Romania’s regional development strategies for 2021–2027 emphasize social inclusion, demographic resilience, and the reduction of territorial disparities, particularly in the context of accelerated population ageing, rural depopulation, and persistent vulnerabilities affecting access to essential services. Within this framework, the social work profession emerges as a key actor in supporting sustainable and equity-oriented models of regional development. Regional analyses across the country highlight recurring structural challenges: declining population trends, a rising share of older adults, uneven access to public services, limited availability of modern social infrastructure, and pronounced urban–rural disparities. At the same time, opportunities generated through European and national policies, including digitalization, improved mobility, expansion of integrated social services, and the modernization of health and social care infrastructure, provide a foundation for strengthening inclusion-focused interventions. This article proposes a sustainability-oriented framework through which social work can contribute to the implementation of regional development priorities by: Expanding and professionalizing community-based services in vulnerable territories; developing active ageing programmes and preventing social isolation; engaging social workers in digital transition processes to reduce service-access gaps; strengthening territorial cooperation and embedding social interventions within multi-level governance mechanisms. Findings suggest that aligning social work interventions with regional policy frameworks can enhance social cohesion, reduce inequalities, and reinforce community resilience. Social work thus positions itself as a central vector in Romania’s transition toward sustainable and inclusive regional development pathways.

1.         Benedek J, Lembcke AC. Characteristics of recovery and resilience in the Romanian regions. Eastern Journal of European Studies. 2017; 8(2): 95–126.

2.         Ianoș I, Cocheci RM, Petrișor AI. Exploring the relationship between the dynamics of the urban–rural interface and regional development in a post-socialist transition. Urban Science. 2024; 8(2): 47. doi: 10.3390/urbansci8020047

3.         Cruccitti F, Lazarou N, Monfort P, et al. A cohesion policy analysis for Romania towards the 2021–2027 programming period. JRC Working Papers on Territorial Modelling and Analysis; 2022.

4.         Muntele I, Istrate M, Hărălambie A, Bănică A. An overview of population dynamics in Romanian Carpathians (1912–2021): Factors, spatial patterns and urban–rural disparities. Land. 2023; 12(9): 1756. doi: 10.3390/land12091756

5.         Croitoru A. Great expectations: A regional study of entrepreneurship among Romanian return migrants. SAGE Open. 2020; 10(2): 1–18. doi: 10.1177/2158244020921149

6.         Bogdański M, Janusz M. Small towns’ functions as a determinant of the standard of living in rural areas—An example from Poland. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20): 13254. doi: 10.3390/su142013254

7.         Antonescu D. New cohesion and regional policy in 2021–2027 period. MPRA Paper; 2020.

8.         Szewrański S, Świąder M, Kazak JK, et al. Socio-environmental vulnerability mapping for environmental and flood resilience assessment: The case of ageing and poverty in the city of Wrocław, Poland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 2018; 14(5): 592–597. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4077

9.         Aartsen M, Vangen H, Pavlidis G, et al. The unique and synergistic effects of social isolation and loneliness on 20-years mortality risks in older men and women. Frontiers in Public Health. 2024; 12: 1432701. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1432701

10.      Vasile V. Demographic changes and labour market in Romania. PIE Discussion Paper; 2004.

11.      Teșliuc E, Grigoraș V, Stănculescu M. Background study for the national strategy on social inclusion and poverty reduction 2015–2020. Bucharest: World Bank; 2015.

12.      Istrate M, Muntele I, Bănică A. Spatial resilience of the ageing population in the Romanian functional urban areas. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering. 2015; 9(5): 1503–1508.

13.      Weiss-Gal I, Welbourne P. The professionalisation of social work: A cross-national exploration. International Journal of Social Welfare. 2008; 17(4): 281–290. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2008.00574.x

14.      Goian C. Teaching social work practice. Pro Universitaria. 2013.

15.      Baciu L, Dincă M, Lazăr TA, Sandvin JT. Exploring the social relations of Roma employability: The case of rural segregated communities in Romania. Journal of Comparative Social Work. 2016; 11(1): 115–144. doi: 10.31265/jcsw.v11i1.138

16.      Nițu AM, Cace CA. A model of integrated community development. Journal of Community Positive Practices. 2020; 20(3): 34–48. doi: 10.35782/JCPP.2020.3.04

17.      Sandu D. Regional disparities in Romania in a comparative perspective. In: Lorenz A, Mariș DM, editors. Politics and Society in Romania. Societies and Political Orders in Transition. Cham: Springer; 2025. pp. 253–267.

18.      Bara MA. Social problems of elderly people in Romania. Pangeea. 2022; 22: 145–152. doi: 10.29302/Pangeea.22.15

19.      Goian C. Asistența persoanelor vârstnice în instituții rezidențiale. Iași: Polirom; 2023.

20.      Henriques J, Luís S, Rivero C, et al. The impact of community resilience, well-being, and community attachment on human service workers’ burnout. Journal of Social Work. 2024; 24(2): 317–335. doi: 10.1177/14680173231225113

21.      Valarino I, Meil G, Rogero-García J. Family or state responsibility? Elderly- and childcare policy preferences in Spain. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 2018; 38(11–12): 1101–1115. doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-06-2018-0086

22.      Ivan L, Cutler SJ. Older adults and the digital divide in Romania: Implications for the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Elder Policy. 2021; 1(3): 67–84. doi: 10.18278/jep.1.3.5

23.      van de Vijver S, Tensen P, Asiki G, et al. Digital health for all: How digital health could reduce inequality and increase universal health coverage. Digital Health. 2023; 9: 20552076231185434. doi: 10.1177/20552076231185434

24.      Gorgos EA, Vătămănescu EM, Andrei AG. Europeanization through students’ lens: EU versus EaP citizens. Is there a collective identity? Eastern Journal of European Studies. 2016; 7(2): 185–203

25.      Bachtler JF, Mendez C. From conditionality to Europeanization in Central and Eastern Europe: Administrative performance and capacity in cohesion policy. European Planning Studies. 2014; 22(4): 735–757. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.772744

26.      Medeiros E, Scott J, Ferreira R, et al. European territorial cooperation towards territorial cohesion? Regional Studies. 2024; 58(8): 1518–1529. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2023.2226698

27.      Medeu A, Askarova M, Zhakuopova A, et al. Sustainable regional development: A challenge between socio-economic development and sustainable environmental management. Sustainability. 2025; 17(13): 6020. doi: 10.3390/su17136020

28.      Zamfirescu-Mareș D, Corman S. Depopulation, Ageing and Social Sustainability: Institutionalized Elderly and the Geography of Care Between Rural and Urban Romania. Sustainability. 2025; 17 (22): 10419. doi: 10.3390/su172210419

29.      Andrioni F, Goian C. Profile of social services from Jiu Valley in light professionals’ perception: Qualitative approach. Annals of the University of Petroșani, Economics. 2012; 12(3): 5–16.

30.      Buzducea D. Asistența socială: O chemare, o misiune, un destin. Editura Art; 2016.

31.      Buzducea D. Social work and the challenges of the new millennium. Tritonic; 2022.