88 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(3), 88–94 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 Online ISSN 2412-0731 Original Paper doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 Spatial demographic inequalities and regional development in Serbia Suzana Lović Obradović , Stefana Matović Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijić, Serbian Academy of Science and Art, Belgrade, Serbia; e-mail: s.lovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs ABSTRACT Th e study provides a comprehensive data analysis of demographic and so- cio-economic characteristics in Serbian regions as factors of uneven region- al 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 develop- ment 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 un- employed. 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. KEYWORDS demographic indicators, socio- economic indicators, NUTS2 region, regional disparities, Serbia ACKNOWLEDGMENT Th e study was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (project no. 47007). FOR CITATION Lović Obradović S., & Matović S. (2018) Spatial demographic inequalities and regional development in Serbia. R-economy, 4(3), 88–94. doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 Региональные демографические различия и региональное развитие в Сербии C. Лович-Обрадович , С. Матович Географический институт «Йован Цвиич» Сербской академии наук, Белград, Сербия; e-mail: s.lovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs РЕЗЮМЕ В исследовании содержится всесторонний анализ данных демографи- ческих и социально-экономических характеристик сербских регионов, рассмотренных как факторы неравномерного регионального развития. Данные были предоставлены официальными переписями населения с 1953 по 2011 г. В исследовании используются следующие демографиче- ские показатели: население; индекс изменения численности населения; плотность населения; доля мигрантов в общей численности населения; доля населения старше 65 лет; и средний возраст населения. Показате- ли социально-экономического развития регионов были следующими: уровень развития городов и муниципалитетов; доля необразованного населения; доля населения со средним и высшим образованием; доля получателей пособий; доля занятого населения; доля граждан, не умею- щих пользоваться компьютерами; и доля безработных. Результаты ис- следования показали значительные региональные различия: регионы Белград, Косово и Метохия являются экономически процветающими регионами, привлекательными для мигрантов из других районов Сер- бии, ситуация в Южной и Восточной Сербии является совершенно противоположной, характеризующейся оттоком населения и экономи- ческой недоразвитостью, особенно в приграничных районах. Осталь- ные два региона находятся в двух крайностях: Воеводина находится ближе к Белграду, в то время как Шумадия и Западная Сербия – к Юж- ной и Восточной Сербии. КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА демографические показатели, социально-экономические показатели, регион NUTS2, региональные различия, Сербия БЛАГОДАРНОСТИ Исследование было поддержано Министерством образования, науки и технологического развития Республики Сербия (проект № 47007). ДЛЯ ЦИТИРОВАНИЯ Lović Obradović S., & Matović S. (2018) Spatial demographic inequalities and regional development in Serbia. R-economy, 4(3), 88–94. doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(3), 88–94 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 89 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 Introduction Th e Republic of Serbia has diverse geographi- cal 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 demograph- ic determinant only emphasized the existing dif- ferences resulting in signifi cant regional disrep- ancies. 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 popula- tion in Serbia is not a new phenomenon. Histor- ically, it goes back to the post-war period of in- dustrialization, when the intensive economic and demographic growth of Belgrade region began. In the same period, southern and eastern Serbia ex- perienced the demographic and economic decline caused by the major disproportions in the coun- try’s regional development [3]. Disparities in population concentration and excessive population growth of primary regions can have a negative impact on the country’s over- all economic development. Th erefore, these issues need to be addressed through policies aimed at redirecting the population to other regions; poli- cies promoting investment in infrastructure, mar- keting, 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 re- sulting from the unequal distribution of invest- ment and demographic resources. Th e vast body of literature on the problem of regional disparities and its causes reveals the complexity of this phe- nomenon. 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 su- pra-national integration projects (Crudu) [5]. Vorauer (1997) defi nes regional disparities as a deviation in socio-geographic, economic, social and environmental development within a partic- ular 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 en- tities 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); demograph- ic factors (population density, level of urbaniza- tion, reproductive behavior of the households); infrastructure development; income and property; patterns of private investment; and so on. Th e re- searcher also points out that the lack of detailed re- gional studies and inter-regional analysis may con- tribute 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 cen- ter 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 demograph- ic 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 dam- ages 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, plac- ing a special emphasis on the last census. Th e aim was to point out the complexity of demographic phenomena and processes within the given peri- od. For Kosovo and Metohija, only the data until 1991 were available for analysis as Serbia’s Offi - cial 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- 90 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(3), 88–94 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 Online ISSN 2412-0731 graphic and socio-economic. In our analysis we used the following demographic indicators: pop- ulation; the index of population change; popu- lation density; the share of migrants in the total population; the share of 65+ population; and the average age of the population. To assess the so- cio-economic development of the region we used the following indicators: the level of development of cities and municipalities; the share of unedu- cated population; the share of the population with secondary and higher education; the share of wel- fare recipients; the share of the employed popula- tion; 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 De- cree, 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 R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(3), 88–94 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 91 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 Discussion Demographic determinants of regional disparities Population size. Th e available data on the country’s population show that the most pop- ulated 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 popu- lation 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 pic- ture of the regions. Serbian regions are characterized by a di- versity of demographic trends. More prosperous municipal centers attract migrants from other re- gions, which results in unbalanced spatial distri- bution 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 oth- er 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 inhabi- tants, and there were also 11 deserted settlements. Serbia is characterized by distinct spatial diff er- entiation 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 Ser- bia, 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 re- production of the population, which causes de- population and demographic aging and refl ects the consequences of the demographic transition [13]. As far as the number of the elderly is con- cerned, 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, Table 1 Population by regions Region   Population Index of population change, 1948 = 100 1948 1953 1961 1971 1981 1991 2002 2011 1953 1961 1971 1981 1991 2002 2011 Belgrade 634,003 731,837 942,190 1,209,360 1,470,073 1,602,226 1,576,124 1,659,440 115.40 148.60 190.70 231.90 252.70 248.60 261.70 Urban 437,053 521,114 721,183 990,272 1,206,235 1,310,920 1,274,924 1,344,844 119.20 165.00 226.60 276.00 299.90 291.70 307.70 Other 196,950 210,723 221,007 219,088 263,838 291,306 301,200 314,596 107.00 112.20 111.20 134.00 147.90 152.90 159.70 Vojvodina 1,640,599 1,698,640 1,854,971 1,952,560 2,034,782 2,013,889 2,031,992 1,931,809 103.50 113.10 119.00 124.00 122.80 123.90 117.80 Urban 655,831 699,575 826,200 978,115 1,095,256 1,115,562 1,152,674 1,146,731 106.70 126.00 149.10 167.00 170.10 175.80 174.90 Other 984,768 999,065 1,028,771 974,445 939,526 898,327 879,318 785,078 101.50 104.50 99.00 95.40 91.20 89.30 79.70 Šumadija and Wes- tern Serbia 1,776,544 1,902,934 2,006,793 2,111,855 2,243,885 2,266,428 2,136,881 2,031,697 107.10 113.00 118.90 126.30 127.60 120.30 114.40 Urban 242,679 305,669 419,233 614,981 829,608 946,535 956,586 963,548 126.00 172.80 253.40 341.90 390.00 394.20 397.00 Other 1,533,865 1,597,265 1,587,560 1,496,874 1,414,277 1,319,893 1,180,295 1,068,149 104.10 103.50 97.60 92.20 86.10 76.90 69.60 Southern and Eas- tern Serbia 1,743,691 1,828,910 1,874,293 1,929,140 1,980,506 1,940,252 1,753,004 1,563,916 104.90 107.50 110.60 113.60 111.30 100.50 89.70 Urban 249,836 297,476 391,056 574,370 744,504 841,681 834,295 816,749 119.10 156.50 229.90 298.00 336.90 333.90 326.90 Other 1,493,855 1,531,434 1,483,237 1,354,770 1,236,002 1,098,571 918,709 747,167 102.50 99.30 90.70 82.70 73.50 61.50 50.00 Kosovo and Metohija 732,746 815,798 963,715 1,243,811 1,584,440 1,956,196 ... ... 111.30 131.50 169.70 216.20 267.00 ... ... Source: Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2014). 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia. Comparative overview of the number of population in 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2002 and 2011. Vol. 20. Belgrade: Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia. Retrieved from: http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Knjiga20.pdf 92 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(3), 88–94 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 Online ISSN 2412-0731 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 pop- ulation 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 old- est 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 de- veloped 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 be- long to the group of underdeveloped regions. Education. Th e level of education shows re- gional 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 charac- terized by the largest share of uneducated popula- tion (12.5%) and the smalest share of the popula- tion with secondary and higher education (3.8%) (see Table 2). Social welfare and employment. Th ere are considerable regional disparities in the share of wel- fare 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). Table 2 Demographic and socio-economic indicators Region Th e share of migrants (%) Th e share of population 65 and over (%) Average age Th e share of uned- ucated popula- tion (%) Th e share of population with second- ary and higher education (%) Th e share of welfare recipients (%) Th e share of employed popula- tion (%) Th e share of comput- er iliterate population (%) Th e share of unem- ployed popula- tion (%) Belgrade 51.8 16.4 41.8 1.2 27.8 0.9 35.3 38 7.8 Urban – 16.5 41.9 0.9 32.1 0.8 36.2 33.9 8.9 Other – 15.8 41.4 2.46 9.3 1.3 31.2 56 6.8 Vojvodina 46.2 16.4 41.8 2.3 14.1 2.6 30 49.3 9.2 Urban – 15.8 41.4 1.58 19.1 2 32 42.1 10.8 Other – 17.3 42.3 3.41 6.7 3.4 27.1 59.7 7.7 Šumadija and West Serbia 41.3 17.7 42.3 3.4 11.7 2.1 30 57.4 9.2 Urban – 14.5 40.6 1.6 18.6 2 32 44.3 10.1 Other – 20.6 43.7 4.9 5.5 2.1 27.1 69 8.3 South and East Serbia 41.2 19.4 43.3 3.7 12.5 2.3 28.5 58.7 11 Urban – 15 41 2.1 20.8 2.6 30 46.3 12.1 Other – 24.1 45.7 5.5 4.9 2.3 27.2 72 9.9 Source: Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2013). 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia. Educational Attainment, Literacy and Computer Literacy. Vol. 3. Belgrade: Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia. Retrieved from: http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Skolska%20sprema,%20pismenost%20i%20 kompjuterska%20pismenost-Educational%20attainment,%20literacy%20and%20computer%20literacy%20.pdf; Statistical Of- fi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2013). 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia. Migrations. Vol. 9. Belgrade: Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia. Retrieved from: http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Pop- is2011/Knjiga%209_Migracije-Migrations.pdf; lgrade: Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia. Retrieved from: http://pod2.stat. gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Knjiga20.pdf; Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2014). 2011 Census of Popu- lation, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia. Population. Economic activity. Vol. 19. Belgrade: Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia. Retrieved from: http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Knjiga%207_Ekonomska%20 aktivnost-Economic%20activity.pdf R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(3), 88–94 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 93 www.r-economy.ru Online ISSN 2412-0731 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 South- ern 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, re- ligious, and so on [15]. Drawing upon the avail- able census data, this paper sought to examine the infl uence of spatial demographic inequalities on regional development. While Belgrade, Koso- vo 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, char- acterized 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 Bel- grade, and Šumadija and Western Serbia closer to Southern and Eastern Serbia. In the given period, Belgrade and Kosovo-Me- tohija were singled out as growth poles. In Bel- grade, 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 East- ern Serbia was a negative pole of growth, with a marked demographic decline, as the last two cen- suses 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 nega- tive demographic trends, which are refl ected in the negative natural increase and emigration, as a consequence of the historically determined unfa- vorable age structure of the population, a further decline in the population is expected. References 1. Vojković, G. & Kokotović, V. (2009). Th e Roll of Small and Medium Size Towns in Polycen- tric Development of Serbia — Demographic Aspects, In: Stamenković, S. (Eds.). Territorial Aspects of Development of Serbia and Neighboring Countries. Beograd: University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geography. 2. Stojanović, J., Kokotović Kanazir V. & Stojanović M. (2017). Does a Small Town with a Touristic Function Have Demographic Potential. J. Geogr. Inst. Cvijić, 67(2), 145–162. doi: 10.2298/ijgi1702145s 3. Vojković, G., Kokotović, V. & Spalević, A. (2012). Demografska održivost naseljskog sistema Jugoistočne Srbije. In: Ljubiša Mitrović (Eds.). Stanovništvo Jugoistočne Srbije: Uticaj Demografskih Promena u Jugoistočnoj Srbiji na Društveni Razvoj i bezbednost. Niš: Centar za naučno-istraživački rad SANU i Univerziteta u Nišu. 4. Rondinelli, D. A. (1985). Population Distribution and Economic Development in Africa: Th e Need for Urbanization Policies. Population Research and Policy Review, 4(2), 173–196. 5. Crudu, R. (2015). Economic Crisis and Economic Disparities in European Union. Centre for European Studies (CES). Working Papers, 7(2A), 420–433. Retrieved from http://ceswp.uaic.ro/arti- cles/CESWP2015_VII2A_CRU.pdf 6. Vorauer, K. (1997). Europäische Regionalpolitik Regionale Disparitäten: Th eoretische Fund- ierung, Empirische Befunde und Politische Entwürfe. Passau: Münchener Geographische Heft e. 7. Kutscherauer A., Fachinelli, H., Hučka, M., Skokan, K., Sucháček, J., Tománek, P., & Tule- ja, P. (2010). Regional Disparities: Disparities in Country Regional Development – Concept, Theo- ry, Identification and Assessment. Ostrava: VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava. Retrieved from http://disparity.idealnihosting.cz/edice_cd/cd11_regdis_mono_angl/pdf/Regional%20dispari- ties.pdf 8. Tegenu, T. (2011). Population Pressure and Regional Development Disparities in Ethiopia: Case of Southern Region. Retrieved from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:938642/FULL- TEXT01.pdf 94 www.r-economy.ru R-ECOMONY, 2018, 4(3), 88–94 doi: 10.15826/recon.2018.4.3.013 Online ISSN 2412-0731 9. Ocić, Č. (2005). Regional disparities in Yugoslavia from 1952 to 1988. Megatrend Review, 2(1), 5–42. 10. Vojković, G. (2003). Stanovništvo kao element regionalizacije Srbije (Population as an ele- ment of regionalization of Serbia). Stanovništvo, 41(1-4), 7–42. doi: 10.2298/stnv0304007v 11. Combes, M. (2010). Migration and Regional Development: a Research Review. Paper Pre- sented at the OECD WPTI Workshop, Paris, June 7, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/cfe/ regional-policy/45522500.pdf 12. Uredba o Utvrđivanju Jedinstvene Liste Razvijenosti Regiona i Jedinica Lokalne Samouprave za 2014 godinu (Službeni glasnik RS, br. 104/2014). Retrieved from http://ras.gov.rs/up- loads/2017/03/podrska%20za%20otvaranje%20novih%20radnih%20mesta/Lista%20razvijenos- ti%20JLS.pdf 13. Kokotović Kanazir, V., Stojilković Gnjatović, J., Filipović, M., Babović, S., Ivković, M. & Lović Obradović, S. (2017). Stanovništvo. In: M. Radovanović (Eds.). Geografi ja Srbije. Beograd: Geograf- ski institut „Jovan Cvijić“ SANU. 14. Lović Obradović, S., Babović, S., & Shpak, N. (2016). Serbia and Russia on the Demograph- ic Map of Europe Two Decades aft er the Fall of Communism. Trames, 20(1), 59–73. doi: 10.3176/ tr.2016.1.04 15. Molnar, D. S. (2013). Regional Inequalities and Economic Growth: Th e Example of Serbia (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/handle/123456789/2223?locale-at- tribute=sr_RS Information about the authors Suzana Lović Obradović – Research Associate, Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijić, Serbian Academy of Science and Art (9 Đure Jakšića St., 11000 Belgrade, Serbia); e-mail: s.lovic@gi.sanu.ac.rs. Stefana Matović – Research Associate, Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijić, Serbian Academy of Science and Art (9 Đure Jakšića St., 11000 Belgrade, Serbia).