Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe (Ethnologia Balkanica)

Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer (Eds.)

H

Part 1 J-

.

' ^ a ^ v y S ^ S ^ Ivano-fraÄs'ta S **»« 1 / >Y ,

tonrcwpoxu^1

'

i;a

145

t

HtogaBW»« Mian- . .. r p . . ^ « ^ ^ . . . . < .• .

•

DB iit^iffltto Itetwitiio na Hawmasa DJWV

Uax^ntniHii on uaitonoitciKtrtt 63tfjita,

• :3? B H I'M H E''

•: '

a a »«MioitoHcatawi natyyica

!'ifuce;TOira'r>Jj>»™..

I Icroflm : i^Otnajj? >

Lop nil

"»¡atr »MM™

I npSö^j/'HoM^ K„,,„.„* tyftc,,!, \ ' flipor Pt^urrpbnrpaji

Inhabitants

m I

50000 mid mure (18) I 50l)i)-l')999 (1621

L _J

S

'"'-4'm

less (hen 500

.towtemr^,.

Settlements

11804) (2722)

i \ Bpiui.c J ^jociuicrpin Tprocraror

Figure 2. Settlements according to population size in Serbia, 2002 (Source: 2002 Census).

288

Dragutin Tosic, Marija Maksin-Micic

At first glance one might conclude that the distribution of settlements in the Serbian urban network is favourable. However, the zones and belts of population and activity concentration point to the contrary. In addition, about 26% of Serbia's urban population (without Kosovo and Metohija) live just in Belgrade. This discrepancy in the number of inhabitants between the major and other urban settlements shows that Serbia has no uniformly developed and interconnected urban system, that is, its urbanization flows were not directed at die proper time. If we analysed the statistical and administrative criteria for identifying cities and urban settlements, and applied scientifically more accurate methods, the degree of Serbia's urbanization would even be lower, while regional polarization and disparities more pronounced. The dominance of Belgrade (1118980 inhabitants in 2002), or the Belgrade urban agglomeration (1574000 inhabitants with the suburban municipalities in 2002) as well as a strong demographic polarization are confirmed by the size of the ten largest urban centres. The dominance of the state centre is also pointed out by the index of urban primacy, whose value is 5.87 (the population ratio of Belgrade to Novi Sad, as the second largest city). The population size of Valjevo, the tenth largest urban centre, is only about one-twentieth of that of Belgrade (index of 0.054). The indices shown in Table 2 lead to the conclusion that the scientifically presented and socially justified concept of de-metropolization, decentralization of urbanization, regionally balanced and dynamic polycentric urban systems as anticipated by the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia (1996) have not been implemented. This disproportion in the population size of Belgrade and other larger urban centres is the result of Serbia's incoherent and asymmetric urban system. It is evident that there are no urban settlements, except of Belgrade, with 200000 to 500000 inhabitants and the macro-regional functions, which would be the agents of Serbia's balanced development and the hubs for integrating the urban system into the European urban system and development trends. In Serbia, many types of more or less urbanized regions and of regional urban systems can be identified, as well as the hierarchy of their spatial and functional systems. As for continuity in the duration of urbanization and its spatial types there are pronounced differences among: - polycentrically urbanized Vojvodina; - somewhat less urbanized central Serbia with an irregular hierarchical structure of the urban settlement system and a large span between the functional capacity of Belgrade and other cities in central Serbia, and - low-urbanized Kosovo and Metohija (Tosic, Krunic 2005). With such a structure, the Serbian urban system is neither compatible nor complementary with the aims of establishing the European urban system. Since the European strategy (ESDP) is aimed at the future integration of polycentric urban

The Problems and Potentials for the Regionalization of Serbia

289

Table 2. Population size relations of the top ten urban centres in Serbia, according to the 2002 Census. Urban centre

Population

Belgrade Novi Sad Nis Kragujevac Subotica Zrenjanin Pancevo Cacak Smederevo Valjevo

1118980 190162 173390 145890 99471 79545 76110 73152 62668 61406

Index in relation to Belgrade 1.000 0.169 0.154 0.130 0.088 0.071 0.068 0.065 0.056 0.054

Index in relation to the previous urban centre —

0.169 0.911 0.844 0.676 0.957 0.955 0.832 0.861 0.964

Source: 2002 Census.

structures, it is important that the Serbian urban and regional development models are adjusted to that concept. The question here is whether the model of a polycentric urban system and functional regions of urban centres adopted by the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia, coupled with the necessary adjustments to die changes occurring in the last decade, provides a sound basis for integration into the European urban system and development trends. Does the problem lie in the planned model, or the failure to implement it, that is, in the un-readiness to implement this or some other model of Serbia's development decentralization and régionalisation displayed at the national and other levels of government?

Which solutions are possible? 1. "Belts of More Intensive Development" and "Functional Urban Areas" in the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia The Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia points to die potentials and basic solutions: the initial strategic commitment of the Plan is to reach a higher level of Serbia's overall functional integrity and much better transport and economic linkages to the neighbouring and other European countries. This aim implies the reduction of regional disproportions or, in odier words, qualitative changes in the spatial, economic and social structures, including specifically the regions with pronounced dysfunctions in social and economic development. Proceeding from die current concentration of population and activities in die basic development

290

Dragutin Tosic, Marija Maksin-Micic

belts, the commitment to reduce excessive concentrations in these belts was affirmed, The principle of polycentric development and greater attractiveness as well as of activating other development belts and zones - with substantial natural and man-made potentials and a relatively good transport location and accessibility was established. The belts of more intensive development (Fig. 3) were defined by proceeding from the existing and planned routes of trans-European and national transport corridors in which the potentials for developing economic activities, increased concentration of population and urban settlements, and improving technical, public social infrastructure were activated, or is planned to do so. For example, the urban centres and peripheral regions in eastern Serbia will get access to the trans-European transport corridor X, primarily through die connections of class I and II state roads to the highway, so that travel to the corridor takes between 1.5 and 2.5 hours; those in western and, in particular, central Serbia will lie widiin 2.2 and 4.5 hours from the corridor. Only after the construction of the planned highways in the Zapadna Morava valley and towards the southern Adriatic, die peripheral western parts of central Serbia will be equalized with eastern Serbia with respect to transport accessibility. The reconstruction and modernization of the state and local road networks can also shorten the travel time, that is, facilitate access and ensure better conditions for the integration of the eastern and western parts of central Serbia with each other and with the neighbouring countries. In ten to fifteen years, assuming the construction of the highway network and the improvement of the quality of the state road network, die shortening of the travel time between the neighbouring, larger urban centres within the primary development belts and trans-European transport corridors (twenty-six urban centres in Vojvodina and thirty urban centres in central Serbia) to about forty minutes and up to two hours between the peripheral regions and the belts of primary development and the trans-European transport corridors can be regarded as ensuring adequate accessibility of specified regions (Maksin-Micic 2003, 2004). In addition, the planned and potential routes of state highways will also enable better connections of the Serbian urban system to the urban systems in its surroundings (Figure 3). In the development of the Serbian urban system, the emphasis in the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia is put on reducing the concentration of population and activities in the state and provincial centres, that is, on qualitative changes in their economic and socio-economic structures, in addition to the more intensive use of available building funds, land and other advantages, intellectual, scientific, and development potentials. Priority is given to the de-metropolization of Serbia and the implementation of the principle of polycentric development by spurring development and improving the quality of life in macro-regional (Nis, Uzice and

291

The Problems and Potentials for the Regionalization of Serbia

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY

Romania

.^ ;'

w 3,

i- !• Mi tl

•orf-^.. Bosnia

f

°

and Hartxeg'ovlna J >» \ Mamm-Croat Federation/' /' __ ri • \ r i Republic of S.p.ko\

^

uiu. g® ^ ®° Ä

„„,,„.

. l>rl|ej..lS

"

-t,

vb6w.ii.

8

-

'•• BU «

-9 Kai. MJtravlia

3 IjijtinitolnjlcoiliB ^g* nulluni slml ImliMrijl units (10.000-20.u0u Hiıpiun«.! midinin Jim! Indusltul awis © (5,mo-ıi).mo™ıpirçM) smal ¡[HliMrl.il ixnlns ® (l,™.Î.K«ıı.i|ilıi)TO) |xjtııı'.i3İ QTU il b of lıll'Jı'y complex and 0moJcnlrly compl« lmtarl.il uxlinolojv ^ IniliKriii! ccnlro »i'JitapmanılixluMil .nnd/or /iw cenrcKnk: ÄJIXS K isuihiKfaccconuiticama • plsjuml frve economic niins puiuulid imliijtritd ikwlopmmt N-Its

T \

\

Vn»r.J» w

©

O

o Prljg»»

«

Onlfl«*» OSS' • •• o ^-C^j-^r S"-

A7

o

^ ^

Macedonia

HrfsnlsPt

Figure 3. Belts of more intensive development in Serbia (Source: Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia, 1996, Map 9)

292

Dragutin Tosic, Marija Maksin-Micic

Kragujevac) and regional centres and smaller cities in the territory of the Republic and especially in the peripheral zone of Belgrade. The Spatial Plan of die Republic of Serbia anticipates thirty-four functional regions, which are formed by state, macro-regional and regional centres (Fig. 4). This spatio-functional re-organization of the Republic, as one model of its régionalisation at NUTS 3 level, should ensure: - sustainable development at the level of meso-regional entities - functional urban areas; - better networking and efficiency of die urban system; - government decentralization and rationalization in order to achieve more efficient satisfaction of the citizens' daily needs; - better adjustment of the organization of public services to the needs, possibilities and interests of local communities; - more efficient coordination of the activities and programmes of local communities. It is interesting to note that during the public debate about diis plan (1994-1996), it was relatively easy to reach die consensus on the number and spatial limits of the proposed thirty-four functional regions which are, with respect to territory, similar or identical to some districts. At the same time, the greatest number of remarks and opposing views were expressed with respect to the proposed territory of six macro regions at the NUTS 2 level, that is, functional regions of the state, two provincial and three macro regional centres in die Serbian urban system. Since a consensus could not be reached for the macro-regional level, macro regions were not included in the procedure of the national spatial plan. Apart from die anticipated role of integrating republican space, some centres in the Serbian urban system have a predisposition to become the centres of future trans-border regions - transnational, functional urban areas.

2. Potential metropolitan and transborder regions In the process of Serbia's functional integration with Southeastern Europe, the dominant place will be held by the Belgrade agglomeration (Fig. 1), which will be followed by the Nis agglomeration and then by the agglomerations of the future centres of trans-border regions. Within die administrative borders of the City of Belgrade, there are 157 settlements, of which 18 are urban. In a functional sense, the Belgrade agglomeration connects the Vojvodina-Pannonian-Danubian and Central-Balkan parts of Serbia (Tosic 2000). It has developed by spatial integration of urban settlements along the Novi Sad-Zemun-Belgrade-Pancevo-Smederevo routes. According to the 2002 Census, the City of Belgrade had 1574000 inhabitants, of whom 1280639, or

293

The Problems and Potentials for the Regionalization of Serbia

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION. NETWORK OF CENTRES AND FUNCTIONAL AREAS

manic

Tg

Hortiegovlna

Mpslem-Croat Fadarallon /NîM«1' *

" • .••• \ :. < ' • Republic of Srp*l