The evaluation of the average raw income for 2003 gives some clear conclusions about the specificity of Romanian transition. The average raw income for last year was 4,868 thousand ROL, that is almost 130 Euro. There are big differences among fields and economical branches and they show, on the one hand, lack of uniformity in national economy, and on the other hand they show income discrepancies, labor productivity and social importance of that labor. As expected, the highest income is that of the financial, bank activities and also that of the insurance. The average of this sector is 12,4 millions ROL. Even in this sector there are discrepancies. The income for insurance is only 75%, as compared to that of the bank and capital market. If we consider education and financial status, we notice that financial, bank and insurance activities are the main resource of the Romanian middle class. But unfortunately, the number of employees on this market is very low, only 62, 000 persons. This shows how fragile Romanian financial market is. Considering the number of inhabitants and the requests of capitalist economy, Romania should employ about 300,000 persons in finance. The small number of employees effects on the small contribution of this market to the middle class. On the other hand, it insignificantly influences the average income. As compared to this, the average income for industry was of 4,8 millions ROL, that is actually the average on economy. But this figure is not actually relevant, as income greatly differs from one branch to another. For instance, the average income in extractive industry were almost double (9 millions ROL) that of the average for industry. There is high income in Tabasco industry also (8,9 millions ROL), in oil industry, coal industry and in nuclear fuel (10,9 millions ROL). As compared to the average income, electricity and heating, gas and water industries have a higher income (7,8 millions ROL), as well as airline transport (10,9 millions ROL). In exchange, other industries have very low income: textiles - 3,5 millions ROL, clothes - 3 millions ROL, leather - 3,2 millions ROL. A sad record belonged to the wood and cork industry, with the average income of 2,7 millions ROL. The conclusion is puzzling. The highest income is in industry, utilities and transport, which are state fields and get state support, recalculation and deletions of debts to the state! Whereas the lowest income is that of the completely private sectors. Low income have also got other private sectors, such as commerce (3,8 millions ROL), tourism (3,4 millions ROL) or building (4,4 millions ROL). So we notice that salary is not determined by productivity, but especially by some factors twisting market mechanisms: the deleting of old debts and state support. If we consider the size of the company, a sad conclusion is that the income in great companies is much higher that that in small and medium enterprises. So in the private sectors there is a relatively low income. Things are different in the public state sector. In 2003 the state sectors got some of the lowest income, although, as far as education is concerned, there is a big number of well-qualified people who have social impact activity. The average raw income was 6,7 millions ROL in public administration, 4,8 millions ROL in education and only 4,4 millions ROL in health. Starting with January 2004, the income for education has greatly increased, as there has been an unprecedented growth for the salaries of professors (but not for the other University employees). So by evaluating the average raw income for 2003 we reach important conclusions about the Romanian strategy for income. Common sense explains some of it. For instance the fact that new fields like telecommunication and complex fields like financial connections or airline transport. We have poor explanations for the low income in specialized industries, like offices device, techniques, cars, electric devices, medical devices, optics and photography. Other conclusions are explained not by common sense, but by the absurd of transition. Market sector has got lower income than the state sector. Advantageous economy offers lower salaries than the disadvantaged one. Big companies, static and relying on state support offers higher salaries than the dynamic sector of small and medium enterprises. Doctors and teachers earn less than most of the uneducated people. A Tabasco worker earns double than the baker. By all sorts of moves, the state is still the agent of income growth.

Varujan VOSGANIAN