Papers of the Regional Science Association

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 75–86 | Cite as

Toward a system of social planning in Yugoslavia

  • Richard P. Burton
  • John W. Dyckman
  • Jack C. Fisher


Social Planning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Milos Minic, “O kritici sistema planiranja,”Nin, Beograd, 13 and 20 March, 1966; Marko Frkovic, “O sistemu drustvenog planiraja,”Radna i drustvena zajednica, Beograd, no. 1, 1966, pp. 711–726; and “Osnove sistema drustvenog planiranja (teze),”Jugoslovenski pregled, informacije i dokumenti, Beograd, br. 5/1966, pp. 175–186.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cornell, under contracts with the Ford Foundation and the U. S. Department of State, is administratively responsible for carrying out the project with the assistance of scholars from the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Chicago, and the University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The views of the nature of Yugoslav planning, of the appropriate character of social planning, and of possible research and operational procedures are necesarily our early impressions; in no sense are these official Yugoslav positions.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Within the Republic of Serbia, increased regionalization occurred with creation of the autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohija, which further stimulated the principle of local self-determination.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zakon o petogodisnjem planu; Razvitku Narodne privrede Federativne Narodne Republike Jugoslavije 1947–1951, Beograd, Izdanje Savezne Planske Komisije, 1947, p. 103.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Much has been written about the operating functions of workers' councils. See, in particular: B. Ward, “Workers' Management in Yugoslavia”Journal of Political Economy, vol. 65, 1957, pp. 373–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    For a detailed discussion of the communal system see: Jack C. Fisher,Yugoslavia: A Multinational State-Regional Difference and Administration Response, San Francisco, Chandler, 1966, pp. 145–154.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Many of the problems in this period are discussed in: Rudolf Bicanic,Economics of Socialism in Yugoslavia—Transition to the Third Stage: The Reform, draft manuscript.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drustveni Plan razvoja Jugoslavije od 1966 do 1970 godine, Zagreb, Narodna Novina, 1966, p. 87. “After the Reform working organizations participated over 64% in the National Income compared to 50% before the Reform”,ibid,Drustveni Plan razvoja Jugoslavije od 1966 do 1970 godine, Zagreb, Narodna Novina, p. 14.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Report written by: Marko Frkovic [head of the Sector of Social Economic System in the Federal Institute of Economic Planning], edited by the FIEP, Belgrade, May 28, 1966.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid, ch. 9. Report written by: Marko Frkovic [head of the Sector of Social Economic System in the Federal Institute of Economic Planning], edited by the FIEP, Belgrade, May 28, 1966.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ibid. Report written by: Marko Frkovic [head of the Sector of Social Economic System in the Federal Institute of Economic Planning], edited by the FIEP, Belgrade, May 28, 1966.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    In this section, appreciation is expressed for the helpful suggestions of V. Frankovic and M. Dolenc of the Institute of Economic Research, Ljubljana.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. A. Fox and E. Thorbecke, “Specification of Structures and Data Requirements in Policy Models”, inQuantitative Planning of Economic Policy, Washington, Brookings, 1965, p. 84.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    This difficulty affects the construction of all aggregate regional models whether they are of cross-sectional variety (economic base or regional and interregional input-output) or those presently under discussion whose relationships are conventionally subject to dynamic specification and estimation.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    For a demonstration of the use of surrogate variables in a regional econometric model, see: R. Burton and J. Dyckman, “The Role of Defense Expenditures in California Development Plan Forecasts”,Western Economic Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, March, 1965, pp. 133–141.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trygve Haavelmo,A Study in the Theory of Economic Evolution, Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1964, p. 111, was concerned some time ago with the impact of interregional migration on regional growth. More recently, Charles M. Tiebout and David B. Houston have been exploring its relevance to the urban consumption function.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    The target variables of conventional econometric planning models are employment, income, prices, the balance of payments, etc., while the instrument variables by which the target levels are to be attained consist of government expenditures, subsidies, monetary policy, taxes and transfers, and so on. Tinbergen has demonstrated how a series of controlled variables (instruments) might be used to achieve desired levels of non-controlled variables (targets) within the framework of a linear econometric model. Others, notably Theil, have suggested modifications of this pioneering work which would explicitly introduce planner's (symmetrical quadratic) preference functions.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    We were somewhat concerned that the Project could much more easily adopt the wellworn “shopping list” approach in which loosely coordinated, random studies of the region were commissionedad hoc. Our building block proposal does encourage individual studies, especially in the first stages of the work program, but insists upon their elasticity and relevance at some point to our central purpose.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Leontief, address to Economic Development Administration summer seminar, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass., August, 1966.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Devising the ways and means of disaggregating economic systems is by no means unheard-of practice within planning circles. What is surprising, however, is that so little effort has gone into shaping the theory and construction of agregate spatial models.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frkovic,op. cit. head of the Sector of Social Economic System in the Federal Institute of Economic Planning], edited by the FIEP, Belgrade, May 28, 1966.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The intervention of planning is a political act which implies some ruling public purposes. As Tinbergen says, “...planning will be defined as the preparation for political action, that is, action by public authorities.Economic planning then refers to the economic activities implied ...” (J. Tinbergen, “International Economic Planning”,Daedalus, Spring, 1966, p. 530.) It is not necessary to give up the goal of rationality to include some non-economic objectives, but it may be necessary to expand traditional notions of economic rationality to include additional system ends. As the Yugoslavs move to a condition of greater economic affluence, these values may be expected to enter increasingly into the social planning system. The French progression in emphasis from the First Plan to the Fourth Plan illustrates this extension of aims. “The emphasis placed on providing social equipment, improving the living standard of less-favored groups and developing a better balance between the different regions is one of the principal features of the Fourth Plan.” (France and Economic Planning, Ambassade de France, Service de Presse et d'Information, April, 1963, p. 25.) Is it rational to attempt to anticipate this drift and to make the ultimate realization of more complex objectives easier?Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Proponents of programs for development of the southern regions, for example, feel that development of the infrastructure of those regions was inadequate to allow them to contribute effectively to national and international economies, even during the period of the General Investment Fund. Thus one writer asserts that “During the period (1953–1960) the construction of infrastructure projects in the underdeveloped territories was of insufficient proportions, which hindered their linking up with the rest of the country, just as it did the linking up with the economic centres inside the territories themselves. Along with other adverse factors this meant that investment results were below those attainable in conditions of optimum infrastructure.” (V. Pejovski Yugoslav Investment Policy,Medjunarodna Politica [Beograd] 1965, no. 3, p. 34.) This is a proposition, however, which could be tested only over a long period, if at all.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Regional Science Association 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard P. Burton
  • John W. Dyckman
  • Jack C. Fisher

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations