REGIONAL INEQUALITY IN SERBIA AS A DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM REGIONALNA NEENAKOST V SRBIJI KOT RAZVOJNI PROBLEM Dragana Miljanovic, Radmila Miletic, Jasmina Dordevic Only eight inhabitants lived in the Basara village, SE Serbia in 2002. V Basari, naselju v občini Pirot v jugovzhodni Srbiji je leta 2002 živelo le osem prebivalcev. 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 underdeveloped 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-mountainous 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 Miljanovic, M. Sc. Geographical Institute »Jovan Cvijic« Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Dure Jaksica 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia E-mail: d.miljanovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs Radmila Miletic, M. Sc. Geographical Institute »Jovan Cvijic« Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Dure Jaksica 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia E-mail: r.miletic@gi.sanu.ac.rs Jasmina Dordevic, Ph. D. Department of Geography, Tourism & Hotel Management Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: jasmina.djordjevic@dgt.uns.ac.rs Contents 1 Introduction 2 The basic characteristics of the spatial polarization of Serbia 3 The regional policy in Serbia during the last two decades 4 Institutionalisation of the regional development 5 Conclusion 6 References 255 255 259 263 263 264 1 Introduction Trends in regional disparities have been a major issue in regional science for many decades and knowledge 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 undertaken 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 centrally-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 continuity, 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 highlighted 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 Blažek and Vozab 2006; Dostal and Hampl 2004 (Czech Republic); Kuklinski (1997), Gorzelak (2003; Poland); Enyedi (2005), Horvath 1998 (Hungary); ¿erne (1999), Ravbar (2004), Nared 2007 (Slovenia). Carter and Turnock (2002), Pavlinek 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 realization 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 national 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 underdeveloped 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 (Deric and Atanackovic 2000). A special contribution to an explanation of regional disparities has been done by Serbian geographers and spatial planners (Deric and Perišic 1996, 1997; Radovanovic 1993/94; Vujoševic 2002; Vujoševic and Spasic 2007). Whilst considering the influence on spatial structures and processes, the territorial organisation of state is important for the urban system and regional development. 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 km2; 7.498.001 according to the 2002 Census, not including data for Kosovo and Metohija) is framed in the Constitution (Službeni glasnik RS 98/06) and in the Law on territorial organization of Serbia (Službeni glasnik RS 129/07). The municipalities, cities and the city of Belgrade as territorial units and the autonomous provinces Vojvodina ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICTS 1. North Bačka 2. Central Banat 3. North Banat 4. South Banat 5. West Bačka 6. South Bačka 7. Srem 8. Mačva 9. Kolubara 10.Podunavlje 11. Braničevo 12. Šumadija 13. Pomoravlje 14. Bor 15. Zaječar 16. Zlatibor 17. Moravica 18. Raška 19. Rasina 20. Nišava 21. Toplica 22. Pirot 23. Jablanica 24. Pčinja 25. Kosovo 26. Peč 27. Prizren 28. Kosovska Mitrovica 29. Kosovo - Pomoravlje CITY OF BELGRADE MUNICIPALITIES 1. Stari grad 2. Vracar 3. Savski venac 4. Novi 5. Zvezdara 6. Rakovica 7. Voždovac 8. Čukarica 9. Zemun 10. Palilula 11. Surcin 12. Barajevo 13. Obrenovac 14. Grocka 15. Sopot 16. Lazarevac 17. Mladenovac m LEGEND: Provincial border District border Municipality border City Municipality Authors of contents/avtori vsebine: Radmila Mileti}, Dragana Miljanovi} Author of map/avtor zemljevida: Milovan Milivojevi} Source/vir: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Law on territorial organization of Serbia 2007. 100 km 0 Figure 1: The districts, cities and municipalities in the Republic of Serbia and Kosovo. 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 transitional restructuring, with noticeable effects in the contemporary regional structure of Serbia (Vujosevic and Spasic 2007; Zekovic and Savic 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, according to the basic characteristics of population distribution, has the form of the emphasized spatial-demographic 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 concentrated into only 5% of the territory, in metropolitan Belgrade, macro-regional centers, Novi Sad, Nis and Kragujevac, while over 35% of the territory is significantly below the average population density (up to 50 inhabitants/km2) with only 12% of the national population (Vojkovic 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 (Opstine... 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 (Stamenkovic 2004). The disproportion in demographic size of Belgrade to other major cities such as Novi Sad, Niš, 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 primarily 5.87 (Tošic and Nevenic 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 disaster 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 Preševo 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% unemployed, 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 15 10 •5 > £ ^ o ^ tg tp fl rt 13 fl rt C & a S3 £ ° < Average annual population growth rate in Serbia in inter-census periods/ povprečna letna rast števila prebivalstva v Srbiji 1991-2002 -1 □ %o •tt £ U > .....I........I 1981-1991 1971-1981 1961-1971 1953-1961 1948-1953 □ 1,2 □ 7,1 □ 7,6 □ 10,1 I 12,4 1......1......1........1 £ g « ■ 1 -5 rt CQ * 3 ji .............. -10 o y ¡3 CQ £ --W-..... District/pokrajina -15 5 0 Figure 2: Average annual population growth rate in Serbia (1991-2002). Figure 3: District development level 2007. successfully, while the positions that the other regions that existed in the former socialist system have changed (Horvath 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 (Miljanovic 2002). The industrial, mining and energy centres (Pancevo, Bor, Lazarevac, Obrenovac, Šabac, Smederevo etc.), zones/belts and settlements in the proximity of traffic corridors and the major urban centres of Beograd, Novi Sad, Niš 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 valuable 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 program 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 immediately 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 development, 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 gradual 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 balanced 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 (Ocic 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 (Službeni glasnik RS 53/95) and the Spatial plan of the Republic of Serbia (Službeni glasnik RS 13/96) which in different 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 (Službeni glasnik RS 21/07) and the Law on regional development (Službeni glasnik RS 51/09) which has been amended during a short period of time (Službeni 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. (Grcic 1991; Miletic 2006; Stamenkovic 2004; Tošic 2000; Vojkovic 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 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 problem« (Deric and Atanackovic 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 realization 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 regional-developmental terms (Deric and Perišic 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 instruments, 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 specialized 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 development 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 (Službeni glasnik RS 53/95) Underde veloped 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 (Službeni 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 (Službeni 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 (Službeni 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 Deric and Perisic (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 strategic 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, Novi Sad, Niš, Kragujevac, Užice, Priština) 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 (Dordevic and Dordevic 1997). As stated by D. Tošic (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 (Tošic and Nevenic 2007). The focus on polycentric settlement systems is framed by the normative goal of sustainable spatially balanced territorial 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 Dordevic, Dabovic 2009; Vujoševic 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 (Miletic, Todorovic, Miljanovic 2009): • »Vacuum« from 2005 caused by termination of validity of the Law in 1995. Since 2005, only the traditionally 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 development) and then the Law on regional development (2009; 2010). Inadequate regional development policy with the lack of the complete, integral institutional framework, 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 »transition 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 regional 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 document, 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 Tošic et al. (2009). The crisis of the 90s led to the break of industry, which so »vulnerable« was additionally hit by negative 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 Devetakovic 2009; Miletic, Miljanovic and Todorovic 2009). As state by Grčic 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 reflected to the change of hierarchical structure of the industrial centers (Zekovic 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 (covers 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 complex 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 policy with principles for accession to EU, the Law on regional development determines the seven regions (Vojvodina, Beograd, Zapadni, Istočni, Centralni and Južni region and the region Kosovo and Metohija) < 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 additional law in 2010 the number of regions was reduced to five, namely Vojvodina, Beograd, Šumadija and Zapadna Srbija, Južna and Istocna 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 development 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 development, 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 example: Regional Development Strategy for Jablanica and Pcinja districts 2008; Regional Development Strategy of Branicevo-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, policy 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, spatial 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 countries. 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 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 historical, 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 structural 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 change of the approach to regional development towards its understanding as a complex and dynamic process of transformation of the regional structures. The supplemented methodologies enable: 1) interregional 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 establishment 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 realization 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 developed 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 regional 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, Zajecar, Leskovac, Vranje, Niš). Regionalization and decentralization of Serbia that would more efficiently influence the lowering regional 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). Blažek, J., Vozab, 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). Službeni glasnik RS 98, 2006. Beograd. Černe, A. 1999: Vprašanja 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 utvrdivanje deva-stiranih podrucja Republike Srbije). Službeni glasnik RS 63, 2004. Beograd. Deric, B., Atanackovic, B. 2000: Koncepcija regionalnog razvoja Srbije. Regionalni razvoj i demografski tokovi balkanskih zemalja 5. Niš. Deric, B., Perišic, D. 1996: Kriterijumi regionalizacije teritorije Srbije. Prostorno planiranje, regionalni razvoj i zaštita životne sredine 2-28. Beograd. Deric, B., Perišic, D. 1997: (Ne)ostvarivost politike regionalnog razvoja. Prostorno planiranje, regionalni razvoj i zaštita životne sredine 3-31. Beograd. Dostal, 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. Lodz. 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). Dordevic, D., Dabovic, T. 2009: System of Spatial planning in Serbia: A critical Overview. Dela 31. Ljubljana. Dordevic, D., Dordevic, J. 1997: Koncepti regiona i regionalizacija u planiranju i neke pretpostavke njihove 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. Pecs. 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 membership. Warsaw. Grcic, M. 1991: Problemi razvoja i revitalizacije industrije u planinskim predelima Srbije. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog društva 81-2. Beograd. Grcic, M., Ratkaj, I. 2006: Strukturne promene i regionalna diferencijacija industrije Srbije u periodu tranzi-cije (1988-2005). Glasnik Srpkog geografskog društva 86-2. Beograd. Hamilton, F. E. I. 1999: Transformation and Space in Central and Eastern Europe. The Geographical Journal 165-2. London. Horvath, G. 1998: Regional and Cohesion Policy in Hungary. Discussion Papers 23. Pecs. Horvath, 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., Devetakovic S. 2009: Regionalizacija u Srbiji. Internet: www.ekof.bg.ac.yu/centrinde/2009/ 09/ Jakopin_Devetakovic.pdf (20.9.2009). Jakopin, E., Radosavljevic, S., Jovanovic D. 2009: Izveštaj o razvoju Srbije u 2008. Beograd. Jakopin, E., Radosavljevic, S., Jovanovic D. 2010: Izveštaj 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. Službeni glasnik RS 129, 2007. Beograd. Law on regional development. Službeni glasnik RS 51, 2009; Službeni glasnik RS 30, 2010. Beograd. Miletic, R. 2006: Odabrana obeležja neravnomernog regionalnog razvoja u Srbiji. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog društva 86-1. Beograd. Miletic, R., Miljanovic, D., Todorovic, M. 2009: Industrijski gradovi u tranziciji - problemska podrucja. Glasnik Srpskog geografskog društva 89-3. Beograd. Miletic, R., Todorovic, M., Miljanovic, D. 2009: Pristup nerazvijenim područjima u regionalnom razvoju Srbije. Zbornik radova Geografskog instituta »Jovan Cvijic« SANU 59-2. Beograd. Miljanovic D. 2002: Životna sredina i regionalni razvoj, Glasnik Geografskog društva Republike Srpske 6. Banja Luka. Nacionalni program zaštite životne 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. Ocic, Č. 1998: Ekonomika regionalnog razvoja Jugoslavije. Beograd. Opštine u Srbiji. 2008. Republički zavod za statistiku. Beograd. Pavlinek P., Pickles, J. 2000: Environmental Transition: Transformation and Ecological Defence in Central and Eastern Europe. London, New York. Pavlinek 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//wwwprsp.gov.rs/download/2.%20PRSP%20-%20Main%20text.pdf (15.4.2006). Radovanovic, M. 1993/94: Regionalizma kao pristup i regionalizacija kao postupak u funkcionalnoj organizaciji geografskog prostora sa nekim aspektima na Srbiju. Zbornika radova Geografskog instituta »Jovan Cvijic« 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 utvrdivanje devastiranih područja Republike Srbije). Službeni glasnik RS 58, 2004. Beograd. Report on Environmental performance in the Republic of Serbia for 2008. Agencija za zaštitu životne sredine 2009. Ministarstvo životne 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/11/1Z9.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). Službeni glasnik RS 13. 1996. Beograd. Spatial plan of the RS 2010-2014-2021 - Draft 2010. Beograd. Internet:http://wwwrapp.gov.rs/media/PPRSrbije%20KARTE/Nacrt_PPRS.pdf (11.3.2010). Stamenkovic, S. 2004: Neka aktuelna pitanja prostorne organizacije mreže naselja i relevantni demografski problemi u Srbiji. Demografija 1. Beograd. Strategy of regional development of the Republic of Serbia in the period up to 2007-2012. Službeni glasnik RS 21, 2007. Beograd. Tošic, D. 2000: Gradski centri - faktori regionalne integracije Srbije. Glasnik geografskog društva Republike Srpske 4. Banja Luka. Tošic, D., Nevenic, M. 2007: Nodalna regija instrument prostorno-funkcionalne organizacije Srbije. Zbornik radova Geografskog instituta »Jovan Cvijic« SANU 57. Beograd. Vojkovic, G. 2007: Stanovništvo kao element regionalizacije Srbije. Srpsko geografsko društvo. Beograd. Vojkovic, G., Spasovski, M., Devedžic, M., Radivojevic, B., Nikitovic, V. 2009: Koncepcija demografskog razvoja - Studijsko-analitičke osnove Strategije prostornog razvoja Republike Srbije. Beograd. Vujoševic, 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. Vujoševic, M., Spasic, 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 područjima u Republici Srbiji za period do 2005. godine. Službeni glasnik RS 53, 1995. Beograd. Zekovic, S. 2009: Regional competitiveness and territorial industrial development in Serbia. Spatium International Review 21. Belgrade. Zekovic, S., Savic, Lj. 2004: Tranzicija i prostor. U: Strateški okvir za održivi razvoj Srbije. Institut za arhitek-turu i urbanizam Srbije. Beograd. Regionalna neenakost v Srbiji kot razvojni problem DOI: 10.3986/AGS50204 UDK: 711.2(497.11) COBISS: 1.01 IZVLEČEK: Namen članka je, da z vidika trenutnih družbenih in gospodarskih sprememb v Srbiji, razmisli o morebitnih spremembah v regionalni razvojni politiki ter posledično o razvoju manj razvitih regij. Posebno pozornost namenjamo regionalni neenakosti kot razvojnemu problemu, ki neposredno vpliva na integracijske procese, jih omejuje ter s tem vodi do stranskih gospodarskih, družbenih, demografskih, ekoloških, prostorskih in drugih učinkov. V Srbiji so se zgodovinsko gledano manj razvite regije (podeželje, gorata območja ter mejna in obmejna območja) oblikovale skozi daljša obdobja, nasprotno od sodobnejših območij (»opuščena območja«), katerih nastanek je povezan z obdobjem tranzicije (»tranzicijska revščina«). Oboje je posledica vzročno-posledične reakcije na naravne, družbeno-ekonomske, socialne, demografske, kulturno-civilizacijske in politične dejavnike. KLJUČNE BESEDE: geografija, regionalna politika, ozemeljska neenakost, tranzicija, nerazvite regije, opuščena območja, Srbija Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 22. aprila 2010. NASLOVI: mag. Dragana Miljanovic Geografski inštitut Jovan Cvijid Srbska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Dure Jakšida 9, 11000 Beograd, Srbija E-pošta: d.miljanovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs mag. Radmila Miletic Geografski inštitut Jovan Cvijid Srbska akademija znanosti in umetnosti Dure Jakšida 9, 11000 Beograd, Srbija E-mail: r.miletic@gi.sanu.ac.rs dr. Jasmina Dordevic Oddelek za geografijo, turizem in hotelski menedžment Fakulteta za znanost Univerze v Novem Sadu Trg Dositeja Obradovida 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Srbija E-mail: jasmina.djordjevic@dgt.uns.ac.rs Vsebina 1 Uvod 2 Temeljne značilnosti prostorske 269 polarizacije Srbije 3 Regionalna politika v Srbiji v zadnjih dveh desetletjih 269 271 274 275 275 4 Institucionalizacij a regionalnega razvoj a 5 Sklep 6 Literatura 1 Uvod Težnje regionalne neenakosti že več desetletij predstavljajo velik problem v regionalni znanosti. Znanje o premagovanju tovrstnih neenakosti je velikega pomena za vodenje uspešne regionalne politike. Številni raziskovalci so, še zlasti v času širitve Evropske Unije, izvedli številne študije različnih vidikov regionalnega razvoja (študije D. Dunforda, F. E. I. Hamiltona, P. Maskella, A. Scotta, A. Smitha, M. Storperja, itd.). Regionalna neenakost je prisotna v vseh državah, pri čemer je bila regionalna politika v zadnjih dveh desetletjih med najbolj dinamičnimi v tranzicijskih državah Srednje in Vzhodne Evrope (CEE) (Bachtler in Downes 2000). Prehod iz socializma in centralističnega gospodarstva v zahodno demokratično in tržno zasnovano gospodarstvo je prinesel dramatične spremembe v gospodarskem, družbenem, ekološkem in prostorskem razvoju post-socialističnih držav. G. Gorzelak (1998, 64) v analizah prostorske diferenciacije regij na temelju njenega statusa in reakcij na preoblikovalne procese v socialističnem gospodarstvu, razlikuje med štirimi tipi regij: regije s pozitivno kontinuiteto, negativno diskontinuiteto, pozitivno diskontinui-teto in negativno kontinuiteto. Ti regionalni tipi so prisotni v vseh državah Srednje in Vzhodne Evrope. Evolucija regionalne politike v CEE je prikazana v številnih publikacijah (Bachtler, Downes in Gorzelak 2000; Brusis 1999; Gorzelak in ostali 2001, itd.). Regionalna dimenzija tranzicije v post-socialističnih državah je prikazana v številnih študijah: Blažek in Vozab 2006, Dostal in Hampl 2004 (Češka); Kuklinski 1997, Gorzelak 2003 (Poljska); Enyedi 2005, Horvath 1998 (Madžarska); Černe 1999, Ravbar 2004, Nared 2007 (Slovenija), itd. Članke o okoljskih problemih in okoljski tranziciji v naštetih državah so med drugim pisali: Carter in Turnock 2002; Pavlinek in Picekls 2000 in 2004. Evropska Unija je razvila lastno regionalno politiko, s progresivno rastočimi viri, namenjenimi gospodarskemu in družbenemu povezovanju. Cilji regionalne politike EU-ja so sledeči: zmanjšanje regionalne neenakosti, povečanje učinkovitosti na nacionalnih ter na skupni evropski ravni ter zmanjšanje neenakosti med državami članicami EU-ja (Bachtler in Wishlade 2005). V zadnjih letih je moč zaznati precejšnji premik paradigme regionalnega razvoja (Bachtler in Yuill 2001). Politika prostorskega razvoja je za realizacijo enakomerne regionalne razvojne politike izrednega pomena. Glavna naloga prostorskega načrtovanja je povečanje integracije med različnimi sektorji ter izboljšava nacionalnih in lokalnih sistemov urbanega in podeželskega razvoja, pri čemer je vselej potrebno upoštevati tudi okoljske zahteve. Regionalna in prostorska politika, ki obravnava regionalne razlike, se čedalje bolj posveča mestnemu sistemu, pogosto pod oznako »policentričnega razvoja« (Davoudi, 2003). Namen tega prispevka je, v soju trenutnih družbenih in gospodarskih sprememb v Srbiji, razmisliti o morebitnih spremembah v regionalni razvojni politiki ter posledično o razvoju manj razvitih regij. Neenakomeren regionalni razvoj, ki ga je moč opaziti v prejšnjih razvojnih stopnjah v Srbiji, je bil še dodatno močen zadnji dve desetletji. Deset let kasneje reformne procese v Srbijo, v primerjavi z ostalimi post-so-cialističnimi državami, označujejo številne posebnosti izrazitih regionalnih dimenzij. 2 Temeljne značilnosti prostorske polarizacije v Srbiji Razsežnosti regionalnega razvoja so postale predmet sodobnih znanstvenih študij, saj iz neenakomerne porazdelitve virov izhajajo tudi številni problemi ter procesi (Deric in Atanckovic 2000, 60). Posebej so se raziskavam regionalne neenakosti posvetili srbski geografi in prostorski načrtovalci (Deric in Perišic 1996, 1997; Radovanovic 1993/94; Vujoševic 2002; Vujoševic in Spasic 2007). Prostorska organiziranost s strani države je, upoštevajoč vplive na prostorske strukture in procese, pomembna za urbani sistem in regionalni razvoj. Zakon o prostorski organiziranosti in lokalni samoupravi iz leta 1991 deli ozemlje srbske države na 29 okrožij ter mesto Beograd. Glavni namen vzpostavitve okrožij ni regionalno razlikovanje z nekim razvojnim ciljem, temveč s funkcijo nadzora. Trenutna prostorska razdelitev srbskega ozemlja (površina: 88.361 km2; število prebivalcev: 7.498.001 po popisu iz leta 2002, izključujoč podatke za Kosovo in Metohijo) je opredeljena v Ustavi (Službeni glasnik RS 98/06) in v Zakonu o prostorski organiziranosti ozemlja srbske države (Službeni glasnik RS 129/07). Občine, mesta ter mesto Beograd kot prostorske enote ter avtonomni pokrajini Vojvodina, Kosovo z Metohijo, ki predstavljata območji s prostorsko avtonomijo (od junija 1999 dalje sta avtonomni pokrajini Kosovo in Metohija pod začasnim protektoratom misije ZN - Resolucija 1244 UNMIK), so bili opredeljeni z zakonom iz leta 2007 (slika 1). Slika 1: Pokrajine, mesta in občine na ozemlju Republike Srbije in Kosova. Glej angleški del prispevka. Regionalna polarizacija Srbije proti razvitemu severu in manj razvitemu jugu, do Beograda in njegovega zaledja, se ne razlikuje dosti od ostalih evropskih držav. Povezana je s problemi, s katerimi se je Srbija spopadala ob prehodu v novo stoletje, npr. s procesom staranja prebivalstva in visoko emigracijo iz podeželja (Spasovski 2003) kot tudi s tranzicijskim prestrukturiranjem, kar je vidno v trenutni regionalni strukturi Srbije (Vujoševič in Spasid 2007; Zekovid in Savid 2004.). Zadnje desetletje 20. stoletja sta močno zaznamovali politična (razpad SFRJ-ja in številni konflikti) ter gospodarska kriza z obsežnimi demografskimi posledicami. Ozemlje srbske države ima glede na osnovne značilnosti porazdelitve prebivalstva poudarjeno prostorsko-demografsko polarizacijo. Glavne učinke prostorsko-demografske polarizacije v Srbiji (izključujoč podatke za Kosovo in Metohijo) je moč videti v dejstvu, da skoraj tretjina srbskega prebivalstva živi na območju, ki zavzema le pet odstotkov celotnega srbskega ozemlja, torej v Beogradu, makro-regionalnih centrih, Novem Sadu, Nišu in Kragujevcu, medtem ko je gostota prebivalstva na več kot 35 % srbskega ozemlja pod povprečno stopnjo gostote prebivalstva (do 50 prebivalcev na km2), kar skupaj znaša le 12 % celotnega srbskega prebivalstva (Vojkovid in ostali 2009; slika 2). Danes Srbija spada v skupino držav z najstarejšim prebivalstvom v Evropi, pri čemer povprečna starost znaša 40,9 let (v letu 2008). Preglednica 1: Nekateri podatki o Republiki Srbiji (Opštine 2008). Administrativne enote prebivalstvo zaposleni brezposelni proračunski dohodki investicije delež v % Republika Srbija* 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 srednja Srbija 73.0 73.6 72.6 74.4 76.1 Vojvodina 27.0 26.4 27.4 25.6 23.9 mesta (skupaj) 58.6 70.1 55.9 74.7 62.3 občine 41.4 29.9 44.1 25.3 37.7 Izključujoč podatke za Kosovo in Metohijo. Zmanjšanje števila prebivalstva in drobitev večjega števila naselij, vključujoč samodejno propadla naselja, je povzročilo pretirano prostorsko-demografsko neenakost naselbinskega omrežja. V največji meri se le-ta izkazuje v soodvisnosti med občinski centri in ostalimi naselbinami (Stamenkovic 2004, 122-127). Nesorazmerje med demografskim obsegom Beograda in ostalih večjih mest (Novi Sad, Niš, Kragujevac, Subotica, Zrenjanin, itd.) je neposredna posledica neskladnosti in asimetričnosti srbskega urbanega sistema. Prevlada Beograda se kaže v indeksu urbane primarnosti, ki znaša 5.87 (Tošic in Nevenic 2007). Slika 2: Povprečna letna rast prebivalstva v Srbiji med letoma 1991 in 2002. Glej angleški del prispevka. Povprečna letna rast prebivalstva (1991-2002) South Bačka = Južna Bačka West Bačka = Zahodna Bačka South Banat = Južni Banat Republika Srbija. District = okrožje Source = vir Kljub dinamični rasti v preteklih letih je Srbija do leta 2007 dosegla le 80 % stopnje gospodarske rasti iz 90-ih let prejšnjega stoletja, z BDP-jem 4.500 evrov na prebivalca, kar predstavlja le 34 % povprečja 27 držav EU-ja (Jakopin in ostali 2009). V letu 2007 je bilo v Srbiji zaposlenih okoli 2 milijona ljudi, kar je 325.000 manj kot leta 1990, ponovno izključujoč podatke za Kosovo in Metohijo. Število nezaposlenih je v letu 2007 znašalo 785.000 ljudi, kar je približno 300.000 več kot leta 1990. Zaposlitvena stopnja med za delo sposobnim prebivalstvom je znašala 51,7 %, stopnja brezposelnosti pa 18,1 % (Statistika o delovni sili, Statistični urad Republike Srbije, 2007). Glede na vrednost indeksa HDI, ki je v letu 2006 znašal 0.821 je Srbija v omenjenih ozirih še vedno pod ravnjo EU držav. Dolgotrajna regionalna dispariteta nekdanje skupne države, dogodki iz zadnjega desetletja prejšnjega stoletja, politični in gospodarski razpad nekdanje skupne države, sankcije, NATO-vo bombardiranje Beograda v letu 1999 ter posledično gospodarski kolaps, ki je sprožil popolno krizo, so vzajemno vplivali na regionalno polarizacijo Srbije (slika 3). Regionalna neenakost je v letu 2007 znašala od 7:1 v odnosu občina / mesto, pri čemer je bilo mesto Novi Sad najbolj razvito in Preševo najmanj, do 3:1 v odnosu mesto Beograd in regija Jablanica. Z vidika regionalne neenakosti, mesto Beograd predstavlja polovico razvoja v vseh segmentih s kar petino celotnega srbskega prebivalstva, brez Kosova in Metohije, z 31 % vseh zaposlenih, 14,5 % brezposelnih, 40 % vseh srbskih podjetij in 40 % vseh srbskih investicij. V vseh preostalih državah CEE, so prestolnice kot Praga, Budimpešta in Varšava prešle proces preoblikovanja nadvse uspešno, pri čemer pa so se mesta, ki so jih zasedale preostale regije nekdanjega socialističnega sistema, nekoliko premešala (Horvath 2000, 428). Poleg negativnih vidikov tranzicijskega obdobja je potrebno omeniti tudi problem revščine. Podeželsko prebivalstvo se srečuje z naraščajočo stopnjo revščine (14,2 %). Razmerje stopnje revščine med območjem z najnižjo stopnjo revščine (Beograd 4,2%) in območjem z najvišjo stopnjo revščine (jugovzhod Srbije 23,5%) znaša 1: 5,6 (Strategija za znižanje stopnje revščine, 2003). Slika 3: Regionalni razvoj, 2007. Glej angleški del prispevka. Development level = razvojna stopnja District = okrožje Source = Vir : Regionalni razvoj Srbije 2008 Razvoj je le delno oziroma minimalno vplival na »gospodarsko povezovanje« industrijskih kapacitet in zgoščenost prebivalstva v večjih urbanih centrih, kar je pripomoglo k ohranitvi naravnega okolja v obrobnih regijah (Miljanovic 2002). Industrijski, rudarski in energetski centri (Pančevo, Bor, Lazare-vac, Obrenovac, Šabac, Smederevo, itd.), cone in naselbine v bližini prometnih koridorjev in večjih urbanih centrov (Beograd, Novi Sad, Niš in Kragujevac) predstavljajo območja, ki so obremenjena s številnimi okolj-skimi problemi, kot so npr. onesnažena industrijska območja in degradirana območja bogata z rudami, onesnažene vode in zrak ter neurejeno upravljanje z odpadki, itd. Po drugi strani pa gorata območja (Stara planina, Kopaonik, Tara, Prokletije, itd.) s svojimi naravno-ekološkimi značilnostmi, pokrajinsko kakovostjo ter geološko in biološko raznovrstnostjo predstavljajo pomembne dejavnike za razvoj. Srbija je eno najpomembnejših središč biološke raznovrstnosti v Evropi (na podlagi Poročila o okoljskih zmogljivostih Republike Srbije v letu 2008 ter Nacionalnega programa za varstvo okolja 2010). 3 Regionalna politika v Srbiji v zadnjih dveh desetletjih Regionalna politika, kot posebna dimenzija ustvarjanja razvoja in drugi primerni mehanizmi v začetni fazi razvoja socialistične družbe niso obstajali. Sektorski pristop v obdobju takoj po koncu 2. svetovne vojne in nizka stopnja razvoja sta preprečevala morebitne rešitve problemov regionalnega razvoja. Nihče ni predvidel oblikovanja posebnih institucij, kot tudi ne mehanizmov, ki bi lahko vplivali na regionalni razvoj, glede na to, da je bilo vse usmerjeno k pospešitvi industrializacije po regijah celotne SFRJ. Med regijami ni prišlo na področju gospodarstva do nikakršnega usklajevanja, prav tako ni bil predviden nikakršen koncept regionalnega razvoja države ali druge regionalne enote. S postopno decentralizacijo so bili pozneje uvedeni mehanizmi in / ali posebne institucije z namenom ublažitve negativnih gibanj ter z glavnim ciljem spodbujati razvoj, vendar le na najbolj kritično manj razvitih območjih. Takšen omejen pristop k regionalnemu razvoju, pri čemer so bile marsikatere investicije usmerjene v regionalni razvoj zaprtega tipa (samostojne enote), ni mogel doprinesti k bolj uravnoteženemu teritorialnemu razvoju. Tudi sprejete odločitve niso bile dovolj učinkovite v med-regionalni razdelitvi dela, v skladu s specifičnimi značilnostmi regionalnih potencialov glede na dolgoročne učinke doseganja maksimalne rasti in razvoja. Rigidnost pristojnih na nerazvitih območjih je pripeljala do številnih konfliktov in regionalnih problemov (Ocic 1998). V 90-ih letih prejšnjega stoletja sta bila z namenom zmanjšanja problemov neenakomernega regionalnega razvoja sprejeta dva dokumenta in sicer Zakon o manj razvitih območjih na ozemlju Republike Srbije za obdobje do leta 2005 (Službeni glasnik RS 53/95) in Prostorski načrt za Republiko Srbijo (Službeni glasnik RS 13/96). Problemov zmanjšanja regionalne neenakosti sta se lotila po različnih poteh. Novi Preglednica 2: Merila za uvrščanje območij v Srbiji. Zakon o manj razvitih območjih v Republiki Srbiji za obdobje do leta 2005 (Službeni glasnik RS 53/95) Manj razvita območja/občine • stopnja razvoja znaša manj kot 50% državnega povprečja (kazalniki: BDP, stopnja zaposlenosti, blagovna menjava, število telefonskih naročnikov/100 prebivalcev); • zmanjšanje števila prebivalstva in stopnje razvoja za več kot 50 %, pri čemer le-to znaša manj kot 70 % državnega povprečja, območja v goratih regijah; • območja 10km ob meji brez občinskih centrov; podeželske naselbine v občinah, kjer stopnja razvoja znaša manj kot 80% državnega povprečja. Ureditev meril in kazalnikov za določitev opuščenih območij v Republiki Srbiji (Službeni glasnik RS 58/04) Opuščena območja/občine • padec državnih dohodkov za več kot 75% in deleža industrije znotraj državne blagajne v letu 1990 za več kot 40%; • padec državnih dohodkov za več kot 65 %, padec dohodka od industrije za več kot 80 % in deleža industrije v državni blagajni v letu 1990 za več kot 40%; • več kot 15.000 brezposelnih in državni dohodek na prebivalca manj kot 2/3 celotnega državnega povprečja. Strategija regionalnega razvoja Republike Srbije v obdobju 2007-2012 (Službeni glasnik RS 21/07) Manj razvita območja • gospodarsko manj razvita območja: dohodek na prebivalca znaša manj kot 50 % državnega povprečja; - območja s specifičnimi razvojnimi problemi; - demografsko ogrožene regije: zmanjšanje števila prebivalstva za več kot 40% (1971-2002); - obmejna območja s strukturnimi in demografskimi problemi: zmanjšanje števila prebivalstva za več kot 20% (1971-2002); delež brezposelnih več kot 60 %; - srbske občine in skupnosti v avtonomni pokrajini Kosovo in Metohija. Zakon o regionalnem razvoju (Službeni glasnik RS 51/09) Nezadostno razvite regije • stopnja razvoja je manjša od 75 % državnega povprečja (kazalnik: BDP na prebivalca); • zmanjšanje števila prebivalstva v obdobju od leta 1971 do primerjalnega leta znaša več kot 50%. Nezadostno razvite enote lokalne samouprave: • stopnja razvoja se giba med 60 % in 80 % glede na državno povprečje; Znatno nezadostno razvite enote lokalne samouprave: • stopnja razvoja znaša manj kot 60 % državnega povprečja; • zmanjšanje števila prebivalstva v obdobju od leta 1971 do primerjalnega leta znaša več kot 50%; • skupnosti lokalne samouprave v avtonomni pokrajini Kosovo in Metohija. strateški dokumenti so povezani s preteklim obdobjem: Strategija regionalnega razvoja Republike Srbije za obdobje med letoma 2007 in 2012 (Službeni glasnik RS 21/07) in Zakon o regionalnem razvoju (Službeni glasnik RS 51/09), ki je bil v tem kratkem času že dopolnjen (Službeni glasnik 30/10), kot tudi osnutek Prostorskega načrta RS 2010-2014-2021 (2010). Manj razvita območja se nahajajo na podeželju, v gorah in ob meji, na jugu, jugozahodu in vzhodu Srbije. Zaznamuje jih dolgotrajen in kontinuiran padec števila prebivalstva kot tudi negativna starostna struktura, naravna ranljivost, relativna izoliranost, nedostopnost, tradicionalno monostrukturno gospodarstvo in razdrobljene naselbine, ki doprinesejo k prostorsko-demografskemu neravnovesju v naselbinskem omrežju, itd. (Grčic 1991; Miletic 2006; Stamenkovic 2004; Tošic 2000; Vojkovi} 2007). Nasprotno se pomen teh manj razvitih območij kaže pri ohranjanju kulturno-zgodovinske dediščine, v ohranjanju biološke raznovrstnosti, vodnih virih in gozdovih, v proizvodnji zdrave organske hrane ter v koristi za znanstvene, izobraževalne in turistično-rekreacijske namene. Regionalna politika, ki je urejala manj razvita območja, je dobila zakonsko podlago v letu 1995. Skušala je urediti status manj razvitih območij ter opredeliti potrebne korake za hitrejši razvoj. Manj razvita območja obsegajo 59 občin: 37 v srednji Srbiji in Vojvodini ter 22 občin na Kosovem in v Metohiji (tabela 2, slika 4a). Takšen pristop k razvoju manj razvitih območij lahko označimo kot »prilagodljiv problem« (Deric in Atanackovic 2000, 53). Politika naj bi bila predvsem blažilne narave - intervencije z namenom zmanjšanja socialnih in političnih razlik ter napetosti, sicer brez zmanjšanja regionalne neenakosti. Tovrstna politika ni bila uspešna v preusmerjanju gospodarskih tokov in enosmernih tokov polarizacije. Njena realizacija je bila prenesena na državne institucije še posebej na Fond za razvoj Srbije. Politika je bila prikrojena posebnim pogojem in zahtevam, bolj na politično-administrativnem in manj na regionalno-razvojnem področju (Deric in Perišic 1997, 6). Nikakršni koraki niso bili storjeni pri reševanju regionalnih razvoj- nih problemov, ker v danem trenutku ni bilo na voljo nobene državne strategije, kot tudi ne osnovnih inštrumentov ter institucionalnega ogrodja ali sistema usklajevanja za financiranje in pospeševanje izgradnje ustrezne regionalne infrastrukture kot tudi razporeditve javnih služb in investicij, obenem pa niso bile ustanovljene nobene finančne institucije ter regionalne razvojne agencije. Splošno opredeljeni cilji, izhajajoči iz prejšnjih ciljev, so bili, tako kot njihovi predhodniki, neuspešni, kar je vodilo k poglobitvi regionalnih in strukturnih razvojnih problemov, kar je dandanes v Republiki Srbiji vse bolj razvidno (Strategija regionalnega razvoja, 2007). Po Deridu in Perišidu (1997) je bila najbolj primerna strategija regionalnega razvoja vsebovana v Prostorskem načrtu Republike Srbije (1996). Najpomembnejša strateška opredelitev poudarjena v samem Prostorskem načrtu je »de-metropolizacija« beograjske aglomeracije in sprejetje policentričnih razvojnih sistemov. Regionalizacijo Srbije je spodbujala vpeljava sistemov središč (nodalni sistem) različnih redov, raztezajočih se od makro-regionalnih (Beograd, Novi Sad, Niš, Kragujevac, Užice, Priština) preko regionalnih do sub-regionalnih. Kot neenakovredno opredeljena ta območja niso ohranila mej svojih razsežnosti, npr. v prostorskem smislu, prav tako niso bila oblikovana v primerne regionalne enote (Dordevid in Dordevid 1997). Kot navaja D. Tošid (2000) so bile anomalije tega modela večinoma odpravljene z razdelitvijo ozemlja Republike Srbije na 34 funkcionalnih regij (Prostorski načrt Republike Srbije 1996), vendar pa do danes koncept decentralizacije in regionalno uravnoteženega in dinamičnega policentričnega urbanega sistema še ni zaživel (Tošid in Nevenid, 2007, 302-303). Osredotočenost na policentrične naselbinske sisteme je oblikovana v okviru normativnega cilja nepretrganega in prostorsko uravnoteženega razvoja v osnutku Prostorskega načrta RS 2010-2014-2021 (2010). Več podrobnosti o sistemu prostorskega načrtovanja v Srbiji so objavili Dordevid in Dabovid (2009) in Vujoševid (2002). Po preteku veljave Zakona o manj razvitih regijah iz leta 1995, so problem manj razvitih območij v Republiki Srbiji v obdobju zadnjih 15-ih let zaznamovali (Miletid, Todorovid in Miljanovid 2009): »vakuumsko stanje« od leta 2005 dalje kot posledica prenehanja veljave zakona iz leta 1995. Od leta 2005 dalje so lahko le tista manj razvita območja oziroma občine, katerih dohodek na prebivalca je bil pod 50 % državnega povprečja, koristila sredstva Razvojnega fonda. Sprejem Ureditve in Odloka o opuščenih območjih (2004) kot inštrumentov nadaljnje ureditve statusa nove skupine manj razvitih območij/občin. Sprejem Strategije regionalnega razvoja Srbije (2007) z opaznim premikom v pristopu k reševanju regionalnih problemov (prvi pomembnejši dokument na področju regionalnega razvoja) in pozneje tudi sprejem Zakona o regionalnem razvoju (2009; 2010). Neustrezna regionalna razvojna politika s pomanjkljivim in nepopolnim integracijskim institucionalnim ogrodjem kot tudi spremenjene okoliščine, v katerih se je družbeno-gospodarski razvoj, katerega so bremenili stari problemi (manj razvita območja) odvijal ter pojav novih območij, kjer je prevladovala »tranzicijska revščina«, so vplivali na pojav kompleksnejšega pristopa k regionalnemu razvoju, ki je opredeljen v Strategiji regionalnega razvoja Srbije. Sindrom »problemskih območij« še ni razrešen, saj je dobil nove razsežnosti in vsebine. Zato je v »novi regionalni politiki« povečana vloga države pri odpravi in preoblikovanju omejitev s katerimi se spopadajo ogrožena območja, kot je na primer »trening za njihov avtopropulziven razvoj« še posebej na območjih s specifičnimi razvojni problemi. Ta območja naj bi s tem nadomestila svoje strukturne slabosti z učinkovitejšo pomočjo s strani države (Strategija regionalnega razvoja Republike Srbije 2007, 3). Posebnosti razvojnih problemov, ki so se pokazale na lokalni stopnji, zahtevajo razlikovanje občin znotraj kategorije manj razvitih območij. Na podlagi omenjenega strateškega dokumenta, manj razvita območja pokrivajo 37 občin v RS in so na podlagi prevladujočega vidika »ranljivosti« razdeljene v dve skupini občin: (1) gospodarsko manj razvita območja (29 občin) in (2) območja s specifičnimi razvojnimi problemi (8 občin) (tabela 2, slika 4b). Demografsko-gospodarski, urbano-geografski in funkcionalni pokazatelji razvoja kot tudi spremembe v naselbinski strukturi in njihovih centrih v okviru teh občin so povzeli Tošid in ostali (2009). Kriza 90-ih let je vodila v zlom industrije, ki je bila ob vsej svoji »ranljivosti« prizadeta tudi zaradi negativnih učinkov tranzicije. Relativno ugodno mesto, ki ga je zasedala v okviru socialističnega gospodarstva, je s tranzicijo izgubila, saj so industrijska mesta in regije (Novi Pazar, Bor, Majdanpek, Priboj, itd.) postala opuščena območja oz. »mesta brezposelnih« (Jakopin in Devetakovid 2009; Miletid, Miljanovid in Todorovid 2009). Kot navajata Grčid in Ratkaj (2006, 97): »kriza ni bila nikjer tako uničujoča kot prav v Srbiji.« Zaradi tranzicijske recesije, privatizacije in ostalih dejavnikov, se je zmanjšanje števila zaposle- nih v industriji v največji meri odražalo v spremembi hierarhične strukture industrijskih središč (Zeko-vic 2009, 29). Po osnutku Prostorskega načrta Republike Srbije (2010, 58), je na podlagi številnih socialnih in gospodarskih dejavnikov moč opredeliti tri kategorije s specifičnimi razvojnimi potrebami (slika 4c): manj razvito območje; opuščeno območje; srbske skupnosti na območju avtonomne pokrajine Kosovo z Me-tohijo, ki zavzema približno 250 naselij s 130.000 prebivalci, katere razvoj je danes podvržen specifičnim političnim okoliščinam. Slika 4: Primerjava manj razvitih območij v Srbiji (1995-2010). Glej angleški del prispevka. LEGENDA a - manj razvita območja po zakonu o manj razvitih območjih v Republiki Srbiji za obdobje do leta 2005 (1995); b - manj razvita območja po Strategitiji o regionalnem razvoju v Republiki Srbiji za obdobje 2007-2012 (2007); c - območja s prostorstkimi in razvojnimi problemi glede na Prostorski načrt za Republiko Srbijo v obdobju 2010-2014 in 2014-2021 (osnutek, 2010). S sprejetjem Zakona o regionalnem razvoju (2009) je nastalo novo ogrodje za ureditev regionalne razvojne politike, s čimer je bil razveljavljen enostranski pristop prejšnje zakonodaje. To je kompleksni pristop, ki je bil napovedan in predstavljen s predhodno sprejeto Strategijo regionalnega razvoja (2007). Za spodbuditev regionalnega razvoja in usklajeno regionalno politiko za pristop k EU-ju, Zakon o regionalnem razvoju opredeli sedem regij (Vojvodina, Beograd, Zahodna regija, Vzhodna regija, Južna regija, Severna regija ter regija Kosovo in Metohija) na stopnji NUTS 2. Več mesecev po ratifikaciji zgoraj omenjenega Zakona o regionalnem razvoju je prišlo do izenačitve velikosti posameznih regij glede na število prebivalstva. S tem dodatnim zakonom iz leta 2010 se je število regij zmanjšalo na pet in sicer: Vojvodina, Beograd, Šumadija in Zahodna Srbija, Južna in Vzhodna Srbija, Kosovo in Metohija. 4 Institucionalizacija regionalnega razvoja Operacionalizacija glavnega namena strategije regionalnega razvoja je neke vrste spodbuda za nadaljnji enakomeren regionalni razvoj Republike Srbije in sicer s povečanjem regionalne tekmovalnosti, z blaženjem regionalnih neenakosti in revščine, z izgradnjo institucionalne regionalne infrastrukture, s skladnim razvojem, z omejevanjem negativne težnje rasti prebivalstva, z nadaljevanjem decentralizacijskega procesa ter gospodarsko integracijo srbskih skupnosti v avtonomni pokrajini Kosovo in Metohija. Uveljavljanje nove regionalne politike, opredeljene s strategijo regionalnega razvoja, se je nadaljevalo s sprejetjem zakona o regionalnem razvoju in oblikovanjem institucionalnega omrežja z jasno opredeljenimi razmerji in upravljanjem. Med številnimi regionalnimi razvojnimi subjekti (vlada RS, pomembna ministrstva, Institucija za regionalni razvoj) je najpomembnejša Državna agencija za regionalni razvoj, saj je bila ustanovljena z namenom, da bi pospeševala razvoj in upravljala različne usklajevalne naloge. Najpomembnejši subjekti pri vpeljevanju nove regionalne politike so regionalne razvojne institucije, kot so npr. agencije in centri za razvoj manjših in srednje velikih podjetij. V Srbiji danes obstaja mreža devetih regionalnih razvojnih agencij, ki obsegajo 17 okrožij. V preostalih 7 okrožjih in v mestu Beograd obstajajo aktivne regionalne agencije za razvoj manjših in srednje velikih podjetij. Trenutno se v Srbiji ustanavlja državni svetovalni biro za regionalni razvoj kot del regionalne operativne strukture. Prioritete regionalnega razvoja opredeljujejo številni razvojni dokumenti: državni načrt regionalnega razvoja, regionalna razvojna strategija, programi za financiranje regionalnega razvoja, regionalni prostorski načrti. Državni načrt o regionalnem razvoju se še ni začel uresničevati, saj so številne regije po Srbiji v preteklosti razpolagale z lastnimi regionalnimi razvojnimi strategijami (Regionalna razvojna Strategija za okrožji Jablanice in Pčinja 2008; Regionalna razvojna Strategija za regijo Braničevo-Podunavlje 2009-2013; Regionalna razvojna Strategija za Banat 2009-2013). Poleg naštetih razvojnih strategij obstajajo tudi zaporedne aktivnosti številnih sektorskih razvojnih dokumentov, financiranih iz različnih virov: industrijske cone za potencialne investicije v jugozahodni Srbiji; Privatni sektor razvoja v jugozahodni Srbiji. Kot del tehnične pomoči EU-ja poteka Regionalni social- ni-ekonomski razvojni program z namenom okrepitve regionalnih razvojnih agencij in ostalih udeležencev načrtovanja in realizacije regionalnega razvoja. Agencije in centri za razvoj manjših in srednje velikih podjetij vodijo proces ustvarjalnosti ter izpeljavo regionalnih operativnih in razvojnih programov, ki morajo biti v skladu z regionalnimi posebnostmi manj razvitih območij. Zmanjšanje regionalne neizenačenosti vodi v uporabo mehanizmov spodbude nadaljnjega razvoja, kar je opredeljeno v okviru raznovrstnih vej razvojne politike (fiskalna in kreditna politika, politika državne pomoči in zaposlovanja, politika mednarodnih gospodarskih povezav, investicijska politika, politika tujih investicij, industrijska politika, politika razvoja podjetij, kmetijska politika, politika prostorskega načrtovanja, itd.). Kapital za razvojne pomoči zagotavljajo Fundacija za razvoj Republike Srbije, državni investicijski načrt, različni drugi tipi državnih pomoči in številni tuji fondi. Znesek investicij v manj razvita območja se je v obdobju od 2001 do 2009 znatno povečeval (iz 3,8 na 46,9 milijonov evrov), kar je izrednega pomena za oblikovanje želenega investicijskega okolja in ponovno oživitev državnega gospodarstva (Jakopin in ostali 2010). 5 Sklep Regionalna neenakost v Srbiji je deloma rezultat zgodovine ter deloma politike gospodarskega razvoja. Modeli gospodarske rasti, ki so bili v zadnjih šestih desetletjih zasnovani na prevladi sektorskih prioritet, so pripomogli k poglobitvi regionalnih problemov. Tranzicijski procesi so še povečali regionalno neenakost, še zlasti kar se tiče demografskih, gospodarskih in socialnih razsežnosti. Problemi manj razvitih območij so rezultat različnih zgodovinskih, naravnih, gospodarskih, demografskih in družbenih dejavnikov. Poleg slabe povezanosti, slabega izkoristka kapitala, nizke stopnje konkurenčnosti ter regionalne asimetrično-sti so neugodni demografski trendi postali odločilen dejavnik za nadaljnji razvoj Srbije. Politika regionalnega razvoja v Srbiji skozi prizmo sprejemanja novih strateških dokumentov je bila do sedaj neučinkovita in neuspešna. Neučinkovita zaradi prevlade sektorskega nad strukturnim in prostorskim pristopom, prevlade kratkoročnih nad dolgoročnimi cilji in neuspešna zato, ker je sledila rasti in ne zmanjšanju neizenačenosti, s tem pa prezrla soodvisnost med razvojem različnih regij in spremembami v posamični regiji ter še posebej neuspešna zaradi manjkajoče razdelitve dela na podlagi specializiranih dejavnosti. Spremenjene družbene in ekonomske okoliščine ter neuresničeni cilji prejšnje regionalne politike so spodbudili spremembe v pristopu k regionalnemu razvoju ter razumevanju slednjega kot kompleksnega in dinamičnega procesa preoblikovanja regionalnih struktur. Dopolnjene metodologije so omogočile: 1) med-regionalno primerjavo in razdelitev regij glede na stopnjo razvoja in 2) kategorizacijo območij/občin glede na specifiko razvojnih problemov. Institucionalna infrastruktura za izvajanje regionalne politike se je oblikovala leta 2001 z ustanovitvijo Sveta za regionalni razvoj in regionalne investicije (2005) in z Ustavo (2006), v kateri je teritorialni vidik razvoja opredeljen z obveznostjo države zagotoviti čim bolj enakomeren regionalni razvoj, primarno z razvojem manj razvitih območij. Zatem so bili ustanovljeni Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in regionalni razvoj (2007), Ministrstvo za državni investicijski načrt (2008) in Urad za trajni razvoj manj razvitih regij (2008). Po sprejetju Zakona o regionalnem razvoju (2009; 2010) je naslednji korak pri izvajanju regionalne razvojne politike ustanovitev Državne agencije za regionalni razvoj. V večjih regionalnih centrih in središčih lokalne samouprave bodo ustanovljeni uradi in agencije za lokalni/regionalni razvoj (npr. v Kra-gujevcu, Zrenjaninu, Zaječarju, Leskovacu, Vranju, Nišu). Najprimernejša bi bila regionalizacija in decentralizacija Srbije, ki bi v večji meri in učinkoviteje vplivala na zmanjšanje regionalnih razlik ter uspešneje priredila regionalne probleme sodobnim razvojnim tokovom glede na interese regionalne in lokalne skupnosti ter glede na cilje trajnostnega razvoja v prihodnosti. 6 Literatura Glej angleški del prispevka.