Spatial demographic inequalities and regional development in Serbia

Th e study provides a comprehensive data analysis of demographic and socio-economic characteristics in Serbian regions as factors of uneven regional development. Th e data were provided by the offi cial population censuses from 1953 to 2011. Th e study uses the following demographic indicators: population; the index of population change; population density; the share of migrants in the total population; the share of 65+ population; and the average age of the population. Th e indicators of the regions’ socio-economic development were as follows: the level of development of cities and municipalities; the share of uneducated population; the share of the population with secondary and higher education; the share of welfare recipients; the share of employed population; the share of computer illiterate persons; and the share of the unemployed. Th e research results have shown signifi cant regional discrepancies: Belgrade, Kosovo and Metohija regions are economically prosperous regions, attractive for migrants from other parts of Serbia, the situation is quite the opposite in Southern and Eastern Serbia, characterized by the outfl ow of the population and economic underdevelopment, especially in the border areas. Th e other two regions are within the two extremes, Vojvodina being closer to Belgrade and Šumadija and Western Serbia, to Southern and Eastern Serbia.


Introduction
Th e Republic of Serbia has diverse geographical and socio-economic characteristics such as the uneven distribution of the population caused by geographical, social and historical factors. Apart from the pronounced geographical diff erences, the regions also have diff erent demographic and socio-economic characteristics. Th e geographical factors had prevailed until the end of the Second World War, and then social factors took over as industrialization led to intensive migration from rural areas to cities. Before that, Serbia had mostly been an agricultural country [1]. Th e demographic determinant only emphasized the existing differences resulting in signifi cant regional disrepancies. Th us, it is necessary to address the issues of unbalanced population distribution in order to ensure sustainable development of all parts of Serbia [2].
Uneven regional distribution of the population in Serbia is not a new phenomenon. Historically, it goes back to the post-war period of industrialization, when the intensive economic and demographic growth of Belgrade region began. In the same period, southern and eastern Serbia experienced the demographic and economic decline caused by the major disproportions in the country's regional development [3].
Disparities in population concentration and excessive population growth of primary regions can have a negative impact on the country's overall economic development. Th erefore, these issues need to be addressed through policies aimed at redirecting the population to other regions; policies promoting investment in infrastructure, marketing, and development of small and medium enterprises [4].

Theoretical framework
In order to design an adequate policy for balancing regional development it is essential to understand the nature of regional disparities resulting from the unequal distribution of investment and demographic resources. Th e vast body of literature on the problem of regional disparities and its causes reveals the complexity of this phenomenon. Regional disparities are also among the priority issues in the European Union's policies; most schemes for development and integration of nation states within the EU seek to address this problem as considerable regional disparities are considered to be detrimental for the success of supra-national integration projects (Crudu) [5]. Vorauer (1997) defi nes regional disparities as a deviation in socio-geographic, economic, social and environmental development within a particular spatial/administrative division resulting in diff erent living standards and unequal economic potential [6]. Kutscheraur et al. (2010) approach regional disparity as a divergence or inequality of characters, phenomena or processes with a specifi c territorial allocation, occurring in at least two entities of the territorial structure [7]. Tegenu (2011) lists various factors that lead to regional disparities: agro-ecological factors (such as rainfall amount, soil quality, topography and altitude); demographic factors (population density, level of urbanization, reproductive behavior of the households); infrastructure development; income and property; patterns of private investment; and so on. Th e researcher also points out that the lack of detailed regional studies and inter-regional analysis may contribute to the lack of attention paid to the problem of regional imbalances [8]. However, there is still no generally accepted answer to the question about the origins of regional disparities [9].
Demography places population in the center of research on regional disparities. Vojković (2003) considers that regionalization is a complex phenomenon, which means that population must be viewed in the more general context: we need to look at historical demographic trends, territorial organization of the population, its demographic structure and in particular at the spatial laws which determine the demographic development of a certain area [10]. Population growth can stimulate economic growth, which may attract more migrants, while the loss of population damages the region's economy, thereby reducing the resorces for its further development [11].

Research Methodology and Data
Th is study uses the data of seven successive censuses, starting from the fi rst post-war census in 1953 to the last offi cial census in 2011, conducted on the territory of Serbia. In this paper, we provide a comparative overview of the basic demographic indicators for the period of fi ft y-eight years, placing a special emphasis on the last census. Th e aim was to point out the complexity of demographic phenomena and processes within the given period. For Kosovo and Metohija, only the data until 1991 were available for analysis as Serbia's Official Statistical Offi ce did not provide offi cial data for this region aft er 1991. Indicators of regional disparities were divided into two classes -demo- graphic and socio-economic. In our analysis we used the following demographic indicators: population; the index of population change; population density; the share of migrants in the total population; the share of 65+ population; and the average age of the population. To assess the socio-economic development of the region we used the following indicators: the level of development of cities and municipalities; the share of uneducated population; the share of the population with secondary and higher education; the share of welfare recipients; the share of the employed population; the share of computer illiterate persons; and the share of the unemployed.
Th e indicators were analyzed at the NUTS2 level: in 2011, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted the Decree on the Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units, which defi nes the Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units, as well as the criteria for grouping of subdivisions of countries on three levels -NUTS 1, NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 (NUTS1 corresponds to groups of regions; NUTS2, regions; and NUTS3, districts). Th e criteria for NUTS grouping are established according to the EU standards: the population size, geopolitical position, natural potential, the existing territorial organization, and cultural and historical heritage [12]. According to the Decree, Serbia is statistically divided into two large units -Serbia-North and Serbia-South (NUTS 1); fi ve regions (Vojvodina, Belgrade, Šumadija and Western Sebia, Southern and Eastern Serbia and Kosovo and Metohia (NUTS 2)); and 25 districts (NUTS 3) (Figure) [12].

NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 regions in Serbia
www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731

Demographic determinants of regional disparities
Population size. Th e available data on the country's population show that the most populated region in Serbia in the given period was Šumadija and Western Serbia. Th is region is one of the largest in Serbia, which explains its population size (see Table 1). On the other hand, the smallest number of inhabitants was recorded in Belgrade, which is also the smallest. Indices of population change and the data on population density give us a more precise demographic picture of the regions.
Serbian regions are characterized by a diversity of demographic trends. More prosperous municipal centers attract migrants from other regions, which results in unbalanced spatial distribution of the population across Serbia, as the last offi cial census in 2011 showed.
Th e most economically successful region is Belgrade, which attracts people from all other parts of Serbia. Belgrade is the only region in Serbia in which the share of settled population exceeds 50% (51.8%), while the smallest share is found in Southern and Eastern Serbia (41.2%). Belgrade attracts the working age population and the reproductive-age population. Although this region shows the highest recorded fertility rates (10.7%), there is also a negative natural increase with a rate of -1.5%. Th e increase in the number of inhabitants is therefore provided by the positive migration balance.
According to the latest 2011 census, there were 968 settlements with less than 100 inhabitants, and there were also 11 deserted settlements. Serbia is characterized by distinct spatial diff erentiation in the number of settlements with the population of less than 100 inhabitants. Only one such settlement was found in Belgrade (0.6%); in Vojvodina, 12 (2.6%); in Šumadija and Western Serbia, 128 (14.7%); in Southern and Eastern Serbia, 827 (25.7%). In the latter region there were also 9 deserted settlements.
Population by age. As in most European countries, in Serbia, for several decades, the birth rates have been insuffi cient to ensure simple reproduction of the population, which causes depopulation and demographic aging and refl ects the consequences of the demographic transition [13]. As far as the number of the elderly is concerned, Serbia is classifi ed as one of the oldest states not only in Europe, but also in the world. Life expectancy rates are increasing and there are much more elderly people than young and active,  1948,1953,1961,1971,1981,1991,2002  which makes the pension burder heavier [14]. Th e smallest share of the population older than 65 was recorded in Belgrade and Vojvodina (16.3%); a slightly higher share was in Šumadija and Western Serbia (17.7%); and the largest, in Southern and Eastern Serbia, where almost a fi ft h of the population were older than 65 (19.4%). In Belgrade, the share of the population aged 65 and older is higher in cities while in other regions, this share is higher in rural areas (Table 2).
Th e lowest average age of the population was recorded in Belgrade and Vojvodina (41.8 years old); the average age is slightly higher in Šumadija and Western Serbia (42.3 years old); and the oldest population is in Southern and Eastern Serbia (43.3 years old) (see Table 2).

Socio-economic determinants of regional disparities
GDP per capita. Th e most economically developed regions in Serbia are Belgrade and Vojvo-dina with the GDP per capita above the national average. Šumadija and Western Serbia, Southern and Eastern Serbia with Kosovo and Metohija have the GDP level below the national average, and belong to the group of underdeveloped regions.
Education. Th e level of education shows regional disparities. Belgrade has the smalest share of uneducated people in the total population (1.2%) and at the same time the largest share of population with secondary and higher education (27.8%). Southern and Eastern Serbia is characterized by the largest share of uneducated population (12.5%) and the smalest share of the population with secondary and higher education (3.8%) (see Table 2).
Social welfare and employment. Th ere are considerable regional disparities in the share of welfare recipients and in the share of employed people. Th e lowest share of the former is in Belgrade, while the largest share of the latter is characteristic of Southern and Eastern Serbia (see Table 2).

Computer literacy and economic activity.
When it comes to the share of computer illiterate people and the share of unemployed in the total population, the smalest share of people of both categories is in Belgrade, and the largest, in Southern and Eastern Serbia (see Table 2).

Conclusion
Since there is a correlation between spatial/ regional inequalities and economic growth, more attention should be paid to the question about the connection between the demographic and economic forms of regional inequality as well as other forms, such as social, ethnic, political, religious, and so on [15]. Drawing upon the available census data, this paper sought to examine the infl uence of spatial demographic inequalities on regional development. While Belgrade, Kosovo and Metohija (till 1981) are economically prosperous regions, attractive for migrants from other parts of Serbia, the situation is quite the opposite in Southern and Eastern Serbia, characterized by the outfl ow of the population and economic underdevelopment, especially in the border areas. Th e other two regions are within the two extremes, Vojvodina being closer to Belgrade, and Šumadija and Western Serbia closer to Southern and Eastern Serbia.
In the given period, Belgrade and Kosovo-Metohija were singled out as growth poles. In Belgrade, however, the population increase is largely determined by the positive migration balance: as the city is a political, administrative, educational and economic center, it attracts migrants from all other parts of Serbia. Th e increase in the number of inhabitants in Kosovo and Metohija was due to the positive natural increase. Southern and Eastern Serbia was a negative pole of growth, with a marked demographic decline, as the last two censuses have demonstrated. A signifi cant decline in population, especially in other (rural) settlements, shows that the old mechanisms of demographic growth are no longer eff ective. Given the negative demographic trends, which are refl ected in the negative natural increase and emigration, as a consequence of the historically determined unfavorable age structure of the population, a further decline in the population is expected.