A good illustration of this is the results of a quantitative
analysis of the extent to which the objective of interregional equality
was achieved. Unlike Williamson,15 whose international comparison
of regional disparities was made in terms of per capita GNP only, here
we have included employment per 1000 working-age inhabitants and fixed
assets per working-age inhabitant -with V1 and V2 being measures of
relative regional differences, and M a measure of absolute regional
differences. Moreover, V1 is a weighted measure of regional
differences, since squares of the deviations in regional indicator
values and indicator values for Yugoslavia are weighted by the share of
working-age population or total population in the corresponding
aggregate at the Yugoslav level. The measure of absolute differences is
also a weighted quantity, with the weights being the same as in the
calculation of V1. In order to determine the pattern of regional
differences over the observed period (1952-1990) each series of
obtained values was regressed with relation to time, i.e. the trend
functions were estimated. For each series of values of regional
differences we specified and estimated three basic functional
(co)relations, with time as an independent variable: linear, log-linear
and semilogarithmic. The criterion by which a trend function for each
series of values of the dependent variable was chosen was the
statistical significance of the estimated parameter ß and the
statistical significance of the estimated function measured by the
coefficient of determination.
The trend of regional differences in employment per 1000
working-age inhabitants in terms of the V1 measure shows several
subperiods. From 1952 to 1961 regional differences in employment
fluctuated following a downward trend. From 1961 to 1964 they were on
the increase, then from 1964 to 1972 they fluctuated again but followed
no marked downward or upward trend. From 1972 to 1979 a constant growth
in regional differences was observed, and from 1979 to the end of the
observed period (1990) they decreased each year. It is this continuous
decline in regional differences over the last nine years that mostly
determined the downward trend for the whole period. From the type of
trend function (a semilogarithmic one) it can be inferred that relative
regional differences in employment per 1000 working-age inhabitants
measured by V1 were rapidly decreased over the whole observed period
(1952-1990). A similar trend of relative regional differences was
obtained for the V2 indicator. There is also a significant decrease in
relative regional differences. Here again, the type of trend function
shows an accelerated decline in relative regional differences. However,
the estimated value of coefficient ß in this function is smaller than
in the case of the V1 indicator, as a logical result of the fact that
the V1 indicator was calculated by weighting the squares of deviation.
The trend of relative regional differences in the value of fixed
assets per working-age inhabitant measured by both indicators (V1 and
V2) clearly shows two subperiods. In terms of V1, relative regional
differences decreased over the first subperiod (1952-1971), but then
increased over the second subperiod (1971-1988). The trend of relative
regional differences over the first subperiod is best described by the
semilogarithmic trend function, which means that these decreased at a
diminishing rate. The trend of regional differences over the second
period is best described by a linear trend function, which means that
differences increased at a constant rate ß. In terms of V2, however, as
early as 1967 the trend of relative regional differences in the value
of fixed assets reversed. They had decreased up to this year, and then
started to increase. The trend of relative regional differences over
the first subperiod (1952-1967) is best represented by a linear trend
function, which suggests that differences decreased at a constant rate
ß. A linear trend is also characteristic for the regional differences
over the second subperiod (1967-1990), but the value of the estimated
parameter ß is positive, which means that differences widened by a
constant coefficient. But when the whole period is considered in terms
of both indicators (V1 and V2) the downward trend of relative regional
differences per working-age inhabitant prevails. In both cases trends
are best depicted by the semilogarithmic trend function, which
indicates that over time regional differences decreased at a
diminishing rate.
Relative regional differences in GNP per capita clearly follow an
upward trend, either measured by V1 or V2. In both cases this trend is
best described by the semilogarithmic trend function with the
logarithmically computed dependent variable. This means that relative
regional differences in per capita GNP widened at an increasing rate.
In regard to absolute regional differences in employment per 1000
working-age inhabitants there are four subperiods with different
tendencies. During the 1952-1964 subperiod absolute differences
increased, during the 1964-1971 period they decreased, then increased
again in the 1971-1979 period. Finally, from 1979 to 1990 they
diminished year by year. When the whole (1952-1990) period is
considered, absolute differences in terms of this indicator clearly
demonstrate a downward tendency. This is confirmed by the estimated
function of the semilogarithmic trend, according to which absolute
regional differences in employment per 1000 working-age inhabitants
diminished at an increasing rate.
However, absolute regional differences in the value of fixed assets
per working-age inhabitant display no common tendency for the observed
period as a whole (1952-1990). This is confirmed by an insignificant
value of a parameter estimated against time in all trend functions
which were estimated for the entire period. There are four subperiods.
First, from 1952 to 1954, when differences grew at a constant
coefficient; second, from 1954 do 1962, when differences declined at a
constant coefficient; third, from 1962 to 1974, when the absolute
differences between regions increased; and fourth, from 1974 to 1990,
when absolute differences in the value of fixed assets per working-age
inhabitant increased again, but faster than in the preceding subperiod.
In terms of per capita GNP as an absolute indicator,
regional differences have the same trend as in the case of the V1 and
V2 indicators. Namely, absolute regional differences also display an
upward tendency over the whole period (1952-1990). Judging by the form
of the trend function that best describes the tendencies in these
absolute differences, the latter rapidly increased.
Results of the analysis show that both relative and absolute
regional differences in employment and fixed assets declined during the
observed period. Moreover, the decline of differences in employment was
steep, while in fixed assets it was gradual. In the last decade,
however, both absolute and relative differences between regions in
terms of fixed assets increased. In terms of GNP, both relative and
absolute differences rapidly widened during the entire period observed.