now live along
the north-west border as well (-31.1 thousand persons), and their number has
only increased in Szeklerland by 21.3 thousand (in Mureş/Maros county,
however, it has decreased by 15.6 thousand persons compared with 1977). The
regional distribution of emigration partly explains the fall in the Hungarian
population in certain counties. Approximately three-quarters of the
officially registered 483.5 thousand emigrants from the country (two-thirds
of them non-Romanians) between 1977 and 1991 left Transylvania, most of them
from Timiş/Temes, Sibiu, Arad and Braşov/Brassó counties, as a result of
German emigration, but a considerable number (tens of thousands) left Cluj/Kolozs,
Bihor/Bihar and Mureş/Maros counties as well (ROMÂNIA. DATE DEMOGRAFICE 1994,
pp. 456-457; GHEORGHIU 1995.)
A total of 56.1 per cent of Transylvanian Hungarians live in towns. As
clearly shown in Table 24, these are the places where the natural growth among
Transylvanian (and, generally, Romanian) Hungarians, actually disappears.
While the rates of population decrease in villages between 1977 and 1992 were
roughly the same among Hungarians and Romanians, in towns the Romanian
population growth rate was eight(!) times higher than the corresponding
Hungarian figure. The real population growth among Hungarians in
Transylvanian towns is equal to their natural population growth (mostly
occurring in Szeklerland). The gains resulting from migration from villages
have evaporated due to external and internal losses (emigration, natural
decrease in major towns and assimilation).
Table.
24
Population levels in Transylvania in 1992, growth and decrease between 1977 and 1992
according to settlement type and the two main nationalities*
(Number and percentage)
|
Nationality
|
Total
|
Romanians
|
Hungarians
|
|
Number of persons in 1992
|
|
Total
|
7,723,313
|
100.0
|
5,684,142
|
73.6
|
1,603,923
|
20.8
|
|
Towns
|
4,429,697
|
100.0
|
3,351,001
|
75.6
|
898,387
|
20.3
|
|
Villages
|
3,293,616
|
100.0
|
2,333,141
|
70.8
|
705,536
|
21.4
|
|
Change in number of persons between 1977 and 1992
|
|
Total
|
223,084
|
3.0
|
480,296
|
9.2
|
-87,125
|
-5.1
|
|
Towns
|
814,941
|
22.5
|
847,714
|
33.9
|
36,358
|
4.2
|
|
Villages
|
-591,857
|
-15.2
|
-367,418
|
-13.6
|
-123,483
|
-14.9
|
*According to
present administrative units
The decrease in Hungarian demographic weight in Transylvanian towns is particularly
striking. The number of inhabitants in the eight towns in Table 25 has almost
doubled since 1966: from 992.5 thousand to 1,845 thousand. Of this growth,
some 800 thousand persons were Romanians and only 60 thousand Hungarians. In
the decade preceding the 1977 census the number of Hungarians living in these
towns increased by 79 thousand persons (three-quarters of them new settlers,
which was only 15 per cent of all settlers even then), but this gain was
partly lost over the subsequent fifteen years. Between 1977 and 1992, the
number of Romanian inhabitants increased by 66.2 per cent in /Târgu
Mureş/Marosvásárhely; by 62 per cent in Baia Mare/Nagybánya; and by 56.9 per
cent in Oradea/Nagyvárad, while the number of Hungarians did not actually increase.
In other places, significant Romanian population growth was accompanied by a
similarly remarkable decrease in the Hungarian population which, in
Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár for example, resulted in a complete change in ethnic
proportions which had still been balanced twenty-five to thirty years
earlier. Considerable Hungarian population gain in the last fifteen years has
only appeared in small and medium-sized towns in Szeklerland and in Satu
Mare/Szatmár, Sălaj/Szilágy and Bistriţa-Nasăud/Beszterce-Naszód counties,
although nearly three-quarters of this 77.5 thousand gain was restricted to
just two counties (Harghita/Hargita, Covasna/Kovászna).
Table
25
Changes in the total population, and in the number and proportion of
Romanians and Hungarians
in eight Transylvanian towns between 1966 and 1992a
(Percentage)
|
|
Nationality proportions
|
Change in number of personsb
|
|
|
Romanians
|
Hungarians
|
Total
|
Romanians
|
Hungarians
|
|
Town
|
1966
|
1977
|
1992
|
1966
|
1977
|
1992
|
1966-
1977
|
1977-
1992
|
1966-
1977
|
1977-
1992
|
1966-
1977
|
1977-
1992
|
|
Arad
|
63.8
|
71.1
|
79.7
|
24.9
|
20.9
|
15.7
|
35.9
|
11.0
|
51.6
|
24.3
|
10.8
|
-14.1
|
|
Braşov/Brassó
|
75.8
|
81.9
|
88.8
|
17.0
|
13.6
|
9.7
|
57.0
|
26.2
|
69.6
|
36.9
|
25.3
|
-9.6
|
|
Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár
|
56.5
|
65.8
|
75.6
|
41.4
|
32.8
|
22.8
|
41.6
|
25.0
|
64.9
|
43.7
|
12.1
|
-13.2
|
|
Târgu-Mureş/Marosvásárhely
|
28.5
|
35.1
|
46.1
|
69.6
|
63.2
|
51.4
|
50.4
|
26.4
|
85.2
|
66.2
|
36.5
|
2.8
|
|
Baia Mare/Nagybánya
|
66.7
|
73.2
|
80.2
|
31.9
|
25.3
|
17.4
|
56.5
|
47.7
|
71.6
|
62.0
|
24.5
|
1.4
|
|
Oradea/Nagyvárad
|
46.1
|
53.9
|
64.8
|
51.4
|
44.0
|
33.3
|
39.2
|
30.6
|
62.9
|
56.9
|
19.3
|
-1.2
|
|
Satu Mare/Szatmárnémeti
|
47.6
|
51.0
|
55.1
|
49.5
|
47.2
|
41.0
|
48.4
|
27.5
|
59.2
|
37.6
|
41.6
|
10.5
|
|
Timişoara/Temesvár
|
62.6
|
71.2
|
82.2
|
17.8
|
13.6
|
9.5
|
54.6
|
24.0
|
75.7
|
43.2
|
18.4
|
-34.5
|
|
|
|
Total
|
58.0
|
65.6
|
74.5
|
34.8
|
29.0
|
22.0
|
47.6
|
25.9
|
66.9
|
43.0
|
22.9
|
-4.1
|
a According to present administrative units.
b The proportion of increase or decrease as a percentage compared
with the original number of persons.
Movement from villages to towns can be traced in the change of the
population structure with regard to the size of settlements (Tables 26 and
27). Due to migration and natural population decrease which began in the
villages in the second half of the 1980s, the number of small villages
increased. The proportion of villages with fewer than 500 inhabitants out of
the total of 5,285 Transylvanian settlements rose from 45.5 per cent to 54.8
per cent, while the proportion of those living in villages with below 500
inhabitants rose from 7.7 per cent to 8.1 per cent. At the same time, the
proportion of all settlement types with between 0.5 and 10 thousand
inhabitants fell, the most significantly in the case of settlements with
between 1 thousand and 5 thousand inhabitants. In 1992, some 51.6 per cent of
the total Transylvanian population was concentrated in towns with over 10
thousand inhabitants, in contrast to 41.1 per cent in 1977. The increase was
the highest among Romanians (11.6 per cent) and took place almost exclusively
in towns with over 50 thousand inhabitants. Within the Romanian population
especially, the proportion of inhabitants living in towns with a population
of between 2 thousand and 5 thousand (-4.8 per cent) and towns of between 0.5
and 1 thousand inhabitants (-3.8 per cent) decreased. In absolute figures,
the greatest losses were suffered by the former group, while in proportion to
their nationality ratio, losses were greater among the latter. Hungarian
statistics mainly improved in medium-sized towns with between 20 thousand and
100 thousand inhabitants, primarily at the cost of small towns with between
10 thousand and 20 thousand inhabitants and settlements of between 1 thousand
and 5 thousand inhabitants. The proportion of Hungarians fell drastically in
towns with over 100 thousand inhabitants and in those with between 10
thousand and 20 thousand inhabitants.
Table
26
The number of settlements in 1977 and 1992. The number of Romanians,
Hungarians
and the total population in 1992, and changes in their numbers in settlement
groups arranged
according to number of inhabitants
|
Settlement groups according to number of
inhabitants
|
Number of settlements
|
Number of persons in 1992
|
Change in population between 1997 and 1992
|
|
|
1977
|
1992
|
Total
|
Roman.
|
Hungar.
|
Total
|
Roman.
|
Hungar.
|
|
-499
|
2,404
|
2,895
|
626,899
|
507,602
|
89,167
|
53,222
|
33,357
|
9,710
|
|
500-999
|
1,438
|
1,217
|
856,475
|
644,140
|
154,254
|
-172,898
|
-142,535
|
-19,258
|
|
1,000-1,999
|
936
|
744
|
1,013,476
|
701,444
|
229,867
|
-269,520
|
-189,840
|
-53,611
|
|
2,000-4,999
|
369
|
292
|
867,555
|
579,291
|
213,130
|
-219,590
|
-94,468
|
-66,380
|
|
5,000-9,999
|
69
|
56
|
372,302
|
235,135
|
108,843
|
-73,762
|
-32,528
|
-11,603
|
|
10,000-19,999
|
30
|
35
|
442,741
|
340,089
|
68,322
|
31,634
|
70,774
|
-32,443
|
|
20,000-49,999
|
25
|
27
|
829,024
|
576,662
|
221,725
|
100,088
|
78,317
|
29,782
|
|
50,000-99,999
|
6
|
10
|
705,760
|
569,683
|
109,103
|
275,887
|
230,830
|
50,024
|
|
100,000-
|
8
|
9
|
2,009,081
|
1,530,096
|
409,512
|
498,023
|
526,389
|
6,654
|
|
|
|
Total
|
5,285
|
5,285
|
7,723,313
|
5,684,142
|
1,603,923
|
223,084
|
480,296
|
-87,125
|
Table
27
The distribution of Romanians and Hungarians in settlement groups arranged
according to number of inhabitants in Transylvania in 1977 and 1992
|
Settlement groups according to number of
inhabitants
|
Proportion of population according to settlement
group
|
Proportion of population within the settlement
group
|
|
|
Total
|
Romanian
|
Hungarian
|
Romanian
|
Hungarian
|
|
|
1977
|
1992
|
1977
|
1992
|
1977
|
1992
|
1977
|
1992
|
1977
|
1992
|
|
-499
|
7.7
|
8.1
|
9.1
|
8.9
|
4.7
|
5.6
|
82.7
|
81.0
|
13.8
|
14.2
|
|
500-999
|
13.7
|
11.1
|
15.1
|
11.3
|
10.3
|
9.6
|
76.4
|
75.2
|
16.9
|
18.0
|
|
1,000-1,999
|
17.1
|
13.2
|
17.1
|
12.3
|
16.8
|
14.3
|
69.5
|
69.2
|
22.1
|
22.7
|
|
2,000-4,999
|
14.5
|
11.2
|
13.0
|
10.2
|
16.5
|
13.3
|
62.0
|
57.2
|
25.7
|
21.0
|
|
5,000-9,999
|
5.9
|
4.8
|
5.1
|
4.2
|
7.1
|
6.8
|
60.0
|
63.2
|
27.0
|
29.2
|
|
10,000-19,999
|
5.5
|
5.7
|
5.2
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
4.3
|
65.5
|
76.8
|
24.5
|
15.4
|
|
20,000-49,999
|
9.7
|
10.7
|
9.6
|
10.2
|
11.3
|
13.8
|
68.4
|
69.6
|
26.3
|
26.7
|
|
50,000-99,999
|
5.7
|
9.2
|
6.5
|
10.0
|
3.5
|
6.8
|
78.8
|
80.7
|
13.7
|
15.5
|
|
100,000-
|
20.2
|
26.0
|
19.3
|
26.9
|
23.8
|
25.5
|
66.4
|
76.2
|
26.7
|
20.4
|
|
|
|
Total
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
69.4
|
73.6
|
22.5
|
20.8
|
Transylvanian Hungarians formed an absolute majority in 828 settlements in
1977 and in 786 settlements in 1992 (a quarter of all Transylvanian
settlements inhabited by Hungarians, Table 28). In another 25 settlements
their proportion did not reach 50 per cent, but they were the largest ethnic
group numbering 21,942 persons. The number of Hungarians forming an absolute
majority in their settlements decreased from 955.1 thousand to 912 thousand
between 1972 and 1992. However, their proportion in the total Transylvanian
population hardly changed (going from 56.6 to 56.9 per cent). Characteristic
proportion shifts among settlement groups demonstrate the tendency for
certain Hungarian urban communities to lose ground demographically (clearly
illustrated in Table 25). As a consequence, the number of Hungarians forming
less than 25 per cent of the population in settlements rose from 316.6
thousand to 425 thousand, and their proportion within the total Hungarian
population in Transylvania rose from 18.7 to 26.5 per
cent. The ethnic homogeneity of settlements outside city administration is
stronger and relatively more stable. Four-fifths of ethnic Hungarians
registered in Transylvanian villages formed an absolute majority in the
settlements in which they were living at the time of both censuses. However,
nearly one-sixth of those Hungarians living in settlements with a Hungarian
majority, that is, some 91 thousand persons, lived in smaller administrative
units with a Romanian majority. The number of those living in villages where
the majority of the administrative staff were Romanians was highest in
Mureş/Maros (17.9 thousand), Cluj/Kolozs (14.8 thousand), Satu Mare/Szatmár
(15.2 thousand) and Bihor/Bihar (11 thousand) counties, while their proportion
was greatest in Hunedoara (100 per cent), Timiş/Temes (79.1 per cent),
Bistriţa-Nasăud/Beszterce-Naszód (67.4 per cent), Maramureş/Máramaros (65.5
per cent) and Arad (57.6 per cent) counties. At the same time, in villages
with a Hungarian majority a considerable number of people belonging to other
ethnic groups could be found. These numbered a total of 110 thousand and
formed nearly one-fifth of the population in these villages, being present
mainly in Mureş/Maros (29.4 thousand), Satu Mare/Szatmár (18.4 thousand),
Bihor/Bihar (16.2 thousand) and Sălaj/Szilágy (14.3 thousand) counties (see
Table 29). Taking these three aspects into account, the homogeneity of rural
Hungarians within their settlements is most complete in Covasna/Kovászna and
Harghita/Hargita counties, and relatively strong in Mureş/Maros, and
Bihor/Bihar, and also in Sălaj/Szilágy counties, although Hungarian
settlements in Szilágyság form disconnected islands surrounded by Romanian
villages. Due to the tendency of the Hungarian language area along the border
in Satu Mare/Szatmár county to become ethnically mixed, settlement relations
among Hungarian villages constitute a specific transition from ethnic blocks
to ethnic islands and sporadic patches, tending rather towards the latter
type.
Table
28
The distribution of Transylvanian Hungarians according to their proportion in
settlements
in a breakdown per settlement group
|
|
Number of settlements inhabited by Hungarians
|
Hungarian population
|
|
Hungar. proport. (%)
|
Total
|
In villages*
|
Total
|
In villages*
|
|
1977
|
1992
|
1977
|
1992
|
1977
|
1992
|
1977
|
1992
|
|
|
Number
|
%
|
Number
|
%
|
Number
|
%
|
Number
|
%
|
|
-9.9
|
1,814
|
1,902
|
1,636
|
1,691
|
70,059
|
4.1
|
148,096
|
9.2
|
31,044
|
3.7
|
25,727
|
3.7
|
|
10-24.9
|
240
|
245
|
193
|
202
|
246,569
|
14.6
|
276,878
|
17.3
|
36,333
|
4.4
|
36,605
|
5.2
|
|
25-49.9
|
232
|
225
|
190
|
190
|
419,241
|
24.8
|
266,847
|
16.6
|
96,410
|
11.6
|
80,692
|
11.4
|
|
50-74.9
|
180
|
163
|
165
|
148
|
260,619
|
15.4
|
277,097
|
17.3
|
146,490
|
17.7
|
102,302
|
14.5
|
|
75-89.9
|
150
|
139
|
138
|
129
|
206,006
|
12.2
|
185,381
|
11.6
|
112,093
|
13.5
|
106,691
|
15.1
|
|
90-99.9
|
416
|
375
|
388
|
349
|
467,838
|
27.7
|
426,341
|
26.6
|
386,151
|
46.6
|
330,271
|
46.8
|
|
100
|
82
|
109
|
80
|
106
|
20,716
|
1.2
|
23,283
|
1.4
|
20,498
|
2.5
|
23,247
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
Total
|
3,114
|
3,158
|
2,790
|
2,815
|
1,691,048
|
100.0
|
1,603,923
|
100.0
|
829,019
|
100.0
|
705,535
|
100.0
|
*According to
present administrative units
Table
29
The number of Hungarians in Transylvanian villages, the number of Hungarians
who form an absolute or a simple majority in their villages, and their
proportion in a county breakdown in 1992
(Number and percentage)
|
|
Villages with a Hungarian majority
|
|
County
|
Hungar. inhabit. total
|
Forming a majority in their place of habitation
|
Of these, living
in villages with
a Hungarian
majority
|
Number
|
Total population
|
Of this
Hungarian
|
|
Alba/Fehér
|
11,253
|
5,144
|
45.7
|
2,890
|
56.2
|
2
|
4,822
|
3,011
|
62.4
|
|
Arad
|
23,725
|
9,512
|
40.1
|
4,034
|
42.4
|
3
|
6,374
|
4,080
|
64.0
|
|
Bihor/Bihar
|
72,991
|
60,818
|
83.3
|
49,809
|
81.9
|
16
|
66,306
|
50,143
|
75.6
|
|
Bist.-Nas./Beszt.-Nasz.
|
12,450
|
7,437
|
59.7
|
2,428
|
32.6
|
1
|
3,722
|
2,437
|
65.5
|
|
Braşov/Brassó
|
17,602
|
7,040
|
40.0
|
3,202
|
45.5
|
2
|
5,741
|
3,208
|
55.9
|
|
Caraş-Severin/Krassó-Sz.
|
929
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Cluj/Kolozs
|
46,166
|
28,468
|
61.7
|
13,649
|
48.0
|
7
|
21,269
|
13,865
|
65.2
|
|
Covasna/Kovászna
|
84,803
|
84,033
|
99.1
|
83,227
|
99.0
|
28
|
93,077
|
83,281
|
89.5
|
|
Harghita/Hargita
|
168,662
|
164,861
|
97.7
|
164,458
|
99.8
|
42
|
169,459
|
164,467
|
97.0
|
|
Hunedoara/Hunyad
|
1,494
|
170
|
11.4
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Maramureş/Máramaros
|
10,976
|
5,931
|
54.0
|
2,047
|
34.5
|
1
|
2,498
|
2,047
|
81.9
|
|
Mureş/Maros
|
125,159
|
104,129
|
83.2
|
86,199
|
82.8
|
31
|
120,449
|
91,007
|
75.6
|
|
Satu Mare/Szatmár
|
67,601
|
44,226
|
65.4
|
29,011
|
65.6
|
12
|
51,229
|
32,836
|
64.1
|
|
Sălaj/Szilágy
|
38,311
|
34,615
|
90.3
|
29,345
|
84.8
|
12
|
44,292
|
29,971
|
67.7
|
|
Sibiu/Szeben
|
2,927
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Timiş/Temes
|
20,486
|
6,127
|
29.9
|
1,285
|
21.0
|
1
|
2,400
|
1,285
|
53.5
|
|
|
|
Total
|
705,535
|
562,511
|
79.7
|
471,584
|
83.8
|
158
|
591,638
|
481,638
|
81.4
|
The number of Hungarian native speakers was 1,639.1 thousand in 1992, that
is, 81.6 thousand less than in 1977. Some 97.87 per cent of them (97.53 per
cent in 1977) were ethnic Hungarians. Among those ethnic Hungarians with a
different native language the most numerous are Romanians: 32.9 thousand
persons, that is, 2.03 per cent (2.25 per cent in 1977). The proportion of
ethnic Hungarians with a different native language is highest among the
Hungarian diaspora in the Transcarpathian region, who are exposed to the most
intensive language erosion (18.4 per cent; 15.8 per cent in 1977). The
Transylvanian average is only 1.9 per cent (2.3 per cent in 1977), but the
corresponding proportions (usually referring to ethnic Hungarians with
Romanian as their native language) are high in areas where Hungarians have
settled sporadically such as Caraş-Severin (14 per cent), Hunedoara (10.3 per
cent), Sibiu (8.3 per cent), Bistriţa-Nasăud/Beszterce-Naszód (7.6 per cent),
Alba/Fehér (6.7 per cent) and Timiş/Temes (6.6 per cent) counties. The lowest
proportions can be found in Bihor/Bihar (1.1 per cent), Mureş/Maros, Satu
Mare/Szatmár, Sălaj/Szilágy (0.8 per cent each), Covasna/Kovászna (0.3 per
cent) and Harghita/Hargita (0.2 per cent) counties. When ethnic Hungarians
have a different native language, it usually indicates a step towards
assimilation to the dominant nationality (nation state). On the other hand,
if the proportion of other nationalities increases among Hungarian native
speakers, it also weakens the numerical potential of Hungarians. With the
strengthening of the Gypsy and, in Satu Mare/Szatmár/Sathmar,
"new-German" identity, the number of Gypsies and ethnic Germans
among native Hungarian speakers has doubled since 1977, while the number of
Hungarians has decreased accordingly (as a result of the disassimilation of
the former and reassimilation of the latter group).
The data for religious distribution (Supplementary Tables 8 and 9)
indicate that cultural identity was also manifested according to
denomination, in other words, the coincidence of religion and nationality is
invariably a strong and relevant tendency, although not as obvious as it used
to be, while in the case of traditional diversities certain changes can be
observed. One reason for this is the consolidation of Free Churches and the
appearance of new religious communities in the many-coloured religious
spectrum. The national proportion of believers outside the historical
Christian churches, that is, in the Jewish and Muslim denominations, rose
from 0.5 per cent in 1930 to 2.7 per cent by 1992. New denominations among
the established churches in Romania are the Pentecostal Church (the fifth
largest in terms of number of followers), the Evangelical Free Christian
Church and the Orthodox Church which follows the traditional ritual. (These
are all detailed in the census as well.) The Synod-Presbyterian
Evangelical-Lutheran Church, the congregation of which is mostly made up of
Hungarian native speakers, was also listed in the census as independent. This
church separated from the Lutheran Church of the Augustan Confession after
the change of political supremacy and was definitely recognised in 1948. (The
two churches were often confused in censuses.) In addition, in ethnically
mixed regions such as Transylvania, we can observe certain "rare
exceptions" (MARTSA 1930), which were taken into consideration in
Hungarian demography as early as the late nineteenth century. Changes in
ethnic and denominational overlappings in Transylvania since 1910 can be followed
in Table 30.
Table
30
Correlations between ethnic groups and denominations in Transylvania
with respect to major ethnic groups in 1910 and 1992a
A)
The increase or decrease in the number of persons belonging
to different denominations between 1910 and 1992b
(x 1,000 persons)
|
Denomination
|
Total
|
Romanian
|
Hungarian
|
German
|
|
Total
|
2,495.2
|
2,872.4
|
-50.0
|
-453.0
|
|
Orthodox
|
3,563.7
|
3,418.2
|
-0.3
|
4.5
|
|
Greek Catholic
|
-1,028.8
|
-929.2
|
-58.4
|
0.8
|
|
Roman Catholic
|
-130.2
|
72.2
|
32.1
|
-231.9
|
|
Calvinist
|
102.7
|
13.6
|
76.3
|
0.4
|
|
Unitarian
|
7.3
|
0.7
|
5.7
|
0.1
|
|
Lutheran
|
-205.6
|
1.7
|
-16.0
|
-182.7
|
|
Jewish
|
-178.8
|
-0.4
|
-131.6
|
-48.5
|
|
Other
|
364.9
|
295.6
|
42.2
|
4.3
|
B)
Denominational proportions among nationalities (%)
|
|
1992
|
1910
|
|
Denomination
|
Roman.
|
Hungar.
|
German
|
Roman.
|
Hungar.
|
German
|
|
Total
|
73.60
|
20.77
|
1.41
|
53.78
|
31.61
|
10.74
|
|
Orthodox
|
95.33
|
0.47
|
0.11
|
94.10
|
1.40
|
0.08
|
|
Greek Catholic
|
85.71
|
11.01
|
0.77
|
89.54
|
6.61
|
0.07
|
|
Roman Catholic
|
9.28
|
76.91
|
7.66
|
0.73
|
63.52
|
30.10
|
|
Calvinist
|
1.87
|
95.53
|
0.32
|
0.19
|
98.68
|
0.31
|
|
Unitarian
|
1.53
|
96.94
|
0.22
|
0.68
|
98.87
|
0.14
|
|
Lutheran
|
5.74
|
34.98
|
51.09
|
0.58
|
13.61
|
80.52
|
|
Jewish
|
13.62
|
6.18
|
1.05
|
0.40
|
72.33
|
26.93
|
|
Other
|
80.63
|
11.89
|
1.19
|
49.87
|
40.41
|
2.19
|
C)
Nationality proportions among denominations (%)
|
|
1992
|
1910
|
|
Denomination
|
Roman.
|
Hungar.
|
German
|
Roman.
|
Hungar.
|
German
|
|
Total
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
|
Orthodox
|
89.90
|
1.56
|
5.41
|
60.11
|
1.52
|
0.25
|
|
Greek Catholic
|
3.12
|
1.42
|
1.46
|
39.40
|
4.95
|
0.15
|
|
Roman Catholic
|
1.40
|
41.00
|
60.10
|
0.26
|
38.01
|
53.01
|
|
Calvinist
|
0.26
|
47.45
|
2.35
|
0.05
|
41.23
|
0.38
|
|
Unitarian
|
0.02
|
4.59
|
0.15
|
0.02
|
4.09
|
0.02
|
|
Lutheran
|
0.06
|
1.23
|
26.46
|
0.05
|
2.15
|
37.47
|
|
Jewish
|
*
|
0.01
|
0.03
|
0.03
|
7.93
|
8.70
|
|
Other
|
5.24
|
2.74
|
4.04
|
0.08
|
0.12
|
0.02
|
a In 1992, according to nationality; in 1910,
according to native language (in the case of counties divided by the border,
based on calculated values).
b With respect to present administrative units.
The decrease in the number of persons belonging to the Roman Catholic
Church, the Lutheran and the Jewish denominations is equal to the decrease
among the German and Jewish population, and, as the 1910 native-language
statistics show, among the Hungarian population also. The proportion of
Germans among the Roman Catholics in Transylvania fell from 30.1 per cent to
7.7 per cent; the proportion of German Lutherans fell from four-fifths to 50
per cent. In 1910, persons belonging to the Jewish community made up a large
proportion of the Hungarian population (nearly three-quarters of them
declared Hungarian as their native language and they totalled 7.9 per cent of
Hungarian native speakers), but this ethnic group has now practically
disappeared. The low number of Greek Catholics can be explained by the
abolition of their church in 1948. The persecuted unification movement was
forced underground and, when the church was reorganised, it was unable to
regain those believers lost forty years earlier. The ratio of Greek Catholics
among Romanians thus fell to 3.1 per cent from the total of 39.4 per cent of
1910. Although within this denomination the proportion of Hungarians rose in
absolute terms, the group also weakened (the number of Greek Catholic
Hungarians is only one-quarter of the total of eight decades earlier), so
their proportion among the Hungarians is a mere 1.4 per cent in contrast to
levels of 4.9 per cent in the past. In order for the Orthodox Church to
triumph as the "national" church, a lasting population gain has
been required: this has been achieved via forced conversions, as shown by the
fact that its growth is higher than its demographic increase. At present,
nine-tenths of Transylvanian Romanians are Orthodox. Some Hungarian Greek
Catholics were incorporated into the Orthodox Church, the importance of which
is unchanged in the life of Transylvanian Hungarians. The number of Orthodox
Hungarians hardly decreased, while their proportion (among ethnic Hungarians)
increased to some extent compared with 1910. At the same time, Christianity
according to the eastern rite has lost some ground among Romanians: only 93
per cent of Romanians are Orthodox or Greek Catholic now compared with 99.5
per cent in 1910. This is partly due to the fact that Orthodox Gypsies have
declared their nationality more freely than before. Another, more important
reason is the fact that neo-Protestant communities, whose congregations are
pressing ahead to fill the gaps left by Byzantine religious traditions, are
winning over a growing number of Romanian believers. Nearly two-thirds of the
Romanian followers of Christian Free Churches, and among them three-quarters
of those belonging to the most popular Pentecostal and Baptist (and other
non-specified denominations), live in Transylvania, where Romanians attending
these two churches form 81.9 and 84.6 per cent respectively. Thus the Free
Churches are primarily a "reservoir" of Romanian ethnic potential
even if they represent a rival to Orthodoxy. On the other hand, the
proportion of Roman Catholics and Calvinists has tangibly increased among the
Romanian population: it is exactly ten times higher than in 1910. This
tendency indicates that the dominant nation is gaining ground among people
belonging to "other religions", a similar, but inverse, trend to
that which took place at the beginning of the century in favour of
Hungarians. By studying the proportions of the different denominations among
Hungarians, we find that the dominance of historical Hungarian churches
became stronger due to the losses suffered when the Greek Catholic and Jewish
communities were abolished. At the same time, the census also indicates that
the national character of these churches was weakened; Hungarians lost 1.9
per cent with respect to Unitarians and 3.2 per cent with respect to
Calvinists. Where Hungarians could make headway, usually at the cost of
Germans, Romanians were also able to gain ground: they multiplied tenfold in
the two Lutheran churches, and almost one in every ten Roman Catholics in
Transylvania is now Romanian. (Many of them arrived from the Transcarpathian
region where the number of registered Romanian Catholics was 282 thousand,
most of them living in Moldovian counties, from where the highest numbers
came). A great number of ethnic Romanians and Gypsies can be found among
Calvinists, and the proportion of German Calvinists is the same as it was
eight decades ago. Their number has slightly increased, while the total
number of Transylvanian Germans has fallen to one-fifth of previous levels.
The distribution of Transylvanian Hungarians according to sex is marked by
the proportion of women being somewhat higher than the national average: 51.6
per cent to 50.8 per cent. Although the proportion of male live births among
Hungarians is higher than the equivalent Romanian figure, between the ages of
40 and 44 the male-female ratio changes in favour of women because of the
higher premature mortality rate among men, and perhaps also due to migration
among the male population. The proportion of women slowly increases from 50.3
to 53.7 per cent for the 60- to 64-year-old age group; for those between 65
and 69 it reaches 57.6 per cent, to end at 64.1 per cent for those over 75.
Table
31
Ethnic Hungarians in age groups according to sex in Romania in 1992
compared with the national and the Transylvanian averages and the
corresponding figures for Romanians
|
Age group
|
Breakdown by age of ethnic Hungarians
|
National average
|
Transyl. average
|
National average for Rom.-s
|
|
|
Total
|
Men
|
Women
|
Total
|
Men
|
Women
|
(%)
|
|
|
(Number or persons)
|
(%)
|
|
|
Total
|
1,624,959
|
786,971
|
837,988
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
0-4
|
93,208
|
47,512
|
45,696
|
5.7
|
6.0
|
5.4
|
7.1
|
...
|
7.0
|
|
5-9
|
96,791
|
49,729
|
47,062
|
6.0
|
6.3
|
5.6
|
7.3
|
...
|
7.3
|
|
10-14
|
121,119
|
61,834
|
59,285
|
7.4
|
7.9
|
7.1
|
8.4
|
22.7a
|
8.4
|
|
15-19
|
129,898
|
66,625
|
63,273
|
8.0
|
8.5
|
7.6
|
8.4
|
8.5
|
8.4
|
|
20-24
|
136,601
|
69,299
|
67,302
|
8.4
|
8.8
|
8.0
|
8.9
|
8.8
|
9.0
|
|
25-29
|
84,082
|
43,306
|
40,776
|
5.2
|
5.5
|
4.9
|
5.5
|
5.9
|
5.5
|
|
30-34
|
100,218
|
50,816
|
49,402
|
6.2
|
6.5
|
5.9
|
6.8
|
7.0
|
6.8
|
|
35-39
|
121,300
|
60,784
|
60,516
|
7.4
|
7.7
|
7.2
|
7.5
|
7.7
|
7.6
|
|
40-44
|
109,944
|
54,691
|
55,253
|
6.8
|
7.0
|
6.6
|
6.7
|
6.8
|
6.7
|
|
45-49
|
106,636
|
52,199
|
54,437
|
6.6
|
6.6
|
6.5
|
5.2
|
5.3
|
5.1
|
|
50-54
|
105,592
|
50,623
|
54,969
|
6.5
|
6.4
|
6.6
|
5.9
|
5.8
|
5.9
|
|
55-59
|
100,234
|
47,389
|
52,845
|
6.2
|
6.0
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
5.6
|
6.0
|
|
60-64
|
97,707
|
45,220
|
52,487
|
6.0
|
5.8
|
6.3
|
5.4
|
5.2
|
5.4
|
|
65-69
|
83,559
|
35,416
|
48,143
|
5.1
|
4.5
|
5.7
|
4.5
|
4.4
|
4.5
|
|
70-74
|
54,203
|
21,424
|
32,779
|
3.3
|
2.7
|
3.9
|
2.4
|
2.6
|
2.4
|
|
75-b
|
83,867
|
30,104
|
53,763
|
5.2
|
3.8
|
6.4
|
4.0
|
3.7
|
4.0
|
a 0-14 year olds together
b Including persons not disclosing their age
The national average age is 34.6 years. The average age among Hungarians
is 37 years, and among Romanians, 34.5 years. Among Hungarians, the
proportion of children (between 0 and 14 years old) is below the national
average, while the ratio of elderly people (over 60) is above the average.
The proportions for these age groups have decreased and increased at the same
rate as among Romanians (Table 32).
Table
32
Distribution among the total population, Romanians and Hungarians,
according to major age groups in Romania in 1977 and 1992
(%)
|
|
1992
|
1977
|
|
|
0-14
years old
|
15-59
years old
|
over 60
|
0-14
years old
|
15-59
years old
|
over 60
|
|
Total
|
22,7
|
60,9
|
16,4
|
25,4
|
60,2
|
14,4
|
|
Romanians
|
22,7
|
61,0
|
16,3
|
25,6
|
60,3
|
14,1
|
|
Hungarians
|
19,1
|
61,2
|
19,7
|
22,2
|
60,5
|
17,3
|
The proportion of adult Hungarians is relatively high and has risen since
1977. The total proportion of the population which is mainly inactive in economic
terms is 642 to every one thousand economically productive adults, that is,
there are 373 children and 269 old people to every thousand adults. This
figure is 638 for the Romanians, where a large majority are children (372),
while among the Hungarians, the corresponding figure is 634 with a relative
majority of old persons (321). The proportion of elderly people also
increased within the economically non-active population. While in 1977 there
were 76 elderly persons to every 100 Hungarian children (the figures is 53
among Romanians), in 1992 this number was 103 (72 for the Romanians). The age
structure of the population in villages shows a rising population of elderly
people as a natural result of the migration of young people: here there were
twice as many elderly persons to children under 14 as there were in the
towns. Among ethnic Hungarians the ageing index is quite high in towns as
well (87) (see Table 33). It is worth noting that while this figure is 123
among Hungarian villagers on a national basis, in those Transylvanian
villages in which Hungarians form an absolute majority (81.4 per cent of the
population in these settlements) there were only 103 elderly persons to every
100 children. Although this may partly have been caused by the age structure
of other nationalities living here (one-fifth Gypsy), we can still conclude
that it is not the above-mentioned group that is mostly affected by the
ageing process, but rather the sporadic Hungarian village communities.
Table
33
Number of elderly persons per 100 children in Romania and Transylvania, and
among Romanians and Hungarians in 1992 according to settlement type
|
|
Total
|
Towns
|
Villages
|
|
Romania
|
72.2
|
48.0
|
105.7
|
|
Transylvania
|
70.1
|
48.4
|
103.0
|
|
Romanians
|
71.6
|
45.3
|
109.2
|
|
Hungarians
|
102.6
|
86.9
|
123.1
|
At the time of the 1992 census, 64.3 per cent of women over 15 were
married. The same figure among Hungarian women was only 61.1 per cent. The
proportion of unmarried women (16.8 per cent) and divorced women (4 per cent)
were basically the same as the national average, that is, 17 per cent and 3.7
per cent respectively, but the proportion of widows among Hungarian women
(17.8 per cent) is far higher than the national average (14.7 per cent).
The ratio of women of child-bearing age (15 to 49 years old) out of the
total population of women in the country was 47.7 per cent, a slight decrease
compared with the 49.2 per cent of 1972. The proportion represented by this
age group within the Romanian female population was 48 per cent, and 46.7 per
cent among the Hungarian female population. Over one-third of Romanian women
of child-bearing age (34.1 per cent; 33.9 per cent of Hungarian women in this
age-group) had no children at all, while 18.7 per cent (20.6 per cent with
respect to Hungarian women) had one child. Some 40.8 per cent (42.7 per cent
of Hungarian women) had between two and four children, and only 6.4 per cent
(2.8 per cent of Hungarian women) had five or more children.
The birth rate trend can be illustrated by the number of children born to
women over 15 (Table 34). The average number of children per woman is still
high among the Romanians (among those over 50, the figure is 2.35), although
it has decreased considerably compared with the 1977 figure (2.9). In the
case of Hungarian women the decrease is smaller, but among women over
child-bearing age (that is, over 50), the average number of children (2.1
compared with 2.45 in 1977) fell below the critical value (2.2) necessary for
the simple renewal of the population. With respect to denomination, the
highest values can be found among Free Church members. The number of children
per thousand women among Orthodox women over 50 is 2,328. In the case of
Catholic women this number is higher (2,342), but it is much lower among
typically Hungarian women belonging to the Calvinist (2,073), Unitarian
(2,132), and Synod-Presbyterian Evangelical Churches (1,747).
Table
34
The number of children per one thousand women over 15 in the whole country
and among Romanians and Hungarians in major age groups in Romania in 1977 and
1992
Number
of live births per 1,000 women
|
|
over 15
|
15-49 year old
|
over 50
|
|
Nationality
|
1992
|
1977
|
1992
|
1977
|
1992
|
1977
|
|
Total
|
1,802
|
2,034
|
1,467
|
1,610
|
2,329
|
2,855
|
|
Romanian
|
1,798
|
2,048
|
1,452
|
1,609
|
2,350
|
2,891
|
|
Hungarian
|
1,709
|
1,880
|
1,418
|
1,510
|
2,093
|
2,445
|
The 1992 census registered 6,393.1 thousand families in Romania. Of these,
complete families (a couple with or without children) numbered 5,702.8
thousand and there were 690.3 thousand incomplete families where the father
or the mother lived alone with his or her children. The number of childless
families was 2,065.2 thousand, while complete families with children totalled
3,637.5 thousand. The average number of children per family in complete
families was 1.92, and in incomplete families 1.5. Based on the nationality
of the head of the family, the number of Hungarian families was 468,237 (7.3
per cent). Of these, 407,509 (7.1 per cent) were complete families and 60,728
were incomplete families, the proportion of which was apparently high (8.8
per cent) in correlation with the high number of divorced Hungarian women or
widows. The number of childless Hungarian families was 145,072 (7 per cent),
while Hungarian families with children numbered 262,437 (7.2 per cent).
Ethnically mixed families numbered 166,277 in the country as a whole. In
30.5 per cent of these marriages the husband was Hungarian, and in 33.2 per
cent, the woman (that is, 50,677 and 55,141 persons respectively).
Consequently, 12.9 per cent of the 819,482 ethnic Hungarian spouses lived in
mixed marriages, while mixed marriages formed 22.8 per cent of the 462,650 "Hungarian"
marriages (including all homogeneous and mixed Hungarian marriages). More
than half of mixed marriages (56.8 per cent) were Romanian-Hungarian. In 62
per cent of Romanian mixed marriages one spouse was Hungarian, while in 89.2
per cent of Hungarian mixed marriages one spouse was Romanian.
There were children from 109,204 mixed marriages, of which 65,032 were
Romanian-Hungarian. In over two-thirds of these families, that is, in 45,104
cases, the children were registered as Romanian and in only a quarter of
them, that is, in 16,778 families, were the children declared as Hungarian.
(In 3,150 families, a fragment of the total, the nationality of the children
was divided between the parents' nationalities or was completely different
from their parents'.) As to the nationality of children born to
Romanian-Hungarian parents, Romanians registered a gain of 28,326 families,
half of which resulted from assimilation. This means approximately 25
thousand children, if we calculate on the basis of fewer than two children
per family.
The number of denominationally mixed families was 272,526 (4.8 per cent)
in the 1992 census. The largest group of persons living in denominationally
mixed families was formed by Orthodox Church members (100,442 men and 78,906
women). Two other relatively numerous groups in this category were Catholics
(64,631 men and 71,782 women) and Calvinists (52,534 men and 51,658 women).
Two-thirds of denominationally mixed marriages were contracted between Greek
Catholics and members of other churches such as Roman Catholics (23.9 per
cent of all denominationally mixed marriages), Calvinist (12.2 per cent),
Greek Catholics (8.8 per cent), Pentecostalists (5.5 per cent) and Baptist
(3.4 per cent). The number of marriages between Roman Catholics and Calvinists
(19.6 per cent) and between Roman Catholics and Greek Catholics (2.7 per
cent) was also significant.
Children were born to 62.7 per cent of denominationally mixed marriages.
In 112,669 of these 170,938 families, either the wife or the husband was Orthodox.
In mixed marriages with children where one spouse was Orthodox the children
were raised as followers of the state religion in 66,286 cases (58.8 per
cent), and in only 35,854 families (31.9 per cent) did they follow the
religion of the non-Orthodox parent. In 10,529 cases the children's religion
was different from that of their parents. Accordingly, gains for the Orthodox
Church include the children of 30,432 families. Orthodox expansion was at the
expense of Calvinists in 7,237 families, Roman Catholics in 7,053 families,
Greek Catholics in 5,864 families, and other denominations (mainly
Pentecostalists and Baptists) in 10,278 families. Although generation related
changes of denomination are mostly in correlation with changes in the
nationality spectrum indicating the expansion of Romanian Orthodoxy, figures
for the two trends do not coincide. While in the balance of
Romanian-Hungarian marriages with respect to the nationality of the children,
the net gain of the dominant nation (state nation) is 28,326 families, in
mixed marriages between Orthodox believers and those following a
"Hungarian" denomination (Roman Catholic, Calvinist, Unitarian,
Synod-Presbyterian Evangelical) gains on the part of the state religion are
just over half of the figure mentioned above. This phenomenon can be
explained by overlappings among nationalities and denominations (a large
number of ethnic Romanians can be found in historically Hungarian churches
and there are also a lot of ethnic Hungarians in Romanian churches).
Indexes for education reveal that the proportion of persons with further
education qualifications is very low among Hungarians in the twelve years and
above age group (only 3.6 per cent compared with 5.1 per cent among the
population as a whole and 5.3 per cent among Romanians) (Table 35). Apart
from the fact that a quarter of persons with further education qualifications
are concentrated in the capital (excluding Bucharest the proportion of
professionals is a mere 4.2 per cent), the following factors should be borne
in mind: a controlled policy to produce an artificially low number of
Hungarian professionals and, more importantly, massive emigration among
Hungarian graduates. Hungarians are represented more proportionally among
secondary-school leavers. The proportion of Hungarians with basic
qualifications (the equivalent of the senior level of a first school) is
better, that is, higher than the national average and the Romanian average.
The proportions of Hungarians with no school education and of illiterate Hungarians
are also better, in this case much lower than the Romanian average and the
national average.
Table
35
The number of 12-year-old and above ethnic Hungarians according to school
qualifications in Romania
in 1992 and the corresponding national, Transylvanian and ethnic Romanian
figures
|
School qualifications
|
Hungarians
|
National average
|
Transyl. average
|
National aver. for Roman.-s
|
|
|
Number
|
%
|
%
|
|
Total
|
1,389,042
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Further education
|
49,592
|
3.6
|
5.1
|
4.8
|
5.3
|
|
Vocational sch. after
secondary school
|
23,449
|
1.7
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
|
Secondary school
|
257,930
|
18.6
|
18.4
|
19.0
|
18.8
|
|
Vocational school
|
203,794
|
14.7
|
14.1
|
14.7
|
14.3
|
|
Senior sect.+1 grade of
second. school
|
550,692
|
39.6
|
32.1
|
35.3
|
31.4
|
|
Primary school
|
275,436
|
19.8
|
23.6
|
20.4
|
23.7
|
|
Without school education
and other
|
28,149
|
2.0
|
4.7
|
3.8
|
4.5
|
|
Of these, illiterate
|
14,422
|
1.0
|
3.1
|
2.3
|
3.0
|
Among full-time Hungarian students the proportion of those in further
education was lower than the average at the time of the 1992 census (Table
36). Ethnic Hungarian students in further education are particularly poorly represented
at faculties of Law, Economics, Transport and Communication, but their
presence falls far short of their ethnic proportions in faculties of
Gymnastics and Sport, Medicine, Agriculture and Architecture as well. There
are also few Hungarian students in secondary schools specialising in
Transport and Communication, and also a disproportionately small number of
Hungarians in grammar schools specialising in Gymnastics, Forestry,
Informatics and Economics. The proportion of ethnic Hungarians is satisfactory
in vocational training related to branches of industry, and their proportion
is definitely high in the humanities. This is mainly true for schools
training teachers, theologians and art students, but, in terms of attendance
levels, secondary schools with high academic standards can also be regarded
as especially important in Hungarian education. These institutions are often
chosen because, in the absence of adequate Hungarian vocational training,
they represent nearly the only opportunity for Hungarian students to learn in
their mother tongue at secondary-school level. On average, between the years
1991 and 1994, approximately three-quarters of Hungarian students in primary
and secondary education pursued their studies in their native language. If we
look at the different stages of education and school types, the higher the
level, the smaller this proportion becomes. The proportion of Hungarian
students studying in Hungarian schools was 85 per cent in junior sections of
primary schools, 80 per cent in senior sections, but slightly over two-thirds
in secondary schools and only between 35 and 40 per cent in vocational
schools (where only a single class or a specialised part of the class studied
in Hungarian). In further education the teaching language is nearly
exclusively Romanian. The drop-out rate among native Hungarian students is
highest in areas where Hungarians are settled sporadically. Here, half of
Hungarian children (in Hunyad and Temes counties almost three-quarters) are
enrolled in Romanian schools in the first class of primary school.
Table
36
Students at different educational levels according to the two major
nationalities in Romania in 1992
|
Level of education
|
Hungarians
|
National average
|
Romanians
|
|
|
Number
|
%
|
%
|
%
|
|
Total
|
254,890
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Further education
|
12,842
|
5.0
|
6.1
|
6.2
|
|
Vocat. sch. after sec.
school
|
2,416
|
0.9
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
|
General secondary school
|
22,197
|
8.7
|
6.6
|
6.5
|
|
Special secondary school
|
33,780
|
13.3
|
13.5
|
13.7
|
|
Vocational school
|
19,370
|
7.6
|
7.3
|
7.4
|
|
Senior section
|
90,106
|
35.4
|
35.1
|
35.0
|
|
Primary school
|
74,179
|
29.1
|
30.6
|
30.4
|
The number of Hungarians among the economically active population was
698.8 thousand (6.7 per cent). This represents 137.5 thousand fewer than in
1977. The decrease was higher than the national average partly because of
ageing and emigration, partly because of a reduction in economic activity
among the working-age population, particularly among women, and also because
of earlier retirement ages. The reasons mentioned, as well as the fact that
younger age groups migrated to towns, explains why the participation of rural
Hungarians within the economy was particularly low (see Tables 37 and 38).
Table
37
The economically active population in Romania nationally and among Romanians
and Hungarians
between the 1977 and 1992 censuses, and according to major age groups and the
percentage of men
at the time of the 1992 census
|
|
1977
|
1992
|
Of these
|
|
Nationality
|
x 1,000 persons
|
%
|
x 1,000 persons
|
%
|
under 30
|
30-49
years old
|
over 50
|
Men
|
|
Total
|
10,793.6
|
100.0
|
10,465.5
|
100.0
|
33.1
|
50.1
|
16.8
|
55.3
|
|
Romanian
|
9,590.7
|
88.9
|
9,500.8
|
90.8
|
33.0
|
50.0
|
17.0
|
54.9
|
|
Hungarian
|
836.3
|
7.7
|
698.8
|
6.7
|
32.7
|
52.7
|
14.6
|
57.4
|
Table
38
The proportion of the economically active population in Romania nationally
and among Romanians and
Hungarians according to settlement type
and sex at the time of the 1992 census
|
|
Total
|
Towns
|
Villages
|
|
Nationality
|
Total
|
Men
|
Women
|
Total
|
Men
|
Women
|
Total
|
Men
|
Women
|
|
Total
|
45.9
|
51.6
|
40.4
|
47.2
|
51.8
|
42.7
|
44.3
|
51.3
|
37.5
|
|
Romanian
|
46.6
|
51.9
|
41.4
|
47.7
|
52.1
|
43.5
|
45.2
|
51.7
|
38.8
|
|
Hungarian
|
43.0
|
51.0
|
35.5
|
45.7
|
51.6
|
40.4
|
39.5
|
50.2
|
28.8
|
The structure of the active Hungarian population shows a very low
proportion within the primary sector (agriculture) and the predominance of
the secondary sector (branches of industry). The proportion of persons
working in the tertiary sector (trade and services) in the active Hungarian
population approximates to the national average. A relatively high proportion
of persons seeking first-time employment (in practice, the young unemployed)
can be found among Hungarians (Table 39).
Table
39
The active population per sector of the economy in Romania
between 1966 and 1992 according to the two main ethnic groups
(%)
|
Sectors of economy
|
Year
|
Total
|
Romanian
|
Hungarian
|
|
|
|
|
1966
|
58.6
|
59.8
|
50.0
|
|
Primary sector
|
1977
|
38.5
|
38.8
|
30.5
|
|
|
1992
|
23.1
|
23.5
|
16.2
|
|
|
|
|
1966
|
23.3
|
22.3
|
31.1
|
|
Secondary sector
|
1977
|
38.0
|
37.7
|
46.5
|
|
|
1992
|
44.7
|
44.3
|
52.7
|
|
|
|
|
1966
|
18.1
|
17.9
|
18.9
|
|
Tertiary sector
|
1977
|
23.5
|
23.5
|
23.0
|
|
|
1992
|
27.8
|
28.0
|
26.3
|
|
|
|
Persons seeking
first-time employment
|
1992
|
4.4
|
4.2
|
4.8
|
Over half (52.7 per cent) of active ethnic Hungarians work in industry and
in the construction industry. Their proportion is particularly high (two and
three times higher than the average proportion of active ethnic Hungarians
proportion within the active population of Romania) in certain processing
branches of light industry (furniture, clothing, leather, fur and timber
industries) and also significant (nearly one and a half times higher) in the
iron, steel, metal, ceramics, and cement industries and in the production of
other building materials. In the tertiary sectors the proportion of
Hungarians is well above the national proportions of ethnic Hungarian employees
in trade, health, education, culture, arts and in other services, as well as
among the employees of social and church organisations. The reason why the
number of Hungarians in this sector falls short of the national average can
be found in their under-representation in transport, telecommunications,
research, informatics and, in particular, in public administration (Table
40).
Table
40
The active Hungarian population in major branches of the economy in Romania
in 1992 compared with the distribution of the active Transylvanian population
and active ethnic Romanians according to major branches of the economy
|
Branch of economy
|
Hungarians
|
National average
|
Transylvanian average
|
National average of Rom.-s
|
|
|
Number
|
%
|
%
|
|
Total
|
698,798
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Agriculture
|
106,068
|
15.2
|
22.3
|
18.2
|
22.7
|
|
Industry, mining
|
318,951
|
45.6
|
37.3
|
41.9
|
36.9
|
|
Construction industry
|
37,512
|
5.4
|
5.6
|
4.9
|
5.6
|
|
Trade, tourism, public
supply
|
50,677
|
7.3
|
6.6
|
7.0
|
6.5
|
|
Transport,
telecommunications
|
33,746
|
4.8
|
6.1
|
5.8
|
6.2
|
|
Research, development,
informatics
|
10,143
|
1.5
|
2.3
|
1.7
|
2.4
|
|
Banking, finance,
insurance
|
3,965
|
0.6
|
0.5
|
0.6
|
0.6
|
|
Public administration
|
11,996
|
1.7
|
3.1
|
2.7
|
3.2
|
|
Education
|
26,757
|
3.8
|
3.7
|
4.0
|
3.7
|
|
Health
|
24,398
|
3.5
|
3.1
|
3.4
|
3.1
|
|
Culture and arts
|
4,152
|
0.6
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
In major occupation groups the proportion of ethnic Hungarians surpasses
the national average among skilled workers, employees in trade and the
service industry, and among unskilled workers. Romanian Hungarians, in
keeping with their education figures, usually appear as under-represented for
their number in special fields requiring further education qualifications. In
occupations which require intermediate qualifications and vocational
qualifications their representation is generally proportional.
Table
41
The active Hungarian population according to occupation groups in Romania
in 1992 compared with the corresponding national, Transylvanian and ethnic
Romanian figures
|
Occupational groups
|
Hungarians
|
National average
|
Transylv. average
|
National aver. of Rom.-s
|
|
|
Number
|
%
|
%
|
|
Total
|
698,798
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
|
Senior offic. of the
state and econom. managers
|
9,126
|
1.3
|
1.6
|
1.6
|
1.6
|
|
Professionals and
researches
|
30,901
|
4.4
|
5.9
|
5.6
|
6.0
|
|
Technicians
|
67,771
|
9.7
|
10.2
|
10.2
|
10.4
|
|
Office workers
|
32,435
|
4.6
|
4.7
|
5.1
|
4.8
|
|
Employees in trade and
services
|
40,303
|
5.8
|
5.1
|
5.6
|
5.1
|
|
Agricultural workers
|
78,159
|
11.2
|
18.5
|
14.9
|
19.0
|
|
Skilled workers
|
351,177
|
50.2
|
42.4
|
44.8
|
42.0
|
|
Unskilled workers
|
50,639
|
7.3
|
6.3
|
7.2
|
6.0
|
The proportion of the elected representatives of Hungarians in the
leadership of state administration approximately followed political
arithmetics. In other fields of administration, however, where officials are
not elected but appointed, the proportion of Hungarians does not even reach
half of their national proportion in terms of active workers. An analysis of
the higher intellectual stratum reveals that their proportion is similarly
low among researchers in the natural and applied sciences, and particularly
among economists, lawyers and experts in the social sciences and humanities.
Hungarians are represented more strongly than the average in occupations
requiring high-level intermediate studies (expert technicians) in health,
primary education, and economic and administration management, but more
poorly in jobs closely related to production. It is interesting to note that
an extremely low proportion of Hungarians (fewer than one-sixth of their
proportion with respect to nationality) were found among experts in sea,
river and air transport as well as among policemen and detectives. In service
and trade the ratio of Hungarians exceeds their proportion with respect to
nationality among the economically active population mainly among public
servants, social workers and shop assistants. There are far fewer Hungarians
among employees preserving and defending public order. Among skilled workers
the ratio of Hungarians corresponds to their proportion in different branches
of the economy and it only sinks below their nationality proportion among
electrical engineering, electronic and precision-engineering mechanicians.
Agricultural workers form only one-tenth of the active Hungarian population.
This also means that nearly one-third of ethnic Hungarians working in the
primary sector do not work in agriculture (this ratio is 20 per cent nationally),
but, taking the national proportion as a basis, most of them are supposed to
be mechanicians, skilled and unskilled workers.
The above represents a summary of the major available data regarding the
demographic structure of Romanian Hungarians. We have deliberately avoided
concentrating on the "how many?" question which so often leads to
religious dispute. In fact, this question could hardly be answered accurately
even in the case of the most trustworthy of surveys because of the
oscillations in nationality, native language and denominational figures, and
also due to extended inter-ethnic relations within families. There is a more
serious issue to be considered: it is a sad fact that the Romanian population
has also entered a phase of natural decrease. As we pointed out in the first
part of the study, this demographic turn occurred first in Transylvania, and
it began among the Hungarian population (almost simultaneously with the
similar process in Hungary) preceding the Romanian ethnic community.
Bibliography - References
Az 1941. évi népszámlálás. Demografiai adatok községek szerint
– 1947 [The Census of 1941. Demographic Data by Settlements.] Központi
Statisztikai Hivatal [Hungarian Statistical Office], Stephaneum, Budapest. 4,
21, 697p.
ANTAL, G. László
– 1989 A magyarság helyzete Romániában. [The Situation of the Hungarians in
Romania.] Limes 1, pp. 109-151. - The same in Romanian: Situaţia
minorităţii etnice maghiare în România. Asociaţia Culturală Haáz Rezső
[Haár Rezső Cultural Association], Odorheiu Secuiesc, 1996. 55p. (Caiete
Muzeale nr. 6. )
Anuarul demografic al Republicii Socialiste România
– 1967 [Annual Demographic Report of the Socialist Republic of Romania.]
Direcţia Centrală de Statistică [Central Statistical Office], Bucureşti. 263,
42p, 11 tables.
Anuarul demografic al Republicii Socialiste România
– 1974 [Annual Demographic Report of the Socialist Republic of Romania.]
Direcţia Centrală de Statistică [Central Statistical Office], Bucureşti. XXV,
541p, 4 tables.
Anuarul statistic al României
– 1922-1939/1940 [Annual Statistic Report of Romania.] Institutul Central de
Statistică [Central Statistical Institute], Bucureşti.
Anuarul statistic al Republicii Socialiste România
– 1966-1986 [Annual statistic Report of the Socialist Republic of Romania.]
Direcţia Centrală de Statistică [Central Statistical Office], Bucureşti.
Anuarul statistic al României
– 1990-1996 [Annual Statistic Report of Romania.] Comisia Naţională
pentru Statistică [National Statistical Committee], Bucureşti.
BIJI, M.-NICHITA, A.
– 1956 Populaţia R. P. R. după naţionalitate şi limba maternă. (Rezultatele
provizorii ale recensămîntului populaţiei din 21 februarie 1956. ) [The
Population of RPR by Nationalities and Mother Tongue. Provisional Results of
the Census.] Revista de statistică 4, 1956 (VI), pp. 3-16, 9 tables.
Buletinul demografic al României
– 1932-1948 [Demographic Bulletin of Romania.] Volumes I-XVI. Institutul
Central de Statistică [Central Statistical Institute], Bucureşti.
Comunicări statistice
– 1945-1947 [Statistical Communications.] 2 (31st January 1945), 6-7 (15th
April 1945), 18 (15th August 1947). Bucureşti, Institutul Central de
Statistică.
CUCU, V.-URUCU, V.
– 1967 Creşterea oraşelor din R. S. România în ultimul deceniu. [Town Growth
in SRR in the Last Decade.] Revista de statistică 5, 1967 (XVI), pp.
52-61, 2 tables.
DÁVID, Zoltán
– 1982 Magyarok - határaink mentén. [Hungarians Along Our Borders.] Mozgó
Világ 7, 1982 (VIII), pp. 38-51.
Erdély története
– 1986 Erdély története 1830-tól napjainkig. [The History of Transylvania. 3
Volumes. The History of Transylvania from 1830 to the present.] Vol. 3. Ed.
Zoltán Szász. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. Pp. 1194-1945, 206 tables.
Fehér könyv a romániai nemzeti, nyelvi vagy vallási kisebbséghez tartozó
személyek jogairól
– 1991 [White Book on the Rights of the National, Linguistic, or Religious
Minorities of Romania.] Part One: Statisztikai adatok Románia népességéről.
[Statistical Data on the population of Romania.] Romániai Magyar Szó
4, p. 2.
FÉNYES, Elek
– 1839-1840 Magyar országnak, 's a' hozzá kapcsolt tartományok mostani
állapotja statistikai és geographiai tekintetben. [The Contemporary State
of Hungary and its Attached Territories from a Statistical and Demographic
Point of View.] Trattner-Károlyi, Pest.
Vol 4. Békés, Bihar, Csanád, Csongrád, Máramaros, Szabolcs, Szathmár, Temes,
Torontál, Krassó, Arad vármegyék. 1839. 479p.
Vol. 5. Verőcze, Szerém, Posega, Kraszna, Közép-Szolnok, Zaránd vármegyék,
Kővár vidéke, Jász és Kun területek, Hajdu kerület, Magyar tengerpart,
Zágráb, Varasd, Kőrös vármegyék. 1839. 261p.
Vol. 6. Katonai végvidék. Névmutató. 1840. VII, 420p.
– 1842 Magyarország statistikája. [The statistics of Hungary.] Vol. 1.
Trattner-Károlyi, Pest. VII, 306p, 2 tables.
GHEORGHIU, Dorel
– 1995 Migraţia internaţională în România 1980-1994. [ International
Migration of Romania. 1980-1994.] Revista Română de statistică 10,
1995 (XLIV), pp. 34-42.
GHEŢĂU, Vasile
– 1993 De ce scade populaţia maghiară în România? [Why does the Hungarian
Population of Romania Decrease?] Adevărul 22nd September.
– 1997a Evoluţia fertilităţii în România. De la transversal la longitudinal.
[The Fertility Evolution in Romania.] Revista de cercetări sociale 1,
pp. 3-85.
– 1997b Preţul veşnicei tranziţii: 7 ani de declin demografic. [The Price of
the Eternal Transition: 7 Years of Demographic Decline.] Adevărul 25th
March, p. 3.
GOLOPENŢIA, A.-GEORGESCU, D. C.
– 1948 Populaţia Republicii Populare Române la 25 ianuarie 1948.
Rezultatele provizorii ale recensămîntului. [The Population of PRR on 25
January 1948. Provisional Results of the Census.] Institutul Central de
Statistică [Central Statistical Institute], Bucureşti. p. 41. (Extraş din
Probleme economice 2. )
ILLYÉS, Elemér
– 1981 Nationale Minderheiten in Rumänien, Siebenbürgen im Wandel.
[Changes in Ethnic Minorities in Romania, Transylvania.] Wilhelm Braumüller,
Wien. XIII, 322p. (Ethnos 23. )
IONESCU, N. T.
– 1927 Mişcarea populaţiunei României în anul 1925. [Population Movement in
Romania from 1925.] Buletinul statistic al României 1, pp. 27-68.
ISTRATE, N.
– 1925 Dare de seamă statistică asupra populaţiei Ardealului în anul 1923,
comparativ cu anul 1910, privind mai ales situaţia minoratăţilor etnice.
[Statistical Evidence Regarding the population of Transylvania from 1923,
Compared to 1910, with Special Reference to the Situation of Ethnic
Minorities.] Buletinul statistic al României 1, pp. 106-121.
– 1929 Ardealul şi Banatul în lumina cifrelor. [Transylvania and Banat
according to the Data.] In:Transilvania, Banatul, Crişana, Maramureşul
1918-1928. Vol. 1. Cultura Naţională, Bucureşti, pp. 677-689.
KATUS, László
– 1980 A demográfiai átmenet kérdései Magyarországon a 19. században.
[Questions regarding Demographic Transition in Hungary in the 19th Century.] Történelmi
Szemle 2, pp. 270-288.
– 1982 Magyarok, nemzetiségek a népszaporulat tükrében (1850-1918).
[Hungarians, Nationalities in the Mirror of Demographic Growth.] História
4-5, 1982 (IV), pp. 18-21.
KLINGER, András
– 1991 Erdély népessége anyanyelvi összetételének alakulása. [The Evolution
of the Linguistic Structure of Transylvania.] Statisztikai Szemle 10,
1991 (LXIX), pp. 813-835.
KOCSIS, Károly-Kocsisné Hodosi, Eszter
– 1991 Magyarok a határainkon túl, a Kárpát-medencében. [Hungarians
outside our Borders, in the Carpathian Basin.] Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest. 179p.
KOVÁCS, Alajos
– 1912 Népesedésünk újabb jelenségei. [More recent Phenomena regarding our
Population.] Közgazdasági Szemle 47, 1912 (XXXVI), pp. 783-806.
– 1929 Erdély népmozgalma vallásfelekezetek szerint az 1921-27. években.
[Population Movement in Transylvania according to Denomination in the years
1921-1927.] Magyar Statisztikai Szemle 12, 1929 (VII), pp. 1207-1214.
A magyar korona országaiban az 1881. év elején végrehajtott
népszámlálás eredményei, némely hasznos házi állatok kimutatásával együtt
– 1882 [Results of the Census in the Countries of the Hungarian Crown in
1881, together with Evidence of some Useful Domestic Animals.] Vol 1.
Országos M. Kir. Statistikai Hivatal [National Hungarian Royal Statistical
Office], Budapest. XXX, 825p.
A magyar korona országaiban az 1881. év elején végrehajtott
népszámlálás főbb eredményei megyék és községek szerint részletezve
– 1882 [Results of the Census in the Countries of the Hungarian Crown at the
end of 1881, Detailed by Counties.] Vol. 2. Országos M. Kir. Statistikai
Hivatal [National Hungarian Royal Statistical Office], Budapest. 415p.
A magyar korona országainak helységnévtára
– 1892 [Thesaurus of Settlement Names of the Countries of the Hungarian
Crown.] Ed. József Jekelfalussy. Országos M. Kir. Statistikai Hivatal
[National Hungarian Royal Statistical Office], Budapest. X, 1895p.
Magyar statisztikai évkönyv
– 1874-1875, 1877-1880, 1893-1916/1918, 1941, 1942 [Hungarian Statistical
Yearbook.] New Series, Vol. I-XXIV/XXVI, XLIX-L. M. Kir. Központi
Statisztikai Hivatal [Hungarian Royal Central Statistical Office], Budapest.
Magyar statisztikai közlemények
– 1893a [Hungarian Statistical Publications.] New series, Vol. 1. A
magyar korona országaiban az 1891. év elején végrehajtott népszámlálás
eredményei. [Results of the Census in the Countries of the Hungarian Crown at
the beginning of 1891.] Part One: Általános népleírás. [General Demography.]
Országos M. Kir. Statistikai Hivatal [National Hungarian Royal Statistical
Office], Budapest. VI, 167*, 418p.
– 1893b New Series, Vol. 5. A magyar korona országainak 1890. és 1891. évi
népmozgalma. [The Population Movement in 1890-1891 in the Countries of the Hungarian
Crown.] Országos M. Kir. Statistikai Hivatal [National Hungarian Royal
Statistical Office], Budapest. 80*, 103p.
– 1895 New series, Vol. 9. A Magyarországon 1893 január 1-én végrehajtott
czigányösszeírás eredménye. [The Results of the Gypsy Census on 1 January
1893 in Hungary.] Országos M. Kir. Statistikai Hivatal [National Hungarian
Royal Statistical Office], Budapest. IV, 59*, 81p, 2 tables.
– 1902 New series, Vol. 1. A magyar korona országainak 1900. évi
népszámlálása. Első. rész. A népesség leírása községenkint. [Results of the
Census in the Countries of the Hungarian Crown in 1900. Part One. Data for
the Population by Settlement]. M. Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal
[Hungarian Royal Central Statistical Office], Budapest. IV, 45*, 612p.
– 1905 New series, Vol. 7. A magyar szent korona országainak 1900., 1901. és
1902. évi népmozgalma. [The Population Movement in 1900, 1901 and 1992 in the
Countries of the Hungarian Crown.] M. Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal
[Hungarian Royal Central Statistical Office], Budapest. VIII, 106*, 675p, 5
tables.
– 1907a New series, Vol. 5. A magyar szent korona országainak 1900. évi
népszámlálása. Harmadik. rész. A népesség részletes leírása. [Results of the
Census carried out in the Countries of the Hungarian Crown in 1900. Part
Three. Extensive Description of the Population.] M. Kir. Központi
Statisztikai Hivatal [Hungarian Royal Central Statistical Office], Budapest.
VII, 746p.
– 1907b New series, Vol. 22. A magyar szent korona országainak 1903., 1904.
és 1905. évi népmozgalma. [The Population Movement in 1903, 1904 and 1905 in
the Countries of the Hungarian Crown.] M. Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal
[Hungarian Royal Central Statistical Office], Budapest. VII, 67*, 748p.
– 1910 New series, Vol. 32. A magyar szent korona országainak 1906., 1907. és
1908. évi népmozgalma. [The Population Movement in 1906, 1907 and 1908 in the
Countries of the Hungarian Crown.] M. Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal
[Hungarian Royal Central Statistical Office], Budapest. VIII, 85*, 773p, 6
tables.
– 1912 New series, Vol. 42. A magyar szent korona országainak 1910. évi
népszámlálása. Első. rész. A népesség főbb adatai községek és népesebb
puszták, telepek szerint. [Results of the Census in the Countries of the
Hungarian Crown in 1910. Part One: Main Data of the Population according to
Settlements.] M. Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [Hungarian Royal Central
Statistical Office], Budapest. VI, 50*, 880p.
– 1913 New series, Vol. 46. A magyar szent korona országainak 1901-1910. évi
népmozgalma községenkint. [The Population Movement in 1910 in the Countries
of the Hungarian Crown by Settlements. M. Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal
[Hungarian Royal Central Statistical Office], Budapest. IV, 727p.
– 1916a New series, Vol. 50. A magyar szent korona országainak 1909-1912. évi
népmozgalma. [The Population Movement in 1909-1912 in the Countries of the
Hungarian Crown.] M. Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [Hungarian Royal
Central Statistical Office], Budapest. IX, 179*, 947p, 6 tables.
– 1916b New series, Vol. 61. A magyar szent korona országainak 1910. évi
népszámlálása. Ötödik. rész. Részletes demográfia. [Results of the Census in
the Countries of the Hungarian Crown in 1910. Part Five. Detailed
Demography.] M. Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [Hungarian Royal Central
Statistical Office], Budapest. IV, 635p.
Magyarország népessége községenként, a házak és családok száma,
valamint a jelenlévő népesség neme és vallásfelekezete közigazgatási beosztás
szerint az 1869. évi népszámlálás alapján. Táblázat
– n. d. (188?) [The Population of Hungary by Settlement, Number of Houses and
Families, Gender and Denomination of the Present Population according to the
1869 Census. Table.] In the Manuscript Collection of the Library of the
Central Statistical Office, Budapest.
MANUILĂ, Sabin
– 1919 Tendinţele mişcării populaţiei în judeţele Transilvaniei în anii
1920-1927. [Tendencies of Population Movement in the Counties of Transylvania
in 1920-1927.] In: Transylvania, Banat, Crisana, Maramures 1918-1928.
Cultura Natională, Bucureşti,. pp. 667-676, 13 tables.
– 1938 Aspects démographiques de la Transylvanie. [Demographic aspects of
Transylvania.] In: La Transylvanie. Institut de l'Histoire Nationale
de Cluj, Academie Roumaine, Bucarest, pp. 793-856.
– 1940 Studiu etnografic asupra populaţiei României. [Ethnographic
Study of the Romanian Population.] Editura Institutului Central de Statistică
[Central Statistical Institute], Bucureşti. 108p.
– 1992 Studies on the Historical Demography of Romania. - Études sur la
démographie historique de la Roumanie. Ed. by Sorina and Ioan Bolovan.
Center for Transylvanian Studies, The Romanian Cultural Foundation,
Cluj-Napoca, 1992. 165p. (Bibliotheca Rerum Transsilvaniae 2).
MARTINOVICI, C.-ISTRATI, N.
– 1921 Dicţionarul Transilvaniei, Banatului şi celorlalte ţinuturi
alipite. [The Dictionary of Transylvania, Banat and the other Attached
Regions.] Ardealul, Cluj, 1921. 107, 290, 52p.
MARTSA, Dénes
– 1930 Ritka kivételek a magyar demográfiában. [Rare Exceptions in Hungarian
Demography.] Magyar Statisztikai Szemle 6, 1930 (VIII), pp. 477-495.
MEASNICOV, Ioan-TREBICI, Vladimir
– 1978 Aspecte ale migraţiei interne şi urbanizarea în lumina rezultatelor
preliminare ale recensămîntului din 5 ianuarie 1977. [Aspects of Internal
Migration and Urbanisation according to the Preliminary Results of the Census
of 5 January 1977.] Revista de statistică 4, 1978 (XXVII), pp. 30-39.
MIKE, Gyula
– 1927 A Magyarbirodalom és a mai Magyarország vérvesztesége a
világháborúban. [The Blood Waste of the Hungarian Empire and of
Contemporary Hungary in World War I.] Magyar Statisztikai Szemle 7, 1927 (V),
p. 623-633.
A népmozgalom főbb eredményei 1901-1910, 1911-1920
[Main Data for Population Movement 1901-1910, 1911-1920.] Megyesoros
községenkénti összesítők. [Settlement data by counties.] Archives of the
Central Statistical Office (Budapest), Népesedésstatisztikai iratok A-2.
A népmozgalom főbb adatai községenként, 1828-1900
– 1980 [Main Data regarding Population Movement by Settlement. 1828-1900.]
Vol. 7. Békés megye, Csongrád megye és Szeged, Hajdú-Bihar megye és Debrecen.
[Bekés, Csongrád, Szeged, Hajdú-Bihar counties and Debrecen.] Központi
Statisztikai Hivatal [Central Statistical Office], Budapest. 123p.
– 1984 Vol. 8. Szabolcs-Szatmár megye, Szolnok megye. [Szabolcs-Szatmár,
Szolnok counties.] Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [Central Statistical
Office], Budapest. 173p.
A népmozgalom főbb adatai községenként, 1901-1968
– 1969 [Main Data regarding Population Movement by Settlement. 1901-1968.]
Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [Central Statistical Office], Budapest. 529p.
NYÁRÁDY, R. Károly
– 1996 Az 1977. évi romániai népszámlálás eredményeinek kiértékelése, különös
tekintettel a nemzetiségi és anyanyelvi viszonyokra. (A Külügyi Intézet
számára készült kézirat, 1983. ) [Evaluation of the Census of 1977 in
Romania, with Special Attention to Ethnic and Language Changes. (Manuscript
for the Institute of Foreign Relations, 1983. )] In: Erdély etnikai
arculatának változása. [The Change in Transylvania's Ethnic Set-up.]
Teleki László Alapítvány Könyvtár és Dokumentációs Szolgálata [Library and
Documentation Service of the Teleki László Foundation], Budapest, pp. 15-70.
(Kisebbségi adattár. )
POPA, Valeriu-ISTRATE, N.
– 1921 Starea economică a Transilvaniei. Notiţe statistice. [The Economic
Situation in Transylvania. Statistical Notes.] Buletinul statistic al
României 6-7, pp. 139-169.
Recensământul general al populaţiei României din 29 decemvrie 1930
– 1938 [The General Census of Romania from 29 December 1930.] Vol. 2. Neam,
limba maternă, religie. [Nationality, Mother Tongue, Religion.] Institutul
Central de Statistică [Central Statistical Institute], Bucureşti. CLX, 780p,
4 tables.
– 1940 Vol. 4. Locul naşterii, situaţie în gospodarie, menaje colective,
mărimea gospodărilor, cunoşterea limbii române, cetăţenia, vârsta. [Place of
Birth, Households, Collective Households, Size of Households, Knowledge of
Romanian Language, Citizenship, Age.] Institutul Central de Statistică
[Central Statistical Institute], Bucureşti. CCXCII, 428p.
Recensământul general al României din 1941 6 aprilie. Date sumare
provizorii
– 1944 [The General Census of Romania from 6 April 1941. Provisional Summary
Data.] Institutul Central de Statistică [Central Statistical Institute],
Bucureşti. XXIV, 300p.
Recensămîntul populaţiei din 21 februarie 1956. Rezultatele generale
– 1959 [The Census of 21 February 1956. General Results.] Direcţia Centrală
de Statistică [Central Statistical Office], Bucureşti. XXX, 1081p.
Recensămîntul populaţiei din 21 februarie 1956
– 1960 [The Census of 21 February 1956.] Vol. 1. Structura demografică a
populaţiei. Numărul şi repartizarea teritorială a populaţiei; starea civilă;
naţionalitate; limba maternă; nivel de instruire; familii. [The Demographic
Structure of the Population. The Size and Territorial Distribution of the
Population, Marital Status, Nationality, Level of Education, Family.]
Direcţia Centrală de Statistică [Central Statistical Office], Bucureşti. LII,
689p.
Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 15 martie 1966
– 1968 [The Census of the Population and Settlements of 15 March 1956.]
Volumes by Transylvanian regions: Regiunea Banat, Braşov, Cluj, Crişana,
Hunedoara, Maramureş, Mureş Autonomă-Maghiară. Vol. 1. Populaţia
[Population]. Direcţia Centrală de Statistică [Central Statistical Office],
Bucureşti.
– 1969 Vol. 1. Rezultate generale. Partea întii. Populaţia [Vol. 1. General
Results. Part One. Population.] Direcţia Centrală de Statistică [Central
Statistical Office], Bucureşti. LXXXVIII, 941p, 15 tables.
– 1970 Vol. 4. Populaţia după locul naşterii. [The Population according to
Place of Birth.] Direcţia Centrală de Statistică [Central Statistical
Office], Bucureşti. VI, 776p.
Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 5 ianuarie 1977
– 1980 [The Census of the Population and Settlements of 5 January 1970.]
Vol. 1. Populaţie - structura demografică. [The Population – Demographic
Structure.] Direcţia Centrală de Statistică [Central Statistical Office],
Bucureşti. VIII, 759p, 16 tables.
Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992. Rezultate
preliminare
– 1992 [The Census of the Population and Settlements of 7 January 1992.
Provisional data.] Comisia Naţională pentru Statistică [National Statistical
Committee], Bucureşti. XXXV, 217p.
Recensământul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992
– 1994 [The Census of the Population and Settlements of 7 January 1992.] Vol.
I. Populaţie - structura demografică. [The Population - Demographic
Structure.] Comisia Naţională pentru Statistică [National Statistical
Committee], Bucureşti. LVI, 991p.
– 1995 Structura etnică şi confesională a populaţiei. [The Ethnic and
Denominational Structure of the Population.] Comisia Naţională pentru
Statistică [National Statistical Committee], Bucureşti. LXXI, 635p.
România. Date demografice
– 1994 [Romania. Demographic Data.] Comisia Naţională pentru Statistică
[National Statistical Committee], Bucureşti. 477p.
A romániai menekültek főbb adatai az 1944. februári összeírás szerint
– 1944 [Main Data regarding Refugees from Romania according to the
Registration of February 1944.] Magyar Statisztikai Szemle 9/12, pp.
394-410.
RÓNAI, András
– 1938 Magyarok elterjedése a Földön. [The Spread of Hungarians World-wide.] Földrajzi
Közlemények 4-5, 1938 (LXVI), pp. 83-104.
– 1939 Erdély népességi viszonyai. [Demographic Situation in Transylvania.] Magyar
Statisztikai Szemle 4, 1939 (XVIII), pp. 350-360.
SCHNELLER, Károly
– 1940 Magyarok és románok erőviszonyai Erdélyben. [Demographic
Relations between Hungarians and Romanians in Transylvania.] Budapest. Pp.
484-500. (Special print of Társadalomtudomány).
SEBŐK, László
– 1992 A romániai magyarok száma a népszámlálások és az egyéb statisztikák szerint.
[The Number of Hungarians in Romania according to Censuses and Other
Statistics] Századok 3-4, 1992 (CXXVI), pp. 382-401.
SEMLYÉN, István
– 1980a Országos és nemzetiségi népességgyarapodás. [National and Ethnic
Demographic Growth.] In: Korunk évkönyv [Korunk Yearbook.]
Kolozsvár/Cluj-Napoca, pp. 41-55.
– 1980b Hazai valóság. [Internal Reality.] In: id: Hétmilliárd lélek.
[Seven Thousand Million Souls.] Kriterion, Bukarest, pp. 183-226. (Korunk
könyvek. )
– 1982 Demográfiai viselkedés - népesedési politika. [Demographic Behaviour -
Demographic Policy.] Parts 1-6. A Hét 29-33, 36, 1982 (XIII).
Die Siebenbürgische Frage. Studien aus der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart
Siebenbürgens
– 1940 [Studies on the Past and Present of Transylvania.] Ed. Emerich, Lukinich.
Hornyánszky, Budapest. 398p.
STARK, Tamás
– 1989 Magyarország második világháborús embervesztesége. [The Human
Loss of Hungary in World War II.] MTA Történettudományi Intézet [Institute
for History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences], Budapest. 89p.
(Társadalom- és művelődéstörténeti tanulmányok 3. )
Statistică emigrărilor din România
– 1923 [Emigration Statistics for Romania.] Ministerul de Interne,
Direcţiunea administaţiei generale şi statistici. [Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Office for General Administration and Statistics.] Monitorul oficial
30, 10th May 1923.
Statisztikai negyedévi közlemények
– 1942-1944 [Statistical Quarterly.] 1-2/1942-1944 (XLV-XLVII). M. Kir.
Központi Statisztikai Hivatal [Hungarian Royal Central Statistical Office],
Budapest.
R. SÜLE, Andrea
– 1988 Tények és következtetések a II. világháború utáni román népszámlálások
adatai alapján. [Facts and Consequences based on the Romanian Censuses after
World War II.] In: Magyarságkutatás. A Magyarságkutató Intézet évkönyve.
[Yearbook of the Insitute for Hungarology.] Ed. Gyula Juhász. Magyarságkutató
Intézet, Budapest, pp. 123-144.
Teroarea Horthysto-fascistă în Nord-vestul României septembrie 1940 -
octombrie 1944
– 1985 [The Horthy-Fascist Terror in the North-West of Romania in September
1940.] Ed. Mihai Fătu, Mircea Muşat. Editura Politică, Bucureşti. 325p.
THIRRING, Lajos
– 1938 Magyarország Trianontól napjainkig. Népesség és népmozgalom. [Hungary
from Trianon to the Present. Population and Population Movement.] Magyar
Statisztikai Szemle 4, 1938 (XVI), pp. 375-390.
– 1943 Természetes és tényleges népszaporodás a két legutolsó népszámlálás
közt a trianoni és a visszacsatolt területeken. [Natural and Actual
Population Growth between the Last Two Censuses on Trianon
Territory and the Reattached
Areas.] Magyar Statisztikai Szemle 7, 1943 (XXI), pp. 352-359.
– 1963 Magyarország népessége 1869-1949 között. [The Demography of Hungary
between 1869-1949.] In: Magyarország történeti demográfiája. [The
Historical Demography of Hungary].
Ed. József Kovacsics. Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó, Budapest,
pp. 221-388.
VARGA E., Árpád
– 1994a Városodás, vándorlás, nemzetiség. Adatok és szempontok az erdélyi
városi térségek etnikai arculatváltásának vizsgálatához. [Urbanisation,
Migration and Ethnicity. Data and Perspectives on the Analysis of the Ethnic
Changes in Transylvanian Urban Territories] Erdélyi Szemle 5-6, pp.
156-197. (Extended and modified version of the study published in Regio
4, 1991. )
– 1994b Erdély anyanyelvi, nemzetiségi és felekezeti statisztikája 1880-1992.
[Statistics for Transylvania relating to Mother
Tongue, Nationality and Denomination 1880-1992.] Magyarság és Európa
4, 1994 (II), pp. 20-52. (Extended and modified version : Limbă maternă, naţionalitate,
confesiune. Date privind Transilvania în perioada 1880-1992. [Mother Tongue,
Nationality, Religion. Data from Transylvania
1880-1992.] In: Fizionomia
etnică şi confesională fluctuantă a regiunii Carpato-balcanice şi a
Transilvaniei. [Changes in the Ethnic and Denominational
Physiognomy of the Balkan-Carpathian Region and Transylvania.]
Asociaţia Culturală Haáz Rezső [Haáz Rezső Cultural Association], Odorheiu
Secuiesc, pp. 83-133. (Caiete Muzeale 14. )
– 1994c Az erdélyi magyarság lélekszámáról. [On the Demography of the
Transylvanian Hungarians.] Tiszatáj 8, 1994 (XLVIII), pp. 78-96.
Extended and modified version: Despre numărul maghiarilor din Transilvania. In: Fizionomia etnică şi confesională
fluctuantă a regiunii Carpato-balcanice şi a Transilvaniei. [Changes
in the Ethnic and Denominational Physiognomy of the Balkan-Carpathian Region
and Transylvania.] Asociaţia Culturală Haáz Rezső
[Haáz Rezső Cultural Association], Odorheiu Secuiesc, pp. 45-81. (Caiete
Muzeale 14. )
– 1996a A romániai magyarság főbb demográfiai jellemzői az 1992. évi
népszámlálás eredményeinek tükrében. [Main Demographic Characteristics of the
Hungarian Population of Transylvania, according to the Results of the 1992
Census.] Hitel 3, 1996 (IX), pp. 68-84.
– 1996b Az 1977. évi romániai népszámlálásról az újabb adatközlések tükrében.
[On the Romanian Census of 1977 on the Basis of New Publication of Data.] In:
Erdély etnikai arculatának változása. [Changes in the Ethnic
Physiognomy of Transylvania.] Teleki László Alapítvány
Könyvtár és Dokumentációs Szolgálata [Library and Documentation Service of
the Teleki László Foundation], Budapest,
pp. 71-107. (Kisebbségi adattár. )
– 1997 A népesség fejlődése, az etnikai és felekezeti viszonyok alakulása a
jelenkori Erdély területén 1869-1920 között. [Population Development and the
Dynamics of Ethnic and Denominational Relations in the Territory
of Contemporary Transylvania
in 1869-1920.] Erdélyi Múzeum 1-2, 1997 (LIX), pp. 40-87.
WINKLER, Wilhelm
– 1919 Die Totenverluste der öst. -ung. Monarchie nach
Nationalitäten. [The War Losses of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
according to Nationality.] Seidl und Sohn, Wien. VI, 84p, 14 tables.
|
