PL EN


2019 | 47(4) | 47-71
Article title

Comparative analysis of economic and social policy development in Croatia and Slovenia

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia have shared a common political and economic history for centuries. Slovenia was more developed but was relatively closely trailed by Croatia in basic economic and social indicators as recently as the late 1980s. In the intervening three decades, the economic and social inequalities between Croatia and Slovenia have significantly increased and these two countries are in many ways at opposite ends of the spectrum among the members of the EU. This text acknowledges the traditional explanations of this result—i.e. the negative effect of the Homeland War in Croatia between 1991 and 1995 its human and economic sacrifices which were enormous compared to the very brief and limited conflict in Slovenia; and that Slovenia became a full member of the EU in 2004, whereas Croatia could reap the benefits of EU membership since only 2013. However, this text moves beyond these two arguments and proposes that there are additional explanatory variables for divergent tendencies in economic and social development. It analyses the institutional positions in Croatia and Slovenia (comparing them to the Visegrád countries), the growth models in Slovenia andbCroatia, and the way in which social policy was delivered since the transition in Slovenia and Croatia in order to show that a significant part of the explanation for these downward divergent trendsbin Croatia lies within the way these two main policies were prepared and implemented in those two countries.
PL
Republika Chorwacji i Republika Słowenii od stuleci mają wspólną historię polityczną ibgospodarczą. Historycznie Słowenia była bardziej rozwinięta, ale Chorwacja pod koniec lat osiemdziesiątych XX w. zbliżyła się do Chorwacji pod względem podstawowych wskaźników ekonomicznych i społecznych. W ciągu kolejnych trzech dekad nierówności gospodarcze i społeczne między Chorwacją a Słowenią znacznie wzrosły i obecnie te dwa kraje znajdują się pod wieloma względami na przeciwległych krańcach wśród członków UE. Artykuł potwierdza klasyczne wyjaśnienia tego stanu, wskazując m.in. na negatywny wpływ wojny domowej w Chorwacji w latach 1991–1995 oraz członkostwo Słowenii w UEbod 2004br., podczas gdy Chorwacja może czerpać korzyści z członkostwa w UE dopiero od 2013 r. Artykuł wykracza jednak poza te dwa argumenty i proponuje dodatkowe zmienne wyjaśniające dla rozbieżnych tendencji w sferze gospodarczej i społecznej. Analizuje specyfikę instytucjonalną Chorwacji i Słowenii (porównując je z krajami wyszehradzkimi), modele wzrostu oraz sposób realizacji polityki społecznej od czasu transformacji w obu tych krajach. Dowodzi, że za rozbieżne tendencje w Chorwacji i Słowenii odpo wiada w dużym stopniu sposób przygotowania i wdrożenia polityki gospodarczej ibspołecznej wbtych dwóch krajach.
Contributors
author
  • Zagreb University Faculty of Law
author
  • Libertas International University
References
  • Babić, Z. (2008). Redistribucijski ucina sustava socijalnih transfera u Hrvatskoj. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 15(2): 151-171.
  • Becker, U. (2007). Open systemness and contested reference frames and change. A refor- mulation of the varieties of capitalism theory. Socio-Economic Review, 5(2): 261-286.
  • Bićanić, I., Franicević, V. (2005). The Challenges of Real and Subjective Poverty and the Growth of Inequality in the Economies of South Eastern Europe in Transition. Finan¬cial Theory and Practice, 29(1): 13-16.
  • Bolt, J., Inklaar, R., de Jong, H., van Zanden, J. L. (2018). Rebasing ‘Maddison': new income comparisons and the shape of long-run economic development. GGDC Research Memorandum, 174.
  • Cok, M., Urban, I., Verbic, M. (2013). Income redistribution through taxes and social bene- fits: the case of Slovenia and Croatia. MPRA working paper 38918. University Library Munich.
  • Cvijanović, V., Redzepagić, D. (2011). From political capitalism to clientelist capitalism? The case of Croatia. Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci: casopis za eko- nomsku teoriju i praksu, 29(2): 355-372.
  • Druzić, G. (2009). Croatian Economic Development and EU: Potential and Perspecti- ves. Zagreb: Skolska knjiga.
  • European Commission. (2014). Investment for jobs and growth. Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities. Sixth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
  • European Parliament (2009). Active Inclusion of People Excluded from the Labour Market, 2008/2335(INI). Brussels: European Parliament.
  • Eurostat (2019). Database. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Accessed: 21.9.2019
  • Franicević, V (2002). Politicka i moralna ekonomija u prvom desetljeću tranzicije u Hrvat- skoj. Politicka misao, 39(1): 3-34.
  • Hall, P. A., Gingerich, D. W. (2009). Varieties of capitalism and institutional comple- mentarities in the political economy: An empirical analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 39(3): 449-482.
  • Hall, P. A., Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism. Oxford University Press.
  • Hanzek, M., & Gregorcić M. (2001). Human Development Report Slovenia 2000-2001. Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, Ljubljana. Available at: http:// www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/projekti/hdr2000.pdf
  • Holzner, M., Leitner, S. (2008). Economic Inequality in Central, East and Southeast Europe. wiiw Balkan Observatory Working Papers 74, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
  • IMF (2019). World Economic Outlook database, April 2019. https://www.imf.org/external/ pubs/ft/weo/2019/01/weodata/index.aspx. Accessed 1.10.2019
  • Ivanković, Z. (2017). Slucaj Agrokor: Privatizacija i crony kapitalizam. Zagreb: Jesenski i Turk.
  • Kump, N., Stropnik, N. (2009). Reducing and preventing child poverty and social exclusion in Slovenia—Lessons learned from transition countries. Report for UNICEF. Ljubljana: Institute for Economic Research.
  • Lucev, J., Babić, Z. (2013). Tipovi kapitalizma, ekspanzija neoliberalizma i socijalni ucinci u baltickim zemljama, Sloveniji i Hrvatskoj: komparativni pristup. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 20(1): 1-20.
  • Maddison Project (2018). Maddison Project Database 2018. https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/ historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2018. Accessed: 15.11.2019
  • Mencinger, J. (2002). The benefits of ignoring IMF. Ekonomski pregled, 53(3-4): 391-403. Avialble at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=
  • Milanovic, Branko, 1998, Income, Inequality and Poverty during the Transition from Planned to Market Economy. The World Bank, Washington D.C.
  • Nelson, K. (2012). Counteracting material deprivation: The role of social assistance in Europe, Journal of European Social Policy, 22 (2): 148-163.
  • Nolke, A. (2016). Economic causes of the Eurozone crisis: the analytical contribution of Comparative Capitalism. Socio-Economic Review, 14(1): 141-161.
  • Nolke, A. (2019). In Search of Institutional Complementarities: Comparative Capitalism and Economic Policy Reform, Journal of Economic Policy Reform: 1-8.
  • North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 97-112.
  • Petak, Z. (2019). Policy-Making Context and Challenges of Governance in Croatia. In: Z. Petak, K. Kotarski (eds), Policy-Making at the European Periphery. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Roncević, B. (2001). Socijalna situacija i socijalne reforme u Sloveniji. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 8(2): 131-157.
  • Simić Banović, R. (2019). Uhljeb—a post-socialist homo croaticus: a personification of the economy of favours in Croatia? Post-Communist Economies, 31(3): 279-300.
  • Simoncić-Bobetko, Z. (2005). Industrija Hrvatske 1918. do 1941. godine. Zagreb: AGM.
  • Stanovnik, T., Stropnik N. (1998). Impact of Social Transfers on Poverty and Income Ine- quality in Slovenia: A Comparison between the Pre-Transition and the Post-Transition Period. Ljubljana: Institute for Economic Research.
  • Streeck, W. (2010). Institutions in History: Bringing Capitalism Back in. In: G. Morgan, et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Institutional Analysis. Oxford: OUP.
  • Stropnik, N. (2010). Policy overview and policy impact analysis—A case study: Slovenia. In: Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union. Volume IV: Country case studies. Report prepared for the DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Oppor- tunities (Unit E.2) of the European Commission. Budapest: TARKI.
  • Stropnik, N., Stanovnik T. (2002). Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion—Volume 2, A Case Study of Slovenia. Budapest: International Labour Office.
  • Stubbs, P., Zrinscak, S. (2015). Citizenship and social welfare in Croatia: Clientelism and the limits of ‘Europeanisation'. European Politics and Society, 16(3): 395-410.
  • Sućur, Z. (2005). Siromaśtvo i socijalni transferi u Hrvatskoj. Financijska teorija ipraksa, 29(1): 37-58.
  • Thijs, N., Hammerschmid, G., Palaric, E. (2018). A comparatiue overview of public admi- nistration characteristics and performance in EU28. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=19208&langI- d=en. Accessed 15.11.2019
  • Visser, J. (2019). ICTWSS: Database on Institutional Characteristics of Trade Unions, Wage Setting, State Intervention and Social Pacts in 55 countries between 1960 and 2018. http:// uva-aias.net/en/ictwss. Accessed 13.11.2019
  • Vojnić, D. (2013). Ekonomija i politika tranzicije—pola stoljeća povijesti reforme socija- lizma i tranzicije 1962.-2012. u svjetlu novije ekonomske povijesti. Rad HAZU: Razred za drustuene znanosti, (50): 153-186.
  • World Bank (2019). Data Bank. https://databank.worldbank.org/. Accessed: 1.10.2019
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-03faf8af-8203-40b8-a64d-14b3a4e18542
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.