This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Goldsmith, Saunders and van der Weide, “A Summary Survey of National Wealth,”Income and Wealth Series, VIII, London, 1959.
Volodarski, “Pereocenka Osnovnih fondov narodnog hozjaistva SSSR,”Planovoe Hozjaistvo, Moscow, No. 10, 1960.
Gaathon, “Capital Stock, Employment and Output in Israel, 1950–1959,” Bank of Israel, Research Department,Special Studies, No. 1, prepublication, Jerusalem, 1961.
“The National Wealth of Yugoslavia at the End of 1953,”Income and Wealth series, VIII, London, 1959.
For the purpose of regional wealth analysis it seems preferable to break down the territory of Serbia into Serbia proper, Voyvodina, and Kosovo and Metohiya.
Gini,L'ammontare e la composizione della ricchezza delle nazioni, Torino, 1914.
In his chapter titled “La ripartizione territoriale della ricchezza” Professor Gini explicitly says: “I dati da cui oggi si dispone non permettono tale valutzioni.” Gini,op. cit, For the purpose of regional wealth analysis it seems preferable to break down the territory of Serbia into Serbia proper, Voyvodina, and Kosovo and Metohiya. p. 242.
Fellner, “Die Verteilung des Volksvermögen und Volkseinkommens der Lander der Ungarischen Heiligen Krone zwischen den heutigen Ungarn und den Successionsstaaten,”Metron, vol. III, No. 2, Ferrara, 1923.
In Fellner's wealth breakdown, the territory of the city Rijeka (incl. surroundings) is shown separately, as it was under Italian sovereignty in the inter-war period. In Table 1, I added these items to Fellner's estimates of “share of Yugoslavia”.
The territorial coverage of the regions Voyvodina and Croatia in 1953 is not the same as in Fellner's estimate. The latter does not include Dalmatia and Istria on the one hand, and covers the small Slovenian region Prekomurje on the other. But these differences in the territorial coverage are not likely to affect substantially the per capita amount of domestic tangible wealth for the envisaged territories as a whole. Concerning the above figure of 607 thousand dinars of domestic tangible wealth per head it must be noted that fixed assets are taken into account at net value rather than at gross value, in conformity with Fellner's approach.
“National Product and Fixed Assets in the Territory of Yugoslavia, 1909–1959,”Income and Wealth Series, IX, Bowes and Bowes, London, 1961.
The rise in the period under consideration would be steeper if fixed assets in the domestic tangible wealth total were computed on a gross rather than on a net basis.
Series of these estimates were published by Viati in Padova in the 1920's. (I am indebted to Professor Livio Livi, Florence, for supplying information on this study.)
Schindler, “Das Volkvermögen Vorarlbergs,”Metrons Bibliothek, Seris, B, No. 11.
Uratnik, “Pogledi na druzabno in gospodarsko strukturo Slovenije” (A review of the social and economic structure of Slovenia) published inSlovenske Poti, Series VII, Ljubljana, 1933.
Statistische en econometrische onderzoekingen, No. 4, 1953. The Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics, The Hague, 1953.
K. Bjerke, “Saving, Capital Gain and Composition of Personal Wealth in Copenhagen in 1949,” Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Statistics, vol 22, No. 2, Oxford, 1960.
A very brief methodological survey is also given in this paper (Notes to Table I in Appendix).
“The National Wealth of Yugoslavia at the End of 1953”,op. cit., pp. 175–198.
Includes fixed assets (completed and uncompleted), business inventories, consumers' stocks and standing timber (excluding natural forests). Net foreign assets are not included.
See footnote 5 For the purpose of regional wealth analysis it seems preferable to break down the territory of Serbia into Serbia proper, Voyvodina, and Kosovo and Metohiya.
A part of Montenegro, however, has never been under Ottoman rule.
In this context the term generation is used to indicate the mean interval between two successive generations.
Comsumers' durables and semidurables are valued in all tables throughout this paper at market prices for secondhand goods if not otherwise stated.
See Table I. 1 in the Appendix.
This comparison between Belgrade and Zagreb is confined to fixed assets; as business stocks may display considerable year-to-year fluctuations and data on consumers' stocks represent very crude estimates, these are not covered.
Estimates of physical assets in the territory of communes are based on the end of 1959 data, because these estimates were elaborated at a later stage than the above wealth estimates for national regions and urban settlements.
The data for the level of fixed assets refer to the end of 1959 estimates. They are computed on the basis of 1953 prices for capital goods.
See footnote 24. Comsumers' durables and semidurables are valued in all tables throughout this paper at market prices for secondhand goods if not otherwise stated.
Owing to the facts, mentioned in footnote 26, it is preferable to confine the comparison of the level of the stock of physical assets to fixed assets only.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vinski, I. Regional distribution of national wealth in Yugoslavia. Papers of the Regional Science Association 8, 127–168 (1962). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01948428
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01948428