Far from the core – regions and industrial parks in economic 241 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 59 (3) (2010) pp. 241–254. Far from the core – regions and industrial parks in economic shadow in Hungary1 Part two Tibor Tiner2 Abstract The fi rst part of the paper (Hung. Geogr. Bull. No 2. 2010) was an att empt to evaluate the level of development of NUTS2 regions of the country on the basis of data for the lead- ing 500 companies. The main results of the analysis showed close correlation between the geographical position and success (or failure) in business. The second part of the paper deals with economic effi ciency of top fi rms that are sett led into industrial parks of mod- estly developed and less favoured counties. Analyses were carried on using fi nancial and statistical indicators published by diff erent institutions and fi rms (e.g. Central Statistical Offi ce, Creditreform Ltd.) electronically or in printed version. The conclusion of the study is that the economic crisis burst in 2008 has aff ected adversely both the annual revenues and profi ts of the top fi rms sett led into industrial parks of the counties mentioned above. Keywords: top 500 fi rms, revenues, profi ts, less favoured counties, industrial parks Introduction In the second part of the study our foci are the counties and inside them only those of the leading fi rms that belonged to the top 500 in 2005 and 2009 by the volume of their annual revenues and profi t and sett led into industrial parks of selected counties during the last decades. The investigation consisted of three phases. In the fi rst phase annual revenues and profi t of the leading 500 enter- prises of Hungary were analysed and compared to each other for the year of 2005 and 2009 by counties. In the second phase the counties were evaluated by the change of ranking of their fi rms belonging to the top 500 ones. 1 The project was sponsored by National Scientifi c Research Fund (OTKA). Id. No: 75906. 2 Geographical Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-1112 Budapest, Budaörsi út 45. E-mail: tinert@mtafk i.hu; J. Selye University, ul. Hradná 21. 94501 Komárno 1. Slovakia. E-mail: tiner.tibor@selyeuni.sk – – 242 In the third phase there were analysed the activities of the relatively small group of top 500 producing or servicing fi rms accommodated inside the industrial parks. To avoid overfl owing verbalism this part of paper tries to demonstrate the results by the help of several tables and fi gures. Processes on county level The change in the number of fi rms and in the volume of annual revenues by counties based on parameters of relatively small groups of their fi rms belong- ing to the top 500 fi rms in 2005 and 2009 indicates a highly distorted structure (Table 1). The fourth column of the table shows that between 2005 and 2009 nearly half of the counties had lost 36 top fi rms altogether and – without Pest County – only 7 counties gained 11 top fi rms altogether. – Table 1. The change in number of top fi rms and in the volume of their total annual revenues by counties between 2005 and 2009 County Number of fi rms belonging to top 500 Change, 2009/2005 Total volume of annual revenues of the fi rms, bn HUF Change, 2009/2005, bn HUF 2005 2009 2005 2009 Pest Komárom-Esztergom Fejér Győr-Moson-Sopron Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Hajdú-Bihar Csongrád Somogy Heves Vas Bács-Kiskun Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Veszprém Tolna Baranya Nógrád Békés Zala 46 25 27 25 20 11 15 15 5 10 10 12 10 11 2 8 3 6 8 66 27 22 25 23 12 13 16 7 7 10 8 5 6 3 5 4 3 2 + 20 + 2 – 5 0 + 3 + 1 – 2 + 1 + 2 – 3 0 – 4 – 5 – 5 + 1 – 3 + 1 – 3 – 6 3,018 2,311 1,659 1,759 973 350 641 391 477 443 420 225 201 264 123 276 51 106 132 4,846 3,879 2,259 2,221 1,344 1,126 853 811 606 460 374 240 231 226 188 159 92 77 39 + 1,828 + 1,568 + 600 + 562 + 371 + 776 + 212 + 421 + 129 + 17 – 46 + 15 + 30 – 38 + 65 – 117 + 41 – 29 – 93 Source: Creditreform Ltd. 2006–2010 243 During this period the number of top fi rms in Pest County had increased considerably and their total annual revenue exceeded 1,800 bn HUF. In Komárom- Esztergom County the volume of annual revenue was produced by the high incomes of Nokia Hungary Ltd. located in the town Komárom. In case of Jász-Nagykun- Szolnok County the spectacular increase in the volume of annual revenue owed to Samsung Hungary Ltd. (located in Jászfényszaru) which captured the 9th position in 2009 among the leading 500 fi rms in Hungary (its position was only the 39th in 2005). In 2009 three companies of the energy sector have realized considerable result in Csongrád county, and stepped to the 47th, 49th and 94th place of the ranking. At the other extreme Baranya and Zala counties were the biggest losers in this process. There had been a serious fall in the nominal value of annual revenue of their top fi rms, because due to the sharp competition on the Hungarian energy market the biggest companies have lost their previous favourite position. There were also drops in the nominal values of annual revenues in Vas, Veszprém and Békés counties. Additionally, between 2005 and 2009 four counties (Bács-Kiskun, Heves, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Nógrád) had experienced only very modest increase. Analysing the change in the number of fi rms and the volume of profi ts by counties based on parameters of the relatively small groups of their fi rms belong- ing to the top 500, considerable regional inequalities could be observed between 2005 and 2009 (Table 2). Looking at the fourth column of the table it can be seen that between 2005 and 2009 there was a dramatic fall in the number of fi rms with top profi tabil- ity in the majority of the counties. Only few counties showed a modest positive change in the number of top fi rms. This process marks heavy concentration of profi ts produced by top 500 fi rms at Budapest. It is a negative spatial trend with the strengthening position of Budapest versus the rest of Hungary. There is more evidence for it: 1. The number of profi table top fi rms in Budapest has increased from 224 (2005) to 296 (2009), so the rate of the capital had grown from 44.8 per cent (2005) to 59.2 per cent (2009) among the top 500. 2. In 2005 the profi t realized by all the top fi rms was 838.6 bn HUF in the 19 counties, which has increased only up to 982.1 bn HUF in 2009. (Diff erence: 143.5 bn HUF, rate of increase: 17.1 per cent) 3. In contrast: in 2005 the total volume of profi t of the top fi rms in Budapest has emerged to 1,382.4 bn HUF, and it reached 2,092.7 bn HUF until 2009. (Diff erence: 710.3 bn HUF, rate of increase: 51.4 per cent) Consequently the economic crisis had really hit hard at the leading fi rms op- erating in the countryside, while largest companies with headquarters at Budapest and being active in the most profi table sectors of the Hungarian economy (energy supply, banking, insurance, public services) have managed to preserve their strong positions and even were able to further develop. 244 The direction of changes in the case of 14 modestly or weakly devel- oped counties3 according to the annual revenues and profi t of their top fi rms between 2005 and 2009 is demonstrated on Figure 1. Studying the direction of changes in revenues–profi t relation it becomes clear that the position of four counties (Hajdú-Bihar, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok, Csongrád and Vas) has improved by 2009 compared to 2005. On the other hand the position of the so-called “marginal countries” (Zala, Baranya, Nógrád, Békés and Szabolcs- Szatmár-Bereg) changed only to a minimum extent. Evaluating the counties by the change in ranking of their fi rms within the top 500 category further negative processes can be observed (Table 3.) Data on Table 3 refl ect not only the fact that two thirds of these coun- ties have lost their more favourable position in the ranking of their top fi rms since 2005, but there were merely two counties (Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg and Csongrád) which were able to step on much higher stages of the ranking list 3 Baranya, Somogy, Tolna, Veszprém, Vas, Zala, Heves, Nógrád, Hajdú-Bihar, Jász-Nagykun- Szolnok, Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg, Bács-Kiskun, Békés and Csongrád counties. Table 2. The change in number of top fi rms and in the volume of their profi t by counties between 2005 and 2009 County Number of profi table fi rms belonging to top 500 Change, 2009/2005 Total volume of profi t of the fi rms, bn HUF Change, 2009/2005, bn HUF 2005 2009 2005 2009 Pest Győr-Moson-Sopron Komárom-Esztergom Fejér Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Vas Hajdú-Bihar Heves Veszprém Csongrád Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Bács-Kiskun Tolna Somogy Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Baranya Békés Nógrád Zala 45 33 24 29 21 8 11 10 12 14 7 10 2 4 12 11 4 4 5 42 18 18 14 11 10 11 7 8 9 11 12 2 3 11 5 5 2 4 – 3 – 15 – 6 – 15 – 10 + 2 0 – 3 – 4 – 5 + 4 + 2 0 – 1 – 1 – 7 + 1 – 2 – 1 203.5 132.1 109.6 89.1 89.2 24.3 24.7 26.6 27.9 18.6 25.6 11.2 2.6 17.7 7.2 8.2 11.8 3.3 5.4 298.0 172.3 103.5 70.2 59.0 52.9 51.9 31.1 30.8 29.9 29.3 22.3 19.5 17.9 12.0 11.1 8.7 5.4 3.5 + 294.5 + 40.2 – 6.1 – 18.9 – 30.2 + 28.6 + 27.2 + 4.5 + 2.9 + 11.3 + 3.7 + 11.1 + 16.9 + 0.2 + 4.8 + 2.9 – 3.1 + 2.1 – 1.9 Source: Creditreform Ltd. 2006–2010 245 Table 3. The change in ranking of top fi rms according to the volume of their total annual revenues between 2005 and 2009 in 14 counties County Number of fi rms belonging to top 500 Average rank Value of increase (+) or fall (–) of average rank2005 2009 2005 2009 Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Hajdú-Bihar Csongrád Somogy Heves Vas Bács-Kiskun Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Veszprém Tolna Baranya Nógrád Békés Zala 11 15 15 5 10 10 12 10 11 2 8 3 6 8 12 13 16 7 7 10 8 5 6 3 5 4 3 2 302 259 306 217 200 208 305 392 233 216 242 302 303 376 289 261 260 304 195 291 289 330 267 263 278 345 304 389 + 13 – 2 + 46 – 87 + 5 – 83 + 16 + 62 – 34 – 47 – 36 – 43 – 1 – 13 Source: Creditreform Ltd. 2006–2010 Fig. 1. Changing position of the top fi rms of 14 counties on the annual revenues–profi t diagram. AR = annual revenue; P = profi t 246 of the top 500 companies. The positive change in the case of Jász-Nagykun- Szolnok and Bács-Kiskun counties was only modest. The position of Heves, Békés and Hajdú-Bihar counties has not changed signifi cantly. Evaluating the above mentioned 14 counties by the change in rank- ing based on the profi t realized by the fi rms also negative trends could be observed (Table 4.) Data on Table 4 demonstrate the results of a curious process. Namely, most of modestly or weakly developed counties managed to preserve profi t- able fi rms, and at the same time the latt er had replaced the unprofi table ones. Their number was 116 in 2005 and 110 in 2009, so during four years they ex- perienced only a minor decrease. In the case of some counties the changing position of some dominant fi rms had resulted in higher or lower average values in ranking. (E.g. the fall in average rank of Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County owed to the lower rank of the Samsung Electronic Hungary Ltd. and Electrolux Lehel Refrigerator Factory Ltd.) A spectacular increase could be recorded in Tolna county where the po- sition of Paks Nuclear Power Plant Co. stepped forward from the 110th place (2005) to 28th place (2009) among the top 500 fi rms by profi tability. Similarly the position of the E.On Southern Transdanubia Ltd. (energy supply) has ad- vanced from 96th place (2005) to 77th place (2009) in Baranya County. The tendency of changes between 2005 and 2009 in the case of top fi rms of the 14 modestly or weakly developed counties according to the average ranks based on annual revenues and profi t is shown on Figure 2. Table 4. The change in the ranking of top fi rms by the volume of their annual profi t between 2005 and 2009 in 14 counties County Number of fi rms belonging to top 500 Average rank Value of increase (+) or fall (–) of average rank2005 2009 2005 2009 Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Hajdú-Bihar Csongrád Somogy Heves Vas Bács-Kiskun Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Veszprém Tolna Baranya Nógrád Békés Zala 6 10 14 3 11 10 11 10 13 2 12 5 4 5 11 11 19 3 7 10 12 11 8 2 5 2 5 4 194 281 267 227 262 144 297 395 252 266 366 315 277 311 269 278 220 270 250 198 278 363 204 176 257 254 222 387 – 75 + 3 + 47 – 43 + 12 – 54 + 19 + 32 + 48 + 90 + 109 + 61 + 55 – 24 Source: Creditreform Ltd. 2006–2010 247 Evaluating the diff erent positions of countries by the tendency of change and its dimension ranking by annual revenues–profi t context, the fol- lowing four groups (I–IV) can be identifi ed. Between 2005 and 2009 the top fi rms in 5 counties of the fi rst group – and partly in Békés County too – turned to a positive direction of develop- ment. The ranks have improved both by annual revenue and profi t. A majority of top fi rms in the second group of 4 countries (members) were able to step forward and ranked higher by profi t but their annual revenue increased only in small measure. Owing to this negative fact their position became unfavourable and these counties were dropped in the rank of annual revenues. (Close to the origo Hajdú-Bihar County belongs to this group but its position remained practically unchanged between 2005 and 2009.) – – Fig. 2. Change in the ranking of the top fi rms of 14 counties on the annual revenues–profi t diagram. Rar = Rate of change by annual revenue; Rp = Rate of change by profi t 248 Only one county forms the third group. Top fi rms of Jász-Nagykun- Szolnok County have managed to improve positions in the ranking by annual revenues, but they lost a lot in that by profi t. Top companies of the three Transdanubian counties belonging to the fourth group were the real losers. They have lost their position in the ranking by annual revenues and by profi t alike. Nevertheless one of them (Vas County on the Hungarian-Austrian border) has an advantage over the others. The closeness of Austria might bring some prosperity in the county’s economy and probably would contribute to raise the rank values of the top companies of the county. – – Table 5. The change in the ranking of top fi rms located in industrial parks by the volume of their total annual revenues between 2005 and 2009 County Profi le of companies belonging to top 500 and located in industrial parks Rank by annual revenues Value of increase (+) or fall (–) of rankBranch, profi le Seat 2005 2009 Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Békés Békés Békés Bács-Kiskun Hajdú-Bihar Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Baranya Somogy Somogy Vas Vas Vas Vas Vas Construction Rubber industry Food industry Rubber industry Car trade Machinery Food industry Machinery trade Building material Tobacco trade Food industry Glass industry Car accessories Food industry Food trade Electronics Machinery Electronics Car accessories Machinery Electronics Electronics Energy supply Electronics Car accessories Wood industry Car accessories Metalworking Szeged Szeged Szeged Makó Szentes Szentes Szentes Hódmezővásárhely Hódmezővásárhely Hódmezővásárhely Hódmezővásárhely Orosháza Orosháza Szarvas Kecskemét Debrecen Debrecen Jászfényszaru Jászárokszállás Törökszentmiklós Pécs Kaposvár Siófok Szombathely Szombathely Szombathely Szentgott hárd Sárvár 162 372 150 290 – 464 185 311 358 291 – 327 230 250 325 205 – 20 – 367 215 – – 190 74 322 41 – 266 283 188 323 471 430 258 470 437 313 231 364 249 301 355 145 333 9 277 303 174 446 493 167 75 461 282 499 – 104 + 89 – 38 – 33 (+) + 34 – 73 – 159 – 79 – 22 (+) – 37 – 19 – 51 – 30 + 60 (+) + 11 (+) + 64 + 41 (+) (+) + 23 – 1 – 139 – 241 (+) Source: Creditreform Ltd. 2006–2010 249 Table 6. The change in the ranking of top fi rms located in industrial parks by the volume of their profi t between 2005 and 2009 County Profi le of companies belonging to top 500 and located in industrial parks Rank by profi t Value of increase (+) or fall (–) of rankBranch, profi le Seat 2005 2009 Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Csongrád Békés Békés Békés Békés Bács-Kiskun Hajdú-Bihar Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Baranya Somogy Vas Vas Vas Vas Vas Construction Rubber industry Machinery Food industry Machinery trade Building material Glass industry Glassware Car accessories Food industry Food trade Machinery Electronics Car accessories Machinery Electronics Electronics Electronics Car accessories Wood industry Car accessories Metalworking Szeged Szeged Szentes Szentes Hódmezővásárhely Hódmezővásárhely Orosháza Orosháza Orosháza Szarvas Kecskemét Debrecen Jászfényszaru Jászárokszállás Törökszentmiklós Pécs Kaposvár Szombathely Szombathely Szombathely Szentgott hárd Sárvár 325 171 476 242 341 164 78 84 191 457 352 - - 271 187 - - 88 - 157 79 285 - 137 188 - - - 222 194 245 - 423 305 84 - 202 384 492 121 49 - 162 428 (–) + 34 + 287 (–) (–) (–) – 144 – 110 – 54 (–) – 71 (+) (+) (–) – 15 (+) (+) – 33 (+) (–) – 83 – 143 Source: Creditreform Ltd. 2006–2010 Top fi rms in industrial parks of modestly or weakly developed counties Surveying the location of fi rms operating or producing inside the industrial parks of the 14 modestly or weakly developed counties and belonging to top 500 by their annual revenue revealed that their number is very low, i.e. merely 28. Here it has to be mentioned that the total number of fi rms located in this group of counties is also far below the value of 100 (only 74). Consequently, 37.8 per cent of top fi rms of the 14 counties investigated are located in a kind of industrial parks. Looking at Table 5 and 6 considerable regional inequalities can be found. A closer examination of the data makes clear that 14 top fi rms have lost their position in ranking between 2005 and 2009. The average position loss exceeded the value of –73. Only 7 companies have managed to get higher position in this period, but this step was not spectacular (their average win has reached + 46 only). Further 7 fi rms managed to join to the club of top 500 between 2005 and 2009. Most of the winners represent electronics (N.I. Hungary Ltd., Debrecen; Samsung Electronics Hungary Co., Jászfényszaru; Elcoteq Hungary Ltd., Pécs; 250 Videoton Electro Plast Ltd., Kaposvár; Epcos Ltd., Szombathely) and machin- ery industry (Legrand Hungary Co., Szentes; FAG Hungary Ltd., Debrecen; Claas Hungary Ltd., Törökszentmiklós). The losers belong to food industry (Sole Mizo Co., Szeged; Hungerit Poultry Processing Co., Szentes; Gallicoop Co., Szarvas ), car accessories (Linamar Hungary Co., Orosháza; General Motors Powertrain Ltd., Szombathely) and diff erent type of trade companies (e.g. Bravotech Ltd. and Tabán Tafi k Co., Hódmezővásárhely; Hansa Kontakt Ltd., Kecskemét). The regional patt ern of winners (Figure 3) demonstrates the relatively good position of fi rms located in the industrial parks of the counties belong- ing to Northern Great Plain Region and partly in Southern Transdanubia. The losers are mainly concentrated in the counties of Southern Great Plain region with few exceptions (e.g. ContiTech Rubber Industrial Ltd., Szeged; Legrand Hungary Co., Szentes), and in Vas County within Western Transdanubia Region. When the profi t of these fi rms accommodated in industrial parks is investigated the picture seems to be mixed. Firstly it can be stated that among the fi rms located in industrial parks of the 14 modestly or weakly developed counties and belonging to top 500 by their profi t only 22 are profi table. The total number of fi rms belonging to this group of counties is relatively small (only 86). The rate (22 to 86) is an unfavourably low (25.6 per cent), marking a low economic effi ciency of top fi rms located in industrial parks of the 14 sample counties. The data of Table 6. clearly demonstrate that 7 of 22 top fi rms have lost their previous position and fell out from the list of 500 most profi table companies of Hungary between 2005 and 2009. Further 8 of 22 have lost their former more favourable position on the list. This average position loss exceeded the value of –78. Merely 2 compa- nies have managed to get higher position in this period, and only one of them (Legrand Hungary Co. located in Szentes Industrial Park) has got a spectacular profi t increase since 2005. Additional 5 fi rms managed to join to the club of 500 most profi table companies between 2005 and 2009. Out of the few profi table top companies sett led in industrial parks of modestly or less favoured counties one belongs to rubber industry by profi le (ContiTech Rubber Industrial Ltd., Szeged), and another one to machinery industry (Legrand Hungary Co., Szentes). Three of the fi ve companies having entered the club of top 500 by the volume of profi t represent electronics (Samsung Electronics Hungary Co., Jászfényszaru; Elcoteq Hungary Ltd., Pécs; Videoton Electro Plast Ltd., Kaposvár), one of them – machinery industry (N.I. Hungary Ltd., Debrecen) and one –car accessories manufacturing (LUK Savaria Kuplung Producing Ltd). 251 Fi g. 3 . T en d en cy a nd th e ra te o f c ha ng e in th e ra nk in g of th e to p fi rm s se tt le d in in d us tr ia l p ar ks o f m od es t o r le ss fa vo ur ed c ou nt ie s by th ei r an nu al r ev en ue 252 It has to be emphasized however, that – opposite to the positive exam- ples mentioned above – the overwhelming part of fi rms sett led in industrial parks of modestly or less favoured counties have lost their previous favour- able position in ranking between 2005 and 2009. The biggest losers belong to diff erent branches of economy: Amtek Hungary Co. (metalworking, Sárvár), Hansa Kontakt Ltd. (food trade, Kecskemét), Guardian Hungary Ltd. and Glass Manufacturing Ltd. (glass industry and glassware products, Orosháza), Linamar Hungary Co. (car accessory products, Orosháza) and Epcos Ltd. (electronics, Szombathely). The regional patt ern of these 22 fi rms (Figure 4) demonstrates the fall- ing of profi t of the top fi rms located in industrial parks of the 14 counties. Their substantial part (9 per cent) belong to Southern Great Plain Region (with a concentration in Csongrád and Békés counties), a smaller group (4 per cent) to Western Transdanubia (Vas County). Tendency of change in the case of the fi rms located in Northern Great Plain Region and Southern Transdanubia seems to be positive, but the size of this group is unfavourably small. Conclusions Comparing the change in revenues with that in profi ts in the case of NUTS2 regions in Hungary a very negative tendency can be seen. Between 2005 and 2009 in case of profi ts of leading companies a serious decline or stag- nation can be observed in all regions except Central Hungary. This process is a result of heavy concentration of profi t onto Budapest and its agglomeration zone. Between 2005 and 2009 the relative annual profi t (profi t per company) has changed also in the regions, showing a tremendous gap between devel- oped and underdeveloped regions. Problematic Hungarian NUTS2 regions and their counties have a mod- est dynamism of economic development. Most of them is characterised mainly by processing industry, food industry and has agrarian character, which goes together with lower personal income and with a higher rate of unemployment than the national average. 14 counties of six NUTS2 regions belong to the category of modestly or weakly developed counties. In spite of a large number of industrial parks with good regional accessibility these counties have only few important industrial fi rms and service companies realizing high annual revenue and profi table production. Between 2005 and 2009 nearly half of the 19 counties have lost 36 top fi rms altogether and – without Pest County – only 7 counties have gained 11 ones at all. – – – – – 253 Fi g. 4 . T en d en cy a nd th e ra te o f c ha ng e in th e ra nk in g of th e to p fi rm s se tt le d in in d us tr ia l p ar ks o f m od es t o r le ss fa vo ur ed c ou nt ie s by th ei r pr ofi t 254 Majority of top fi rms of the modestly or weakly developed counties was able to step forward in ranking by profi t but their annual revenue in- creased only to a minor extent. There is a very small number of fi rms operating or producing inside industrial parks of the 14 modestly or weakly developed counties and belong- ing to top 500 by their annual revenue. The regional patt ern of these companies demonstrates the falling profi t of the top fi rms located in industrial parks of the 14 counties. REFERENCES See Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 2010 Vol. 59. No 2. 89–106. – – – << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.7 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) /HUN >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice