Starting from a fundamental concept according to which development
is a multidimensional phenomenon, our analysis of regional development
levels, i.e. regional differences, was initially based on a wide range
of indicators. In the final stages of research a smaller number of
indicators of overall regional development levels was chosen.6 Among these are the
following: (1) original value of fixed assets in the social sector per
working-age inhabitant; (2) share of workers in working-age population
-representing "productive forces"; and (3) gross national product -GNP
per capita representing the effects of "productive forces."
The relative values of the indicators of economic development
levels of Yugoslav republics and provinces show that the differences
between the most developed region and the least developed region are
the largest with the indicator that represents the effects of
"productive forces"(per capita gross national product -GNP), and
narrowest with the indicator of the employment level (number of workers
in the social sector per 1000 working-age inhabitants: EMP). The range
of the development levels of the material element of the "productive
forces"(fixed assets per working-age inhabitant: CAP) are closer to the
range within the first indicator (GNP) than within the second one
(EMP). In addition to regional policy reasons, these trends can also be
explained by important theoretical and methodological reasons: the
so-called per capita indicators (such as the above CAP and GNP) have
been observed to vary more than the structural indicators (here: EMP).
In fact, this is a case of two different "qualities of time"in which
per capita and structural changes are taking place. Therefore these two
types of indicators are useless unless they are somehow standardized.
Here standardization has been done as a prerequisite for the factor and
cluster analyses. Individual features (indicators) were replaced by a
synthetical representation of three characteristics of the economic
development level of republics and provinces. Republics and provinces
were grouped on the basis of their relationship to this synthetically
expressed level of economic development. The relationship is measured
by the distance between the points which represent such objects (and
their groups or clusters) in a multidimensional space.
Regions were clustered together according to the degree of
similarity: those grouped first were the regions closest to one another
regardless of their economic development levels. The results of the
factor analysis clearly show both the level of development and the
classifying patterns of regions, on the basis of the value of the
points scored by regions on the main factors. The main factors (taken
together) explain the largest part of the variance, but not the entire
variance (in this case only a negligible percentage remained
unexplained). Cluster analysis encompassed and synthesized all the
information contained in the indicators. Thus the two methods are
supplementary and also mutually verifiable. Both can be used for the
classification of regions.
Matrices of initial distances reveal that the largest difference in
economic development levels was that between Slovenia and Croatia in
all the observed years. In fact, this difference divide all the
observed regions into two groups. One group consists of Slovenia only,
while the second group includes all the other republics and provinces.
At first sight the latter seems highly heterogenous: however, for most
years, the distance between Croatia (the most developed region in the
group) and Kosovo-Metohia (the least developed region in the group) was
narrower than between Croatia and Slovenia. This dichotomy does not
reflect the true complexity of the Yugoslav situation in terms of
regions. The results of the factor analysis (crosschecked by cluster
analysis) give a precise picture of the actual regional differences
over the 1950-1987 period: in 1950, 1952, 1955 and 1960 Yugoslav
regions fall into five groups, differently composed in each year. For
all other years (except 1970) the republics and provinces form four
groups, following the same pattern of grouping (again except 1970) with
changes occurring only in the positions of the members of the third
group, i.e. central Serbia (Serbia minus the autonomous provinces of
Vojvodina and Kosovo-Metohia), Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina and
Macedonia. In general, the position of certain regions on the
(under)development scale is quite stable: for instance, Slovenia,
Croatia and Kosovo-Metohia retained the same position throughout the
observed period. The least stable was Bosnia-Herzegovina which changed
its position six times over thirty seven years, and even changed its
development classification group for times.
The stable configuration of republics and provinces according to
their levels of economic development over the last twenty five years of
the existence of former Yugoslavia suggests a need to define four
distinct groups of regions. The name of the group should specify the
most important typical features of republics and provinces included.
Since many of these features are structural and since only the level of
economic development is discussed here the following names were chosen:
the most developed, developed, underdeveloped and the least developed
groups. During the 1965-1990 period the four groups of regions included
the following republics and provinces: (1) the most developed regions:
Slovenia; (2) developed regions: Croatia and Vojvodina; (3)
underdeveloped regions: central Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Macedonia; and (4) the least developed regions: Kosovo-Metohia.7