Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010, 253–275 REGIONAL INEQUALITY IN SERBIA AS A DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM REGIONALNA NEENAKOST V SRBIJI KOT RAZVOJNI PROBLEM Dragana Miljanovi}, Radmila Mileti}, Jasmina \or|evi} ] I V E J O V I L I M

N A V O L I M Only eight inhabitants lived in the Basara village, SE Serbia in 2002. V Basari, naselju v ob~ini Pirot v jugovzhodni Srbiji je leta 2002 `ivelo le osem prebivalcev. Dragana Miljanovi}, Radmila Mileti}, Jasmina \or|evi}, Regional inequality in Serbia as a development problem Regional inequality in Serbia as a development problem

DOI: 10.3986/AGS50204 UDC: 711.2(497.11) COBISS: 1.01

ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper, in the context of the contemporary socio -economic changes in Serbia, is to consider changes in the regional development policy, and therefore in the approach to underdevel - oped areas. A special attention is paid to regional inequality as a developmental problem since it directly influences the integrative processes, violating them, and therefore leads to side effects (economic, social, demographic, ecological, spatial, etc.). In Serbia, traditionally undeveloped areas (rural, hilly -mountain - ous and border/peripheral) have formed during a longer historical period, contrary to the new types of areas – municipalities (»devastated areas«) that are connected to the transition period (»transition poverty«). Both appeared by cause and effect reaction to natural, socio -economic, social, demographic, cultural -civiliza - tional and political factors.

KEY WORDS: geography, regional policy, territorial inequality, transition, undeveloped areas, devastated areas, Serbia

The article was submitted for publication on April 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Dragana Miljanovi}, M. Sc. Geographical Institute »Jovan Cviji}« Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts \ure Jak{i}a 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia E-mail: d.miljanovicgi.sanu.ac.rs

Radmila Mileti}, M. Sc. Geographical Institute »Jovan Cviji}« Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts \ure Jak{i}a 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia E-mail: r.mileticgi.sanu.ac.rs

Jasmina \or|evi}, Ph. D. Department of Geography, Tourism & Hotel Management Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad Trg Dositeja Obradovi}a 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: jasmina.djordjevicdgt.uns.ac.rs

Contents 1 Introduction 255 2 The basic characteristics of the spatial polarization of Serbia 255 3 The regional policy in Serbia during the last two decades 259 4 Institutionalisation of the regional development 263 5 Conclusion 263 6 References 264

254 Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010 1 Introduction Trends in regional disparities have been a major issue in regional science for many decades and knowl - edge of ways to overcome such disparities has great importance for regional policy -making. Studies of different aspects of regional development specially through the enlargement of the EU have been under - taken by many researchers (see Dunford 1994; Dunford and Smith 2000; Hamilton 1999; Scott and Storper 2003; Smith 2004). Territorial inequality is present in all countries, while the regional policy has been one of the most dynamic policies in the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) during the last two decades (Bachtler and Downes 2000). The transformation from a socialist country and central - ly -planned economy towards a western -style democracy and market based economy has caused dramatic changes in economic, social, ecological and spatial development in post -socialist countries. Analysing the spatial differentiation of the regions, on the basis of its status in a socialist economy and the reaction to the transformation processes, G. Gorzelak (1998, 64) differentiates four types of regions: positive conti - nuity, negative discontinuity, positive discontinuity and negative continuity. These types of regions have manifested themselves in all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Many publications have high - lighted the evolution of regional policies in the CEE (Bachtler, Downes and Gorzelak 2000; Brusis 1999; Gorzelak et al. 2001). The regional dimension of the transition in post -socialist countries are indicated by Bla`ek and Vozáb 2006; Dostál and Hampl 2004 (Czech Republic); Kuklinski (1997), Gorzelak (2003; Poland); Enyedi (2005), Horváth 1998 (Hungary); ^erne (1999), Ravbar (2004), Nared 2007 (Slovenia). Carter and Turnock (2002), Pavlínek and Picekls (2000, 2004) wrote about environmental problems and environmental transition in those countries. The EU developed a regional policy of its own, with progressively more resources devoted to economic and social cohesion. The objectives of the EU regional policy are: to reduce inequalities between regions, to increase efficiency at national and European level and to decrease inequalities between the Member States of the EU (see for example Bachtler and Wishlade 2005). In recent years, it has been possible to identify a significant shift in the paradigm of regional development (see Bachtler, Yuill 2001). For realiza - tion of the equal regional development policy, the policy of spatial development is quite significant. The primary role of spatial planning is to enhance the integration between the sectors and to improve nation - al and local systems of urban and rural development, at the same time as taking into account environmental considerations. Regional and spatial policies which address regional disparities increasingly pay attention to the city system, often under the label of »polycentric development« (Davoudi 2003). The aim of this paper, in the context of the contemporary socio -economic transformations in Serbia, is to consider changes in the regional development policy, and therefore in the approach to underdevel - oped areas. Unequal regional development, that was evident during the previous phases of development of Serbia, was additionally emphasized during the last two decades. Ten years later compared with other post -socialist countries, the reform processes have been marked by numerous specificities that have had very expressed regional dimension.

2 The basic characteristics of the spatial polarization of Serbia The dimension of the regional development became the subject of recent scientific and expert research since there are numerous problems and processes which derive from the unequal allocation of resources (Deri} and Atanackovi} 2000). A special contribution to an explanation of regional disparities has been done by Serbian geographers and spatial planners (Deri} and Peri{i} 1996, 1997; Radovanovi} 1993/94; Vujo{evi} 2002; Vujo{evi} and Spasi} 2007). Whilst considering the influence on spatial structures and processes, the territorial organisation of state is important for the urban system and regional develop - ment. According to the Law on territory organization and local self -goverment (accepted in 1991) the Republic of Serbia territory is divided into 29 districts and the city of Belgrade. The primary aim of the establishment of districts was not the regional differentiation in the function of development, but in the function of governance. The present territorital organization of Serbia (88.361 km 2; 7.498.001 according to the 2002 Census, not including data for Kosovo and Metohija) is framed in the Constitution (Slu`beni glasnik RS 98/06) and in the Law on territorial organization of Serbia (Slu`beni glasnik RS 129/07). The municipalities, cities and the city of Belgrade as territorial units and the autonomous provinces Vojvodina

255 Dragana Miljanovi}, Radmila Mileti}, Jasmina \or|evi}, Regional inequality in Serbia as a development problem

Novi Subo tica Kanj i`a Kne` evac 1 3 ^oka Sent a Somb or Ba~k a To pola Ada Kiki nda 5 Mali Nova Kula Idjo { Crnj a Apat in Be~e j Novi Srbo - Be~e j bran Od`a ci Vrba s @iti {te Teme rin 2 Ba~ Ba~k i Ba~k a Petr o- 6 @aba lj Pala nka vac Zren jani n Se~a nj Novi Sad Tite l Plan di{t e Beo~ in Srem . Irig Karl ovci Kova ~ica [id Vr{a c Srem ska Indj ija Opov o Alib unar Mitr ovic a 7 Star a Ruma Pazo va 10 Pan~ evo 9 4 Bela Crk va 1 Boga ti} Pe}i nci 4 2 Kovi n 11 3 5 Vel. [aba c 8 6 Grad i{te 7 13 CIT Y O F 14 Po`a reva c 8 Vlad imir ci Golu bac Smed erev o Klad ovo Lozn ica BEL GRA DE Malo 12 Crni }e Koce ljev a Ub 15 11 Krup anj 10 Ku~e vo Mali 17 Smed . Zvor nik Ose~ ina Lajk o- 16 @aba ri vac Pala nka Petr ovac Majd anpe k Aran dje- Vel. 9 llovacova c Plan a Nego tin Ljub ovij a Valj evo Ljig Svil aj- @agu bica Mion ica Topo la Ra~a Lapo vo nac Bato - 14 12 ~ina Desp otov ac Bor Gorn ji M ilan ovac Kosj eri} Krag ujev ac 13 Baji na B a{ta Jago dina ]upr ija U`ic e Po`e - ^a~a k Kni} Bolj evac ga Para }in Zaje ~ar Lu~a ni Reko vac 15 ADMI NIST RATI VE D ISTR ICTS ^aje tina Ra`a nj Aril je 17 Kral jevo Varv arin ]i- Soko banj a 1. N orth Ba~ ka 16 Vrnj . }e- BBanjaanj a Trst enik 19 vac 2. C entr al B anat Prib oj Knja `eva c Nova Var o{ Ivan jica 18 Kru{ evac Alek sina c 3. N orth Ban at Alek sand rova c 4. S outh Ban at 20 Svrl jig 5. W est Ba~k a Prij epol je Ra{k a Brus Mero - Ni{ 6. S outh Ba~ ka Blac e {ina Sjen ica Do- Piro t 7. S rem Prok uplj e lje- Bela Pal anka Novi Paz ar vac Gad` in 8. M a~va Kur{ umli ja @ito - h an 28 radj a 22 Dimi trov - 9. K olub ara Lepo savi } 21 grad Lesk ovac 10.P odun avlj e Tuti n Babu {nic a CITY OF BELG RADE Zve- Bojn ik 11. Bran i~ev o ~an Kos. Vlas otin ce Zubi n Mitr ovic a Leba ne 12. [uma dija MUNI CIPA LITI ES Poto k 1. Star i gr ad Podu jevo 23 Crna Tra va 13. Pomo ravl je Vu~i trn Medv edja 2. Vra~ ar Isto k 14. Bor Srbi ca 3. Savs ki v enac Obil i} Pri{ tina Vlad i~in 15. Zaje ~ar Pe} 24 Han Surd ulic a 4. Novi Beo grad 16. Zlat ibor 26 Glog o- Kos. 5. Zvez dara Klin a vac Kos. Pol je Kame nica 17. Mora vica De~a ni Novo 6. Rako vica Lipl jan Brdo Vran je 18. Ra{k a 25 29 Bosi legr ad Orah ovac 19. Rasi na 7. Vo`d ovac [tim lje Gnji lane 8. ^uka rica Buja nova c 20. Ni{a va Ðako vica Suva Rek a Uro{ evac Trgo vi{t e Viti na 21. Topl ica 9. Zemu n Pre{ evo 22. Piro t 10. Pali lula [trp ce Ka~a nik 23. Jabl anic a 11. Sur~ in Priz ren 24. P~in ja 12. Bara jevo 27 LEG END : 13. Obre nova c 25. Koso vo Drag a{ Pro vin cia l b ord er 26. Pe} 14. Groc ka 27. Priz ren 15. Sopo t Dis tri ct bor der 16. Laza reva c 28. Koso vska Mit rovi ca Mun ici pal ity bo rde r 29. Koso vo - Pom orav lje 17. Mlad enov ac Cit y Mun ici pal ity

Auth ors of c onte nts/ avto ri v sebi ne: Radm ila Mile ti}, Dra gana Mil jano vi} Auth or o f ma p/av tor zeml jevi da: Milo van Mili voje vi} 0 50 100 km Sour ce/v ir: Stat isti cal Offi ce o f th e Re publ ic o f Se rbia , La w on ter rito rial org aniz atio n of Ser bia 2007 .

Figure 1: The districts, cities and municipalities in the Republic of Serbia and Kosovo.

256 Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010 together with Kosovo and Metohija which form the areas with territorial autonomy (since June 1999 AP Kosovo and Metohija have been under the temporary protectorate of the UN mission - Resolution 1244 UNMIK), have been defined by the Law from 2007 (Figure 1). The regional polarization of Serbia to the developed north and the underdeveloped south, to Belgrade and its periphery does not differ much from the other European countries. It is related to the problems that Serbia encountered at the commencement of the new century, such as the process of demographic aging and a high emigration rate from rural areas (see for example Spasovski 2003), as well as the tran - sitional restructuring, with noticeable effects in the contemporary regional structure of Serbia (Vujo{evi} and Spasi} 2007; Zekovi} and Savi} 2004). The last decade of the 20th century was strongly influenced by the political (the disintegration of SFRY and conflicts) and economic crisis with clear demographic consequences. The territory of Serbia, accord - ing to the basic characteristics of population distribution, has the form of the emphasized spatial -dem ographic polarization mille. The main effects of the spatial -demographic polarization of Serbia (without data for Kosovo and Metohija) can be observed from the fact that almost one third of the population is concen - trated into only 5% of the territory, in metropolitan Belgrade, macro -regional centers, Novi Sad, Ni{ and Kragujevac, while over 35% of the territory is significantly below the average population density (up to 50 inhabitants/km 2) with only 12% of the national population (Vojkovi} et al. 2009; Figure 2). Serbia today belongs to the group of states with the oldest population in Europe, with the average age being 40.9 years in 2008.

Table 1: Some basic characteristic of the Republic of Serbia in 2007 (Op{tine … 2008). Administrative units Population Employees Unemployed Budgetary revenues Investments Share in % Republic of Serbia* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Central Serbia 73.0 73.6 72.6 74.4 76.1 Vojvodina 27.0 26.4 27.4 25.6 23.9 Cities (total) 58.6 70.1 55.9 74.7 62.3 Municipalities 41.4 29.9 44.1 25.3 37.7

*Without data for Kosovo and Metohija

The depopulation and fragmentation of a large number of settlements, including a manifestation of spontaneously displaced settlements, caused an extremely emphasized occurence of a spatial -demographic inequality in the network of settlements. It is most obviously expressed in the co -relation municipality centres – other settlements (Stamenkovi} 2004). The disproportion in demographic size of Belgrade to other major cities such as Novi Sad, Ni{, Kragujevac, Subotica, Zrenjanin is the direct consequence of an incoherence and asymetry of the urban system of Serbia. Belgrade's dominance indicates the index of the urban primarity 5.87 (To{i} and Neveni} 2007). Despite the dynamic growth in previous years, by 2007 Serbia had only achieved 80% of the economic level of the 1990s, with a GDP per capita of 4.500 Euros representing only 34% of the EU -27 average (Jakopin et al. 2009). In 2007, the number of employees in Serbia was abound 2 million, 325.000 less than in 1990, not including data for Kosovo and Metohija. The number of unemployed totalled 785.000, 300.000 less relative to 1990. The employment rate among the working age population was 51.7% and the unemployment rate 18.1% (Labor Force Survey, Statistical Office of the RS 2007). According to the value of the HDI at 0.821 in 2006 Serbia is still below the level of the EU countries in those terms. Considering the long -term expressed regional inequality, the events of the last decade of the 20th century, the political and economic disintegration of the ex -state, the sanctions the, NATO bombing of 1999, followed by the economic dis - aster that evoked a total crisis, additionally enhanced the regional polarization in Serbia (Figure 3). Regional inequalities in 2007 were 7 : 1 at municipality/city level e.g. with Novi Sad being the most developed and Pre{evo the least up to 3 : 1 for the comparison between the city of Belgrade and the Jablanica district. From a regional inequality standpoint, the City of Belgrade represents pole of development in all segments with 1/5 of the population in Serbia, not including Kosovo and Metohija, with 31% employed, 14.5% unem - ployed, 40% of enterprises and 40% of Serbian investments. Namely, in all other countries of the CEE, the capital city areas of Prague, Budapest, Warsaw, etc went through the process of transformation most

257 Dragana Miljanovi}, Radmila Mileti}, Jasmina \or|evi}, Regional inequality in Serbia as a development problem

15 Average annual population growth rate a

k in Serbia in inter-census periods/ ~

a povpre~na letna rast {tevila prebivalstva v Srbiji B m

e h / r ) t ) S 2 10 1991–2002 –1 ‰ u 2 0 o 0 0 S 0 2 1,2

2 1981– 1991 e – – d 1 1 a 9 9 r 1971– 1981 7,1 9 g 9 a 1 l 1 k ( e ( ~

a B 1961– 1971 7,6 a

e 5 v t f B t

a o s t

r l

10,1

s 1953– 1961 y a e t a h v i t i v W ~ C b w 1948– 1953 12,4 a e o r r M p g

a n l 0 i o v i t a t e a t a k a A l { a n a { I k

j c a u a t i a ~ i B a s p B r a v d R v e

R a j a a o a a B r l h { E

r b p t i t v

S a m h o a l u a

a a u j t l N u n a c F r n n o t i –5 n o M a [ u i a o S e u n O n l e K ~ n

r

i B j d a N

l l s P a o n l C o v a b a I a b n P

a a i a r ~ R L e r t c J t e i a g B o l r n l a e p p U r Z m t o o v e C P o o v T o v r E P e i

p –10 A ~ r R i P o r n a B a ~ r e j B a

District/pokrajina Z –15

Figure 2: Average annual population growth rate in Serbia (1991–2002). d a r g o

150 e B a k ~ a B

h t u o a S j a

125 t o t k a v a ~ t n z a a n a a a B n r

B

a B

h

a l B t j h

t r a n h r u o t t p o Serbia/Srbija = 100 r N o n S t o e s / N C l

e 100 v e l

t r n o a e k B a ~ m c a a i j p i o a v B r o

e r l d v a a j t e r a m e e a l r ~ j s e ~ l v o b v o e e i a r j m e v a t u b a n n S a l a i M

75 u W n o i v D t a r o Z r [ s a u r a a i o a l { K v d i B P R ~ Z m o N a o P P M a a c i k l a { j p a a n

50 o i c R i ~ T n P

a District/pokrajina l b a J

Figure 3: District development level 2007.

258 Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

successfully, while the positions that the other regions that existed in the former socialist system have changed (Horváth 2000, 428). Besides the negative aspects of the transition outlined, it is important to mention the poverty problem. The rural population is faced with a deeper degree of poverty (14.2%). The ratio of the poverty levels between the areas with the least poverty, Belgrade at 4.2% and the most, Southeast Serbia 23.5%, is 1 : 5.6 (Poverty reduction strategy, 2003). The »economic grouping« of the industrial capacities and a concentration of the population in major urban centers facilitated the preservation of natural habitats in the peripheral regions have been marginally or insignificantly affected by development (Miljanovi} 2002). The industrial, mining and energy centres (Pan~evo, Bor, Lazarevac, Obrenovac, [abac, Smederevo etc.), zones/belts and settlements in the proxim - ity of traffic corridors and the major urban centres of Beograd, Novi Sad, Ni{ and Kragujevac represent areas burdened by numerous environmental problems such as contaminated industrial land, degraded land in the zones of exploitation of mineral raw materials, polluted water and air, plus unsustainable waste management, etc. On the other hand, the mountain regions of Stara planina, Kopaonik, Tara, Prokletije etc, by their natural -ecological characteristics, quality of landscape, geo and biodiversity represent a valu - able resource for development. Serbia represents one of the most significant centres of biodiveristy in Europe (see the Report on the Environmental performance in the Republic of Serbia for 2008; the National pro - gram for the environmental protection 2010).

3 The regional policy in Serbia during the last two decades The regional policy, as a special dimension of development and the appropriate mechanisms did not exist in the early phase of development of the socialist society. The sectoral/branch approach in the period imme - diately after the Second World War and low level of development prevented a solution of the issues of regional development. No institutions were envisaged nor special mechanisms that could act on regional devel - opment, since everything was directed towards speeding up the industrialization of the country which covered all regions of the SFRY. There was no coordination of the economy within regions and neither the concept of territorial development of the country, nor any regional unit was considered. Later, by a grad - ual decentralization, mechanism and/or special institutions were introduced in order to mitigate negative movements, with the main goal to encourage development, but only in »the critically underdeveloped areas«. Such a limited approach to regional development, since individual investment decisions were very often made from the perspective of regions as closed, independent units, could not result in a more bal - anced territorial development. Neither were decisions more effective in the inter -regional division of labor, in accordance with the specifics of the regional potentials after considering the long term effects to achieve the maximum growth rate and progress. The stiff and rough determination of undeveloped areas brought the regional policy in collision with real ratio of the regional problems (Oci} 1998). During the 1990s two documents were adopted with the objective of reducing the problems of unequal regional development: The Law on underdeveloped areas of the RS for the period up to 2005 (Slu`beni glasnik RS 53/95) and the Spatial plan of the Republic of Serbia (Slu`beni glasnik RS 13/96) which in dif - ferent ways treat the problems of elimination/reduction of regional inequality. The new strategic documents are connected with the more recent period: The strategy of the regional development of the Republic of Serbia for the period up to 2007–2012 (Slu`beni glasnik RS 21/07) and the Law on regional development (Slu`beni glasnik RS 51/09) which has been amended during a short period of time (Slu`beni glasnik RS 30/10) as well as the draft Spatial plan RS 2010 -2014 -2021 (2010). Traditionally underdeveloped areas are rural, hilly -mountainous and border, the south, south west and east of Serbia. They are characterized by a long -term and continuous decrease of population and an adverse age structure; natural fragility; relative isolation; inaccessibility; a traditionally mono -structural economy; fragmentation of settlements giving rise to a spatial -demographic unbalance in the network of settlements; etc. (Gr~i} 1991; Mileti} 2006; Stamenkovi} 2004; To{i} 2000; Vojkovi} 2007). Conversely, the significance of the underdeveloped areas is reflected in the preservation of a cultural -historic heritage; the protection of biodiversity; the availability of fresh water and forest resources; the production of healthy organic food and its use for scientific, educational and tourist -recreational purposes, etc. The regional policy relating to underdeveloped areas was provisionally given a legal status from 1995. It related to a determination of status of underdeveloped/insufficiently developed areas and defined the

259 Dragana Miljanovi}, Radmila Mileti}, Jasmina \or|evi}, Regional inequality in Serbia as a development problem measures to encourage its speedy development. The underdeveloped area covered 59 municipalities: 37 in Central Serbia and Vojvodina and 22 municipalities in Kosovo and Metohija (Table 2, Figure 4a). Such an approach to the development of the underdeveloped areas could be defined as an »adaptable prob - lem« (Deri} and Atanackovi} 2000, 53). The policy would have a palliative character – intervention in order to reduce socio -political differences and tensions, without achieving the reduction of exposed regional disparities. It did not succeed in redirecting the economic flows and one way polarization trends. Its real - ization has been transferred to state institutions (especially the Fund for the development of Serbia). The policy was adapted to specific conditions and demands, more in political -administrative and less in region - al -developmental terms (Deri} and Peri{i} 1997, 6). There was no approach made to solving the regional problems of development because at that time there was no strategy at a national level, nor the basic instru - ments, institutional framework or coordinating system for the financing and stimulation of the construction of a regional infrastructure and allocation of public services and investments, and there were no special - ized financial institutions and regional development agencies. Generally defined goals, mainly repeated for years with inefficient stimulating policies, led to a deepening of the regional and structural develop - ment problems, the consequence of which with regard to the Republic of Serbia are more and more evident (Strategy of regional development, 2007).

Table 2: Area designation indicators in Serbia. Law on underdeveloped areas in the Republic of Serbia for the period up to 2005 (Slu`beni glasnik RS 53/95) Underdeveloped areas/municipalities • level of development less than 50% of the national average (indicators: national income per capita, level of employment, retail trade per capita, number of telephone subscribers per 100 inhabitants); • population decrease and level of development more than 50% and less than 70% of the national average, situated at the hilly -mountainous regions; • areas within 10 km of the border without the centres of municipality; rural settlements in the municipalities with the level of development less than 80% of the national average. Regulation on criteria and indicators for determination of devastated areas of the Republic of Serbia (Slu`beni glasnik RS 58/04) Devastated areas/municipalities • decline of national income more than 75% and share of industry in national income in 1990 more than 40%; • decline of national income more than 65%, decline of income of industry more than 80% and share of industry in national income in 1990 more than 40%; • decline of national income more than 65%, decline of income of industry more than 75% and more than 5.000 unemployed; • more than 15.000 unemployed and national income per capita less than 2/3 of the national average. Strategy of regional development of the Republic of Serbia in the period up to 2007–2012 (Slu`beni glasnik RS 21/07) Underdeveloped areas • economically underdeveloped areas: national income per capita less than 50% of level of the national average; • areas with specific development problems: – demographically endangered regions: population decrease more than 40% (1971–2002); – border zones with structural and demographic problems: population decrease more than 20% (1971–2002); unemployment rate more than 60%; – Serbian municipalities and communities in AP Kosovo and Metohija. Law on regional development (Slu`beni glasnik RS 51/09) Insufficiently developed regions • level of development less than 75% of the national average (indicator: GDP per capita); • population decrease in the period from 1971 to observed year more than 50%; Insufficiently developed units of the local self -government: • level of development in the range from 60% to 80% of the national average; Extensively insufficient developed units of the local self -government: • level of development less than 60% of the national average; • population decrease in the period from 1971 to observed year more than 50%; • communities of the local self -government in AP Kosovo and Metohija.

According to Deri} and Peri{i} (1997) it could be conditionally stated that the adequate strategy of regional development was determined by the Spatial plan of the Republic of Serbia (1996). The key strate - gic determination emphasized in the Plan is the de -metropolization of the Belgrade agglomeration and acceptance of the polycentric systems of development. The regionalization of Serbia was instigated by the introduction of the system of centres (nodal system) of different ranks from the macro -regional (Belgrade ,

260 Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

Novi Sad, Ni{, Kragujevac, U`ice, Pri{tina) over the regional to sub -regional. Unequally ranked they have not obtained the borders of their gravitational zones, i.e. in a spatial sense they have not been rounded into adequate regional units (\or|evi} and \or|evi} 1997). As stated by D. To{i} (2000) anomalies of such model are mainly corrected by division of the Republic to 34 functional regions – meso/function - al regions (see Spatial plan of the RS 1996), but until today the concept of decentralization and regionally balanced and dynamic polycentric urban system has not been alive (To{i} and Neveni} 2007). The focus on polycentric settlement systems is framed by the normative goal of sustainable spatially balanced ter - ritorial development declared in the draft Spatial plan RS 2010–2014–2021 (2010). More details about system of spatial planning in Serbia can be found in \or|evi}, Dabovi} 2009; Vujo{evi} 2002). After termination of validity of the Law on underdeveloped regions from 1995, the problems of the underdeveloped areas during the last fifteen years have been marked by (Mileti}, Todorovi}, Miljanovi} 2009): • »Vacuum« from 2005 caused by termination of validity of the Law in 1995. Since 2005, only the tradi - tionally underdeveloped areas/municipalities with income per capita below 50% of the Republican average could use the means of the Fund for Development. • Adoption of the Regulation and Decision on devastated areas (2004) as instruments for regulation of status of the new group of the underdeveloped areas/municipalities. • Adoption of the Strategy of regional development of Serbia (2007) with the noticeable turn in approach to the regional problems (the first more significant document in the field of regional devel - opment) and then the Law on regional development (2009; 2010). Inadequate regional development policy with the lack of the complete, integral institutional frame - work, as well as the changed circumstances in which the socio -economic development was run, burden by inherited problems (traditionally underdeveloped area), with the appearance of the new, regional »tran - sition poverty«, led to introduction of the more complex approach to regional development defined in the Strategy of regional development of Serbia. The syndrome of the »problem areas« has not been resolved, but received new contents and dimensions. Therefore in the »new regional policy the role of the state is brought to removal and moderation of limits that face the endangered areas, i.e. their training for auto -propulsive development, especially areas with specific developmental problems in order that these areas compensate its structural weaknesses through efficient support of the state« (Strategy of the region - al development of RS 2007, 3). The specificities of the developmental problems that have been manifested at the local level conditioned differentiation of municipalities within categories of underdeveloped areas. According to this strategic doc - ument, the underdeveloped area covers 37 municipalities of the Republic, and depending on the dominant aspect of vulnerability it is made of two general groups of municipalities (1) economically underdeveloped areas (29 municipalities) and (2) areas with specific developmental problems (eight municipalities) (Table 2, Figure 4b). Demo -economic, urban -geographic and functional indicators of development as well as changes in the settlements and their centres in those municipalities are presented by To{i} et al. (2009). The crisis of the 90s led to the break of industry, which so »vulnerable« was additionally hit by neg - ative effects of the transition. A relatively favorable position in the socialist economy, industrial cities/regions became the »losers« (Novi Pazar, Bor, Majdanpek, Priboj), so called »devastated areas« or »cities of unemployed« (Jakopin and Devetakovi} 2009; Mileti}, Miljanovi} and Todorovi} 2009). As state by Gr~i} and Ratkaj (2006, 97): »the crisis has nowhere been as rough and destructive as in Serbia«. Due to the transition recession, privatization and other factors, reduction of employment in industry reflect - ed to the change of hierarchical structure of the industrial centers (Zekovi} 2009). According to the Draft Spatial plan of the Republic of Serbia (2010), due to different, numerous and multiple social and economic factors, three categories with specific developing needs are identified (Figure 4c): underdeveloped area, devastated area and the Serbian communities at the AP Kosovo and Metohija (cov - ers about 250 settlements with 130.000 inhabitants; today development of this region is realized under the specific political circumstances). By adoption Law on regional development (2009) the new framework for regulation of the regional development policy is created and unilateral approach of the previous legislative is surpassed, i.e. the com - plex approach that has been announced and presented through previously adopted Strategy of the regional development (2007). For the stimulation of the regional development and harmonizing the regional pol - icy with principles for accession to EU, the Law on regional development determines the seven regions (Vojvodina, Beograd, Zapadni, Isto~ni, Centralni and Ju`ni region and the region Kosovo and Metohija)

261 Dragana Miljanovi}, Radmila Mileti}, Jasmina \or|evi}, Regional inequality in Serbia as a development problem a G A A u u e o t t h h g o o r a r r U s

f o

s n o k f

f d i m

e c i n o r a d s p n L t e / t i E v a e t u e v n G l t t t o o

s » p E / r J a i e o c N v d v a t

o a

a D z n r r e j e

m i / 262 C a

L v s v l s / j i E e e n j b v i e G ć i i r « d n a

E a e S z : : v A N

M R i N t a a D i U d

r o e m A

b l 2 a m i 0 b

l B a 1 o

u 0 M ~ . t j i a i r l i e } t } ,

D r a g a n a

M i l j a n o v i } A r e a s

o B D E w b c o e i o m t r m h d n e

o e o s j r g p m n - r e a z a i c o

c o p i n a a b h l e l l m i

y s c d

a w o e u l v ~ n l i y e t j d a h

l e o

e

s n s v p

t s d e m r t l a u r o n e u c p n g t k e u t e t d a u r r

l e a r a

d l p n r

a

e r i a m n o a r s b d e i / a l

g i d e s n o m / e

s d m d p s e e / o o m o m d g b o r a o m g a r g p s r r o k a h a ~ c o f f i s j c s

a k n k

o p e s i m

r r o p o a g o i z b

r p v s l o e e i r t m ` b o a e n b

s n o i l / e m a b m

m o i

b i r o m a ~ z j o v a o ~ j j a n i m i

p r o b l e m i : D U o i S P / S n o e e b r n e s b r o r ~ v i d b b ~ d v i a n e i i i i e s a n a v n e

t n n e t e

a c z h l

t e m z o c n e e

n o K p d o

A u m o e

o t a n u r t d s m r r a i t o

e a c a j o v

a i u j r K n p

o s e K n o o / a a

o i a o l m s s t i n p o s / i t e n o i o d u v e s v e u a

s

s M r i a t

s n i a o a

n i e P z s n { n

i t v e r M d d

o n o i M

t e h c v a e a

o i e t i

t

j o n h o o t m a o b b e c h / h e m

m m i A j

i K e j u u o o e o t n ~ ~ o s j j i a a o n t i v o e o s m

a o n u d s

M e t o h i j a /

Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010 p Figure 4: Comparation of underdeveloped areas in Serbia (1995–2010). LEGEND a – underdeveloped areas according to the Law on underdeveloped areas in the Republic of Serbia for the period up to 2005 (1995); b – underdeveloped areas according to the Strategy of regional development of the Republic of Serbia for the period up to 2007–2012 (2007); c – areas with spatial developmental problems according to the Spatial plan of the Republic of Serbia 2010–2014 and 2014–2021 (draft, 2010).

at the level NUTS 2. Several months after the ratification of the above mentioned law on Regional Development which was the equalization of the sizes of the individual regions in terms of population. With this addi - tional law in 2010 the number of regions was reduced to five, namely Vojvodina, Beograd, [umadija and Zapadna Srbija, Ju`na and Isto~na Srbija, Kosovo and Metohija.

4 Institutionalisation of the regional development Operationalisation of the main purpose of the strategy of the regional development such as incentives given to the equal regional development of the Republic of Serbia whereby enhancing regional compet - itivenes; alleviating regional disproportions and poverty; building institutional regional infrastructures; sustainable development; terminating negative population trends; continuation of the decentralization process; economic integration of Serbian communities in AP of Kosovo and Metohija. Enforcement of the new regional policy defined by the strategy of the regional development continued by bringing a law on regional development and formating institutional network with a clearly defined relationships and coordination. Among the numerous regional development subjects (the RS government, relevant ministries, Institution for the regional development) the National Agency for the Regional Development is paramount since they were formed to facilitate the development and regulatory tasks. The key subjects in implementing a new regional policy are the regional developmental institutions such as agencies and centres for the devel - opment of small and mid -size enterprises. Serbia today has a network of nine regional developmental agencies which cover 17 districts. In the other 7 districts and the city of Belgrade there are active regional agencies for the development of the small and mid -size enterprises. Currently a national advisory bureau for the regional development is being formed as a part of the regional operational structure. Regional development priorities are defined through numerous developmental documents: national plan of regional deveopment; regional development strategy, programmes for financing regional devel - opment, regional spatial plans. Although national plan of the regional development has not yet been commenced while several regions of Serbia had their own regional developmental strategies (for exam - ple: Regional Development Strategy for Jablanica and P~inja districts 2008; Regional Development Strategy of Brani~evo -Podunavlje region 2009–2013; Regional Development Strategy of Banat 2009–2013). Agencies and centres for the development of small and mid -size enterprises are in charge of the creation and operation of the regional operational and developmental programmes which should be compatible with the regional specifics regarding underdeveloped areas. The decrease of the regional inequality means use of a mechanism of encouragement as defined in numerous developmental policies (fiscal, credit, pol - icy of state aid and employment, the policy of foreign economic relations, investement policy, policy of the foreign investments, industrial policy, policy of the enterprise development, agricultural policy, spa - tial planning policy etc.). Developmental aid funds are provided through the Foundation for the Development of the Republic of Serbia, national investment plan, different types of state aid and funds provided from foreign coun - tries. The amount of investment in the undeveloped area continually increased from 2001–2009 (from 3.8–46.9 million euros) which is essentially inportant for the creation of a desirable investment milieu and revitalization of the state economy (Jakopin et al. 2010).

5 Conclusion Regional inequality in Serbia is partly the result of the historical inheritance and partly the result of the policy of the economical development. Models of economy growth during the last six decades based on a domination of the sector priorities have contributed to a deepening of the regional problems. Transition

263 Dragana Miljanovi}, Radmila Mileti}, Jasmina \or|evi}, Regional inequality in Serbia as a development problem

processes have increased regional inequality especially the demographic, economic and social dimension. Problems in insufficiently developed areas have been caused by many different factors which are of a his - torical, natural, economic, demographic and social character. Besides expressed weak territorial cohesion, insufficiently used territorial capital, low level of competitiveness and regional asymethry, unfavorable demographic trends became decisive (crucial) factor for the future development of Serbia. Policy of regional development in Serbia observed until the adoption of the new strategic documents has been inefficient and unsuccessful: inefficient as it was dominated by branches, i.e. sectoral over struc - tural and spatial approach, short -term over long -term goals of development and unsuccessful because it led growth rather than reducing inequalities, neglecting the interdependence in the development of all regions, the changes within the region and especially missing was territorial division of labor based on specialization activities. The changed socio -economic circumstances and unrealized goals of the previous regional policy imposed the c hange of the approach to regional development towards its understanding as a complex and dynami c pr ocess of transformation of the regional structures. The supplemented methodologies enable: 1) inter -region - al comparison and classifying the regions in accordance with the level of development and 2) categorization of area/municipalities depending on specificity of developing problems. The institutional infrastructure for managing regional policy have emerged since 2001 by establish - ment of the Council for regional development and regional capital investments (2005), then by Constitution (2006) where the territorial aspect of development is expressed by the state obligation to take care on real - ization of the equal regional development, primarily on development of insufficiently developed areas. After that the Ministry of Economy and Regional Development (2007) and Ministry for the National Investment Plan are established (2008) and the Office for sustainable development of insufficiently devel - oped regions is opened (2008). After adoption of the Law on regional development (2009; 2010), the first step in realization of the regional development policy is establishment of the National agency for region - al development. In the major regional centres and centres of the local self -government, the agency/office/service for local, i.e. regional development are created (for example, in Kragujevac, Zrenjanin, Zaje~ar, Leskovac, Vranje, Ni{). Regionalization and decentralization of Serbia that would more efficiently influence the lowering region - al disparities and more successfully adapt the problem regions to contemporary developing flows pursuant to the interests of the regional and local community and the aims of the sustainable development is still ahead.

6 References Bachtler, J., Downes R. 2000: The Spatial Coverage of Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 7 -2. London. DOI: 10.1177/096977640000700205. Bachtler, J., Downes, R., Gorzelak, G. (eds.) 2000: Transition, Cohesion and Regional Policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Farnham. Bachtler, J., Wishlade F. 2005: From building blocks to negotiating bases: the reform of EU Cohesion Policy. European Policy Research Papers 57. Glasgow. Internet:http: //www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/eprc/documents/PDF_files/EPRP_57_From_Building_Blocks_to_Neg otiating_Boxes.pdf (4. 5. 2009). Bachtler, J., Yuill, D. 2001: Policies and Strategies for Regional developmet: A shift in Paradigm? European Policy Research Papers 46. Glasgow. Internet:http: //www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/eprc/Documents/PDF_files/R46PoliciesandStrategiesforRegionalDevel opment.pdf (4. 5. 2009). Bla`ek, J., Vozáb, J. 2006: Ex -ante Evaluation in the New member States: The Case of Czech Republic. Regional Studies 40 -2. Abingdon. DOI: 10.1080/00343400600600603. Brusis, M. (ed.) 1999: Regional Policy -Making in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. CAP Working Paper. Munich. Internet: http: //www.cap -lmu.de/publikationen/1999/ cap_regional_policy_making.php (17. 5. 2009). Carter F. W., Turnock, D. (eds) 2002: Environmental problems in East -Central Europe. London, New York. Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (Ustav Republike Srbije). Slu`beni glasnik RS 98, 2006. Beograd.

264 Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

^erne, A. 1999: Vpra{anja regionalnoga razvoja Slovenije. Dela 14. Ljubljana. Davoudi S. 2003: Polycentricity in European Spatial Planning: From an Analytical Tool to a Normative Agenda. European Planning Studies 11 -8. Abingdon. DOI: 10.1080/0965431032000146169. Decision for determination of devastated areas of the Republic of Serbia (Odluka za utvr|ivanje deva - stiranih podru~ja Republike Srbije). Slu`beni glasnik RS 63, 2004. Beograd. Deri}, B., Atanackovi}, B. 2000: Koncepcija regionalnog razvoja Srbije. Regionalni razvoj i demografski tokovi balkanskih zemalja 5. Ni{. Deri}, B., Peri{i}, D. 1996: Kriterijumi regionalizacije teritorije Srbije. Prostorno planiranje, regionalni razvoj i za{tita `ivotne sredine 2 -28. Beograd. Deri}, B., Peri{i}, D. 1997: (Ne)ostvarivost politike regionalnog razvoja. Prostorno planiranje, regionalni razvoj i za{tita `ivotne sredine 3 -31. Beograd. Dostál, P., Hampl, M. 2004: Geography of post -comunist transformation and general cycle of regional development: experience of the Czech Republic in a global context. European Spatial Research and Policy 11. Lód z´. Dunford, M. 1994: Winners and losers: The new map of economic inequality in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies 1 -2. London. Dunford, M., Smith, A. 2000: Catching Up or Falling Behind? Economic Performance and Regional Trajectories in the »New Europe«. Economic Geography 76 -2. Worcester. Internet: http: //www.jstor.org/ stable/141552 (3. 2. 2010). \or|evi}, D., Dabovi}, T. 2009: System of Spatial planning in Serbia: A critical Overview. Dela 31. Ljubljana. \or|evi}, D., \or|evi}, J. 1997: Koncepti regiona i regionalizacija u planiranju i neke pretpostavke nji - hove primene u procesu regionalizacije Srbije. Geografska struktura i regionalizacija Srbije 1 -51. Beograd. Enyedi, G. 2005: Processes of Regional Development in Post -socialist Hungary. Hungarian Spaces and Places: Patterns of Transition. Pécs. Gorzelak, G. 1998: Regional development and planning in East Central Europe. Regional development and employment policy. Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe. Geneva, Budapest. Internet:http: //www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/budapest/download/regdev_ch3.pdf (6. 12. 2009). Gorzelak, G. 2003: Polish regional development in the process of European integration. Readiness of the Candidate Countries for the EU Regional Policy. Bratislava. Gorzelak, G., Ehrlich, E., Faltan, L., Illner, M. 2001: Central Europe in Transition: Towards EU member - ship. Warsaw. Gr~i}, M. 1991: Problemi razvoja i revitalizacije industrije u planinskim predelima Srbije. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog dru{tva 81 -2. Beograd. Gr~i}, M., Ratkaj, I. 2006: Strukturne promene i regionalna diferencijacija industrije Srbije u periodu tranzi - cije (1988–2005). Glasnik Srpkog geografskog dru{tva 86 -2. Beograd. Hamilton, F. E. I. 1999: Transformation and Space in Central and Eastern Europe. The Geographical Journal 165 -2. London. Horváth, G. 1998: Regional and Cohesion Policy in Hungary. Discussion Papers 23. Pécs. Horváth, G. 2000: Regional Policy Effects of the Transition in East Central Europe. Infromationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 7 -8. Bonn. Internet:http: //www.bbsr.bund.de/nn_21272/BBSR/EN/Publications/IzR/2000/7_8Horvath,templateId=raw, property=publicationFile.pdf/7_8Horvath.pdf (31. 1. 2010). Jakopin E., Devetakovi} S. 2009: Regionalizacija u Srbiji. Internet: www.ekof.bg.ac.yu/centrinde/2009/ 09/ Jakopin_Devetakovic.pdf (20. 9. 2009). Jakopin, E., Radosavljevi}, S., Jovanovi} D. 2009: Izve{taj o razvoju Srbije u 2008. Beograd. Jakopin, E., Radosavljevi}, S., Jovanovi} D. 2010: Izve{taj o razvoju Srbije u 2009. Beograd. Kuklinski, A. (ed). 1997: European Space – Baltic Space – Polish Space 1 -2. Warsaw. Labor Force Survey 2007. Beograd. Internet: http: //webrzs.stat.gov.rs/axd/dokumenti/saopstenja/ RS10/rs10102007.pdf (2. 9. 2008). Law on territorial organization of Serbia. Slu`beni glasnik RS 129, 2007. Beograd. Law on regional development. Slu`beni glasnik RS 51, 2009; Slu`beni glasnik RS 30, 2010. Beograd. Mileti}, R. 2006: Odabrana obele`ja neravnomernog regionalnog razvoja u Srbiji. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog dru{tva 86 -1. Beograd. Mileti}, R., Miljanovi}, D., Todorovi}, M. 2009: Industrijski gradovi u tranziciji – problemska podru~ja. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog dru{tva 89 -3. Beograd.

265 Dragana Miljanovi}, Radmila Mileti}, Jasmina \or|evi}, Regional inequality in Serbia as a development problem

Mileti}, R., Todorovi}, M., Miljanovi}, D. 2009: Pristup nerazvijenim podru~jima u regionalnom razvoju Srbije. Zbornik radova Geografskog instituta »Jovan Cviji}« SANU 59 -2. Beograd. Miljanovi} D. 2002: @ivotna sredina i regionalni razvoj, Glasnik Geografskog dru{tva Republike Srpske 6. Banja Luka. Nacionalni program za{tite `ivotne sredine. Beograd. Internet: http: //www.ekoplan.gov.rs/src/upload -centar/ dokumenti/razno/npzzs.pdf (30. 3. 2010). Nared, J. 2007: Prostorski vplivi slovenske regionalne politike. Geografija Slovenije 16. Ljubljana. Oci}, ^. 1998: Ekonomika regionalnog razvoja Jugoslavije. Beograd. Op{tine u Srbiji. 2008. Republi~ki zavod za statistiku. Beograd. Pavlínek P., Pickles, J. 2000: Environmental Transition: Transformation and Ecological Defence in Central and Eastern Europe. London, New York. Pavlínek P., Pickles, J. 2004: Environmental Pasts/Environmental Futures in Post -Socialist Europe. Environmental Politics 13 -1. Abingdon. DOI: 10.1080/09644010410001685227. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper for Serbia. Internet: http //www.prsp.gov.rs/download/2.%20PRSP%20 - %20Main%20text.pdf (15. 4. 2006). Radovanovi}, M. 1993/94: Regionalizma kao pristup i regionalizacija kao postupak u funkcionalnoj orga - nizaciji geografskog prostora sa nekim aspektima na Srbiju. Zbornika radova Geografskog instituta »Jovan Cviji}« SANU 44 -45. Beograd. Ravbar, M. 2004: Regional development in the Regional Division of Slovenija. Acta geographica Slovenica 44 Ljubljana. DOI: 10.3986/AGS44101 Regulation on criteria and indicators for determination of devastated areas of the Republic of Serbia (Uredba o kriterijumima i pokazateljima za utvr|ivanje devastiranih podru~ja Republike Srbije). Slu`beni glas - nik RS 58, 2004. Beograd. Report on Environmental performance in the Republic of Serbia for 2008. Agencija za za{titu `ivotne sre - dine 2009. Ministarstvo `ivotne sredine i prostornog planiranja. Beograd. Internet:http: //www.sepa.gov.rs/ download/Izvestaj_o_stanju_zivotne_sredine_u_Republici_Srbiji_za_2008_godinu.pdf (15.11.2009). Scott, A., Storper, M. 2003: Regions, Globalization, Development. Regional Studies 37/6 -7. DOI: 10.1080/0034340032000108697. Smith, A. 2004: Regions, Spaces of Economic Practice and Diverse Economies in the »New Europe«. European Urban and Regional Studies 11. Internet: http: //eur.sagepub.com/content/11/1/9.abstract (3. 2. 2010). Spasovski, M. (ur) 2003: Demografske osnove regionalizacije Srbije. Posebna izdanja 54. Beograd. Spatial plan of the RS (Prostorni plan Republike Srbije). Slu`beni glasnik RS 13. 1996. Beograd. Spatial plan of the RS 2010–2014–2021 – Draft 2010. Beograd. Internet:http: //www.rapp.gov.rs/media/PPRSrbije%20KARTE/Nacrt_PPRS.pdf (11. 3. 2010). Stamenkovi}, S. 2004: Neka aktuelna pitanja prostorne organizacije mre`e naselja i relevantni demograf - ski problemi u Srbiji. Demografija 1. Beograd. Strategy of regional development of the Republic of Serbia in the period up to 2007–2012. Slu`beni glas - nik RS 21, 2007. Beograd. To{i}, D. 2000: Gradski centri – faktori regionalne integracije Srbije. Glasnik geografskog dru{tva Republike Srpske 4. Banja Luka. To{i}, D., Neveni}, M. 2007: Nodalna regija instrument prostorno -funkcionalne organizacije Srbije. Zbornik radova Geografskog instituta »Jovan Cviji}« SANU 57. Beograd. Vojkovi}, G. 2007: Stanovni{tvo kao element regionalizacije Srbije. Srpsko geografsko dru{tvo. Beograd. Vojkovi}, G., Spasovski, M., Deved`i}, M., Radivojevi}, B., Nikitovi}, V. 2009: Koncepcija demografskog razvoja – Studijsko -analiti~ke osnove Strategije prostornog razvoja Republike Srbije. Beograd. Vujo{evi}, M., 2002: Novije promene u teoriji i praksi planiranja na Zapadu i njihove pouke za planiranje u Srbiji/Jugoslaviji. Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije. Beograd. Vujo{evi}, M., Spasi}, N. 2007: The Transition Changes and Their Impact on Sustainable Spatial, Urban and Rural Development of Serbia. Sustainable Spatial Development of Towns and Cities. Belgrade. Zakon o nedovoljno razvijenim podru~jima u Republici Srbiji za period do 2005. godine. Slu`beni glas - nik RS 53, 1995. Beograd. Zekovi}, S. 2009: Regional competitiveness and territorial industrial development in Serbia. Spatium International Review 21. Belgrade. Zekovi}, S., Savi}, Lj. 2004: Tranzicija i prostor. U: Strate{ki okvir za odr`ivi razvoj Srbije. Institut za arhitek - turu i urbanizam Srbije. Beograd.

266 267 Dra ga na Milja no vi}, Rad mi la Mile ti}, Jasmi na \or|evi}, Re gio nal na nee na kost v Sr bi ji kot raz voj ni prob lem Re gio nal na nee na kost v Sr bi ji kot raz voj ni prob lem

DOI: 10.3986/AGS50204 UDK: 711.2(497.11) COBISS: 1.01

IZVLE^EK: Namen ~lan ka je, da z vi di ka tre nut nih dru` be nih in gos po dar skih spre memb v Sr bi ji, razmi - sli o mo re bit nih spre mem bah v re gio nal ni raz voj ni poli ti ki ter posle di~ no o raz vo ju manj raz vi tih regij. Poseb no pozor nost name nja mo regio nal ni nee na ko sti kot raz voj ne mu prob le mu, ki nepo sred no vpli va na inte gra cij ske pro ce se, jih ome ju je ter s tem vodi do stran skih gos po dar skih, dru` be nih, demo graf skih, eko lo{ kih, pro stor skih in dru gih u~in kov. V Sr bi ji so se zgo do vin sko gle da no manj raz vi te regi je ( po de - `e lje, gora ta obmo~ ja ter mej na in obmej na obmo~ ja) obli ko va le sko zi dalj {a obdob ja, nas prot no od sodob nej {ih obmo ~ij (»opu{ ~e na obmo~ ja«), kate rih nasta nek je pove zan z ob dob jem tran zi ci je (»tran zi cij ska rev{ ~i - na«). Obo je je posle di ca vzro~ no -po sle di~ ne reak ci je na narav ne, dru` be no -eko nom ske, social ne, demo graf ske , kul tur no -ci vi li za cij ske in poli ti~ ne dejav ni ke.

KLJU^NE BESEDE: geo gra fi ja, regio nal na poli ti ka, oze melj ska nee na kost, tran zi ci ja, nera zvi te regi je, opu{~ena obmo~ ja, Srbi ja

Ured ni{ tvo je pre je lo pris pe vek 22. apri la 2010.

NASLOVI: mag. Dra ga na Milja no vi} Geo graf ski in{ti tut Jovan Cvi ji} Srb ska aka de mi ja zna no sti in umet no sti \ure Jak {i}a 9, 11000 Beo grad, Srbi ja E-po {ta: d.mi lja no vic gi.sanu.ac.rs mag. Rad mi la Mile ti} Geo graf ski in{ti tut Jovan Cvi ji} Srb ska aka de mi ja zna no sti in umet no sti \ure Jak {i}a 9, 11000 Beo grad, Srbi ja E-mail: r.mi le tic gi.sanu.ac.rs dr. Jasmi na \or|evi} Od de lek za geo gra fi jo, turi zem in hotel ski mened` ment Fa kul te ta za zna nost Uni ver ze v No vem Sadu Trg Dosi te ja Obra do vi}a 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Srbi ja E-mail: jasmi na.djor dje vic dgt.uns.ac.rs

Vse bi na 1 Uvod 269 2 Temelj ne zna ~il no sti pro stor ske pola ri za ci je Srbi je 269 3 Regio nal na poli ti ka v Sr bi ji v zad njih dveh deset let jih 271 4 Insti tu cio na li za ci ja regio nal ne ga raz vo ja 274 5 Sklep 275 6 Lite ra tu ra 275

268 Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010 1 Uvod Te` nje regio nal ne nee na ko sti `e ve~ deset le tij pred stav lja jo velik prob lem v re gio nal ni zna no sti. Zna nje o pre ma go va nju tovrst nih nee na ko sti je veli ke ga pome na za vode nje uspe {ne regio nal ne poli ti ke. [te vilni razi sko val ci so, {e zla sti v ~a su {iri tve Evrop ske Uni je, izved li {te vil ne {tu di je raz li~ nih vidi kov regio nal- ne ga raz vo ja ({tu di je D. Dun for da, F. E. I. Ha mil to na, P. Ma skel la, A. Scot ta, A. Smit ha, M. Stor per ja, itd.). Regio nal na nee na kost je pri sot na v vseh dr`a vah, pri ~emer je bila regio nal na poli ti ka v zad njih dveh deset- let jih med naj bolj dina mi~ ni mi v tran zi cij skih dr`a vah Sred nje in Vzhod ne Evro pe (CEE) (Bacht ler in Dow nes 2000). Pre hod iz socia liz ma in cen tra li sti~ ne ga gos po dars tva v za hod no demo kra ti~ no in tr` no zasno va no gos po dars tvo je pri ne sel dra ma ti~ ne spre mem be v gos po dar skem, dru` be nem, eko lo{ kem in pro stor skem raz vo ju post -so cia li sti~ nih dr`av. G. Gor ze lak (1998, 64) v ana li zah pro stor ske dife ren cia ci- je regij na teme lju nje ne ga sta tu sa in reak cij na preob li ko val ne pro ce se v so cia li sti~ nem gos po dars tvu, raz li ku je med {ti ri mi tipi regij: regi je s po zi tiv no kon ti nui te to, nega tiv no diskon ti nui te to, pozi tiv no diskon ti nui - te to in nega tiv no kon ti nui te to. Ti regio nal ni tipi so pri sot ni v vseh dr`a vah Sred nje in Vzhod ne Evro pe. Evo lu ci ja regio nal ne poli ti ke v CEE je pri ka za na v {te vil nih pub li ka ci jah (Bacht ler, Dow nes in Gor ze lak 2000; Bru sis 1999; Gor ze lak in osta li 2001, itd.). Regio nal na dimen zi ja tran zi ci je v post -so cia li sti~ nih dr`a - vah je pri ka za na v {te vil nih {tu di jah: Bla `ek in Vozáb 2006, Dostál in Hampl 2004 (^e{ ka); Kuklin ski 1997, Gor ze lak 2003 (Polj ska); Enye di 2005, Horváth 1998 (Ma d`ar ska); ^er ne 1999, Rav bar 2004, Nared 2007 (Slo ve ni ja), itd. ^lan ke o okolj skih prob le mih in okolj ski tran zi ci ji v na {te tih dr`a vah so med dru gim pisa- li: Car ter in Tur nock 2002; Pavlínek in Picekls 2000 in 2004. Evrop ska Uni ja je raz vi la last no regio nal no poli ti ko, s pro gre siv no rasto ~i mi viri, name nje ni mi gos- po dar ske mu in dru` be ne mu pove zo va nju. Cilji regio nal ne poli ti ke EU -ja so sle de ~i: zmanj {a nje regio nal ne nee na ko sti, pove ~a nje u~in ko vi to sti na nacio nal nih ter na skup ni evrop ski rav ni ter zmanj {a nje nee na ko - sti med dr`a va mi ~la ni ca mi EU -ja (Bacht ler in Wish la de 2005). V zad njih letih je mo~ zaz na ti pre cej{ nji pre mik para dig me regio nal ne ga raz vo ja (Bacht ler in Yuill 2001). Poli ti ka pro stor ske ga raz vo ja je za rea li - za ci jo ena ko mer ne regio nal ne raz voj ne poli ti ke izred ne ga pome na. Glav na nalo ga pro stor ske ga na~r to va nja je pove ~a nje inte gra ci je med raz li~ ni mi sek tor ji ter izbolj {a va nacio nal nih in lokal nih siste mov urba ne- ga in pode `el ske ga raz vo ja, pri ~emer je vse lej potreb no upo {te va ti tudi okolj ske zah te ve. Regio nal na in pro stor ska poli ti ka, ki obrav na va regio nal ne raz li ke, se ~eda lje bolj pos ve ~a mest ne mu siste mu, pogo sto pod ozna ko »po li cen tri~ ne ga raz vo ja« (Da vou di, 2003). Na men tega pris pev ka je, v soju tre nut nih dru` be nih in gos po dar skih spre memb v Sr bi ji, raz mi sli ti o mo re bit nih spre mem bah v re gio nal ni raz voj ni poli ti ki ter posle di~ no o raz vo ju manj raz vi tih regij. Nee- na ko me ren regio nal ni raz voj, ki ga je mo~ opa zi ti v prej{ njih raz voj nih stop njah v Sr bi ji, je bil {e dodat no mo~en zad nji dve deset let ji. Deset let kasne je reform ne pro ce se v Sr bi jo, v pri mer ja vi z os ta li mi post -so - cia li sti~ ni mi dr`a va mi, ozna ~u je jo {te vil ne poseb no sti izra zi tih regio nal nih dimen zij.

2 Temelj ne zna ~il no sti pro stor ske pola ri za ci je v Sr bi ji Raz se` no sti regio nal ne ga raz vo ja so posta le pred met sodob nih znans tve nih {tu dij, saj iz nee na ko mer ne poraz de li tve virov izha ja jo tudi {te vil ni prob le mi ter pro ce si (Deri} in Atanc ko vi} 2000, 60). Pose bej so se razi ska vam regio nal ne nee na ko sti pos ve ti li srb ski geo gra fi in pro stor ski na~r to val ci (Deri} in Peri {i} 1996, 1997; Rado va no vi} 1993/94; Vujo {e vi} 2002; Vujo {e vi} in Spa si} 2007). Pro stor ska orga ni zi ra nost s stra ni dr`a ve je, upo {te va jo~ vpli ve na pro stor ske struk tu re in pro ce se, pomemb na za urba ni sistem in regio nal ni raz voj. Zakon o pro stor ski orga ni zi ra no sti in lokal ni samou pra vi iz leta 1991 deli ozem lje srb - ske dr`a ve na 29 okro `ij ter mesto Beo grad. Glav ni namen vzpo sta vi tve okro `ij ni regio nal no raz li ko va nje z ne kim raz voj nim ciljem, tem ve~ s funk ci jo nad zo ra. Tre nut na pro stor ska raz de li tev srb ske ga ozem lja (po vr {i na: 88.361 km 2; {te vi lo pre bi val cev: 7.498.001 po popi su iz leta 2002, izklju ~u jo~ podat ke za Koso- vo in Meto hi jo) je opre de lje na v Us ta vi (Slu` be ni gla snik RS 98/06) in v Za ko nu o pro stor ski orga ni zi ra no sti ozem lja srb ske dr`a ve (Slu` be ni gla snik RS 129/07). Ob~i ne, mesta ter mesto Beo grad kot pro stor ske eno - te ter avto nom ni pokra ji ni Voj vo di na, Koso vo z Me to hi jo, ki pred stav lja ta obmo~ ji s pro stor sko avto no mi jo (od juni ja 1999 dalje sta avto nom ni pokra ji ni Koso vo in Meto hi ja pod za~a snim pro tek to ra tom misi je ZN – Reso lu ci ja 1244 UNMIK), so bili opre de lje ni z za ko nom iz leta 2007 (sli ka 1).

269 Dra ga na Milja no vi}, Rad mi la Mile ti}, Jasmi na \or|evi}, Re gio nal na nee na kost v Sr bi ji kot raz voj ni prob lem

Sli ka 1: Pokra ji ne, mesta in ob~i ne na ozem lju Repub li ke Srbi je in Kosova. Glej angle{ ki del pris pev ka.

Re gio nal na pola ri za ci ja Srbi je pro ti raz vi te mu seve ru in manj raz vi te mu jugu, do Beo gra da in njego- ve ga zaled ja, se ne raz li ku je dosti od osta lih evrop skih dr`av. Pove za na je s prob le mi, s ka te ri mi se je Srbi ja spo pa da la ob pre ho du v novo sto let je, npr. s pro ce som sta ra nja pre bi vals tva in viso ko emi gra ci jo iz pode - `e lja (Spa sov ski 2003) kot tudi s tran zi cij skim pre struk tu ri ra njem, kar je vid no v tre nut ni regio nal ni struk tu ri Srbi je (Vu jo {e vi~ in Spa si} 2007; Zeko vi} in Savi} 2004.). Zad nje deset let je 20. sto let ja sta mo~ no zaz na mo va li poli ti~ na (raz pad SFRJ -ja in {te vil ni konf lik ti) ter gos po dar ska kri za z ob se` ni mi demo graf ski mi posle di ca mi. Ozem lje srb ske dr`a ve ima gle de na osnov- ne zna ~il no sti poraz de li tve pre bi vals tva pou dar je no pro stor sko -de mo graf sko pola ri za ci jo. Glav ne u~in ke pro stor sko -de mo graf ske pola ri za ci je v Sr bi ji (iz klju ~u jo~ podat ke za Koso vo in Meto hi jo) je mo~ vide ti v dejs tvu, da sko raj tret ji na srb ske ga pre bi vals tva `ivi na obmo~ ju, ki zav ze ma le pet odstot kov celot nega srb ske ga ozem lja, torej v Beo gra du, makro -re gio nal nih cen trih, Novem Sadu, Ni{u in Kra gu jev cu, med- tem ko je gosto ta pre bi vals tva na ve~ kot 35 % srb ske ga ozem lja pod pov pre~ no stop njo gosto te pre bi vals tva (do 50 pre bi val cev na km 2), kar sku paj zna {a le 12 % celot ne ga srb ske ga pre bi vals tva (Voj ko vi} in osta li 2009; sli ka 2). Danes Srbi ja spa da v sku pi no dr`av z naj sta rej {im pre bi vals tvom v Evro pi, pri ~emer pov- pre~ na sta rost zna {a 40,9 let (v letu 2008).

Pre gled ni ca 1: Neka te ri podat ki o Re pub li ki Srbi ji (Op {ti ne 2008). Ad mi ni stra tiv ne eno te pre bi vals tvo za po sle ni brez po sel ni pro ra ~un ski dohod ki in ve sti ci je de le` v % Re pub li ka Srbi ja* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 sred nja Srbi ja 73.0 73.6 72.6 74.4 76.1 Voj vo di na 27.0 26.4 27.4 25.6 23.9 me sta (sku paj) 58.6 70.1 55.9 74.7 62.3 ob ~i ne 41.4 29.9 44.1 25.3 37.7

*Iz klju ~u jo~ podat ke za Koso vo in Meto hi jo.

Zmanj {a nje {te vi la pre bi vals tva in dro bi tev ve~ je ga {te vi la nase lij, vklju ~u jo~ samo dej no pro pad la nase- lja, je pov zro ~i lo pre ti ra no pro stor sko -de mo graf sko nee na kost nasel bin ske ga omre` ja. V naj ve~ ji meri se le -ta izka zu je v sood vi sno sti med ob~in ski cen tri in osta li mi nasel bi na mi (Sta men ko vi} 2004, 122–127). Neso raz mer je med demo graf skim obse gom Beo gra da in osta lih ve~ jih mest (Novi Sad, Ni{, Kra gu je vac, Subo ti ca, Zre nja nin, itd.) je nepo sred na posle di ca nes klad no sti in asi me tri~ no sti srb ske ga urba ne ga siste - ma. Pre vla da Beo gra da se ka`e v in dek su urba ne pri mar no sti, ki zna {a 5.87 (To {i} in Neve ni} 2007).

Sli ka 2: Pov pre~ na let na rast pre bi vals tva v Sr bi ji med leto ma 1991 in 2002. Glej angle{ ki del pris pev ka. Pov pre~ na let na rast pre bi vals tva (1991–2002) South Ba~ ka = Ju` na Ba~ ka West Ba~ ka = Zahod na Ba~ ka South Banat = Ju` ni Banat Re pub li ka Srbi ja. Di strict = okro` je Sour ce = vir

Kljub dina mi~ ni rasti v pre te klih letih je Srbi ja do leta 2007 dose gla le 80 % stop nje gos po dar ske rasti iz 90 -ih let prej{ nje ga sto let ja, z BDP -jem 4.500 evrov na pre bi val ca, kar pred stav lja le 34 % pov pre~ ja 27 dr - `av EU -ja (Ja ko pin in osta li 2009). V letu 2007 je bilo v Sr bi ji zapo sle nih oko li 2 mi li jo na lju di, kar je 325.000 manj kot leta 1990, ponov no izklju ~u jo~ podat ke za Koso vo in Meto hi jo. [te vi lo neza po sle nih je v letu 2007 zna {a lo 785.000 lju di, kar je prib li` no 300.000 ve~ kot leta 1990. Zapo sli tve na stop nja med za delo spo sob nim pre bi vals tvom je zna {a la 51,7 %, stop nja brez po sel no sti pa 18,1 % (Sta ti sti ka o de lov ni sili, Sta ti sti~ ni urad Repub li ke Srbi je, 2007). Gle de na vred nost indek sa HDI, ki je v letu 2006 zna {al 0.821 je Srbi ja v ome nje nih ozi rih {e ved no pod rav njo EU dr`av. Dol go traj na regio nal na dis pa ri te ta nek da nje

270 Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

skup ne dr`a ve, dogod ki iz zad nje ga deset let ja prej{ nje ga sto let ja, poli ti~ ni in gos po dar ski raz pad nek da- nje skup ne dr`a ve, sank ci je, NATO -vo bom bar di ra nje Beo gra da v letu 1999 ter posle di~ no gos po dar ski kolaps, ki je spro `il popol no kri zo, so vza jem no vpli va li na regio nal no pola ri za ci jo Srbi je (sli ka 3). Regio- nal na nee na kost je v letu 2007 zna {a la od 7 : 1 v od no su ob~i na / mesto, pri ~emer je bilo mesto Novi Sad naj bolj raz vi to in Pre {e vo naj manj, do 3 : 1 v od no su mesto Beo grad in regi ja Jab la ni ca. Z vi di ka regional - ne nee na ko sti, mesto Beo grad pred stav lja polo vi co raz vo ja v vseh seg men tih s kar peti no celot ne ga srb ske ga pre bi vals tva, brez Koso va in Meto hi je, z 31 % vseh zapo sle nih, 14,5 % brez po sel nih, 40 % vseh srb skih pod- je tij in 40 % vseh srb skih inve sti cij. V vseh preo sta lih dr`a vah CEE, so pre stol ni ce kot Pra ga, Budim pe {ta in Var {a va pre{ le pro ces preob li ko va nja nad vse uspe {no, pri ~emer pa so se mesta, ki so jih zase da le preo - sta le regi je nek da nje ga socia li sti~ ne ga siste ma, neko li ko pre me {a la (Horváth 2000, 428). Poleg nega tiv nih vidi kov tran zi cij ske ga obdob ja je potreb no ome ni ti tudi prob lem rev{ ~i ne. Pode `el sko pre bivalstvo se sre - ~u je z na ra{ ~a jo ~o stop njo rev{ ~i ne (14,2 %). Raz mer je stop nje rev{ ~i ne med obmo~ jem z naj ni` jo stop njo rev{ ~i ne (Beo grad 4,2%) in obmo~ jem z naj vi{ jo stop njo rev{ ~i ne (ju govz hod Srbi je 23,5%) zna {a 1 : 5,6 (Stra te gi ja za zni `a nje stop nje rev{ ~i ne, 2003).

Sli ka 3: Regio nal ni raz voj, 2007. Glej angle{ ki del pris pev ka. De ve lop ment level = raz voj na stop nja Di strict = okro` je Sour ce = Vir : Regio nal ni raz voj Srbi je 2008

Raz voj je le del no ozi ro ma mini mal no vpli val na »gos po dar sko pove zo va nje« indu strij skih kapa ci tet in zgo{ ~e nost pre bi vals tva v ve~ jih urba nih cen trih, kar je pri po mo glo k ohra ni tvi narav ne ga oko lja v obrobnih regi jah (Mi lja no vi} 2002). Indu strij ski, rudar ski in ener get ski cen tri (Pan ~e vo, Bor, Laza re- vac, Obre no vac, [abac, Sme de re vo, itd.), cone in nasel bi ne v bli `i ni pro met nih kori dor jev in ve~ jih urba nih cen trov (Beo grad, Novi Sad, Ni{ in Kra gu je vac) pred stav lja jo obmo~ ja, ki so obre me nje na s {te vil ni mi okolj- ski mi prob le mi, kot so npr. one sna `e na indu strij ska obmo~ ja in degra di ra na obmo~ ja boga ta z ru da mi, one sna `e ne vode in zrak ter neu re je no uprav lja nje z od pad ki, itd. Po dru gi stra ni pa gora ta obmo~ ja (Stara pla ni na, Kopao nik, Tara, Pro kle ti je, itd.) s svo ji mi narav no–eko lo{ ki mi zna ~il nost mi, pokra jin sko kako- vost jo ter geo lo{ ko in bio lo{ ko raz no vrst nost jo pred stav lja jo pomemb ne dejav ni ke za raz voj. Srbi ja je eno naj po memb nej {ih sre di{~ bio lo{ ke raz no vrst no sti v Evro pi (na pod la gi Poro ~i la o okolj skih zmog lji vo- stih Repub li ke Srbi je v letu 2008 ter Nacio nal ne ga pro gra ma za vars tvo oko lja 2010).

3 Regio nal na poli ti ka v Sr bi ji v zad njih dveh deset let jih Re gio nal na poli ti ka, kot poseb na dimen zi ja ustvar ja nja raz vo ja in dru gi pri mer ni meha niz mi v za ~et ni fazi raz vo ja socia li sti~ ne dru` be niso obsta ja li. Sek tor ski pri stop v ob dob ju takoj po kon cu 2. sve tov ne voj - ne in niz ka stop nja raz vo ja sta pre pre ~e va la more bit ne re{i tve prob le mov regio nal ne ga raz vo ja. Nih ~e ni pred vi del obli ko va nja poseb nih insti tu cij, kot tudi ne meha niz mov, ki bi lah ko vpli va li na regio nal ni raz- voj, gle de na to, da je bilo vse usmer je no k pos pe {i tvi indu stria li za ci je po regi jah celot ne SFRJ. Med regi ja mi ni pri{ lo na podro~ ju gos po dars tva do nika kr {ne ga uskla je va nja, prav tako ni bil pred vi den nika kr {en kon - cept regio nal ne ga raz vo ja dr`a ve ali dru ge regio nal ne eno te. S po stop no decen tra li za ci jo so bili poz ne je uve de ni meha niz mi in / ali poseb ne insti tu ci je z na me nom ubla `i tve nega tiv nih gibanj ter z glav nim ciljem spod bu ja ti raz voj, ven dar le na naj bolj kri ti~ no manj raz vi tih obmo~ jih. Tak {en ome jen pri stop k re- gionalnemu raz vo ju, pri ~emer so bile mar si ka te re inve sti ci je usmer je ne v re gio nal ni raz voj zapr te ga tipa (sa mo stoj ne eno te), ni mogel dopri ne sti k bolj urav no te `e ne mu teri to rial ne mu raz vo ju. Tudi spre je te odlo - ~i tve niso bile dovolj u~in ko vi te v med -re gio nal ni raz de li tvi dela, v skla du s spe ci fi~ ni mi zna ~il nost mi regio nal nih poten cia lov gle de na dol go ro~ ne u~in ke dose ga nja mak si mal ne rasti in raz vo ja. Rigid nost pri - stoj nih na nera zvi tih obmo~ jih je pri pe lja la do {te vil nih konf lik tov in regio nal nih prob le mov (Oci} 1998). V 90 -ih letih prej{ nje ga sto let ja sta bila z na me nom zmanj {a nja prob le mov nee na ko mer ne ga regio- nal ne ga raz vo ja spre je ta dva doku men ta in sicer Zakon o manj raz vi tih obmo~ jih na ozem lju Repub li ke Srbi je za obdob je do leta 2005 (Slu` be ni gla snik RS 53/95) in Pro stor ski na~rt za Repub li ko Srbi jo (Slu` - be ni gla snik RS 13/96). Prob le mov zmanj {a nja regio nal ne nee na ko sti sta se loti la po raz li~ nih poteh. Novi

271 Dra ga na Milja no vi}, Rad mi la Mile ti}, Jasmi na \or|evi}, Re gio nal na nee na kost v Sr bi ji kot raz voj ni prob lem

Pre gled ni ca 2: Meri la za uvr{ ~a nje obmo ~ij v Sr bi ji. Za kon o manj raz vi tih obmo~ jih v Re pub li ki Srbi ji za obdob je do leta 2005 (Slu` be ni gla snik RS 53/95) Manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja/ob ~i ne • stop nja raz vo ja zna {a manj kot 50 % dr`av ne ga pov pre~ ja (ka zal ni ki: BDP, stop nja zapo sle no sti, bla gov na menja va, {te vi lo tele fon skih naro~ ni kov/100 pre bi val cev); • zmanj {a nje {te vi la pre bi vals tva in stop nje raz vo ja za ve~ kot 50 %, pri ~emer le -to zna {a manj kot 70 % dr`av ne ga pov pre~ ja, obmo~ ja v go ra tih regi jah; • obmo~ ja 10 km ob meji brez ob~in skih cen trov; pode `el ske nasel bi ne v ob ~i nah, kjer stop nja raz vo ja zna {a manj kot 80 % dr`av ne ga pov pre~ ja. Ure di tev meril in kazal ni kov za dolo ~i tev opu{ ~e nih obmo ~ij v Re pub li ki Srbi ji (Slu` be ni gla snik RS 58/04) Opu{ ~e na obmo~ ja/ob ~i ne • padec dr`av nih dohod kov za ve~ kot 75 % in dele `a indu stri je zno traj dr`av ne bla gaj ne v letu 1990 za ve~ kot 40 %; • padec dr`av nih dohod kov za ve~ kot 65 %, padec dohod ka od indu stri je za ve~ kot 80 % in dele `a indu stri je v dr `av ni bla gaj ni v letu 1990 za ve~ kot 40 %; • ve~ kot 15.000 brez po sel nih in dr`av ni doho dek na pre bi val ca manj kot 2/3 ce lot ne ga dr`av ne ga pov pre~ ja. Stra te gi ja regio nal ne ga raz vo ja Repub li ke Srbi je v ob dob ju 2007–2012 (Slu` be ni gla snik RS 21/07) Manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja • gos po dar sko manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja: doho dek na pre bi val ca zna {a manj kot 50 % dr`av ne ga pov pre~ ja; – obmo~ ja s spe ci fi~ ni mi raz voj ni mi prob le mi; – demo graf sko ogro `e ne regi je: zmanj {a nje {te vi la pre bi vals tva za ve~ kot 40 % (1971–2002); – obmej na obmo~ ja s struk tur ni mi in demo graf ski mi prob le mi: zmanj {a nje {te vi la pre bi vals tva za ve~ kot 20 % (1971–2002); dele` brez po sel nih ve~ kot 60 %; – srb ske ob~i ne in skup no sti v av to nom ni pokra ji ni Koso vo in Meto hi ja. Za kon o re gio nal nem raz vo ju (Slu` be ni gla snik RS 51/09) Ne za dost no raz vi te regi je • stop nja raz vo ja je manj {a od 75 % dr`av ne ga pov pre~ ja (ka zal nik: BDP na pre bi val ca); • zmanj {a nje {te vi la pre bi vals tva v ob dob ju od leta 1971 do pri mer jal ne ga leta zna {a ve~ kot 50 %. Ne za dost no raz vi te eno te lokal ne samou pra ve: • stop nja raz vo ja se giba med 60 % in 80 % gle de na dr`av no pov pre~ je; Znat no neza dost no raz vi te eno te lokal ne samou pra ve: • stop nja raz vo ja zna {a manj kot 60 % dr`av ne ga pov pre~ ja; • zmanj {a nje {te vi la pre bi vals tva v ob dob ju od leta 1971 do pri mer jal ne ga leta zna {a ve~ kot 50 %; • skup no sti lokal ne samou pra ve v av to nom ni pokra ji ni Koso vo in Meto hi ja. stra te{ ki doku men ti so pove za ni s pre te klim obdob jem: Stra te gi ja regio nal ne ga raz vo ja Repub li ke Srbi- je za obdob je med leto ma 2007 in 2012 (Slu` be ni gla snik RS 21/07) in Zakon o re gio nal nem raz vo ju (Slu` be ni gla snik RS 51/09), ki je bil v tem krat kem ~asu `e dopol njen (Slu` be ni gla snik 30/10), kot tudi osnu tek Pro stor ske ga na~r ta RS 2010–2014–2021 (2010). Manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja se naha ja jo na pode `e lju, v go rah in ob meji, na jugu, jugo za ho du in vzhod u Srbi je. Zaz na mu je jih dol go tra jen in kon ti nui ran padec {te vi la pre bi vals tva kot tudi nega tiv na sta rost na struk tu ra, narav na ran lji vost, rela tiv na izo li ra nost, nedo stop nost, tra di cio nal no mono struk tur no gos po - dars tvo in raz drob lje ne nasel bi ne, ki dopri ne se jo k pro stor sko -de mo graf ske mu nerav no ves ju v na sel bin skem omre` ju, itd. (Gr ~i} 1991; Mile ti} 2006; Sta men ko vi} 2004; To{i} 2000; Voj ko vi} 2007). Nas prot no se pomen teh manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij ka`e pri ohra nja nju kul tur no -zgo do vin ske dedi{ ~i ne, v ohra nja nju bio lo{ ke raz no vrst no sti, vod nih virih in goz do vih, v proi zvod nji zdra ve organ ske hra ne ter v ko ri sti za znans tve - ne, izo bra `e val ne in turi sti~ no -re krea cij ske name ne. Re gio nal na poli ti ka, ki je ure ja la manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja, je dobi la zakon sko pod la go v letu 1995. Sku - {a la je ure di ti sta tus manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij ter opre de li ti potreb ne kora ke za hitrej {i raz voj. Manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja obse ga jo 59 ob ~in: 37 v sred nji Srbi ji in Voj vo di ni ter 22 ob ~in na Koso vem in v Me to hi ji (ta- be la 2, sli ka 4a). Tak {en pri stop k raz vo ju manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij lah ko ozna ~i mo kot »pri la go dljiv prob lem« (Deri} in Ata nac ko vi} 2000, 53). Poli ti ka naj bi bila pred vsem bla `il ne nara ve – inter ven ci je z na me nom zmanj {a nja social nih in poli ti~ nih raz lik ter nape to sti, sicer brez zmanj {a nja regio nal ne nee na ko sti. Tovrst - na poli ti ka ni bila uspe {na v preu smer ja nju gos po dar skih tokov in eno smer nih tokov pola ri za ci je. Nje na rea li za ci ja je bila pre ne se na na dr`av ne insti tu ci je {e pose bej na Fond za raz voj Srbi je. Poli ti ka je bila prikro- je na poseb nim pogo jem in zah te vam, bolj na poli ti~ no -ad mi ni stra tiv nem in manj na regio nal no -raz voj nem podro~ ju (Deri} in Peri {i} 1997, 6). Nika kr {ni kora ki niso bili stor je ni pri re{e va nju regio nal nih raz voj -

272 Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010 nih prob le mov, ker v da nem tre nut ku ni bilo na voljo nobe ne dr`av ne stra te gi je, kot tudi ne osnov nih in{tru men tov ter insti tu cio nal ne ga ogrod ja ali siste ma uskla je va nja za finan ci ra nje in pos pe {e va nje izgrad - nje ustrez ne regio nal ne infra struk tu re kot tudi raz po re di tve jav nih slu`b in inve sti cij, obe nem pa niso bile usta nov lje ne nobe ne finan~ ne insti tu ci je ter regio nal ne raz voj ne agen ci je. Splo {no opre de lje ni cilji, izha- ja jo ~i iz prej{ njih ciljev, so bili, tako kot nji ho vi pred hod ni ki, neus pe {ni, kar je vodi lo k po glo bi tvi regio nal nih in struk tur nih raz voj nih prob le mov, kar je dan da nes v Re pub li ki Srbi ji vse bolj raz vid no (Stra te gi ja regio- nal ne ga raz vo ja, 2007). Po Deri}u in Peri {i}u (1997) je bila naj bolj pri mer na stra te gi ja regio nal ne ga raz vo ja vse bo va na v Pro- stor skem na~r tu Repub li ke Srbi je (1996). Naj po memb nej {a stra te{ ka opre de li tev pou dar je na v sa mem Pro stor skem na~r tu je »de -me tro po li za ci ja« beo graj ske aglo me ra ci je in spre jet je poli cen tri~ nih raz voj- nih siste mov. Regio na li za ci jo Srbi je je spod bu ja la vpe lja va siste mov sre di{~ (no dal ni sistem) raz li~ nih redov, raz te za jo ~ih se od makro -re gio nal nih (Beo grad, Novi Sad, Ni{, Kra gu je vac, U`i ce, Pri {ti na) pre ko regional - nih do sub -re gio nal nih. Kot nee na ko vred no opre de lje na ta obmo~ ja niso ohra ni la mej svo jih raz se` no sti, npr. v pro stor skem smi slu, prav tako niso bila obli ko va na v pri mer ne regio nal ne eno te (\or|evi} in \or|evi} 1997). Kot nava ja D. To {i} (2000) so bile ano ma li je tega mode la ve~i no ma odprav lje ne z raz - de li tvi jo ozem lja Repub li ke Srbi je na 34 funk cio nal nih regij (Pro stor ski na~rt Repub li ke Srbi je 1996), ven dar pa do danes kon cept decen tra li za ci je in regio nal no urav no te `e ne ga in dina mi~ ne ga poli cen tri~ ne ga urba- ne ga siste ma {e ni za`i vel (To {i} in Neve ni}, 2007, 302–303). Osre do to ~e nost na poli cen tri~ ne nasel bin ske siste me je obli ko va na v ok vi ru nor ma tiv ne ga cilja nepre tr ga ne ga in pro stor sko urav no te `e ne ga raz vo ja v os nut ku Pro stor ske ga na~r ta RS 2010–2014–2021 (2010). Ve~ podrob no sti o si ste mu pro stor ske ga na~r - to va nja v Sr bi ji so obja vi li \or|evi} in Dabo vi} (2009) in Vujo {e vi} (2002). Po pre te ku velja ve Zako na o manj raz vi tih regi jah iz leta 1995, so prob lem manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij v Re- pub li ki Srbi ji v ob dob ju zad njih 15 -ih let zaz na mo va li (Mi le ti}, Todo ro vi} in Milja no vi} 2009): »va kuum sko sta nje« od leta 2005 da lje kot posle di ca pre ne ha nja velja ve zako na iz leta 1995. Od leta 2005 da lje so lah ko le tista manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja ozi ro ma ob~i ne, kate rih doho dek na pre bi val ca je bil pod 50 % dr`av ne ga pov pre~ ja, kori sti la sreds tva Raz voj ne ga fon da. Spre jem Ure di tve in Odlo ka o opu{ ~e nih obmo~ jih (2004) kot in{tru men tov nadalj nje ure di tve sta- tu sa nove sku pi ne manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij/ob ~in. Spre jem Stra te gi je regio nal ne ga raz vo ja Srbi je (2007) z opaz nim pre mi kom v pri sto pu k re {e va nju regio nal nih prob le mov (prvi pomemb nej {i doku ment na podro~ ju regio nal ne ga raz vo ja) in poz ne je tudi spre jem Zako na o re gio nal nem raz vo ju (2009; 2010). Neu strez na regio nal na raz voj na poli ti ka s po manj klji vim in nepo pol nim inte gra cij skim insti tu cio- nal nim ogrod jem kot tudi spre me nje ne oko li{ ~i ne, v ka te rih se je dru` be no -gos po dar ski raz voj, kate re ga so bre me ni li sta ri prob le mi (manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja) odvi jal ter pojav novih obmo ~ij, kjer je pre vla do va- la »tran zi cij ska rev{ ~i na«, so vpli va li na pojav kom plek snej {e ga pri sto pa k re gio nal ne mu raz vo ju, ki je opre de ljen v Stra te gi ji regio nal ne ga raz vo ja Srbi je. Sin drom »prob lem skih obmo ~ij« {e ni raz re {en, saj je dobil nove raz se` no sti in vse bi ne. Zato je v »novi regio nal ni poli ti ki« pove ~a na vlo ga dr`a ve pri odpra vi in preob li ko va nju ome ji tev s ka te ri mi se spo pa da jo ogro `e na obmo~ ja, kot je na pri mer »tre ning za nji- hov avto pro pul zi ven raz voj« {e pose bej na obmo~ jih s spe ci fi~ ni mi raz voj ni prob le mi. Ta obmo~ ja naj bi s tem nado me sti la svo je struk tur ne sla bo sti z u~in ko vi tej {o pomo~ jo s stra ni dr`a ve (Stra te gi ja regio nal - ne ga raz vo ja Repub li ke Srbi je 2007, 3). Po seb no sti raz voj nih prob le mov, ki so se poka za le na lokal ni stop nji, zah te va jo raz li ko va nje ob~in znotraj kate go ri je manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij. Na pod la gi ome nje ne ga stra te{ ke ga doku men ta, manj raz vi ta obmo~- ja pokri va jo 37 ob ~in v RS in so na pod la gi pre vla du jo ~e ga vidi ka »ran lji vo sti« raz de lje ne v dve sku pi ni ob~in: (1) gos po dar sko manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja (29 ob ~in) in (2) obmo~ ja s spe ci fi~ ni mi raz voj ni mi proble- mi (8 ob ~in) (ta be la 2, sli ka 4b). Demo graf sko -gos po dar ski, urba no -geo graf ski in funk cio nal ni poka za te lji raz vo ja kot tudi spre mem be v na sel bin ski struk tu ri in nji ho vih cen trih v ok vi ru teh ob~in so pov ze li To{i} in osta li (2009). Kri za 90 -ih let je vodi la v zlom indu stri je, ki je bila ob vsej svo ji »ran lji vo sti« pri za de ta tudi zara di nega tiv nih u~in kov tran zi ci je. Rela tiv no ugod no mesto, ki ga je zase da la v ok vi ru socia li sti~ ne ga gos po - dars tva, je s tran zi ci jo izgu bi la, saj so indu strij ska mesta in regi je (Novi Pazar, Bor, Maj dan pek, Pri boj, itd.) posta la opu{ ~e na obmo~ ja oz. »me sta brez po sel nih« (Ja ko pin in Deve ta ko vi} 2009; Mile ti}, Milja no vi} in Todo ro vi} 2009). Kot nava ja ta Gr~i} in Rat kaj (2006, 97): »kri za ni bila nik jer tako uni ~u jo ~a kot prav v Sr bi ji.« Zara di tran zi cij ske rece si je, pri va ti za ci je in osta lih dejav ni kov, se je zmanj {a nje {te vi la zapo sle-

273 Dra ga na Milja no vi}, Rad mi la Mile ti}, Jasmi na \or|evi}, Re gio nal na nee na kost v Sr bi ji kot raz voj ni prob lem

nih v in du stri ji v naj ve~ ji meri odra `a lo v spre mem bi hie rar hi~ ne struk tu re indu strij skih sre di{~ (Ze ko - vi} 2009, 29). Po osnut ku Pro stor ske ga na~r ta Repub li ke Srbi je (2010, 58), je na pod la gi {te vil nih social nih in gos - po dar skih dejav ni kov mo~ opre de li ti tri kate go ri je s spe ci fi~ ni mi raz voj ni mi potre ba mi (sli ka 4c): manj raz vi to obmo~ je; opu{ ~e no obmo~ je; srb ske skup no sti na obmo~ ju avto nom ne pokra ji ne Koso vo z Me- to hi jo, ki zav ze ma prib li` no 250 na se lij s 130.000 pre bi val ci, kate re raz voj je danes pod vr `en spe ci fi~ nim poli ti~ nim oko li{ ~i nam.

Sli ka 4: Pri mer ja va manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij v Sr bi ji (1995–2010). Glej angle{ ki del pris pev ka. LEGENDA a – manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja po zako nu o manj raz vi tih obmo~ jih v Re pub li ki Srbi ji za obdob je do leta 2005 (1995); b – manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja po Stra te gi ti ji o re gio nal nem raz vo ju v Re pub li ki Srbi ji za obdob je 2007–2012 (2007); c – obmo~ ja s pro storst ki mi in raz voj ni mi prob le mi gle de na Pro stor ski na~rt za Repub li ko Srbi jo v ob dob ju 2010–2014 in 2014–2021 (os nu tek, 2010).

S spre jet jem Zako na o re gio nal nem raz vo ju (2009) je nasta lo novo ogrod je za ure di tev regio nal ne raz- voj ne poli ti ke, s ~i mer je bil raz ve ljav ljen eno stran ski pri stop prej{ nje zako no da je. To je kom plek sni pri stop, ki je bil napo ve dan in pred stav ljen s pred hod no spre je to Stra te gi jo regio nal ne ga raz vo ja (2007). Za spod- bu di tev regio nal ne ga raz vo ja in uskla je no regio nal no poli ti ko za pri stop k EU -ju, Zakon o re gio nal nem raz vo ju opre de li sedem regij (Voj vo di na, Beo grad, Zahod na regi ja, Vzhod na regi ja, Ju` na regi ja, Severna regi ja ter regi ja Koso vo in Meto hi ja) na stop nji NUTS 2. Ve~ mese cev po rati fi ka ci ji zgo raj ome nje ne ga Zako na o re gio nal nem raz vo ju je pri{ lo do ize na ~i tve veli ko sti posa mez nih regij gle de na {te vi lo pre bi- vals tva. S tem dodat nim zako nom iz leta 2010 se je {te vi lo regij zmanj {a lo na pet in sicer: Voj vo di na, Beo grad, [uma di ja in Zahod na Srbi ja, Ju` na in Vzhod na Srbi ja, Koso vo in Meto hi ja.

4 Insti tu cio na li za ci ja regio nal ne ga raz vo ja Ope ra cio na li za ci ja glav ne ga name na stra te gi je regio nal ne ga raz vo ja je neke vrste spod bu da za nadalj nji ena ko me ren regio nal ni raz voj Repub li ke Srbi je in sicer s po ve ~a njem regio nal ne tek mo val no sti, z bla `e- njem regio nal nih nee na ko sti in rev{ ~i ne, z iz grad njo insti tu cio nal ne regio nal ne infra struk tu re, s sklad nim raz vo jem, z ome je va njem nega tiv ne te` nje rasti pre bi vals tva, z na da lje va njem decen tra li za cij ske ga pro- ce sa ter gos po dar sko inte gra ci jo srb skih skup no sti v av to nom ni pokra ji ni Koso vo in Meto hi ja. Uve ljav lja nje nove regio nal ne poli ti ke, opre de lje ne s stra te gi jo regio nal ne ga raz vo ja, se je nada lje va lo s spre jet jem zako - na o re gio nal nem raz vo ju in obli ko va njem insti tu cio nal ne ga omre` ja z ja sno opre de lje ni mi raz mer ji in uprav lja njem. Med {te vil ni mi regio nal ni mi raz voj ni mi sub jek ti (vla da RS, pomemb na mini strs tva, Insti tu ci ja za regio - nal ni raz voj) je naj po memb nej {a Dr`av na agen ci ja za regio nal ni raz voj, saj je bila usta nov lje na z na me nom, da bi pos pe {e va la raz voj in uprav lja la raz li~ ne uskla je val ne nalo ge. Naj po memb nej {i sub jek ti pri vpe lje- va nju nove regio nal ne poli ti ke so regio nal ne raz voj ne insti tu ci je, kot so npr. agen ci je in cen tri za raz voj manj {ih in sred nje veli kih pod je tij. V Sr bi ji danes obsta ja mre `a deve tih regio nal nih raz voj nih agen cij, ki obse ga jo 17 okro `ij. V preo sta lih 7 okro` jih in v me stu Beo grad obsta ja jo aktiv ne regio nal ne agen ci je za raz - voj manj {ih in sred nje veli kih pod je tij. Tre nut no se v Sr bi ji usta nav lja dr`av ni sve to val ni biro za regio nal ni raz voj kot del regio nal ne ope ra tiv ne struk tu re. Prio ri te te regio nal ne ga raz vo ja opre de lju je jo {te vil ni raz voj ni doku men ti: dr`av ni na~rt regio nal ne - ga raz vo ja, regio nal na raz voj na stra te gi ja, pro gra mi za finan ci ra nje regio nal ne ga raz vo ja, regio nal ni pro stor ski na~r ti. Dr`av ni na~rt o re gio nal nem raz vo ju se {e ni za~el ure sni ~e va ti, saj so {te vil ne regi je po Srbi ji v pre- te klo sti raz po la ga le z last ni mi regio nal ni mi raz voj ni mi stra te gi ja mi (Re gio nal na raz voj na Stra te gi ja za okro` ji Jab la ni ce in P~i nja 2008; Regio nal na raz voj na Stra te gi ja za regi jo Bra ni ~e vo -Po du nav lje 2009–2013; Regio - nal na raz voj na Stra te gi ja za Banat 2009–2013). Po leg na{te tih raz voj nih stra te gij obsta ja jo tudi zapo red ne aktiv no sti {te vil nih sek tor skih raz voj nih doku men tov, finan ci ra nih iz raz li~ nih virov: indu strij ske cone za poten cial ne inve sti ci je v ju go za hod ni Srbi ji; Pri vat ni sek tor raz vo ja v ju go za hod ni Srbi ji. Kot del teh ni~ ne pomo ~i EU -ja pote ka Regio nal ni social -

274 Acta geographica Slovenica, 50-2, 2010

ni -eko nom ski raz voj ni pro gram z na me nom okre pi tve regio nal nih raz voj nih agen cij in osta lih ude le `en - cev na~r to va nja in rea li za ci je regio nal ne ga raz vo ja. Agen ci je in cen tri za raz voj manj {ih in sred nje veli kih pod je tij vodi jo pro ces ustvar jal no sti ter izpe- lja vo regio nal nih ope ra tiv nih in raz voj nih pro gra mov, ki mora jo biti v skla du z re gio nal ni mi poseb nost mi manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij. Zmanj {a nje regio nal ne nei ze na ~e no sti vodi v upo ra bo meha niz mov spod bu de nadalj - nje ga raz vo ja, kar je opre de lje no v ok vi ru raz no vrst nih vej raz voj ne poli ti ke (fi skal na in kre dit na poli ti ka, poli ti ka dr`av ne pomo ~i in zapo slo va nja, poli ti ka med na rod nih gos po dar skih pove zav, inve sti cij ska poli - ti ka, poli ti ka tujih inve sti cij, indu strij ska poli ti ka, poli ti ka raz vo ja pod je tij, kme tij ska poli ti ka, poli ti ka pro stor ske ga na~r to va nja, itd.). Ka pi tal za raz voj ne pomo ~i zago tav lja jo Fun da ci ja za raz voj Repub li ke Srbi je, dr`av ni inve sti cij ski na~rt, raz li~ ni dru gi tipi dr`av nih pomo ~i in {te vil ni tuji fon di. Zne sek inve sti cij v manj raz vi ta obmo~ ja se je v ob dob ju od 2001 do 2009 znat no pove ~e val (iz 3,8 na 46,9 mi li jo nov evrov), kar je izred ne ga pome na za obli ko va nje `ele ne ga inve sti cij ske ga oko lja in ponov no o`i vi tev dr`av ne ga gos po dars tva (Ja ko pin in osta li 2010).

5 Sklep Re gio nal na nee na kost v Sr bi ji je delo ma rezul tat zgo do vi ne ter delo ma poli ti ke gos po dar ske ga raz vo ja. Mode li gos po dar ske rasti, ki so bili v zad njih {estih deset let jih zasno va ni na pre vla di sek tor skih prio ritet, so pri po mo gli k po glo bi tvi regio nal nih prob le mov. Tran zi cij ski pro ce si so {e pove ~a li regio nal no nee na- kost, {e zla sti kar se ti~e demo graf skih, gos po dar skih in social nih raz se` no sti. Prob le mi manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij so rezul tat raz li~ nih zgo do vin skih, narav nih, gos po dar skih, demo graf skih in dru` be nih dejav ni kov. Poleg sla be pove za no sti, sla be ga izko rist ka kapi ta la, niz ke stop nje kon ku ren~ no sti ter regio nal ne asi me tri~ no- sti so neu god ni demo graf ski tren di posta li odlo ~i len dejav nik za nadalj nji raz voj Srbi je. Po li ti ka regio nal ne ga raz vo ja v Sr bi ji sko zi priz mo spre je ma nja novih stra te{ kih doku men tov je bila do sedaj neu ~in ko vi ta in neus pe {na. Neu ~in ko vi ta zara di pre vla de sek tor ske ga nad struk tur nim in pro- stor skim pri sto pom, pre vla de krat ko ro~ nih nad dol go ro~ ni mi cilji in neus pe {na zato, ker je sle di la rasti in ne zmanj {a nju nei ze na ~e no sti, s tem pa pre zr la sood vi snost med raz vo jem raz li~ nih regij in spre mem- ba mi v po sa mi~ ni regi ji ter {e pose bej neus pe {na zara di manj ka jo ~e raz de li tve dela na pod la gi spe cia li zi ra nih dejav no sti. Spre me nje ne dru` be ne in eko nom ske oko li{ ~i ne ter neu re sni ~e ni cilji prej{ nje regio nal ne poli ti ke so spod bu di li spre mem be v pri sto pu k re gio nal ne mu raz vo ju ter razu me va nju sled nje ga kot kom plek sne- ga in dina mi~ ne ga pro ce sa preob li ko va nja regio nal nih struk tur. Dopol nje ne meto do lo gi je so omo go ~i le: 1) med -re gio nal no pri mer ja vo in raz de li tev regij gle de na stop njo raz vo ja in 2) kate go ri za ci jo obmo ~ij/ob - ~in gle de na spe ci fi ko raz voj nih prob le mov. In sti tu cio nal na infra struk tu ra za izva ja nje regio nal ne poli ti ke se je obli ko va la leta 2001 z us ta no vi- tvi jo Sve ta za regio nal ni raz voj in regio nal ne inve sti ci je (2005) in z Us ta vo (2006), v ka te ri je teri to rial ni vidik raz vo ja opre de ljen z ob vez nost jo dr`a ve zago to vi ti ~im bolj ena ko me ren regio nal ni raz voj, pri mar - no z raz vo jem manj raz vi tih obmo ~ij. Zatem so bili usta nov lje ni Mini strs tvo za gos po dars tvo in regio nal ni raz voj (2007), Mini strs tvo za dr`av ni inve sti cij ski na~rt (2008) in Urad za traj ni raz voj manj raz vi tih regij (2008). Po spre jet ju Zako na o re gio nal nem raz vo ju (2009; 2010) je nasled nji korak pri izva ja nju regio - nal ne raz voj ne poli ti ke usta no vi tev Dr`av ne agen ci je za regio nal ni raz voj. V ve~ jih regio nal nih cen trih in sre di{ ~ih lokal ne samou pra ve bodo usta nov lje ni ura di in agen ci je za lokal ni/re gio nal ni raz voj (npr. v Kra- gu jev cu, Zre nja ni nu, Zaje ~ar ju, Lesko va cu, Vra nju, Ni {u). Naj pri mer nej {a bi bila regio na li za ci ja in decen tra li za ci ja Srbi je, ki bi v ve~ ji meri in u~in ko vi te je vpli- va la na zmanj {a nje regio nal nih raz lik ter uspe {ne je pri re di la regio nal ne prob le me sodob nim raz voj nim toko vom gle de na inte re se regio nal ne in lokal ne skup no sti ter gle de na cilje traj nost ne ga raz vo ja v pri - hod no sti.

6 Lite ra tu ra Glej angle{ ki del pris pev ka.

275