In a misguided effort to enhance economic productivity, Nicolae Ceausescu decreed in 1966 that Romania would develop its “human capital” via a government-enforced mandate to increase the country's population. Ceauşescu, Romania's leader from 1965 to 1989, banned contraception and abortions and imposed a “celibacy tax” on families that had fewer than five children. State doctors—the menstrual police—conducted gynecologic examinations in the workplace of women of childbearing age to see whether they were producing sufficient offspring. The birth rate initially skyrocketed. Yet because families were too poor to keep their children, they abandoned many of them to large state-run institutions. By 1989 this social experiment led to more than 170,000 children living in these facilities.

The Romanian revolution of 1989 deposed Ceaus escu, and over the next 10 years his successors made a series of halting attempts to undo the damage. The “orphan problem” Ceaus escu left behind was enormous and did not disappear for many years. The country remained impoverished, and the rate of child abandonment did not change appreciably at least through 2005. A decade after Ceaus escu had been removed from power, some government officials could still be heard saying that the state did a better job than families in bringing up abandoned children and that those confined in institutions were, by definition, “defective”—a view grounded in the Soviet-inspired system of educating the disabled, dubbed “defectology.”

This article was originally published with the title Anguish of the Abandoned Child.

6 Comments

1. 1. Steven 11:07 PM 3/19/13

   No wonder Ceausescu was overthrown. The Romanians must have blamed him for having to abandon their children.
   There could not be any greater heartbreak.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. erozycki 12:03 PM 3/20/13

   What? Who wudda thunk that such misery could be caused by banning abortion and contraception? It surely couldn't happen in our own Land of the Free where "morality" is the watchword, and kids are taught values in the schools! See http://goo.gl/Zz8dL

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Anonymus Notarii 03:29 PM 4/1/13

   I know perfectly what has happened in Romania between 1955 – 1989 as I was there. It is part of my life.
   This is the reason why I can verify every single line of every single statement made in the article about Romania.
   Please read below some brief considerations, followed by an in-depth analysis. A separate post will suggest what the distinguished professors could study in the US (my main concern) as well as Romania.
   In Brief:
   The introduction of the article, as well as the article “In Brief” is mostly incorrect. The authors venture in fields (economics, sociology, history) way outside their area of expertise, and make inaccurate statements. It is hard to believe that almost every introductory statement is verifiably incorrect, but they achieved the impossible. This is what the “In Depth” section of my post will prove.
   Communism is one of the most serious actual topics, as there is a new debate about the best way to achieve economic development (China is a Communist country), and no article about past, present of future about Communism should have such obvious mistakes in it. The reality was such that it doesn’t need exaggerations.
   I’m sure that when the distinguished authors limit to their area of expertise (child psychology and similar) the article could prove that “life in an orphanage took its toll”, although not necessarily.
   Strictly referring to the country I know best, the US, one of the most respected contemporary figures in the America politics, Mr. Newt Gingrich suggested in 1994 that many welfare kids would be better in orphanages. A better example is a Duke University study, which (see also http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703510304574626080835477074.html) contradicts the findings of the Scientific American article (but again valid just for the US).
   I also want to clarify that as an American taxpayer I don’t understand why our scarce resources are utilized for “me too” studies, especially conducted abroad.
   On a separate note, there is no doubt that there is a stringent need of improvement in the life of Romanian orphans. It is difficult to understand why in 2012 this is still a topic of discussion, and unfortunately a very valid one. Moreover, it is not acceptable for any country on the path to European integration to need help from US experts in anything related to social benefits.
   In Depth:
   First, I will clarify for the distinguished authors some economic terms used incorrectly in the article.
   “Human Capital” is (I recommend Wikipedia as a quick starting point):
   “It is an aggregate economic view of the human being acting within economies, which is an attempt to capture the social, biological, cultural and psychological complexity as they interact in explicit and/or economic transactions. Many theories explicitly connect investment in human capital development to education, and the role of human capital in economic development, productivity growth, and innovation has frequently been cited as a justification for government subsidies for education and job skills training.”
   “Economic Productivity” is (same source as above):
   “Productivity is an average measure of the efficiency of production. Productivity is a ratio of production output to what is required to produce it (inputs of capital, labor, land, energy, materials, etc.).”
   Neither of the above would in any way be increased by increasing the population of a country, as stated in the introductory phrase of the article: “In a misguided effort to enhance economic productivity, .... would develop its “human capital” via a government-enforced mandate to increase the country's population.”
   If still not clear, please contact the economic departments of your Universities for clarification.
   Several other statements are incorrect.
   At no time families/individuals had to pay a tax for having fewer than five children. There was tax for not having children, but not for lee than five children.
   At no time there was a “menstrual police”, “conducting gynecologic examinations in the workplace of women of childbearing age to see whether they were producing sufficient offspring”. It is not true for Universities, High schools, factories. However, there were isolated cases when usually young women (from their workplace), were taken to a hospital and examinations were conducted, for this purpose, especially after the mid 80s’. It was no means widespread, and I would attribute that to individuals who were trying to advance in the Communist Party hierarchy (think the equivalent of Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo)).
   The above phrase was probably not checked by the distinguished authors from the angle of “verbal reasoning”. There is no way for a gynecologist to determine the number of children produced by performing an examination. The “sufficient offspring” – what would that mean?
   The statement “Yet because families were too poor to keep their children, they abandoned many of them to large state-run institutions.” is incorrect. It is true that there were a number of such families, very limited, and especially after mid 1980’s. I can’t deny However, “170,000 children” living in orphanages – I can’t dispute that. It came as a shock in 1989 to me, and to everybody I knew.
   I will now take you back to Romania after 1945. A very good study, which confirms what I know (and verified now by talking to several friends and relatives in Romania) is Evolutia natalitatii si fertilitatii in Romania, which can be found at www.insse.ro.
   The article shows that:
   • between 1947-1955 the natality was high (25.6/1000 in 1955, 24.2/1000 in 1956).
   • access to education (all levels, exceptional quality), access to health care, professional mobility industrialization, urbanization were socio-economic changes which influenced women choices (the early 50’s)
   Under these circumstances “Decretul nr. 463/1957”, allowed the national health care system to provide abortions, for a small fee.
   By 1966 all the factors combined translated into a 14.3/1000 natality, which way was below replacement rate.
   I remember that those years almost every family I knew (I lived in a city) had one child only. Almost every colleague in my class was a unique child. Two children was an exception. In the country side I knew families with three children, but it was an exception too.
   Under these circumstances “Decretul 770/1966” was passed, drastically limiting the abortions (but don'.
   This translated into an immediate natality jump (27/1000 in 1967, 26.7/1000 in 1968), and stabilized to 20/1000 in the seventies.
   Almost immediately after the decree a number (ever increasing) of (now illegal) abortion providers appeared. I have to add that no contraceptives means were widely available, abortion being the only recourse for unwanted pregnancies.
   These abortion providers, when caught, would be punished with jail sentences. A number of them, after being freed, would end up again in jail for the same reason, sometimes multiple times. Even multiple abortions, would not be punished by death sentences. Neither the legal system, not the average citizen would contemplate legal of random execution of the medical personnel (or otherwise).
   By mid 80’s the Romanian industry, badly mismanaged (in spite of an exceptional educational system, compared to the US, but that would be a very different story) , failed in the attempt to become competitive on the world markets. The loans incurred to build this industry (probably around $10 billion) could not be paid by the export of industrial products. Agricultural products become the main export, so by mid 80’s food shortages begun.
   Immediately natality, with all the restriction was lower to 15/1000 in 1983.
   Under these circumstances, “Decretul 441/1985” was promulgated. This was far more restrictive than the previous ones (very limited exceptions). The effect on natality was minimal, but this is what translated into a large number of abandoned children. The source of these abandonments is a different story. This explains why the majority of pictures taken in orphanages in the 90’s show young and very young children.
   Even in those years, I didn’t know personally anybody who has abandoned a child; I have checked with friend and relatives, and the answer is always the same: never knew personally somebody who abandoned a child. There and then, like everywhere else, including now, there were disadvantaged familial backgrounds. I can’t identify those.
   But I know it has happened. Moreover, this doesn’t change the essence of the discussion; the children from disadvantaged backgrounds deserved and deserve adequate care and opportunities, in Romania and everywhere else.
   However, what has happened in real life is very different from what is described in the article: a country of poor people, forced to have more than five children, women herded to gynecologic controls, abandoning children.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Anonymus Notarii 02:42 PM 4/2/13

   I would make two new studies suggestions to the distinguished authors.
   The first one, conducted in Romania, which would determine why so many children from Romania come with full paid scholarships in the US, at Ivy League Athletic Conference Universities. While visiting the Princeton University (NJ) campus (one of the Ivy League Athletic Conference) I have heard several students speaking Romanian, and I talked to them. All had full scholarships at Princeton, not for sports, but as being among the best in the world (yes, in the World) in physics, mathematics and chemistry.
   I knew that there are a large number of children educated in Romania who were recruited with full scholarships for their exceptional non-sports related performances, but I never realized how many. A great topic of study could be: how did they manage to succeed?
   The second is for us here. Every year, 50,000 students (according to multiple sources, Business Week for example) finish with a Law degree at one of our Universities. They carry huge student load burdens. Statistically speaking it appears that there is a need for only 20,000 lawyers/year. The loans contracted to complete these studies (in the high tens of thousands) can’t be discharged, even in bankruptcy. A study of how this burden influences the children of these lawyers would be very useful.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. bpepy 09:53 AM 4/13/13

   The results of the Romanian study could have been predicted based on studies by Harry F. Harlow and others in the 1950s and 1960s with Macaque monkeys. Infants isolated at birth until 12 months of age showed extreme pathological behavior as adults. This was true even among those isolated for 6 months, although the latter group did show partial recovery. Infants raised with a wire frame surrogate mother were less well adjusted as adults compared with those provided with a surrogate covered with a soft material, even though both surrogates were warm and contained a unit for nursing. Followup studies indicated that even short-term interruption of mother-pup interaction markedly affected several biochemical processes in the developing pup relating to growth of body organs including the brain. While the conditions of these studies were undoubtedly more extreme than those of the Romanian orphans, they clearly show the need for contact with a soft warm object and social interaction from birth.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. jbairddo 07:45 AM 4/15/13

   If we look at the results of the study (lower IQ), it still doesn't suggest a cause. Searching the original study shows only one reference to nutrition, none to growth charts, head circumference or other childhood measurements which can point to a myriad of possibilities. Although this is considered a randomized and controlled study,there are way too many variables not addressed (or if they were, not reported)to single out lack of socialization as the cause. Besides a lack of nutrition, were the kids in the institution eating lead paint chips, a notorious cause of lower IQ in this country?
   Not sure who paid for this but I don't think they got their money's worth unless the intent was to show that being raised not in an institution is good (wow, really?)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this