, 1/2013

25

332.021.8(497.11):061.1EU doi:10.5937/zrpfns47-3769

,

1

: -

. . - , . - , , . 2001. 2012. - -. . - . - . . -. . - . - - . , - , , .

1 : - ( ), .

, (. 2545)

26

: , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , - , , , .

I -

. - - . - , - 2.

- , - , . .

II

-

. 2010. 20113., -4 , -

2 2008. 32, 668 , 2012. 30 .

3 3,5% 2010. 2010. 1,0%, 2011 1,6%. -, 28.02. 2013.

4 : . - `` `` - . , - , , . - `` `` ,

, 1/2013

27

2012. 5. , - , 2012. 12,2%, - 6.

-. 2000. - 25 27%7. -. . .

, , . 2001. 20128. - 1999, . 20029.

9,402 25, 721 - , 12,2 34 , 58,7 85,6%, 10. - . .

5 : I, -2,3%, II- -0,6%, III 2,5%, IV 1,5%. - , . .

6 -, .

7 , . , , .

, . . , , , .

8 - `` ``.

9 2002. 13,3%.

10 : , , 2013.

, (. 2545)

28

50%, - .11

- 5 , . - 6,5 7,5 , - 12. - .

2008. 29,2% 60% -13, 1,7% 2008, 4,5- 5% - 201214. - 3%, - 15.

III -

-. - , . . . -

11 , .

12 . . Popov, Djordje, Die Integration der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien in die Weltwirtschaft nach Aufhebung der Sank-tionen des Sicherheitsrates der Vereinten Nationen, Universitt Bremen, Bremen, Institut fr Weltwirtschaft und internationales Management, 1996; The Importance of Foreign Capital for Economic Stability of Serbia, Transition Studies Review, Vol. 17, 2010, No.4, . 777-789; -, , , : - , , 2010, . 64-80; , , , . , 2011; , , -, , . 3/2012, . 19-39. .

13 100%, . 88%, .

14 . 15 . . -

8, 6%, , .

, 1/2013

29

, , .

, - . , . - 7000 200 . - , , , . -. - .16 - 17 18. 19.

, . 2013, . - 20. , ,

16 . Dj. Popov, Privatization and Foreign Investment- The Case of Serbia and Montenegro, Transition Studies Review, Vol. 11, Nr. 11, Nr. 3, 2004, . 196- 212.

17 a , . - . 56 : `` (. ..), -, . - .``(. ..). - .

18 . , 14. . , . 38/2001, . 2.

19 `` , , 31. 2008. ``. ",. 38/2001, 18/2003, 45/2005 123/2007, 14.

20 , , 100% , 60% .

, (. 2545)

30

. - - .

. , - . - , - , -.

oe , - -21. - , - 22 , . - , - 23.

26%

21 - 1638 , 777 , 537 . 276.000, - 60%.

22 , ````, ````, ````, ````, , .

23 - . - , .

, 1/2013

31

24. - 2.3 25. - , . , - , , 26, 27.

, - . .

IV -

, - . .

- .

, -: -

24 595 . 25 3. 2013. 26 ,

-. . . . ```` .

27 : , , , , , , , 27 , , , , , -, , , , , , - , , . 30.000 . 1990. - 245.000 , 2007. 13.842, 57.000: 8.000, 25.000: 3.000, .

, (. 2545)

32

. , - , , -, - - .

, , . . , - , - .

- 2002.- 2012. - - . , -, 12-15 - , - , .

- , - 28. 1.

1. 27 ha % 5 1.034.890 71,47 5-20 261.378 18,05 20- 50 82.469 5,69 50 69.123 4.77 1.447.860 100,00 : Eurostat: Agriculture .

.

28 . - 920 . 3,5% 100 .

, 1/2013

33

, - 29 30: , , - .

, , , - , , , , , , - , . - - , .

- . 31. ( 2004, 2007. 2010.) 32 - 200- 500 - 10.000 .

, -

29 . , - .

30 - , . `` `` .

31 10.000 200 2.000.000 . .

32 - . ``- ``, , ```` ( -), `` `` .

, (. 2545)

34

. - 33 , 21 . . , 34.

- , - . - . - : - -. , . - .

, , - . 35, -. 700 36. 700

33 ```` .

34 -, . - .

35 (`` - ``, `` ``, `` ``, `` ``, . - ```` , .

36 . , - .

, 1/2013

35

. .

-, . , -. 700 200 - 37. - . - . - - ?

. .38 2001.-2003. ````39 `` - , .``40

. - 41

37 78,3% 5 . 5 30,8% , 56,8% 31,3% .

38 `` , - . (. . .). 1. , . , . 49/92. .

39 `` .`` , ``,`` , .

40 - .

41 1974. - - . .

, (. 2545)

36

`` `` . `` - ``42 .

1974. , , - 43, . 2001. 44.

- - . , , 45. - .

- , . - , ao - - .

? - , -

42 , `` - ``, , , , .

43 1996. , - .

44 , - . .

45 Eurostata 15 5 57,5% . 5 10 - 12,4%, 10 2 10,3%. 20 100 5% . 100 3,5% .

, 1/2013

37

- . - - , , 46.

- , ```` - .

. - . . - . - 47.

, , 48. - - , . -

46 , - , . - , - , . . . , . , - .

47 . .

48 , 300 . - .

, (. 2545)

38

-, .

- , . - - , .

. , , . - 49.

- , , -. 2010. - , - 2014. - - . - 2017.

, , - -, - 2 63 -.

49 `` , (. ..) . - (. . .) - - ``. 63, 2. .

, 1/2013

39

, - .

-, , 2008. . , .

V

50. . 51 5 -. 7052 - , 50 . , - , 53. - . , , , , . 2.

50 :`` ``, , .3/2012, . 19-38.

51 Global Financial Integrity. 52 , , -

, . 53 : - - , -

- -

-

, (. 2545)

40

- . - - 54.

-, : - , , 7 - . Global Financial Integrity - - .

2.

20012010. .

: Global Financial Integrity -

55 - , . - - . - , - , -

54 2. .

55 , - `` `` 1978.

1. 2. 5. 16. 17. 21. 25.

274,170 47,561 15.169 5.144 4.077 3.510 2.896

36. 38. 39. 42. 50. 55. 57.

1.670 1.622 1.525 1.442 1.042 884 836

, 1/2013

41

. - , .

, - . 5 , - 6-7 56. -, , - 57.

-, 58. 63. 5 - , 59, .

VI

, - , . (2008.-2012.)

56 . 57

, .

58 - .

59 `` 62 , - - , (. ..) - ``.

, (. 2545)

42

.60 - - . , 61.

- `` - ....``62 - , .

- . , , -, 63.

- , 64, . 65. - .

- -

60 2011. 209 , 114 , 149 .

61 : `` - ``. Bojan Bugaric, Law and Deve-lopment in Central and Eastern Europe: Neoliberal Developmental State and its Problems, Jerusa-lem Papers in Regulation& Governance, Working Paper, No. 50, .1.

62 : Bojan Bugaric, . ., .1. 63

. .

64 `` , .`` Kattel Surna, . : Bugaric, . . . 20.

130 800 . .

65 : Bugaric, . . . 3.

, 1/2013

43

. . , , - 66 -67.

- - . , , 68.

VII e 2008. -

. , , .

`` `` , - perpetu- mobile

66 1994- 1997. `` `` . . -, . - , , . - - 1989.-2010. : Tadeusz Kowalik, From Solida-rity to Sellout- The Restoration of Capitalism in Poland, Monthly Review Press, 2012.

67 - - .

68 , , .

, (. 2545)

44

. - , , - 69. `` `` - - .

2008. , - , - - . - : `` - - 70

69 `` `` `` -

``, : . /., , , 2012, . 246 .

70 H. Chang, Institutions and Economic Development, Journal of Institutional Economics, Issue 4, Dec. 2011, . 492.

, 1/2013

45

ore Popov, Ph.D., Full Professor University of Novi Sad Faculty of Law Novi Sad

The Impact of Transition on Situation in Serbian Economy

Abstract: Serbia wants to become a member of the European union. To be-come a full member of the Union, Serbia must significantly improve the poor state of its economy. The paper deals with some flaw that were made in Serbia in the last decade, and that seriously slowing its ability for essential integration into the Union. The analysis is focused on four issues. First, analysis indicates that the Law on Privatization is poorly structured and even poorer implemen-ted. The result is that the privatization process is not yet finished, and in the me-antime, more than a third of privatization was canceled. In the second part is concentrated on to the bad consequences of the implementation of the Law on Privatization when it comes to the ownership of land. The wrong privatization in Serbia created respective individual possessions with 15-20000 of acres. This is completely contrary to the situation in the European Union with the domina-tion of developed cooperative movement and family farms. The third part of the paper points out the problem of illicit capital outflow from Serbia. In relation to the national income, unfortunately, Serbia is in these field one of the leaders. Therefore are necessary emergency measures to prevent illicit outflow. When it comes to legislative activity it is noted that is more important the quality than the number of enacted laws. Future legislative activity should take into account the specificities of Serbia. Also, in order to achieve better economic results advantage should be given to the development policy, which is oriented toward the needs of Serbia.

Key words: European Union, Serbia, economy, trade balance,external debt, unemployment, Law on privatization, Privatization Agency, privatization, agriculture, land ownership, state property, foreign ownership, illicit outflow of capital, transfer pricing, legal framework, economic development, development policy.