How much can Romania improve its economy with a POD no earlier than 1925?

[Angel Grace]

Per wiki "Interwar Romania was one of the least developed countries in Europe, having a per capita income of less than half the one of Czechoslovakia.

Despite having mineral resources and a state interventionist policy, Romania was not able to change the agricultural character of its economy into an industrial one. 80% of its population was employed in labor-intensive practisces. Despite the land reforms, Romania's peasants continued to live at the edge of poverty. Its bourgeoisie used much of the country's economic surplus into non-productive uses, while the country had an oversized and corrupt state apparatus, upon which relied a privileged minority."

How could've Romania maximized its economic growth as much as possible from 1925 until WW2?

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

How could've Romania maximized its economic growth as much as possible from 1925 until WW2?

Military dictatorship.

 

[Lalli]

Military dictatorship.

How that has helped anything anywhere? If it would be case, Brazil and Chile should are economic powerhouses of Latin America. And Argentine should be too much more prosperous.

 

[Angel Grace]

Military dictatorship.

Well, what would they do?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Remove Ceausescu or at least make him much less totalitarian, crazy etc. and the foreign debts so that he continues with the more liberal course he had in the 60's.

 

[Angel Grace]

Remove Ceausescu or at least make him much less totalitarian, crazy etc. and the foreign debts so that he continues with the more liberal course he had in the 60's.

 

[Lalli]

Remove Ceausescu or at least make him much less totalitarian, crazy etc. and the foreign debts so that he continues with the more liberal course he had in the 60's.

OP states that it should happen on inter-war period.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

How that has helped anything anywhere? If it would be case, Brazil and Chile should are economic powerhouses of Latin America. And Argentine should be too much more prosperous.

It helped push for industrialization and modernization much sooner and easier for mostly agrarian based economies, and, the point is not for Romania to become a powerhouse, which I find unlikely even after a liberal democracy remaining in power for 50 years, but for them to not remain as poor as Bulgaria and worse economically than Greece or Poland.

The Soviet Union can be considered a military dictatorship (as the military after Stalin started calling the shots in some cases), same with the other Socialist one-party states and they reached very high levels of industrialization even with the bad centrally planned economy system. Though if it is Averescu who coups the government in 1927 or somehow Antonescu earlier, they are likely to still have a modicum of a free market economic model.

Well, what would they do?

Well if it General Averescu who coups the government in 1927 then it might be his big tent party and everyone else except the PNL and PNT, attempt some form of compromise between centralization and regional autonomy, introduce women's suffrage, break the PNL's hold on finances and redistribute it to other sectors, attempt to incorporate some minorities into his government and also persecute minority parties. Not the best choice but certainly to stir the country in one direction or another at least in terms of industrialization and military industry, compared to the Weimer level of fighting, infighting and outright economic stagnation for 20 years.

If it is Antonescu, he might end up establishing his government of national unity made out of all the parties, perhaps akin to some form of corporatism? Either way, neither Averescu or Antonescu would want to have Carol II on the throne even if some of their allies would prefer it as the scandals, corruption cases and general shame he bought upon the country are too great.

In terms of industry and military might by 1940? Most likely the level of Poland to Hungary as trying to catch up with the Czechs is an exercise in futility but they might have a decently armed and prepared army for a war against the Soviets. Anything is better than what they did OTL - They did not even have an explosive powder factory until the mid 30s and imported it from Yugoslavia.

(If they push for internal military production of every modern equipment, radio, tanks, heavy artillery, planes, trucks, trains, food etc. it will establish heavy and specialized industry that could during peace time also produce consumer goods for the civilian market, not like it would matter that much when 80% of the population was too poor to afford even meat once per week)

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

It helped push for industrialization and modernization much sooner and easier for mostly agrarian based economies, and, the point is not for Romania to become a powerhouse, which I find unlikely even after a liberal democracy remaining in power for 50 years, but for them to not remain as poor as Bulgaria and worse economically than Greece or Poland.

The Soviet Union can be considered a military dictatorship (as the military after Stalin started calling the shots in some cases), same with the other Socialist one-party states and they reached very high levels of industrialization even with the bad centrally planned economy system. Though if it is Averescu who coups the government in 1927 or somehow Antonescu earlier, they are likely to still have a modicum of a free market economic model.


Well if it General Averescu who coups the government in 1927 then it might be his big tent party and everyone else except the PNL and PNT, attempt some form of compromise between centralization and regional autonomy, introduce women's suffrage, break the PNL's hold on finances and redistribute it to other sectors, attempt to incorporate some minorities into his government and also persecute minority parties. Not the best choice but certainly to stir the country in one direction or another at least in terms of industrialization and military industry, compared to the Weimer level of fighting, infighting and outright economic stagnation for 20 years.

If it is Antonescu, he might end up establishing his government of national unity made out of all the parties, perhaps akin to some form of corporatism? Either way, neither Averescu or Antonescu would want to have Carol II on the throne even if some of their allies would prefer it as the scandals, corruption cases and general shame he bought upon the country are too great.

In terms of industry and military might by 1940? Most likely the level of Poland to Hungary as trying to catch up with the Czechs is an exercise in futility but they might have a decently armed and prepared army for a war against the Soviets. Anything is better than what they did OTL - They did not even have an explosive powder factory until the mid 30s and imported it from Yugoslavia.

(If they push for internal military production of every modern equipment, radio, tanks, heavy artillery, planes, trucks, trains, food etc. it will establish heavy and specialized industry that could during peace time also produce consumer goods for the civilian market, not like it would matter that much when 80% of the population was too poor to afford even meat once per week)

Calling the Soviet Union a military dictatorship is absolutely not accurate. In fact the Soviet military, despite its massive size, was probably one of the least influential militaries in a non-democratic society.

Anyways to get to the actual topic of debate, I think that the idea of pushing industrialisation of Romania via militarism isn't the effective way to get a relatively prosperous Romania. I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of individual figures in early 20th century Romania so who institutes these policies is up in the air but here's my thoughts:

Romania experienced pretty significant economic growth between 1923 and 1938, being the largest producer of oil and food in Europe (obviously excluding the USSR from "Europe" for the sake of this conversation). If the country is able to somehow keep neutral during the Second World War (would probably necessitate avoiding Barbarossa) or avert the Second World War (probably easier, have the French intervene in the Rhineland or something, idk), it seems likely that Romania can focus on state-sponsored programmes to industrialise around the existing products produced: turning oil into petroleum, producing fertiliser and tractors and other agricultural tools. This allows them to have essentially an export-substitution model, encourage cheaper mechanisation of agriculture which increases yield, and get better value out of their oil deposits. Any policies that can help build a stable middle class also would help Romania greatly. Middle classes tend to be the best spenders relative to their income level and as such drive demand. Have some French investment in Romanian industry and infrastructure and you could at least theoretically, get to an income level similar to Italy's.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

Calling the Soviet Union a military dictatorship is absolutely not accurate. In fact the Soviet military, despite its massive size, was probably one of the least influential militaries in a non-democratic society.

Yes, the least influential military that the moment the civilian government decided to cut their budget they would face threats and possible removal from office, or the fact the military was the only sector that could reject a product they ordered if it did not pass quality control checks.

Romania experienced pretty significant economic growth between 1923 and 1938, being the largest producer of oil and food in Europe (obviously excluding the USSR from "Europe" for the sake of this conversation). If the country is able to somehow keep neutral during the Second World War (would probably necessitate avoiding Barbarossa) or avert the Second World War (probably easier, have the French intervene in the Rhineland or something, idk), it seems likely that Romania can focus on state-sponsored programmes to industrialise around the existing products produced: turning oil into petroleum, producing fertiliser and tractors and other agricultural tools. This allows them to have essentially an export-substitution model, encourage cheaper mechanisation of agriculture which increases yield, and get better value out of their oil deposits. Any policies that can help build a stable middle class also would help Romania greatly. Middle classes tend to be the best spenders relative to their income level and as such drive demand. Have some French investment in Romanian industry and infrastructure and you could at least theoretically, get to an income level similar to Italy's.

That is exactly what they did, focused on oil and food exports and yet their economic growth remained stagnant throughout the interwar period and not for a lack of trying. Even when they attempted to modernize the farms or the industry they remained uncompetitive to even the Polish industry, let alone Germany or France. The middle class of Romania at that time was extremely patronizing to the less wealthy or to the farmers, and were more inclined to buy French goods even if they were more expensive than Romanian ones. The French, British, Germans etc. did invest in Romania but to little results, with their heavy industry (Rogifer) eventually getting absorbed by Reichswerke Hermann Goring in 1940.
GDP:

Year Geary-Khamis 1990 US Dollars
1926 1258
1928 1225
1929 1152
1930 1219
1933 1184
1936 1194
1938 1242