Introduction of the Approach for Reviving the Sub-Municipal Level as a Spatial Aspect of Decentralization in Serbia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Overview of Territorial Decentralization in Serbia
2.1. Territorial Reshaping of Serbia
2.2. Administrative Reforms in Serbia
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Basis for Methodological Framework Building
3.3. Building of Upgraded Methodological Framework
3.3.1. Selection of the Rural Nodes
- Morphometry: (i) terrain, i.e., relief that indicates potential natural objects (mountain, river valleys, etc.) that could be considered potential obstacles for flow directions; and (ii) a morphology of settlements that reflects directions of spatial integration.
- Accessibility, as measured by the mean travel time distance between settlements and centers based on the road network and calculated at the municipal level. Accessibility has been considered an important factor that induces rural change typologies.
- Daily mobility, with a spotlight on workers, indicating the degree of functional self-sufficiency or dependence on the higher-ranked center;
- Population potential, which implies the total population in the catchment area of the selected rural nodes.
- (1)
- Urban settlements and non-urban municipal centers were excluded (208 settlements) since the research is focused on rural areas and rural settlements.
- (2)
- In order to exclude the suburban settlements from the group of rural nodes, a selective approach is used due to a lack of an official methodology for identifying suburban settlements in Serbia. The reason for the exclusion of suburban settlements relies on the fact that they are more populated and functionally stronger but not economically and socially independent since they belong to the daily urban system of high-ranked centers. Their selection was based on daily mobility, calculated using official statistical data [68]. The threshold was determined according to the mean value of the indicator within regions (see Section 3.1).
- (3)
- An additional step is carried out to make a more precise distinction between rural nodes and suburban settlements. When the daily mobility value was close to the threshold value, and all other indicators were in an established interval for rural nodes, the observation was conducted using aerial photogrammetric imaging, i.e., orthophotography. This enables the recognition of the spatial integration directions of settlements with their surroundings. The used orthophotos have a resolution of 30 cm and are based on satellite imaging data from the period 2020–2021 obtained from the portal GeoSerbia (https://a3.geosrbija.rs/, accessed on 1 October 2022). Imaging was performed with a digital, multispectral aerial photogrammetric camera UltraCamXp in line with the INSPIRE directive and defined by the parameters of the SRB_ETRS89/UTM reference system. The mean square error of the positional coordinates is ±20 cm.
- (4)
- The final set of rural nodes for territory of Serbia has been established.
3.3.2. The Delimitation of the Rural Nodes’ Gravity Sphere
- (1)
- Identification of the potential physical obstacle for settlement linkages and flow functioning. For this purpose, aerial photogrammetric imaging—orthophotography—was used, which overlapped with the network of the recognized rural nodes, the existing road network, and the public amenities in settlements. We observed how these obstacles influenced the flow of daily circulation and settlement interlinkages regardless of the distance.
- (2)
- Accessibility has been used as a basis for the further delimitation of the gravity sphere. At the local scale, frequent corridors play an important role in territory division, physically separating the land parcels, while local and regional road networks affect remoteness and peripheralization. This was observed separately for regional units in order to take into account the specifics in terms of the type of settlement, infrastructural equipment, and terrain morphology, which significantly determine the accessibility of the centers. The accessibility analysis between settlements and municipal centers was performed using the Open Street Map (OSM—www.opensteetmap.org, accessed on 1 October 2022), car speed limits officially established for different road categories (local and regional), and the coordinates of the settlement centers [69]. This method is recognized as efficient for detection of rural areas with low-density road networks [70]. It is based on raster GIS network analysis performed in the software package QGIS 3.16.5. The accessibility zone of rural nodes was calculated based on the median values of the travel time to the municipal center as a referent threshold for the networking of rural nodes and the nearest settlements. The regional approach was applied for threshold determination. The zone threshold radius is set at a distance of 7.2 km for Central Serbia (BR, SESR, ŠWSR) and 6 km for the Vojvodina Region.
- (3)
- The population potential of the rural nodes’ gravity sphere was calculated according to their catchment area, which was presented as the total number of permanent residents in the gravitating settlements.
- (4)
- Mapping and classifying the two different types of rural nodes was performed: (i) those that integrate smaller or larger numbers of settlements within their gravity sphere; and (ii) those self-sufficient ones that do not have a gravity sphere but possess capacities to act as independent units.
4. Results
4.1. Structural Problems in Rural Areas of Serbia
- Difficulties caused by population shrinkage and fragmentation of the rural settlements network. Due to the continuous reduction of demographic reservoirs, the average size of rural settlements rapidly decreased from 951 in the post-war period to 639 inhabitants in 2011 [71]. Zones of sparsely populated areas (up to 20 people/km2) are peripherally located, showing a trend of expansion from 192 settlements in 1961 to 1584 settlements in 2011 [72]. Negative natural growth in rural areas has been recorded since 1989 [73]. The lowest values were registered in the rural areas of southeast Serbia. On the contrary, demographically vital settlements are concentrated along development axes.
- Declining production activities. Only 26.7% of the working contingent in rural areas is employed, while approx. 40% of the total population is inactive [74]. On average, 36.8% of the rural population is engaged in agriculture [75]. There is a process of intensive deagrarization. In the last inter-census period, it is most pronounced in the area of Southern and Eastern Serbia and most dynamic in the Region of Western Serbia and Šumadija [76]. Diversification of activities in settlements is low, with an average of 7.7% employed in secondary and tertiary activities in the place of residence [77].
- The devastation of the villages as a local community. A small number of rural settlements have satisfactory communal and spatial organization, except certain former towns and settlements with a tourist function. Almost 15.8% of buildings in rural areas do not have a regular water supply network, 7.7% of buildings are covered by a sewage network, and only 10.3% of buildings are equipped with electrical installations [78]. On the other hand, larger settlements and former boroughs are better equipped with public and social infrastructure facilities, while in rural settlements, there are usually no institutions (or only one). Almost 35.7% of the rural population is faced with some form of deprivation [79].
- The obsolete sub-municipal administrative system. The sub-municipal level of governance is slightly neglected in Serbia, as it is in many other countries, such as the Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Poland, Slovenia, etc. [48,49,52,80,81,82]. In the territory of Serbia, a large number of “mesna zajednica” are registered (4054, i.e., 23 local communities per municipality (Table 1)) [83], which corresponds approximately to the number of settlements. The significant fragmentation of the administrative sub-municipal system proved to be dysfunctional and inert. The excessive disunity of the local territory lacked mechanisms for organized governance, so this concept became fictitious.
4.2. Rural Nodes as a Core of Sub-Municipal Units
Rural Nodes through the Lens of Regional Disparities
5. Discussion
5.1. The Expected Impact of Applied Approach
- Territorial organization of Serbia should be supplemented at the sub-municipal level, represented by identified rural nodes. Since the applied approach is based on local specificities, it is crucial to implement a place-sensitive development policy and to incorporate it into spatial planning documents.
- Achieving a more balanced spatial organization through the network of the proposed rural nodes, which underpin the concept of functional networking, and striving toward sustainable, functional rural areas [89].
- Representative offices network formation in rural nodes for mediation between the local population and the local and state authorities with a broader range of activities. This should be treated as a symbiosis between the rural municipalities and the de-concentrated field offices of the central state [90]. Even more, it could be considered through multifunctionality with dual bases: self-government (independent competencies) and administration (delegated competencies) [49,90].
- Rural institutions reform through the implementation of an applied approach based on efficient and flexible local administration. The decentralization of public services is necessary to facilitate overall administrative processes that can benefit the local population through better mobilization of local resources, provision of appropriate information, better use and maintenance of services, use of local expertise, and local coordination [91,92].
- Sub-municipal units have been seen as an “amalgamation” tool with which to mitigate the municipalities’ insufficient population size. One solution with which to overcome size heterogeneity without major territorial and administrative reform is sub-decentralization [52], which could be fulfilled through the settlements networking into gravity spheres.
- The organization of local administrative units and its specialization in inter-municipal cooperation enabled the improvement of service provision through the introduction of soft municipal borders into the self-government organization in Serbia. This would enable strong spatial and functional connection between the settlements of neighboring municipalities, particularly when municipalities are too small or too weak to be able to manage local development [8].
5.2. Recognition of the Practical Relevance of Applied Approach
5.3. Limitations of the Suggested Methodological Framework
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Smith, B.C. Decentralization: The Territorial Dimension of the State; George Allen and Unwin: London, UK, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Maro, P. The impact of decentralization on spatial equity and rural development in Tanzania. World Dev. 1990, 18, 673–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faguet, J.P. Decentralization and Governance. World Dev. 2014, 53, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shakil Ahmad, M.; Abu Talib, N. Decentralization and Participatory Rural Development: A Literature Review. Contemp. Economics 2011, 5, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Pose, A.; Muštra, V. The economic returns of decentralisation: Government quality and the role of space. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2022, 54, 1604–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persson, B.; Kitagawa, F. Decentralisation and reconfiguration of multilevel research policy: The case of Sweden. In The Future of Local Self-Government: European Trends in Autonomy, Innovations and Central-Local Relations; Bergström, T., Franzke, J., Kuhlmann, S., Wayenberg, E., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2021; pp. 173–184. [Google Scholar]
- Hermelin, B.; Trygg, K. Decentralized development policy: A comparative study on local development interventions through municipalities in Sweden. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2021, 29, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Pose, A.; Wilkie, C. Strategies of gain and strategies of waste: What determines the success of development intervention? Prog. Plan. 2019, 133, 100423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Pose, A.; Ezcurra, R. Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A Cross Ctry. Analysis. J. Econ. Geogr. 2010, 10, 619–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davydenko, N.; Wasilewska, N.; Boiko, S.; Wasilewski, M. Development of rural areas in Ukraine in context of decentralization: An empirical study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Digdowiseiso, K.; Murshed, S.M.; Bergh, S.I. How Effective is fiscal decentralization for inequality reduction in developing countries? Sustainability 2022, 14, 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barca, F.; McCann, P.; Rodríguez-Pose, A. The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. J. Reg. Sci. 2012, 52, 134–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beeri, I.; Yuval, F. New Localism and Neutralizing Local Government: Has Anyone Bothered Asking the Public for Its Opinion? J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2015, 25, 623–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU Commision Supporting decentralisation, local governance and local development through a territorial approach. In Reference Document No 23. Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development European Commission; Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
- Martin, R. Geography and public policy: The case of the missing agenda. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2001, 25, 189–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Pose, A. Do institutions matter for regional development? Reg. Stud. 2013, 47, 1034–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, S.W.; Tang, B.; Liu, J.; Liang, M.; Ho, W.K.O. From “decentralization of governance” to “governance of decentralization”: Reassessing income inequality in periurban China. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2021, 53, 1473–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowland, A. Population as a determinant of local outcomes under decentralization: Illustration from small municipalities in Bolivia and Mexico. World Dev. 2001, 29, 1373–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crescenzi, R.; Giua, M. The EU Cohesion Policy in context: Does a bottom-up approach work in all regions? Environ. Plan. A 2016, 48, 2340–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huggins, R.; Clifton, N. Competitiveness, creativity, and place-based development. Environ. Plan. A 2011, 43, 1341–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumark, D. Place-based policies: Can we do better than enterprise zones? J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2020, 39, 836–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, A.N. Decentralization: A Way Forward for Rural Development; Policy Research Working Paper 1475; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Friedmahn, J.R. Regional Development Policy—A Case Study of Venezuela; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Perroux, F. Note sur la notion des poles de croissance. Econ. Appl. 1955, 7, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darwent, D.F. Growth poles and growth centers in regional planning—A review. Environ. Plan. 1969, 1, 5–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jovanović, M. Priručnik za Zagovaranje [Advocacy Handbook]; Nacionalna Koalicija za Decentralizaciju (NKD): Belgrade, Serbia; Medivest: Niš, Serbia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Illner, M. Decentralization Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS after 1989: Aims, Problems and Solutions. In Decentralization: Conditions for Success Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States; Bertucci, G., Ed.; Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Economics and Public Administration. United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 23–39. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/491935/files/Decentralization_Conditions_for_Success.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2023).
- Douglass, M. A Regional Network Strategy for Reciprocal Rural-Urban Linkages: An Agenda for Policy Research with Reference to Indonesia. Third World Plan. Rev. 1998, 20, 124–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christaller, W. Die Zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland: Eine Ökonomisch-Geographische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmäßigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit Städtischen Funktionen; Gustav Fisher, Jena: Darmstadt, Germany, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Lösch, A. Die Räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft; G. Fischer: Tokyo, Japan, 1944. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, E.A.J. The Organization of Space in Developing Countries; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Rodinelli, D. Applied Policy Analysis for Integrated Regional Development Planning in the Philippines. Third World Plan. Rev. 1979, 1, 151–178. [Google Scholar]
- Friedman, J.; Douglass, M. Agropolitan Development: Toward a New Strategy for Regional Planning in Asia. In Growth Poles Strategy and Regional Development Policy; Lo, F., Salih, K., Eds.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1978; pp. 163–192. [Google Scholar]
- Cloke, P.J. Key Settlements in Rural Areas; Routledge Revivals: London, UK, 1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cloke, P.J. An Introduction to Rural Settlement Planning; Routledge Revivals: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Hooks, G.; Lobao, L.; Tickamyer, A. Spatial Inequality and Rural Areas. In Routledge International Handbook of Rural Studies; Shucksmidt, M., Brown, D., Eds.; Oxon: Abingdon, UK; Taylor & Francis Group: Abingdon, UK; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 462–476. [Google Scholar]
- Rodwin, L. Choosing Regions for Development; Public Policy; Freidrich and Harris: Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1961; Volume XII. [Google Scholar]
- Philbrick, A.K. Principles of areal functional organization in regional human geography. Econ. Geogr. 1957, 33, 299–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, J.E. Major Functional Regions of the United States South. Southeast. Geogr. 1961, 7, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, B.; Garrison, W. The functional basis of the central place hierarchy. Econ. Geogr. 1958, 34, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, J.W.; Taylor, B.A. Rural isolation and the availability of hospital services. J. Rural Stud. 2003, 19, 363–372. [Google Scholar]
- Boudeville, J.-R. Problems of Regional Economic Planning; Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, UK, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, A.L.; Holmes, J. The delimitation of functional regions, nodal regions, and hierarchies by functional distance approach. J. Reg. Sci. 1971, 11, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milosavljević, B.; Jerinić, J. Status of Serbian Towns in the Light of Recent Efforts Towards a National Decentralisation Strategy. Croat. Comp. Public Adm. HKJU CCPA 2016, 16, 77–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klarić, M. Decentralization and Sub-Municipal Government in South-Eastern European Countries. Proc. Fac. Law Split 2021, 58, 1035–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CEMR. Decentralization at a crossroads. In Territorial Reforms in Europe in Times Of Crisis; The Council of European Municipalities and Regions: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hlepas, N.; Kersting, N.; Kuhlmann, S.; Swianiewicz, P.; Teles, F. Introduction: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier. In Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier; Hlepas, N., Kersting, N., Kuhlmann, S., Swianiewicz, P., Teles, F., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hlepas, N. Between Identity Politics and the Politics of Scale: Sub-municipal Governance in Greece. In Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier; Hlepas, N.N., Kersting, N., Kuhlmann, S., Swianiewicz, P., Teles, F., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 119–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lysek, J. The Little Town-Halls in the Czech Republic: An Unexploited Potential of Functional Decentralization. In Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier; Hlepas, N., Kersting, N., Kuhlmann, S., Swianiewicz, P., Teles, F., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 41–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro, C.; Pano, E. Rural and Urban Sub-municipal Governance in Spain: The Contrasting Worlds of Lilliput and Brobdingnag. In Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier; Hlepas, N., Kersting, N., Kuhlmann, S., Swianiewicz, P., Teles, F., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copus, C. Decentralisation, Democratisation and Delivery: English Sub-municipal Devolution. In Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier; Hlepas, N.N., Kersting, S., Kuhlmann, P., Swianiewicz Teles, F., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 69–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bačlija Brajnik, I.; Lavtar, R. Sub-Municipal Units in Slovenia: Experiences from the Past and Policy Advice for the Future. In Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier; Hlepas, N.N., Kersting, S., Kuhlmann, P., Swianiewicz Teles, F., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pusić, E. Intentions and Realities: Local Government in Yugoslavia. Public Adm. 1975, 53, 133–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bećirović, S.; Plojović, Š.; Ujkanović, E. Finansiranje mjesnih zajednica u Srbiji [Financing of local communities in Serbia]. Ekon. Izazovi 2012, 1, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čiplić, S.M. Decentralizacija Srbije i modeli regionalizma na pojedinim primerima [Decentralization in Serbia and some Examples of Regionalism Models]. Zb. Rad. Pravnog Fak. U Novom Sad 2015, 3, 1205–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Đorđević, S. Decentralizacija i jačanje kapaciteta lokalnih vlasti u Srbiji [Decentralization and capacity building of local authorities in Serbia]. Anal. Hrvat. Polit. Društva 2011, 7, 179–202. [Google Scholar]
- Stančetić, V. Decentralization as an Aspect of Governance Reform in Serbia. Croat. Comp. Public Adm. 2012, 12, 769–786. [Google Scholar]
- Vujošević, M.; Zeković, S.; Maričić, T. Post-socialist Transition and Spatial Development of Serbia. In Latest Trends on Urban Planning and Transportation; Jha, M., Ed.; World Scientific and Engineering ACAD and SOC: Athens, Greece, 2010; pp. 60–65. [Google Scholar]
- Drobnjaković, M. Razvojna Uloga Ruralnih Naselja Centralne Srbije [Developmental Role of Rural Settlements in Central Serbia]; Special issue 95; Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA: Beograd, Serbia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Maksin, M.; Tošić, D.; Krunić, N. Perspektive regionalnog prostornog planiranja u Srbiji [Perspectives of regional spatial planning in Serbia]. In Obnova Strateškog Prostornog Mišljenja, Istraživanja i Upravljanja u Srbiji; Petrić, J., Vujošević, M., Hadžić, M., Bajat, B., Eds.; Special issue 74; IAUS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2014; pp. 45–78. [Google Scholar]
- Stamenković, S.; Tošić, D.; Gatarić, D. Πoлuцeнmpuчнocm, Mpeжa Haceљa, Умpeжaвaњe Haceљa u Onшmuнa. Cmpameгuja Πpocmopнoг Paзвoja Penyблuкe Cpбuje [Polycentricity, Settlements Network, Networking of Settlements and Municipalities. Spatial Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia]; Agency for spatial planning of Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2009.
- Ilbery, B.W. Dorset agriculture: A classification of regional types. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 1981, 6, 214–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostrowicki, J. Types of agriculture in Britain in the light of the types of agriculture map of Europe. Geogr. Pol. 1989, 56, 135–155. [Google Scholar]
- Ballas, D.; Kalogeresis, T.; Labrianidis, L. A Comparative Study of Typologies for Rural Areas in Europe. Peripheries, Centres and Spatial Development in the New Europe. In Proceedings of the 43rd European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Jyvaskyla, Eindland, 27–30 August; European Congress of the Regional Science Association: Jyvaskyla, Findland, 2003. Available online: http://www.ersa.org/ersaconfs/ersa03/cdrom/papers/515.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2023).
- Ward, J.H. Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1963, 58, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drobnjaković, M.; Panić, M.; Stanojević, G.; Doljak, D.; Kokotović Kanazir, V. Detection of the Seasonally Activated Rural Areas. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drobnjaković, M.; Panić, M.; Đorđević, J. Traditional undeveloped municipalities in Serbia as a result of regional inequality. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016, 24, 926–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SORS. Census of population, households and apartments in 2011. In Daily Migration; Special Processing; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Drobnjaković, M.; Steinführer, A. Re-thinking rurality: Towards a new research approach and rural-urban spatial gradient establishment in Serbia. Appl. Geogr. 2024, 163, 103195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumeier, S. Regional distribution of ambulant nursing services in Germany: A GIS accessibility analysis. Raumforsch. Und Raumordn. 2016, 74, 339–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SORS. Census of population, households and apartments in 2011. In Comparative Review of the Number of Population 1948–2011; Book: 20; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Drobnjaković, M.; Spalević, A. Naselja Srbije [Settlements in Serbia]. In Geography of Serbia; Radovanović, M., Ed.; Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA: Belgrade, Serbia, 2017; pp. 566–613. [Google Scholar]
- SORS. Demographic statistics (vital statistics). In Special Processing; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- SORS. Census of population, households and apartments in 2011. In Sources of Livelihood; Book: 16; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- SORS. Census of population, households and apartments in 2011. In Occupations; Book: 14; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Mitrović, M. Sela u Srbiji [Villages in Serbia]; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- SORS. Census of population, households and apartments in 2011. In Economic Activity; Book: 7 Special Processing; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- SORS. Census of population, households and apartments in 2011. In Installations in the Dwellings; Book: 24; SORS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cvejić, S.; Babović, M.; Petrović, M.; Bogdanov, N.; Vuković, O. Socijalna Isključenost u Ruralnim Oblastima Srbije [Social Exclusion in Rural Areas of Serbia]; UNDP, Centar za inkluzivni razvoj, SeConS: Beograd, Serbia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Swianiewicz, P. Intra-Municipal Units in Urban Political Systems in Poland: Vicious Roundabout of marginalization or Dead-End Street? J. Public Adm. Policy 2014, 7, 173–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavares, A.; Teles, F. Deeply Rooted but Still Striving for a Role: The Portuguese Freguesias Under Reform. In Sub-Municipal Governance in Europe: Decentralization Beyond the Municipal Tier; Hlepas, N., Kersting, N., Kuhlmann, S., Swianiewicz, P., Teles, F., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 193–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowndess, V.; Sullivan, H. How Low Can You Go? Rationales and Challenges for Neighbourhood Governance. Public Adm. 2008, 86, 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SORS. Municipalities and Regions in the Republic of Serbia; Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia: Belgrade, Serbia, 2021.
- Drobnjaković, M.; Panić, M.; Kokotović Kanazir, V.; Javor, V. Spatial aspects of labor force formation: The interrelation of cohort turnover and net migration in Serbia. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 2022, 63, 543–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drobnjaković, M.; Stojanović, Ž.; Josipović, S. 2022 Rural Areas and Rural Economy in Serbia. In Geography of Serbia Nature, People, Economy; Manić, E., Nikitović, V., Djurović, P., Eds.; World Regional Geography Book Series; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany; Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Đorđević, J.; Panić, M. Underdeveloped areas: South Morava region. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijić SASA 2007, 56, 131–145. [Google Scholar]
- Panić, M.; Drobnjaković, M.; Stanojević, D.; Kokotović Kanazir, V.; Doljak, D. Nighttime lights-innovative approach for identification of temporal and spatial changes in population distribution. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijić SASA 2022, 72, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magdalenić, I.; Galjak, M. Ageing map of the Balkan Peninsula. J. Geogr. Inst. Jovan Cvijić SASA 2016, 66, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dijkstra, L.; Jacobs-Crisioni, C. Developing a definition of Functional Rural Areas in the EU. In JRC Working Papers on Territorial Modelling and Analysis, No 11/2023; European Commission: Ispra, Italy, 2023; JRC135599. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhlmann, S. Decentralisation in France: The »Jacobin« State Stuck between Continuity and Transformation. Croat. Comp. Public Adm. 2011, 2, 311–336. [Google Scholar]
- Litvack, J.; Ahmad, J.; Bird, R. Rethinking Decentralization in Developing Countries; World Bank Books: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarker, A.E. The illusion of decentralization: Evidence from Bangladesh. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2003, 16, 523–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lostrangio, C.; Ntabuhashe, M.; Pazos-Vidal, S. GRANULAR Knowledge Transfer Accelerator. One, None, Thousands Ruralities: A New Vision Based on Functionalities. Highlights’ report. Available online: https://www.ruralgranular.eu/publications/ (accessed on 10 May 2024).
- Mantino, F. Functional Rural Areas and Beyond: Other definitions. In GRANULAR Knowledge Transfer Accelerator. One, None, Thousands Ruralities: A New Vision Based on Functionalities; Highlights’ Report; Lostrangio, C., Ntabuhashe, M., Pazos-Vidal, S., Eds.; 2024; Available online: https://www.ruralgranular.eu/publications/ (accessed on 10 May 2024).
- Dijkstra, L. Developing a Definition of Functional Rural Areas. In GRANULAR Knowledge Transfer Accelerator. One, None, Thousands Ruralities: A New Vision Based on Functionalities; Highlights’ Report; Lostrangio, C., Ntabuhashe, M., Pazos-Vidal, S., Eds.; 2024; Available online: https://www.ruralgranular.eu/publications/ (accessed on 10 May 2024).
- Peteri, G. Mind Your Own Business: Community Governance in Rural Municipalities; LGI/Open Society Institute: Budapest, Hungary, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Berger, P.L.; Neuhaus, R.J. To Empower People: The Role of Mediating Structures in Public Policy; American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research: Washington, DC, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Jun, K.N.; Musso, J. Participatory Governance and the Spatial Representation of Neighborhood Issues. Urban Aff. Rev. 2013, 49, 71–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levi, M.; Stoker, L. Political Trust and Trustworthiness. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2000, 3, 475–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Asche, D.; Dierickx, G. The Decentralization of City Governments and the Restoration of Political Trust. Local Gov. Stud. 2007, 33, 25–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinović, A. Ustavno-pravni (politički) i upravno-pravni smisao decentralizacije [Constitutional-legal (political) and administrative-legal sense of decentralization]. Proc. Fac. Law Novi Sad I 2000 2001, 3, 184. [Google Scholar]
- Mitrović, M. Problemi razvoja srpskog sela i “oživljavanja” starog [Problems of the development of the Serbian countryside and the “revival” of the old one]. Proc. Matica Srp. Soc. Sci. 1996, 101, 73–87. [Google Scholar]
Vojvodina Region | Belgrade Region | ŠWS Region | SES Region | The Republic of Serbia | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
“Mesna zajednica” (Total) | 546 | 208 | 1564 | 1711 | 4054 |
Average number of “mesna zajednica” per municipality | 12.1 | 16 | 30.7 | 33.5 | 23.1 |
Min number of “mesna zajednica” per municipality | 3 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 1 |
Max number of “mesna zajednica” per municipality | 47 | 42 | 78 | 139 | 139 |
Vojvodina Region | Belgrade Region | ŠWS Region | SES Region | The Republic of Serbia | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rural nodes (total) | 34 | 12 | 111 | 85 | 242 |
Rural hubs per municipality | 0.8 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 1.5 |
Settlements number per gravity sphere | 126 | 35 | 805 | 720 | 1686 |
Average settlement number per rural node | 3.7 | 2.9 | 7.3 | 8.5 | 5.6 |
Min settlements per rural node | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Max settlements per rural node | 7 | 6 | 21 | 28 | 28 |
Total population in the gravity sphere | 144,268 | 42,333 | 287,204 | 187,443 | 661,248 |
The average population per gravity sphere | 4243.2 | 3527.7 | 2587.4 | 2205.2 | 3140.8 |
Min population per rural node | 377 | 439 | 235 | 175 | 175 |
Max population per rural node | 9443 | 9023 | 8695 | 5255 | 9443 |
Self-sufficient rural hubs (total) | 20 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 42 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Drobnjaković, M.; Panić, M. Introduction of the Approach for Reviving the Sub-Municipal Level as a Spatial Aspect of Decentralization in Serbia. Land 2024, 13, 752. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13060752
Drobnjaković M, Panić M. Introduction of the Approach for Reviving the Sub-Municipal Level as a Spatial Aspect of Decentralization in Serbia. Land. 2024; 13(6):752. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13060752
Chicago/Turabian StyleDrobnjaković, Marija, and Milena Panić. 2024. "Introduction of the Approach for Reviving the Sub-Municipal Level as a Spatial Aspect of Decentralization in Serbia" Land 13, no. 6: 752. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13060752
APA StyleDrobnjaković, M., & Panić, M. (2024). Introduction of the Approach for Reviving the Sub-Municipal Level as a Spatial Aspect of Decentralization in Serbia. Land, 13(6), 752. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13060752