World Population Year

THE POPULATIONOF

YUGOSLAV!

CI.CR.Ê.D. Series

1974 WORLD POPULATION YEAR

THE POPULATIONOF

YUGOSLAVIA

DEMOGRAPHICR E S E A R C HC E N T E R

InstituteofSocialSciences

Belgrade,1974

FOREWORD

At its Twenty-fifth Jubilee Session, the General Assembly of the UnitedNations decided that 1974 would be de,voted to population problems, under the generalappellation "World Population Year, 1974'. At the end of August 1974. the WorldPopulation Conference was held in Bucharest and numerous other gatherings given overto population problems are being held in various countries in connection with WorldPopulation Year. Furthermore, the Secretariat of the United Nations has drawn up aprogram of activities for this year. Similarly, in many countries special committees wereset up to prepare for participation in the World Population Conference and to stimulateactivity that will help draw fitting attention to population, as a crucial but neglectedproblem. In Yugoslavia, the Federal Executive Council set up a Federal Committee forWorld Population Year to supervise preparations for Yugoslavia's participation in theBucharest conference and to promote activities in the domain of population study in thiscountry.

In 1972, the International Committee for Coordination of DemographicResearch (CICRED) was established to coordinate demographic research. Its membershipis almost a complete catalogue of world demographic institutes and other institutionsdealing with matters related to population. The Committee has organized a number ofmeetings of its members and seminars on the most diverse population problems, definedpriority areas of research and coordinated the compilation of national monographs onpopulation. It is expected that more than sixty such monographs will be published in thecourse of 1974. With financial assistance from the Population Department of the UnitedNations, and the UN Trust Fund for Population Activity, CICRED has supported thepublication of these monographs, which has certainly helped to make their number solarge.

Preparation of this English-language monograph on the population ofYugoslavia was coordinated by the Center for Demographic Research of the Institute forSocial Sciences in Belgrade. The authors of its individual sections were:

Dolfe Vogelnik: 'Population Growth' and 'Components of Growth';Milica Sentie: 'Composition of+he Yugoslav Population';Mladen Friganovic: 'Population Distribution, Internal Migration, Agricultural

and Non-Agricultural, Rural and Urban Population';

Lazar Sokolov: 'Labor Force (Economically Active Population)';Gordana Todorovic: 'Projections of the Population';Milos Macura: 'Socio—Economic Conditions and Policy Related to Develo-

pment and Population'.The appendix to the monograph contains certain detailed tables on population

trends (fertility and mortality) and demographic structures. Presented there also iscertain basic information on the sources of the statistical data and a bibliography of theworks employed by the several authors of the monograph.

It must also be mentioned that Jovan Ilic contributed a brief survey of thesocio-political system, economic characteristics, and the like, of Yugoslavia, which hasbeen incorporated into this foreword, below.

It has been the intention of the authors and the editor of the monograph tokeep its exposition simple and thereby accessible to a broad spectrum of readers, and notjust specialized demographers. In view of the great regional variation in Yugoslavia inpopulation trends and demographic structures, an effort has been made to make regionalanalyses all—pervasive.

The editing of the mongraph was entrusted to Dusan Breznik.Translation into English was done by Nada Kronja—Stanic.

To illuminate demographic processes, and especially the interdependencies ofpopulation development(_more fully, we present here the broad contours of social andeconomic development in Yugoslavia and regional differences in economic and othercharacteristics.

Before the Second World War, Yugoslavia bore all the features of an .undeveloped agrarian country. More than 75% of the working population was engaged inagriculture — characterized by low productivity and low yields. Industry and othernon-agricultural activities were poorly-developed and the rate of growth of thenational income, around 2%, was hardly greater than the rate of population growth. As aconsequence of the very, different historical backgrounds of the individual regions therewas great regional differentiation in economic and social development, which wasparticularly reflected in the components of natural population trends and in theeconomic, educational and other structures of the populations.

In the aftermath of the Second World War, development was even furtherretarded. Firstly and foremostly," Yugoslavia suffered enormous human losses (1,700,000wat victims, (constituting 11% of its population) while in terms ot material losses its;war—devastation was amongst the heaviest in the world.

After the close of the war, despite the very bad situation inherited, the nationsand nationalities of Yugoslavia began to build their socialist" community. First thewar—ravaged country had to be rebuilt and then a path chosen that would alloweconomic backwardness to be overcome as quickly as possible and promote the fastestpossible advance in other fields: in health, education, standard of living, etc. The path ofsocialist industrialization was elected as the only way to resolve the accumulatedproblems.

Yugoslavia is a federal state with social ownership of the means of productionand social self—management as the fundamentals of its socio-economic system. Asbehoves the interests of all the nations and nationalities living in the country, it has aunified socio-political and economic system.

Yugoslavia is composed of six socialist republics: Bosnia—Hercegovina (51,129km2, 3,746,000 population), Montenegro (13,812 km2 530,000 population), Croatia(56,538 km2, 4,426,000 population), Macedonia (25,713 km2. 1,647,000 population),Slovenia (20,251 km2, 1,727,000 population) and Serbia (88,361 km2, 8,447,000

population). Within the framework of the Republic of Serbia there are the SocialistAutonomous Provinces of Vojvodina (21,506 km2, 1,953,000 population) and Kosovo(10,887 km2, 1,244,000 population). The Provinces participate directly in all federalforums and organs, that is, in the operation and advancement of the Yugoslav federativesystem.

The economic development of the country since the Second World War hasbeen dynamic in every respect. In pace of economic growth and depth of changes in thesocio-economic structure, Yugoslavia is outstanding in the world. From 1947 to 1972the social product multiplied 4.8 times (according to 1966 prices). The annual rate ofgrowth of the social product in this period was 6.6% (or 5.3% per capita).

The structure of the social product has undergone considerable changes. In1947, agriculture accounted for 43% and industry 18% of the social product. In 1972the situation was reversed, and industry accounted for 38% and agriculture for 19%. Thesocialist sector accounts for 80% of the social product today.

Yugoslavia's transformation from an agrarian to an industrial-agrarian countryis patent from the data cited. Indeed, the rapid development of industry has been thebasic feature of the economic development of the country in the postwar period.Agriculture is the second most important economic sector. Before the last war it was.likewise, poorly developed even though it acounted for around 80% of the population.

Agriculture developed slower than industry after the war because less wasinvested in it. Moreover, for a long time, it was the main source of car'tal formation forthe development of industry and other activities. Only in 1957 did the situation begin toget better as more began to be invested in agriculture.

In relation to pre-war levels, agricultural output has risen 1.9 times. Thegreatest part of output comes from the private sector since it holds 85% of the arableland. The remaining 15% belongs to the social sector. However, the social sector provides24% of the social product earned in agriculture and 45% of the agricultural commoditytrade. Productivity, then, is far greater on the socialist than on private farms, which arecharacterized by great fragmentation, poor organization and low productivity.

As a fundamental system of spatial interlinking and integration, transport andcommunications have been paid considerable attention since liberation, and there hasbeen rapid growth in this sector, especially in certain of its branches. The annual rate ofgrowth in volume of services has been: 26% in air transport, 23% in motor transport,13% in maritime, 10% in river and 4% in rail transport.

At present, Yugoslavia has 10,417 km of railway tracks (almost 2,000 kmelectrified), 96,160 km of roads (nearly 30,000 km with modern surfaces), 1,522 millionDWT mercantile shipping fleet, a million passenger cars (113,000 in 1963), around350,000 other motor vehicles, 911,000 telephones, etc.

Throughout the entire postwar period, commerce, together with hotels andcatering and the tourist industry, has recorded a constantly high and stable growth insocial product. The average annual growth rate over the period 1948—1972 was 8.7%,which has permitted continual expansion and modernization of capacities, theintroduction of contemporary methods of operation and the like. The growth incommerce has contributed considerably to the advance of the rest of the economy andimprovement in the standard of living.

At present there are around 72,000 retail shops which means that there is oneshop per 290 population (in 1952 there was one per 506 population).

There has been especially fast growth in hotels and catering and tourism overthe past 15 years. In that time the number of beds has increased 5.7 times, the numberof employed 2.7 times. In 1972 there were 606,000 beds available, 440,000 of them inthe social sector. From 1963 to 1972 the number of tourists swelled from 6 to 13million. At the same time the number of foreign tourists has doubled.

Foreign trade has also grown rather strongly since the Second World War.Namely, with the rapid development and modernization of industry, improvements inproductivity, the introduction of new products, etc., it has gradually become possible forYugoslavia to take part in the international division of labor. Commercial relations arenow maintained with over 100 countries. There have been crucial changes in thestructure of exports. The share of industry in commodity exports has increased from59% in 1952 to 85% in 1972.

From what has already been said'regarding the Yugoslav economy, it may beconcluded that the material basis of the standard of living in the country is much betternow than it was before the Second World War and in the initial postwar years. It isconstantly improving. The population now has considerably more electric poweravailable, a much greater assortment of industrial goods, more modern roads, commercialand catering establishments, more apartments, etc. than before. In 1951 there was 8.7m2 of residential space per capita, in 1971 12.2 m2 In the 1971/72 school year therewere 13,900 primary and around 2,370 secondary schools of various types in thecountry, and around 302,000 students enrolled. There are now around 145 students per10,000 population, which puts this country amongst the world leaders. In 1972 a totalof 9,715 books and brochures were published (circulation 53,800,000) of which 1,152were printed in the languages of the national minorities (5.86 million). In 1971 therewere 277 hospitals in the country with 113,000 beds, and around 11,400 other healthinstitutions. In the same year there were over 19,000 doctors and dentists employed inthe country. For each 10,000 inhabitants there are 13 doctors.

The quality of the nutrition habits of the population has also improved. Theproportion of cereals has diminished while the proportion of high—value animalproducts, fruit, vegetables, sugar, etc. has risen. From 1952 to 1972 per capita flourconsumption declined by 21 kg, and the consumption of meat and fish rose by 17 kg,plant and animal fats and oil by 11 kg, fresh fruits and grapes by 15 kg, sugar by 18 kg.eggs by 90 pieces, etc. But still, it must be noted that the nutrition patterns of aconsiderable number of inhabitants is still unsatisfactory, for only 20% of the circa3,185 calories consumed are of animal origin. Now, around 39% of personal income isspent on food (1952 : 54%).

Parallel with the improvement in nutrition patterns, there has been a great jumpin the consumption of industrial goods. Thus, over the period 1952—1972 per capitaconsumption of electric power rose from 5 to 381 kwh, soap and soap powders from 1to 7 kg, textiles from 12 to 23 m, footwear from 0.5 to 2.4 pairs, etc. There has beenespecially strong growth in the consumption.of durable consumer goods.

Certain characteristics of regional development. Natural conditions for econo-mic development vary in the different regions of the country. Furthermore, in the past

1

the different regions were subject to different political and socio-economic conditionsof development. The northern and northwestern parts of present-day Yugoslavia, asintegral parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a developed capitalist state, attained ahigher level of socio-economic development than regions that until 1912 were underTurkish control. Some differences date back to much earlier situations. For centuries thefrontier between East and West lay on the territory of present—day Yugoslavia. At firstthis was the border between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, then betweenTurkey and Christian Europe. In the pre-Turkish era the eastern part of the state wasunder the cultural sway of Byzantium and Istanbul, and the western under the influenceof Rome and Western civilization. In Turkish times forceful Turkish—Moslem influencesprevailed. In the 19th Century and later, influences from capitalistic central Europebegan to gain sway. However, at the same time domestic, local, autochthonousintellectual creation, various forms of material production and specific forms (patriarchalsystem) of socio-economic organization developed in all regions.

As the resultant of all these various influences, in 1918 (and to this day) therewere considerable regional differences in the level of economic development, in themode of life and work, in the physionomy of settlements and houses, in cultural level,etc. These differences did not diminish much in the between-war period. After theSecond World War, the factor unifying all the diverse nations and nationalities was theconstruction of self—management socialist society.

The members of six nations, several national minorities and many religions livein Yugoslavia; the country is multi—lingual, there are two scripts, etc. Precisely becauseof this complexity, the state is organised on a federative basis.

Present—day.socialist Yugoslavia seeks to eliminate, or at least lessen the inheritedsocio—économie differences between individual regions. A Federal Fund for theDevelopment of the Less-Developed Republics (Bosnia—Hercegovina, Montenegro,Macedonia) and the Province of Kosovo has been set up to this end. But, it must beadmitted that so far the economic differences between the developed and theundeveloped regions of the country have not been narrowed successfully. Certain otherdifferences (in schooling, health services, etc.) are however lessening.

The highest level of development has been achieved by Slovenia, and the lowestby Kosovo. In 1972 per capita income amounted to 11,760 dinars in Slovenia and 1,945dinars in Kosovo, that is, six times lower. Classed amongst the more-developed regionsalso are Croatia, Serbia Proper, Vojvodina; and amongst the less-developed Bosnia—Her-cegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro. The unevenness in socio-economic developmentafter the Second World War is understandable because this dynamic growth started froma low level of development with insufficient capital formation, with unexplored naturalconditions for development, with extensive areas lacking any industrial traditions, andwithout any real means of mobilizing the potentials of all the regions with equalintensity at the same time. The present differences would assuredly be greater had anactive policy of promoting the development of the less-developed regions not beenincluded in the program of socialist Yugoslavia. Current long-term plans envisagestronger reduction of regional differences in level of socio-economic development.

Dusan BREZNIK

I. POPULATION GROWTH

Historical Overview

The cardinal event in the history of the peoples on the present—day territory ofYugoslavia, that which set its stamp on the whole of demographic development up torecent times, was the Turkish invasion of the Balkans in the 14th Century, and theenslavement during the 16th and succeeding centuries of a great part of these peoples.

Turks settled throughout the area under Turkish rule - which at its apexencompassed the territory of all the present republics apart from Slovenia, the westernpart of Croatia and the southern Adriatic belt of Croatia and Istria — especially in towns,as officials, soldiers, craftsmen, and above all, as feudal landowners.

The local, native population either, converted to Islam to better their hardeconomic and social lot, or lived" in total economic, social and religious subjugation,while a large segment began to migrate en masse with all their belongings, in the face ofthe Turkish tyranny.

From the very beginning of the 15th Century the populace of Macedonia andSerbia began to flee to the southern and even northern regions of the Pannonian Plain, oreven further, to Hungary whencefrom the Croatian and Hungarian population was inflight. As the Turks conquered all the central and southern parts of one—time Hungary,migratory streams shifted towards the northwest, to the remaining parts of theAustro-Hungarian Empire and the Adriatic littoral still outside the Turkish realm. WhenHapsburg Austria began to organize the frontiers into special military administrativeterritories (military border zones) as bulwarks against Turkish expansion in the 16thCentury, these abandoned regions were resettled, and in part returned to by peasants andtheir families, the male members of which had military duties.

Similarly, inside, the regions held by the Turks there were continual massevacuations.and resettlements. Once Turkish control was consolidated, frontier regionsthat had been devastated by border campaigns and marauding raids were repopulated bypeasants from further south, for the Turkish feudalists needed serfs to work their land.At the same time there, was heavy evacuation from the Dinaric mountain regions, wherethe size of the population had climbed so high in the interim that land began to run tooshort to feed the people and.livestock — particularly in Montenegro, Hercegovina,Dalmatia, Southern Bosnia and Albania. Here the migratory flow led in part to theVenetian, Dalmatian and Istrian coasts, where the population had thinned out greatlyand, in' far greater part, to the valleys and plains of the Morava in Serbia, Sumadija

; especially. Albanians moved out of the Albanian highlands and as pronounced herdsmensettled down on alpine pastures, or close by them. They also descended towards the

) northeast, onto the plains oí Metohia and Kosovo and the upper Morava valley, and alsocame down into western Macedonia.

i Having reached a culmination geographically on the Balkans and along theDanube at the end of the 16th Century, the Turks began to pull back. But Turkishforays into the north and Austrian forays to the south continued on in waves after thisand Vojvodina and northern Serbia remained empty as a result. The treaty of 1739 setthe Turko-Austrian borders along the Danube, Sava and Una rivers, with Vojvodinachanging hands and passing to the Austrians. A new wave of resettlement andimmigration began, but now in reverse. All the Turkish and other Islamic populationvacated the territories that had transferred to the Austrians, who then began a massiveinfusion of peasants from Germany, then Slovaks, and later Hungarians and othernationalities. At the same time, Serbs fleeing from Turk-held regions also moved in.This extensive colonization was concentrated in particular in Vojvodina, giving it a veryheterogeneous ethnic structure.

A similar process took place in the Venetian—Dalmatian border region, where theTurks were pushed back to the tops of the Dinaric mountains, and Serbs and Croats,together with Italians in the towns, settled the freed lands as the Turks retreated.

It is characteristic of all the internal migrations of the 15th - 18th Century thatthey proceeded in stages and in various directions. Successive migrations from thesoutheast to the northwest of Yugoslavia (metanastasic movements'according to JovanCvijic) predominated. During this span of time there was a significant spatialredistribution of the ethnic structure. The Serbian and Croatian populations werecommingled in the central and southwestern, and partly in the northern areas of thecountry. In the course of Turkish domination from the end of the 15th to the beginningof the 20th Century the Moslem population component was also formed in the centralsections of the country (Bosnia—Hercegovina), while the Albanian population waspreserved most compactly in the province of Kosovo.

In the 19th Century the gradual liberation of present-day Yugoslav territorycontinued. The later a given region was freed the longer and more enduringly did itretain backward economic, cultural and social characteristics.

The first to free themselves of the Turkish yoke were the provinces of Vojvodinaand Slavonia. These have almost completely lost the features of the Turkish way of life,but the sequelae of the massive migrations, provoked by the arrival and departure of theTurks, are still evident ethnically.

Through constant struggle Serbia gradually liberated itself, first its central areas,Sumadija, and later its southern parts, which were only united with Serbia in 1878. AsTurkish control receded, the entire Turkish and Islamic population pulled out of Serbia,moving to other parts still under Turkish dominion: Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia andBulgaria. On the other hand, when Serbia won its freedom, it became attractive toneighboring populations and there was intensive immigration from Bosnia—Hercegovina.Montenegro, Vojvodina and Croatia, as well as from Macedonia and even Slovenia(mostly to urban centers, Belgrade).

Developments in Montenegro, which had managed to preserve its independence

through ceaseless battle, were different. With its naturally limited living conditions,inaccessible mountains and infertile soil, it did not draw the surrounding populations.

Bosnia— Hercegovina was occupied and annexed in 1878 by Austro-Hungarywhich left its Turkish feudal social structure intact and exploited it as a colonial'territory.

One-time Raska (Sandzak), Kosovo and Macedonia remained under Turkishrule the longest, to 1912, and consequently there were no major migratory movementsduring that time.

In conclusion, it must also be noted that there was massive emigration (foremostly3f peasants) in the latter half of the 19th Century and right up to World War I (and evenlater") from Slovenia and Croatia (and other parts of the country after the war). This wasbrought about by the widespread impoverishment of the farm population in the middleof the l()th Century. After feudalism was abolished the peasants fell prey to banks andusurers in Iheir efforts to pay for land allotted them by their feudal lords, while theinroads made by capital from developed, central Austria (importation of cheaperindustrial goods, railway lines, etc.) ruined the local, artisan—type economy, especially inthe sphere of transportation. This migration, whose volume could already bedocumented numerically, .was initially directed towards the USA and then (after theUSA imposed restrictions) towards western Europe, South America and Australia.

The outcome of this briefly-described development is that the different parts ofYugoslavia are today at diverse levels of economic as well as cultural and socialdevelopment, which has far—reaching consequences from the demographic standpoint.

Using criteria such as indices of per capita national income, and the percentageof employed in industry and in agriculture, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia Proper andVojvodina may be classed as more developed regions, and Bosnia—Hercegovina,Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo as less developed.

Population Trends since the End of the 19th Century

On certain parts of the territory of present—day Yugoslavia, population size can befollowed through from the middle of the 19th Century, the time of the first populationcensuses taken in the Kingdom of Serbia and in the Austro—Hungarian Empire. For theentire territory, however, the earliest reliable population estimates relate to the periodaround 1880 (with the exception of regions under Turkish rule, for which retrogressiveestimates based on 1910 data are necessary in the absence of direct data).

At that time the population of today's Yugoslavia lived under diverse politicalformations: there were two independent states, the Kingdom of Serbia (its confinesapproximating the borders of 'Serbia Proper') and the Kingdom of Montenegro;Vojvodina (excluding Srem) was under direct Hungarian administration; politically,Croatia and Slovenia were parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire; Bosnia-Hercegovinawas annexed by Austro—Hungary; while the remaining parts (the southern regions ofSerbia, Kosovo and Macedonia) were still subject to Turkish rule.

After World War 1, in 1918. a united state, at first called the 'Kingdom of Serbs,Croats and Slovenians' and then renamed subsequently the 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia', wascreated by the unification of the greater part of what is now Yugoslavia. In the

10

between—war period, that is, during the lifetime of the 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia', twocensuses were taken, in 1921 and 1931. A third was readied for 1941 but with theeruption of World War II did not take place.

Four censuses were conducted after World War II, in 1948. 1953, 1961 and 1971.on the present territory of Yugoslavia, which was extended by the regions of istria andthe Slovenian Littoral, totalling 8,262 km2 and 600,000 inhabitants (according to the1931 census).

Today, the Socialist Federated Republic of Yugoslavia coadunates six socialistrepublics: Bosnia—Hercegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia,and two autonomous provinces, the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina and theAutonomous Province of Kosovo, comprised within the Republic of Serbia, theremaining parts of which constitute 'Serbia Proper'.

The dynamics of the population within the present borders of Yugoslavia from1880 to 1971 is presented in Tables 1 and 2.

TABLE 1. - POPULATION OF YUGOSLAVIA, 1880-1971 (in 000)

Bosnia Monte- Croa- Mace- Slove- SerbiaYear SFRY Herce- negro tia donia nia Total Proper Vojvo- Kosovo

govina dina

1880 8877 1158 (207) 2479 (528) 1182 3323 1896 1187 (240)1910 12962 1898 344 3375 876 1321 5148 3147 1526 4751921 12545 1890 311 3427 809 1288 4819 2843 1537 4391931 14534 2324 360 3789 950 1386 5726 3550 1624 5521948 15842 2564 377 3780 1153 1440 6528 4154 1641 7331953 16991 2843 420 3936 1305 1504 6979 4464 1699 8161961 18549 3278 472 4160 1406 1592 7642 4823 1855 9641971 20523 3746 530 4426 1647 1727 8447 5250 1953 1244

Growth index

1880-1971 231.2 323.5 256.0 178.5 311.9 146.1 254.2 276.9 164.5 518.31921-1971 163.6 198.2 170.4 129.2 203.6 134.1 175.3 184.7 127.1 283.4

The population of Yugoslavia has more than doubled over the past 90 years(growth index for 1971 in relation to 1880 is 231.2). However, this growth was veryuneven in regard to regional distribution. On the basis of absolute data and relativeindices of the rate of growth for the periods 1880-1971 and 1921-1971, the followinggrowth types may be distinguished:

Low—growth regions: which include Vojvodina, Croatia and Slovenia (growthindices range from 146.1 to 178.5 for the period 1880-1971, and from 127.1 to 134.1for 1921-1971). These regions are characterized by low fertility today, inception ofdecline in fertility by the end of the 19th Century or beginning of the 20th, and anegative net migration in many periods.

II

TABLE 2. — AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH OF THE POPULATION OFYUGOSLAVIA IN THE PERIOD 1880—1971

(per 1000)

Year

1 8 8 0 -1910

1910 —1921

1921 —1931

1931 -1948

1 9 4 8 -1953

1 9 5 3 -1961

1961 -1971

SFRY

13

- 3

15

5

14

11

10

BosniaHerce-govina

17

-0 .5

21

6

21

18

13

Monte-negro

17

- 9

15

3

22

15

12

Croa-tia

10

1

10

- 0 . 1

8

7

6

Mace-donia

17

. - 7

16

12

25

9

16

Slove-,nia

4

- 2

8

2

9

7

8

Total

16

- 6

17

8

13

11

10

SerbiaProper Vojvo-Kosovo

dina

17

- 9

23

9

15

10

9

8

1

6

1

7

11

5

23

- 7

23

17

22

21

26

Note: Data refers to the present territory of Yugoslavia. Estimates are u.sed for MontenegroMacedonia and Kosovo in 1880.

High—growth regions, including Montenegro, Serbia Proper, Macedonia andBosnia—Hercegovina (growth indices range from 256.0 to 323.5 for 1880—1971, and •from 170.4 to 203.6 for 1921-1971). With the exception of Serbia Proper, these arccharacterized by moderately high fertility, the beginning of an appreciable decline infertility after World War II, and a net migration that has practically always been negative.For Serbia Proper, however, it must be noted that in fertility it properly belongs to thepreceding group, and that for almost the whole period immigration was greater thanemigration.

A very high—growth region, namely Kosovo (growth index 518.3 for 1880-1971,and 283.4 for 1921-1971). To this day fertility is very high in this region although aslight decline set in after 1960. Migration has not had any appreciable effect when thewhole period is considered.

In all regions the two world wars were of great importance because of the directand indirect losses incurred.

Because of the regional differences in rate of growth, the regional distributionI>I ilie total population altered in the period examined.

A clearer idea of the differences in population growth may be gained from theaverage annual growth rates per 1000 inhabitants in different periods, as presented inTable 2. The past 90-year period has been punctuated by events and the demographic

12

repercussions of the First (along with the Balkan Wars) and Second World Wars, andfrom this aspect can be divided into three sub-periods. The first spans the period up tothe First World War (1880-1910), the second the interval between the wars, and thethird the period after the Second World War.

Up to World War I (1880-1910) the population grew at an annual rate of13""" . Only three regions had low (Slovenia and Vojvodina) to moderately high(Croatia) growth. From 1910-1921 the population was falling.

Population dynamics over the last 50 years, since the inception of a unified sta-te of Yugoslavia, has been characterized by a constant fall in the rate of growth.

Average annual growth dropped from 15 to 14, and then to 11 and 10 pro mille.The rate of growth over 1931-1948 was heavily affected by war losses (around1,700,000 dead). In general, population dynamics in Yugoslavia may be said to mirrortrends in the developed countries of the world. In level today, the average annual growthrate is close to the rate in developed countries.

For an entire 90 years annual growth in less developed Kosovo was sustained atthe same very high pace (from 21 of 23 pro mille), and even rose in the last decade to 26pro mille — a level found in many developing countries today.

A regional breakdown of annual population growth, however, reveals certainessential differences. It must be remembered that apart from the two basic factors(fertility and mortality) internal and external migration have a significant effect on therate of growth. These factors explain, for example, why Vojvodina, a more developedregion, recorded a rise in annual growth in contrast to the general trend in the interval1953—1961 (immigration from other regions was significant). On the other hand, therewas a sharo fall in Macedonia during the same period, as a consequence of heavy Turkemigration from there (and the country in gênerai) at that time.

Finally, in concluding this overview, when global trends ol population growth inYugoslavia are broken down by economic development category, differences in growthare seen to be correlated to the phase of demographic transition, which is completed orin process of completion in four regions (Slovenia, Croatia, Vojvodina and SerbiaProper), only at the very beginning in Kosovo, and fully underway, around mid—course,in the moderately developed regions. This matter will be taken up in greater detail in thediscussion of fertility dynamics.

13

II. COMPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH

Long-term Changes in Fertility

Three periods may be distinguished in the dynamics of the crude birth rate inYugoslavia, presented in Table 3, on the basis of political system and economic andsocial conditions governing demographic processes.

TABLE 3. — FERTILITY OF THE YUGOSLAV POPULATION, 1880—1973

Livebirths per 1000 inhabitants

Bosnia Monte- Croa- Mace- Slove- SerbiaSFRY Herce- negro tia donia nia Total Proper Vojvo- Kosovo

govina dina

1880-85 43.2 45.0 45.0 42.9 45.0 35.13) 45.5 45.7 45.0^ 45.01886-90 42.5 45.0 45.0 42.8 45.0 35.13) 43.5 43.2 43.71) 45.0^1891-95 42.1 45.0 45.0 41.9 45.0 34.8 43.0 42.4 41.71) 45.01896-1900 40.4 44.04 43.05 40.7 43.06 34.8 39.8 39.2 . 39.9 43.06

1901-05 39.8 44.04 43.05 39.3 43.06 34.07 39.0 38.0 39.9 43.06

1906-10 39.9 44.04 43.05 39.6 43.06 31.3s 39.2 38.5 39.4 43.06

1926-309) 34.2 44.3 37.3 32.6 43.1 '27.8 34.7 35.2 25.1 43.21931-34 32.6 40.0 31.2 30.0 38.6 25.7 31.6 33.5 25.4 37.61935-39 27.9 37.0 29.4 25.8 34.9 22.5 25.2 25.7 20.5 36.61950 30.3 38.6 30.0 24.8' 40.3 24.4 29.5 28.0 25.5 46.11950-54 28.8 38.2 32.1 23.2 38.4 22.8 27.4 26.1 23.3 43.51955-59 24.8 35.4 30.1 203 34.0 19.4 22.8 19.6 18.4 42.31960^64 22.1 31.8 26.9 17.2 29.4 17.9 19.7 16.6 163 41.71965-69 19.8 26.2 22.9 15.6 26.4 17.6 18.3 15.0 14.5 39.11970-73 18.0 21.1 19.4 14.6 22.8 16.7 17.7 15.0 13.0 36.4

Note: URatc in Hungary at the time; 2) The 45.0<W:iles for the first three periods are estimatespublished by Yugoslav authors; 3) Average for 1880/90; 4) Estimate based on the situation in1926/30; 5) Estimate based on the situation in Macedonia and Kosovo; 6) Estimate based onthe situation in 1926/30; 7) Average for 1901/10; 8) Situation in 1911/13; 9) Rates for1926/30 calculated from the number of persons over age 4 (1913 Census) and data on infantmortality.All the rates for the periods beginning from 1931-34 are based on vital statistics.

14

The first period stretches from the onset of secular fertility decline in the moredeveloped regions (Slovenia, Croatia, Vojvodina and Serbia Proper), at the end of lastcentury, up to the outbreak of World War I. According to the data available, this is theperiod between 1891/95 and 1906/10. The second period begins at the end of WorldWar I and goes through to the outbreak of World War II. This is, then, the intervalbetween the wars which coincides with the formation and lifetime of the first unifiedstate on the territory of Yugoslavia. Since fertility data is not available for the first fiveyears after the end of the First World War, the pre-war (1906/10) birth rate isemployed on the assumption of its comparability to the situation in the first post—warquinquennial (1921/25), as well as data for the fourth decade.of this century. Secularfertility decline in the moderately developed regions began during this second period. InBosnia-Hercegovina and Macedonia it obviously began in the 1931/34 quinquennial,while in Montenegro fertility was already rather low in 1926/30 and it may be presumedthat secular decline had begun there directly after World War I.

The third period covers the years from 1950 to 1973, the post-World War IIperiod. This period marks the beginning of long-term fertility decline in the leastdeveloped region of Yugoslavia, Kosovo.

The basic observations that arise from Table 3 are as follows.Crude birth rate in Yugoslavia has been more than halved in the course of the last

80 years (i.e. roughly since secular fertility decline set in in the more developed regions),and by the end of this time was on a par with the average rate in the developed countriesof the world; this holds fully for all regions except Kosovo, where the declinecommenced later and birth rate decreased only 20% in this time.

Demographic transition began in the 1890's in the more developed regions(Slovenia, Croatia, Vojvodina and Serbia Proper), in the early 1930's in the moderatelydeveloped (Bosnia—Hercegovina and Macedonia), and in Montenegro in the 1920's. It isonly now gathering momentum in Kosovo. In the more developed parts of the country itis virtually completed or nearing completion, and in the rest of the country, with theexception of Kosovo, it is in full swing.

The decline in fertility does not proceed at an even pace. Early in transition it isvery gradual, then it picks up great speed, and finally, in the closing stages it slows downagain. This pattern is evident in all regions, although at different times.

Age—specific Female Fertility

Table 4 presents the age-specific female fertility rates in Yugoslavia byquinquennial groups in 1950, 1960 and 1970*: With the exception of the youngest age,which has actually shown a rise in most regions, in all age groups these rates are falling.Furthermore, the decrease is increasingly sharp with each succeeding age group, pointingto the presence and spread of conscious birth control, which is more intensive in theolder age groups than among young females. The rise in the fertility of the 15-19 yearolds is partly due to earlier marriage (a lowering of the average age at entry intomarriage), and likewise to an absolute and relative increase in the number of marriages ofyoung females, as well as a rise in illegitimate fertility.

* The data is also broken down by republic and province in the appendix.

15

TABLE 4. — AGE-SPECIFIC FERTILITY, TOTAL FERTILITY AND NETREPRODUCTION OF THE FEMALE POPULATION OF YUGOSLAVIA

IN 1950, 1960 AND 1970

1950

Livebirths per 1000 females by age

General fertility rate(ages 15-49)

15-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-49

Total fertility rateper 1000 females

Net reproduction rate(Ro)

111.738.7

198.4201.2160.492.346.110.8

3740

1.49

1960

91.951.2

178.5155.894.251.826.44.4

2814

1.19

1970

66.251.0

160.4124.071.634.010.8

1.5

2267

1.00

Regional comparisons bring out essential differences between the developed andless developed regions, testifying to a close correlation between the level of economicdevelopment and age-specific female fertility. From this standpoint the 20-24 yeargroup is especially important, showing maximum fertility in all regions except Kosovo,where the mode is shifted one group higher. It is outstanding that whereas in the moredeveloped regions (Slovenia, Vojvodina, Croatia and Serbia Proper) maximal fertilityoccurred in this age group throughout the entire 20 years (1950—70), in the moderatelydeveloped regions (Bosnia—Hercegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia) there was a shift downduring this period from the 25-29 to the 20-24 year group. This shift was accompaniedby a marked drop in fertility in ages 25-29 and only a mild decrease in ages 20-24.

The Slovenian population is characterized by a rise in the fertility rate offemales aged 20-24 during the period examined. The influence of earlier marriages isevident. Since there was an appreciable drop in the fertility of the very next highest agegroup, the shift down of fertility to the younger group constitutes the effect of anorganized and developed family planning system.

Although female fertility in Kosovo was still high even at the end of the periodexamined, there was a downtrend in all age groups over the last two decades. Thisdecline was of practically the same intensity in both of the most fertile age groups (ages21-24 and 25-29; the index of decline was around 80 for 1970 as against 1950),considerably more intensive in the next two age groups (index around 60), and mostintensive at ages over 40. It may be assumed that these changes reflect a trend towardsthe adoption of birth control amongst the female population of this region too, which is

16

otherwise distinguished by the highest fertility in Yugoslavia.In three regions (Serbia Proper, Croatia and Vojvodina) female fertility is very low.

The total fertility and net reproduction rates indicate that female reproduction in.theseregions is too low. The fact that their natural increase is actually positive is attributableto current age distribution and migratory movements, for generally younger people tendto migrate.

Net reproduction is around unity in Slovenia, and above unity in the other regions(Bosnia-Hercegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro). In Kosovo it is high.

Legitimate and Illegitimate Fertility

Legitimate fertility (Table 5), after a slight rise in the youngest female age groupand a mild decline in the 20-24 year group, begins to drop very rapidly after age 25,indicating that once they have achieved the desired number of children married couplesopt for birth control. By contrast, with few exceptions, illegitimate fertility shows aslight uptrend in all ages.

TABLE 5. — LEGITIMATE AND ILLEGITIMATE FEMALE FERTILITY BY AGEIN YUGOSLAVIA; 1953 AND 1961

Livebirths.per 1000

Total(15-49)

Legitimate fertility

1953 160.61961 122.5

Illegitimate fertility

1953 19.61961 23.2

15-19

280.9295.2

10.715.4

females

20-24

307.4287.2

35.937.1

25-29

234.2181.1

41.645.4

30-34

161.7101.2

33.631.7

35-39

98.954.4

16.317.2

40-44

45.929.8

4.47.2

4 5 ^ 9

10.053

1.40.9

Just as in total female fertility, there are very significant regional differences inregard to legitimate and illegitimate fertility. Whilst legitimate fertility is highest inKosovo, in the more developed regions it goes into sharp decline after the most fertileage (20-24 years), reflecting the spread of conscious birth control by married couples,i.e. the acceptance of family planning as a principle in line with their other aims anddesires. As far as illegitimate fertility is concerned, it is also rising gradually in the lessdeveloped regions.

17

Female Fertility according to Socio-economic,and Educational Characteristics

The fertility of the population displays regional variations that are a function ofLhe complex interplay of socio-economic, socio—cultural, demographic and otherfactors related to the diverse histories of the several republics and provinces and theirvarying levels of economic and social development. However, demographic analyses inboth this and other countries have demonstrated that fertility also varies to aconsiderable extent as a function of socio-economic and educational categories of thepopulation. To bring this out, différente! female fertility is presented here in respect ofeconomic category (agricultural versus non-agricultural population) and educationallevel (Table 6).

Fertility v/as lowest amongst females with nonVagricultural occupations, thosereceiving incomes (family, old age or invalid pensions, welfare aid), followed by thoseactively engaged in agriculture, and those dependent on non-agricultural workers. It washighest amongst females dependent on agricultural workers. This ranking was the samefor female cohorts age 50-54 in 1961 and 1971 (i.e. with birthdates from 1906 to1911 and from 1'916 to 1921). The cumulative fertility of women passing beyond theirfertile period declined in all these economic categories. This is in line with earlierobservations on birth rate dynamics in Yugoslavia over the long—term period.

There is a very clear correlation between fertility and educational level. The higherthe education the lower the fertility. Studies of this correlation have shown that thesedifferences in fertility are of less significance when the fertility of the populationgenerally is high, that they are accentuated during secular decline in fertility whenwomen with no or little schooling have far greater fertility than those with more. Withtime, the fertility of the low education groups also lowers and after demographictransition the differences fade. It can even happen that the lowest education group(when constituting a very low percentage) has lower fertility than the next highesteducational group as a consequence of the interplay of social and economic factors,these women deciding for a small family because of either housing or income difficulties.The very low fertility of women with the highest level of education should gradually riseas broader strata of the female population attain this educational level and it is no longerpre-empted by women dedicated to their professional activities alone.

Birth control and family planning developed spontaneously in Yugoslavia, as inother European countries. An expanding portion of the population, or married couples,decided for planning their families according to their desires regarding the number andspacing of children. Because birth control was in large measure achieved by means ofabortion (prohibited at the time, except for medical reasons) and this frequently had atragic outcome (illness and even fatalities due to inexpert conduct of the abortion), itwas decided to liberalize the attitude of the Yugoslav legislation towards abortion. Nowit is permitted on the basis of social as well as medical indications, in the hope of doingaway with illegal, unprofessional abortions that often have fatal consequences for thewoman. The commissions empowered to grant permission for abortion are obliged totake care that all the conditions necessary to postwar undesirable consequences arefulfilled (that the abortion is performed in a medical institution, only in the first three

18

TABLE 6. — CUMULATIVE FERTILITY AT AGES 50—54 BY ECONOMICCATEGORY AND EDUCATIONAL LEVEL, YUGOSLAVIA, 1961 AND 1971

Average livebirths per

Totala) Economic category

Activeagriculturalnon-agricultural

Dependentsagriculturalnon-agricultural

Income-recipients

b) Educational level

No schooling1-3 primary grades4 primary grades5—7 primary gradesPrimary school .Schools for skilled :workersSchools for highlyskilled workersGymnasium

1961

3.82

3.073.461.734.384.853.732.52

4.773373.002.632.00

1.68

1.361.21

Secondary vocationalschoolsHigher schoolsUniversity

1.421.101.15

female

1971

3.30

2.603.011.703.934.563.552.38

4.463.102.772.432.26

1.82

1.601.36

1.391.201.04

No. offemalesaged50-54 in

1971°

398976

1399549608542799

20856289456

11910641830

15978521789

1226123864835676

16178

2274076

5,46611992632

months after conception, under medical supervision and with check-ups after theabortion, etc.). Abortion itself is considered the most undesirable form of birth controland constitutes only a last resort in enabling a woman to break off an undesired

1) The ' total ' figures include females for whom the appropriate economic category is not known,those working temporarily abroad, and those of unknown educational level.

19

pregnancy once it has occurred. The legislation is of the view that it is a basic humanright and obligation of parents to freely determine the number of their children and theirspacing. Article 191 of the Yugoslav Constitution determines that amongst the otherfreedoms, rights and obligations of man and citizen... "It is a human right freely todecide on. family planning. This right may only be restricted for reasons of health". Torealize this right society must make the necessary information and means for familyplanning available to parents so that family size and birth spacing can be decided beforethe conception of a child. The emphasis is on prevention of undesired conception as thebasic form of birth control. Paying full attention to the popularization of contraceptionand encouraging activities to this end, have proved the most rewarding approaches tofamily planning. The legal regulations, that is, the "Resolution on Family Planning" alsoformulate the duties of the social services (health, education, etc.), scientific institutions,social and other organizations and institutions in the field of family planning.

Demographic surveys of fertility and family planning have shown that over 75% ofmarried couples in Yugoslavia plan or opt for planning of family size. In the greatestnumber of cases relatively ineffective methods are employed (e.g. coitus interruptus) andconsequently abortion is resorted to to regulate family size as desired. The number ofabortions is starting to drop or stagnate in only a few regions. But it can be safely saidthat the number of illegal, most often inexpert abortions, which are the most dangeroushealthwise, is decreasing. The frequency of abortion is one of the significantmedico-social, demographic and educational problems of the moment. Many social

. organizations (family planning councils), and social services (health'education, welfareservices) have undertaken important actions in this field with the aim of eliminatingabortion as a method of birth control to the greatest possible extent.

MortalityThe dynamics of the general death rate since 1921 is presented in Table 7. Up to

1880, it is supposed that the general death rate was around 3O°/oo in the more developedregions of Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia Proper, Vojvodina) and that there wereover 35 deaths per 1,000 population in the less developed regions (Bosnia-Hercegovina,Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo).

A gradual decrease in mortality began around the middle of the 19th Century inthe more developed regions, but it was only towards the end of that century andparticularly during the first decade of the 20th that this process started up in the lessdeveloped regions. The earliest reliable mortality data for the entire territory ofpresent-day Yugoslavia dates from 1921. but for the individual republics and provincesonly from 1930, so that only estimates are possible for them in 1921.1)

* A central legal document on family planning in Yugoslavia is the "Resolution on Family Planningof the Federal Assembly, passed on 26th April, 1969 (Sluzbeni List SFRJ, No.29, 8th May,1969). It clearly enunciates the attitude of the legislation on family planning. Principles inrelation to abortion are set down in the 'General Law on Abortion' (Sluzbeni List SFRJ, No.20,1969). The new Constitution relegates this matter to the republics and provinces who pass specialbills and regulations in the spirit of the generally adopted principles.

1) Statistical data on mortality is available for certain regions in the period prior to the First WorldWar and in particular periods of the 19th Century.

20

TABLE 7. — MORTALITY IN YUGOSLAVIA FROM 1921 TO 1970

SFRY

Deaths per

1921

1930-342)

1935—392)

19392)19471950-541955-591960-641965-691970-73

1000

20,9

18.515.914.912.812.510.59.68.78.9

BosniaHerce-govina

(21)

19.916.915.112.813.911.69.27.46.7

Monte-negro

(17)

13.113.513.46.9

10.08.57.46.66.1

Croa-tia

(20)

18.916.615.813.511.710.19.79.7

10.4

Mace-donia

. (27)

20.119.319.013.714.511.79.88.17.6

Slove-nia

(17)

15.614.514.013.510.99.79.6

10.010.4

Total

(23)

18.214.714.012.312.410.29.59.89.3

SerbiaPro-per

(22)

17.113.612.611.111,49.38.78.49.2

Vojvo-dina

(22)

19.116.716.215.212.410.39.79.6

10.3

Koso-vo

(27)

22.118.517.613.018.015.713.29.78.2

1) Mortality rates by republic and province tor 1921 estimated from the ratio of the general deathrate for Slovenia and the other regions in 1931 /34.

Over the past five decades the general death rate in Yugoslavia has fallen fromover 20"w>to less than Wbo.lïie decrease was more intensive in the less rather than themore developed regions because of the age composition of the populations. Today, itslevel in the country as a whole and the republics and provinces individually,approximates that in developed countries. Following World War II the decline wassteeper in the less developed regions, whereas in the more developed there was actually agradual upturn as a result of the effects of demographic ageing processes. Mortality ofthe Montengrin population had already been low earlier.

Mean life expectancy at birth is functionally dependent on the intensity ofmortality, but the effects of the age structure on this index are excluded. As Table 8shows, it has grown fastest in regions in which it was previously low, that is, where infantmortality and the mortality of other age categories were high. This process is continuing,parallel with the decline in infant and small child mortality since differential mortality inthe other ages has already evened out. The sex differential in mean life expectancy iswide in the more developed regions. In Slovenia and Vojvodina it amounts to 7 years,one of the highest sex-differentials in the world. In the developed regions, mean lifeexpectancy of males is either stagnating or even in gentle decline. This is due to a rise inthe mortality of certain age groups of the male population.

Mortality by Age and Sex

Age and sex-specific mortality in Yugoslavia is presented in Table 9 }. Since thereare substantial trend differences between the more and the less developed regions, theregional aspect must be taken into consideration.* A republican and provincial breakdown of this data is given in the appendix.

21

TABLE 8. — MEAN LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH IN YUGOSLAVIAFROM 1952/54 TO 1968/70

1952/1954

malesfemales

1960/1962malesfemales

1968/1970

malesfemales

SFRY

56.959.3

62.265.3

64.869.2

BosniaHerce-goviria

52.654.8

58.661.5

62.966.5

Monte-negro

58.459.9

63.9619

70.473.0

Croa-tia

59.163.2

63.968.8

65.271.3

Mace-donia

55.055.1

59.962.1

65.567.3

Slo-venia

63.068.1

66.172.0

65.072.4

Total

57.158.8

62.763.7

65.569.0

SerbiaPro-per

•59.161.1

64.366.7

67.270.8

Vojvo-dina

•

58.362.1

63.668.5

65.871.4

Koso-vo

48.645.3

57.055.8

63.664r6

TABLE 9. —AGE AND SEX-SPECIFIC MORTALITY IN YUGOSLAVIA,1953, 1961 AND 1971

Age Deaths per 1000 population

Total0

1-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485 +

male

12.8129.4

10.61.91.21.62.12.52.83.54.77.4

11.718.729.146.168.9

1083160.2240.1

1953

female

12.0'129.611.21.8i.O1.6232.52.93,74.15.48.4

13.322.035.657.591.0

134.0198.8

m

9.292.9

4 30.80.61.11.41.72.02.53.65.69.0

13.324338.559.386,6

127.0171.5

1961

f

8.884.64.70,70.50.81.21.51.72.02.83.96.39.6

16.427.648.072.5

115.4149.6

m

9.35332.10.60.51.01.61.92,12,94.4639,6

15.624.238.860.6

100.1147.92173

1971

f

8.149.8

2,20.50.40i5Ó.70.91.01.62.23.45.48.7

14323.943T579.9

129.4189.9

1971

f-xlOO

114.8107.095,5

120.0125.0200.0228.6211.1210.0181.3200.0185.3177.81793.169.21623139.3125.31143114.4

The data for 1953 and 1971 shows a decrease in mortality at all ages for bothmales and females in Yugoslavia as a whole, in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Kosovo. InSlovenia this was the case only for females; male mortality in this republic showed adecrease only amongst youth up to age 20. In all ages over 20 years it shov/s an uptrend.

Comparison ofthe first (1953-1961) and second periods(1961—1971) shov/s thatin Kosovo there was a steady decline in both male and female mortality in both periods(with some exceptions in the highest age group). By contrast, in Bosnia—Hercegovina,Macedonia and Montenegro there was a decrease in all age groups of both sexes only inthe first period, while in the second, males from ages 20-50 showed rising mortality.

In the Slovenian population (and, similarly, in the other more developed regions,namely Croatia, Vojvodina and Serbia Proper) the mortality of females of ail agesdropped in the first period, but the mortality of males over 55 years increased (withsome exceptions). In the second period there was a slight uptrend in female mortality aswell, while male mortality rose in all ages over 20.

In Yugoslavia excessive male mortality is particularly marked in the populations ofthe more developed regions. In Kosovo, female mortaiity in 1953 (particularly infantsand youth, and right up to age 54) was still the higher, as is typical of high-mortalitypopulations. However, this female disadvantage had virtually been erased by 1971.

It will be seen from the foregoing that during the postwar period there have beenradical changes in age-specific mortality. The mosr significant drop occurred in infantand small child mortality, and then in the mortality of youth and the young middle-agedpopulation. Generally, it may be said that, infants aside, mortality in Yugoslavia is low.Nevertheless, comparisons with countries with the lowest mortality rates underscoresjust how much room there is for improvement under contemporary conditions. Curativeand preventive medical services cannot accomplish this alone (although their role is.decisive), rather the entire population must take part (elevating health and hygieneculture, nutrition habits, etc.). The earlier regional mortality differentials are nowevident only amongst the youngest groups (children to 10 years of age) and only slightlyso amongst females in the reproductive period. Otherwise, these regional differences havevirtually vanished, or else the balance has swung to the disadvantage of the moredeveloped regions (particularly their male populations).

Research into excessive male mortality should promote efforts in the fields ofmedicine and education, and further, regarding nutrition habits and the eradication ofharmful habits that may be influential in the higher mortality of males (smoking,alcoholism, etc.;. The considerably higher incidence of suicides and accidents among themale population is another factor affecting the level of male mortality. Research hasshown this to be decisive when sex differentials for ages 20—39 are examined. Theextent to which biological factors are operative in raising male mortality has not yetbeen sufficiently clarified.

Infant Mortality

Over the last 20 years infant mortality in Yugoslavia (Table 10) has dropped byover 50% on average, signifying substantial improvements in medical services andpost-natal care for the mother and child. The decline, however, has not been uniform

23

TABLE 10. — INFANT MORTALITY IN YUGOSLAVIA, 1931—1973

SFRY He ce ^ o n t e " Croa- Mace- Slove-- * neero tia donia niagovina ^

Serbia

Voivo-Total Proper ¿¿n Kosovo

Infant deaths per 1000 livebirths

Infant mortality rate

19311934/371950/541955/591960/641965/691970/73

Neonatal i

164.7143.0116.398.281.462.448.2

160.1139.3135.5118.295.973.055.0

mortality rate

Deaths of infants

195019601970

44.943.223.3

37.332.823.8

Post—neonatal mortality

118.6122.689.077.661.545.029.4

203.6172.4110.883.16Ö.542.329,5

175.9137.3139.2126.1117.996.579.4

138.3116.369.645.130.427.022.1

149.7135.8112.196.182.563.951.2

aged 0-29 days per 1000 livebirths

29.423.917.8

rate

Deaths of infants aged 1 to

195019601970

73.753.532.2

88.374.245.3

72.542.511.2

51.135.120.6

56.041.429.5

11 months per

67.235.413.6

80.773.158.5

35.020.416.5

46.037.124.9

1000 livebirths

47,214.78.0

72.149.031.4

121.6110.496.479.063.246.036.6

44.130.721.8

60.138.018.1

208.1194.8119.689.265.646.430.8

63.340.023.0

81.833.512.7

196.5161.7155.6145.0132.3106.086.9

41.444.229-8

100.088.366.5

regionally. It was greatest in the more developed regions (Slovenia, Croatia, Vojvodinaand Serbia Proper) and in Montenegro, while advances in the others (Kosovo, Macedoniaand Bosnia—Hercegovina) have been smaller, and in 1970 regional differences were stillconsiderable. The reduction in the developed regions came primarily with a sharp drop inpost-neonatal mortality that was more meager in the other regions. Obviously, the lessfavorable economic and social conditions, primary factors in post-neonatal mortality arethe main stumbling-block to faster reduction of infant mortality in these regions. It mustbe pointed out that although in the more developed regions 80-99% of all births takeplace in medical institutions under professional supervision, only 50-60% do in themoderately developed regions, and less than 30% in Kosovo.

24

Mortality according to Marital Status

In all ages, the unmarried population has higher mortality than the married (Table11). The mortality of divorced males is higher than that of divorced females. Widowsand widowers have the highest mortality rates at all ages, and widowers a third higherthan widows, presumably because they have greater difficulty in adjusting to their newlife situation after the death of their spouse.

TABLE 11. — MORTALITY ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS AND AGE INYUGOSLAVIA IN 1961

Maritalstatus

TotalSingle males

femalesMarried males

femalesWidowed males

femalesDivorced males

females

Total

9.73.43.99.65.2

64.537.214.15.8

Deaths per 1000

15-19

1.01.10.80.50.7__—-

Cause

20-34

1.62.22.11.51.24.02.33.22.5

population by age

35-49

3.26.9

. 4.73.42.68.83.57.43.3

: Mortality

50-64

12.218.611.813.88.8

22.512.526.1

9.4

65 andover

65.769.557.260.239.7

104.574.263.349.2

With the improvement of the health services, the advance of the medical sciencesand the greater health culture of the population as a whole, there have been significantshifts in the causes of deaths. The proportion of deaths due to infectious diseases,tuberculosis and respiratory and intestinal diseases has diminished significantly and theincidence of such causes as coronary diseases, cancer and cerebro-vascular diseases, thaiis, the causes of death of older age groups, has grown. Shifts in age structure of ilu1

population, that is demographic ageing, lie behind these changes. There are considerabledifferences between the more and the less developed regions in the cause structure oldeaths, which are a function of the high level of infant mortality on the one hand, andthe high incidence of deaths due to infectious diseases, tuberculosis, and respiratory anddigestive diseases on the other, especially in Bosnia—Hercegovina, Kosovo andMacedonia. Over the last decade, accident mortality in Yugoslavia has soared,particularly amongst the young and middle-aged. Accident-prevention measures by therelevant public services have not kept pace with the rapid motorization of thepopulation, and nor is prevailing traffic conduct conducive to reducing deaths due totraffic accidents to the lowest possible level (observance of traffic rules, avoidance ofdriving under the influence of alcohol, etc.).

25

The problem of differential mortality according to various characteristics (socialand occupational, rural versus urban sub-groups, etc.) is evident in the Yugoslavpopulation. This matter deserves more attention, but it may be pointed out here that asmortality declines, that is, as health- services and the health culture of the populationadvance — there is a trend for these sub-group mortality differentials to diminish.

Natural Increase of the Yugoslav Population

It is apparent from the foregoing that both components, fertility and mortality,have had very varied effects on the natural increase of the Yugoslav population.

Throughout the 19th Century it was a function of both high fertility and highmortality. Only towards the end of the century and the beginning of the 20th did adecline set in in mortality and, in the more developed regions, in fertility. Theseprocesses gained momentum somewhat in the between-war period, when the rate ofnatural increase ranged between 16.O°/oo (1921) and 11.0%o(1939). Nevertheless, inthis period, too — particularly in some regions - natural increase was significantlyinfluenced by the relatively high mortality rate.

Directly after the war, natural increase was very high (around 17.O°/oo) due to afertility rise in the compensatory period, coupled with the already low mortality. Overthe last 20 years, there has been a constant downtrend (9.O°/oo!n the period 1970-1973on average annually) to a level on a par with the average for developed countries of theworld.

Today, natural increase is largely a function of the fertility component, although,due to the action of demographic ageing processes, the mortality component is gaining inimportance, particularly when the more developed regions with their older populationsare compared with the more youthful, less developed regions. The regional differences innatural increase are very accentuated. They are enhanced by differences in mortalityrate. In the more developed regions (Vojvodina. Croatia, Serbia Proper and Slovenia) therate today (1970—1973) ranges from 3 to W\v, in tho less developed (Montenegro.Bosnia—Hercegovina and Macedonia) from 13 i<> 15"™. and in the ieast developed(Kosovo) it is very high, around ZS'i'.w (on average for the period).

External Migration

The balance of migration in Yugoslavia has affected the population dynamics ofthe country for more than 100 years. In relation to other countries, Yugoslavia as awhole is an emigratory region. In the past there have virtually always been moreemigrants. Economic motives have in the main been the primary reason for migration oftho population to other countries.

Prior to World War I (particularly from 1880 to 1910) overseas migration (to theUSA and elsewhere) tended to predominate, especially from agriculturally depressedparts of the country. Subsequently, in the between—war period, European migration wasthe heavier, while in the period following the Second World War these preferences weremore blurred. Over the last 50 years Yugoslavia has lost 1 0-20";«nf its natural increase,that is to say. net migration amounted to 1 to 2%> of the total population, and was

negative. Accordingly, population trends, as the resultant of natural (fertility andmortality) and mechanical (immigration and emigration) components of populationmovement, as noted, were 10 to 20% lower than natural increase.

Estimates of external migration are only partly based on direct statistical data, andare partly derived by various methods. For the period between the two wars data isavailable on external migration to European and non—European countries from 1930 to1939. These show that the annual number of emigrants was around 18,000 (13,200 toEuropean and 4,800 to non—European countries), and the annual number of »migrantsaround 12,000 (8,200 from European and 3,700 from non—European countries), givinga net migration of -6000 each year. For the period up to 1930 the only data is fornon-European migration. This was slightly less intensive after 1920, began to rise andthen, after the Depression, dropped sharply. During the Depression return migrationfrom non-European countries was considerable, and in 1938 and 1939 from Europeancountries.

Between the 1948 and 1953 population censuses there are only unofficialestimates of external migration. According to one such estimate, annual net migrationwas then around -30,000, while according to another it was around —20,000. Yet,according to data published in the Federal Statistical Yearbook, total annual immigrantsover the period 1953—1961 amounted to just over 1,500, and emigrants to around35,000. The number of emigrants is considered to be considerably underestimated, mostprobably by somewhere around 12,000-17,000 per year. It follows, then, that annualnet migration over this period ranged from —45,000 to —50,000.

The statistical records are also believed to be incomplete regarding the volume ofemigrants (persons requesting migration passports) in the period 1961-1971. These putthe annual number of emigrants at 8,300 and immigrants around 900. Verification bymeans of the census (persons declaring that they settled in Yugoslavia over 1961-1971)indicates that the number of immigrants amounted to over 2,600, while from the vitalstatistics (data on population growth, natural increase and the number of immigrants)the number of emigrants is computed as around 25,400 per year. Accordingly, there wasa negative annual net migration of around -22,000 per year. This estimate is probablyslightly inflated.

By way of summary, then:— negative net migration increased up to 1961, and then declined;- in the period examined, the rate of negative net migration ranged from 1-2 °/oo,

immigrants equalling around one—tenth of emigrants.The motives for external migration were largely economic in the period between .

the two wars and, due to the readjustments of the Yugoslav borders and the radicalsocial changes, largely political in the period between 1948 and 1953. From 1953 to1961 the flow of emigrants comprised mostly Turkish nationals. In the last decadeeconomic motives have once again taken ascendancy.

In the period of the Second World War, or rather, towards the end of the war,there was heavy emigration of German nationals.

More recently, especially since 1964, a new form of external migration hasassumed particular importance, namely the temporary departure of Yugoslav citizens towork in other, usually more developed, European countries. The 1971 population census

27

recorded a total of around 672,000 Yugoslavs temporarily working abroad, mainly indeveloped European countries. The greatest percentage were situated in the FederalRepublic of Germany (61.2%), followed by Austria (12.3%) and elsewhere. Job-seeking;ibroad has developed as a consequence of an over-supply of labor in the country. anincreased demand for labor in the developed countries,and furthermore,higher earningsabroad. Moreover, it must be pointed out that there were no restrictions whatsoever inregard to the departure of Yugoslav citizens to seek work abroad. It is estimated that the

•number working temporarily abroad has stagnated since 1973, but that it is nonethelesshigher today than in 1971. With due recognition of the short and long-term effects ofthis migration, and the great importance of these problems, the following issues are beingexamined in Yugoslavia: protection of the rights of Yugoslav workers abroad, control ofthe volume of emigration, finding jobs for returning workers, and efforts to reduce thenumber of Yugoslavs temporarily working abroad in the foreseeable future.

28

Ill COMPOSITION OF THE YUGOSLAV POPULATION

From the standpoint of demographic (age and sex), educational, economic andother characteristics, the composition of the Yugoslav population differs in manyrespects from that in neighboring countries, and even other countries in Europe. This hasbeen conditioned by numerous factors: historical, geographical and socio-economic.

Sex and Age Structure

The Yugoslav population as a whole is characterized by an excess of females (Table12), with regional differentials in sex structure as a function of the levels and trends offertility, sex—specific mortality, and to some extent, migratory movements.

TABLE 12. — SEX STRUCTURE OF THE YUGOSLAV POPULATION, 1921—1971

CensusYear

192119311948195319611971

Total

125451453415842169911854920523

Number in 000's

Males

6154718876 ! 582329043

10077

Females

63917346822787609506

10446

Total

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

Percentage

Males Females

49.0649.4648.0748.4548.7549.10

50.9450.5451.9351.5551.2550.90

The sex structure has been affected considerably over the past 45-50 years b\wartime events. The highest surpluses of females occurred directly after the wars. Then,as a consequence of the sex composition of the liveborn, the masculinity rate of theoverall population began to rise and to show a tendency towards balancing out of thesexes. Analysis of the age-specific masculinity rates shows that the masculinitycoefficients are over 1000 up to age 30-35, when balance is achieved (1971), and that

29

they then go into a decline, the greatest female excess occurring amongst the elderly.High-fertility regions have an excess of males (in certain periods female mortality

was also the higher), while the situation is reversed in low-fertility regions. Kosovo andMacedonia are the only regions in Yugoslavia that have consistently had a higher numberof males at all censuses (Table 13). As shown in earlier sections, the mortality sexdifferential is particularly pronounced in the developed regions (Slovenia, Croatia,Vojvodina, Serbia Proper). These same regions also have a positive net migration overlong distances, and males take the lead in these migrations.

TABLE 13. — MASCULINITY BATIOS IN YUGOSLAVIA, 1921—1971

Bosnia Mont Croat-Mace Slov- S e r b i a

SFRY Herce- enegro ia -donia enia Total Proper Voj- Kosovogovina vodina

1921 966 1045 995 961 986 937 943 925 958 100719311948195319611971

981926940951965

1040.931947953960

997894925945959

955881897914935

10151026102310201027

953882899916938

976944956967. 977

972940953959970

964917926949950

10361040104310451050

The age structure of the population, under the influence of secular fertilitydynamics, shows trends typical of demographic ageing (Table 14, Graph 1). As aconsequence of regional differences in fertility dynamics in the past and today, the agedistribution of the populations display regional differences that are similar to thosefound on a world scale (Table 15).

TABLE 14. — AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE YUGOSLAV POPULATION,1921—1971

192119311948195319611971

Total

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

0-19

45.343.743 A40.838.536.5

Years of age

20-39

28.330.928.129.432.530.1

40-59

17.717.019.820.919.020.8

60 and over

8.78.48.78.910.012.6

30

SEX AND AGE STRUCTURE OF THE POPULATION OF YUGOSLAVIA,31. MARCH 1953, 1961 AND 1971.

• « ljo loo . 50 o o jo loo 150 zoo 25a 230 aoo 110 w 50 « o 30 i w 150" aw 250

31

TABLE 15. — AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATIONS OF THE REPUBLICSAND PROVINCES, 1971

Age

group

Total0-1920-3940-5960 +

Bosnia—Hercegovina

100.045.429.816.77.7

Mont-enegro

100.042.829.016.711.0

Croatia

100.031.530.023.014.9

Macedonia

100.043.030.217.78.8

Slovenia

100.033.230.121.914.8

Total

100.034.230.222.212.9

SerbiaProper

100.031.331.023.613.6

Voj-vodina

100.030.030.623.214.8

Kosovo

100.052.826.213.17.1

.Note: Differences to 100.0 are accounted for by the unknown'group.

In contrast to most other European populations, the age structure in Yugoslavia isstill distinguished by a relatively high proportion of youth and a contingent of the agedthat is still small, comparatively speaking.

The youngest age contingent decreased throughout the period examined andthere was an upturn in the proportion of the middle-aged (20-59). Only in the periodafter 1961 was there a downtrend in the lower middle-age group (20-39), as aconsequence of the depressed fertility of the Second World War, while the decline in theproportion of upper middle-aged (40-59) in 1961 may be ascribed to the effects ofWorld Wars I and II (lowered fertility in 1912-1918, and heavy war casualties in theseand other age groups in the Second World War). The percentage of the elderly mountedthroughout the period.

Great differences are found when shifts in age distribution are analyzedregionally. Regions with a high to very high relative fertility have a high proportion ofyouth and a lower proportion of the middle—aged and elderly (Kosovo, Bosnia-Herce-govina, Macedonia and Montenegro). Tlic cither regions are characterized by demogra-phic ageng processes of a higher ordci.

It is noteworthy that in Kosovo there has been no tendency for the elderlypopulation to increase and that the proportion of youth is actually on the rise. Namely,the gradual downturn in fertility that began after 1960 did not lower the proportion ofthe young because it was offset by a significant decrease in infant mortality, which hastended towards rejuvenation of the population. For practically 50 years, there has beenno change in the age structure of the Kosovo population because a high level of fertilityhas been maintained throughout.

Outstanding in the current age distribution of the Yugoslav population is the slightrise in the working—age contingent (in 1971 15—64 year old males and 15—59 year oldfemales made up 62.6% of the total population as against 61.9% in 1953). In the moredeveloped regions the working—age contingent makes up 63 — 66% of the population,and in the other regions 58—60%, with the exception of Kosovo where it comprisedaround 51% in 1971. It follows then, that the demographic circumstances of theformation of the labor force differ very widely regionally, as a function of the relativesize of the working-age population.

32

The shifts in age structure are even more pronounced in the agricultural population- due to the drain-off of the agricultural labor force to other economic sectors and thespecific age composition of the population lost in this way. There ¡s, therefore, a markedtrend to ageing of the labor force in this population category.

The age structure of the urban population is similarly distinctive. This is especiallythe case in those towns or cities in which over half of the population are immigrants.Namely, migrants are predominantly between ages 20-35. As a consequence, the urbanage structure is favorable from the standpoint of the formation of the labor force,especially where the population is being swollen by immigration.

The age cohorts entering the working contingent of the population are significantfrom the employment standpoint. Since the birth rate was high in Yugoslavia in thecompensatory period (1948-1954), the contingents of 20 year olds have been verystrong over the period 1968-1974, exerting demographic pressures on employmentwhich will continue into the forthcoming period because of the upward shift of the age

• of entry into economic activity with the prolongation of schooling, and because therewas a significant drop in birth rate only after 1958-1960.

Distribution by Marital Status

In those countries in which fertility is tied mainly to legal unions (in Yugoslaviaover 91% of liveborn children are legitimate) the marital status distribution of thepopulation plays a very crucial role in population replacement. In these countriespopulation replacement is determined to a large extent by the proportion of the fertilepopulation that is married, the age at entry into marriage, and of course, the fertility ofmarriage.

Formal criteria of marital status are employed in Yugoslav population censuses andother demographic investigations conducted by official statistical services.

There have been considerable swings in the distribution of the populationaccording to marital status since the foundation of Yugoslavia (1918) up to the presenttime, mostly as a result of the wars which disrupted nuptiality on the one hand, and onthe other left a great mass of war widows.

The percentage of single males and females was high immediately after the warsand subsequently decreased (Table 16).

TABLE 16. — PERCENTAGE OF SINGLE MALES AND FEMALESAGED 15—59, YUGOSLAVIA

Populationcensus

192119311948195319611971

%ofbachelors

35.134.035.634.630.734.7

%ofspinsters

26.024.128.027.5^23.125.6

33

TABLE 17. — PERCENTAGE OF WIDOWS IN THE IS—59 AGE GROUP,YUGOSLAVIA

Populationcensus

192119311948195319611971

%ofwidows

12.79.6

11.09.47.06.1

As a result of male war casualties and the higher mortality of males in general, andcompounded also by the low frequency of remarriage by females, the percentage ofwidows is very high — four to five times higher than the percentage of widowers.

As the data shows, the percentage of widows climbed immediately after the Firstand Second World Wars.

With the liberalization of legislation on divorce after the Second World War therehas been a constant rise in the incidence of divorced persons in Yugoslavia (Table 18).

TABLE 13. — PERCENTAGE OF DIVORCED PERSONSIN THE 15—59 AGE GROUP, YUGOSLAVIA

Populationcensus

192119311948195319611971

%ofdivorcedmales

0.300.420.460.770.901.07

%ofdivorced

females

0.410.630.771.352.052.60

Both absolutely and relatively, the frequency of divorced females is greater thanthan of divorced males because of their slimmer chances for remarriage. In absoluteterms, there were twice as many divorced females as males at the 1971 census whichrecorded 189,515 divorced females and 80,102 divorced males.

An idea of the situation in regard to celibates in Yugoslavia may be gained byexamining the number of bachelors and spinsters in the 40—59 age group as recorded bythe last census, in 1971. At that time there were 81,667 bachelors, or 4.0%, and 138,897spinsters, or 5.9% of the age group (Table 19). The frequency of bachelors of this age.was highest in Slovenia followed by Montenegro and Vojvodina, and lowest inMacedonia and Serbia Proper. As regards spinsters, the situation is a little different inthat their frequency was greatest in Slovenia, followed by Montenegro and Croatia, andlowest in Macedonia and Kosovo.

34

TABLE 19. — FREQUENCY OF BACHELORS AND SPINSTERS IN THE40—50 AGE GROUP, 1971 CENSUS

YugoslaviaBosnia—Herceg.MontenegroCroatia

. MacedoniaSloveniaSerbiaProperVojvodinaKosovo

AbsoluteBach-elors

81.6679.5972.219

23.1403.230

12.87030.61116.31411.6952.602

numberSpin-sters

138.89722.721

4.61143.626

2.68327.89137.36521.31114.298

1.756

Bach-elors

4.003.315.384.902.187.433.342.695.83.12

%Spinsters

5.946.39-9:327.721.77

13,193.723.195.622.10

Educational Structure of the Population

Literacy and educational status are certainly two primary variables in anyexamination of the educational structure of a population. What is more,*they are theonly two variables for which data is available from the censuses.

Illiteracy is still a major social problem in Yugoslavia. According to the .lastpopulation census in 1971, the percentage of illiterates (amongst the population aged 10years and over) was 15.1%, with 7.5% of the male population illiterate, and 22.2% of thefemale population. Nonetheless, great strides have been taken in overcoming illiteracy inthe postwar period (Table 20), for as the respective censuses show, 44.6% of thepopulation was illiterate in 1931 and as much as 50.5% in 1921. This problem, then, is alegacy of the past that cannot be eradicated so very fast.

TABLE 20. — PERCENTAGE OF ILLITERATES OVER AGE 10IN YUGOSLAVIA

1948 1953 1961 1971

TotalMalesFemales

25.415.434.4

25.414.135.8

21.011.030.2

15.17.5

22.2

Bearing this in mind, such global illiteracy figures cannot suffice. The problemmust be viewed in relation to the age structure of the population (Table 21). The verylow percentage of illiterates in the group aged up to 35 years, particularly amongst themales, speaks of the advances made after the war with respect to compulsory educationand, accordingly, literacy,- because this group was given the opportunity to have regular

35

TABLE 21. — AGE AND SEX DISTRIBUTION OF ILLITERATESIN YUGOSLAVIA IN 1971

Age group

Total10-1920-3435-6465 +

% of illiterates

Total

15.13.15.2

21.642.8

Males Females

7.52.31.99.8

29.7

22.24.08.6

32.352.7

schooling. The higher percentage over age 35, and especially over 65 years, constitute thelegacy of the past. It is particularly drastic as far as the female population is concerned.

To bring out more clearly how much has been done in this field, the results of thefirst postwar census conducted in 1948. are presented below (Table 22).

TABLE 22. — AGE AND SEX DISTRIBUTION OF ILLITERATESIN YUGOSLAVIA IN 1948

Age group

Total10-1920-3435-6465 +

% of illiterates

Total

25.414.016.334.655.7

Males

15.49.57.1

21.143.1

Females

34.418.724.146.565.3

There are pronounced regional differences in the level of literacy. Thus, whereasilliteracy has practically been eliminated in Slovenia, it continues to be a serious problemin the other regions. It is lowest in Croatia and Vojvodina and highest in Kosovo andBosnia—Hercegovina (Table 23).

These regional differentials are even more glaring when viewed by age. Thus theproportion of illiterates in ages 35-64 was 1.1% in Slovenia and 56.7% in Kosovo. In the65 and over age group the corresponding percentages were 3.9% and 83.7%.

The male population, as the data presented shows, is considerably more literatethan the female, because of the inferior status of the female in the past. The 1971 figuresshow that every thirteenth male was illiterate at that time, and every fourth female.

Amongst educational characteristics, educational status takes an outstanding place.According to the census, in 1971 there were almost 17 million persons over age 10, andof these over 11 million either had had no schooling or had not finished primary(eight—year) school, that is, had not gained even the basic compulsory schooling. Thisamounts to almost 67% of the population, and means that almost 7 of every 10 people

36

TABLE 23. — PERCENTAGE OF ILLITERATES IN YUGOSLAVIA,THE REPUBLICS AND PROVINCES, IN 1971

YugoslaviaBosnia—HercegovinaMontenegroCroatiaMacedoniaSloveniaSerbia

Proper .VojvodinaKosovo

%

15.123.216.79.0

18.11.2

17.217.69.1

31.6

TABLE 24. — EDUCATIONAL STATUS OP THE YUGOSLAV POPULATION AGE10 AND OVER, ACCORDING TO THE 1953, 1961 AND 1971 CENSUSES

TotalNo school, or 1-3primary grades4-7 grades ofprimary schoolPrimary schoolSchools for skilledand highly-skilledworkers

Secondary, vocationalschoolsGymnasiumUniversity and higher

schoolsUnknown

1953

13381

5632

6161556

531

191154

8 i75

1961

in 000.

14611

4864

70931069

878

312176

19724

1971

16 896

4091

71462548

1515

727334

47462

1953

100.0

42.0

46.14.2

4.0

1.41.2

0.60.5

1961

in%

100.0

33.3

48.57.3

6.0

2.11.2

1.40.2

1971

100.0

24.2

42.315.1

8.9

4.32.0

2.8. 0 .4

over age 10 either had not finished primary school or had no schooling whatsoever(Table 24).

Progress has been great over the last two decades but the level necessary for theoverall development of Yugoslavia, especially economic, and its specific manpower needshas not yet been attained.

There are differences in educational level from one region to another. Thus, the

37

percentage with no schooling or oníy 1-3 grades of primary school ranges from 6.8% inSlovenia to 36.2% in Bosnia-Hercegavina and 39.8% in Kosovo. But, the pace of changehas been the faster in the less developed regions. For example, in Slovenia in 1953,16,5% of the population over age 10 had finished primary school or had a higher level ofeducation (secondary and higher) and in 1971, 63,2. The respective percentages forKosovo were 4.3% in 1953 and 23.1% in 1971. Although these changes are partly afunction of the age structure of the population, it is nevertheless indisputable that theyhave taken place much faster in Kosovo, where the phase of faster attainment ofeducational qualifications only began in 1953.

The percentage with higher education has grown more rapidly amongst the femalethan the male population, e.g. the number of females with secondary education inYugoslavia swelled from 247,000 (3.5% of the population over age 10) in 1953, to867,000 (10.0%) in 1971. The corresponding figures for males were 9.8% in 1953 and21.8% in 1971. The pattern of growth in the number with higher and university trainingwas similar (in 1953 only 29,000 females, and in 1971 around 130,000), etc.

Nationality Structure of the Population

Any examination of the ethnic structure of the Yugoslav population, mustcertainly give a central place to nationality. Mother tongue and religion can also beranked alongside nationality here, although today religion does riot have the samesignificance by far as it had in Yugoslavia in the past.

The ethnic groups of multi-national Yugoslavia have been subjected to influencesfrom different centers (economic, cultural, religious, political and others), and to thisday there are great differences between them in socio-economic development, as well asconsiderable disproportions in regard to basic demographic characteristics.

In all four postwar population censuses, information on the nationality structurehas been obtained exclusively through direct questions on nationality. Each respondentis completely free to declare his nationality subjectively, in line with his sentiments onthe matter. This is a reflection of the national rights enjoyed by the peoples ofYugoslavia, including the right to free determination of nationality.

Information was collected in all the postv/ar censuses on mother tongue, and in the1953 census on religion as well.

The nationality composition of ihe Yugoslav population that emerges from the1971 census (Table 25) shows the major nations of the country to comprise 86.7% ofthe total population, the national minorities 10.6% and other nationalities 0.8%, while1.9% of the total population did not declare any specific nationality.

Demographic studies of the development of the population according tonationality have shown that the differences in demographic characteristics areunquestionably the outcome of long—term historical development. Existing differencesare in greatest part the product of the effects of past socio-economic development, thelevel of economic development now attained in the region inhabited by the members ofthe given nationality, the cultural and educational level, etc. On many demographicvariables (eg. mortality) there are pronounced trends towards a diminution of these

38

TABLE 25. — NATIONALITY STRUCTURE OF THE YUGOSLAV POPULATION,1971

TotalNations of Yugoslavia

MontenegrinsCroatiansMacedoniansMoslems (as a nationality)SloveniansSerbians

National Minorities

AlbaniansBulgariansCzechsItaliansHungariansRumaniansRutheniansSlovaksTurksOther Nations, Nationalitiesand Ethnic Groups

GypsiesUkrainiansWaîlachiansOthersUndeclared Nationality

Or. the basis of Art, 14 of theConstitution of SFRY'Yugoslavs'Regional identificationUnknown

NumberinDOO

20523

50945271195

16788143

1310592522

477592584

129

78142251

33. 273

1547

0/%

100

2.522.1

5.8

8.239.7

6.40.30.10.12.30.30.10.40.6

0.40.10.10.2

0.2Î .3

0.10.3

differentials, although on some traits (eg. fertility) they remain sharp. The socio-econo-mic, educational and other structures of the populations are modifying in line with andaccording io the tendencies observed with the overall Yugoslav population, although therate of these changes is greater in those previously less developed. All'in all, the equalityof the different nationalities in Yugoslavia favors the attainment of general goals in thedemographic development of all the nationalities.i) Citizens have the right nol to declare themselves at all.2)-,Citizens are permitted to declare themselves 'Yugoslavs' oven though this is not considered a

declaration of nationality or ethnic membership. These persons are treated as a separate group inthe results.

3) Citizens replying in terms of regional membership (eg. as a Sumadinian. Dalmatian, Herccgovinian,etc.) instead of nationality.

Historical circumstances have also in a sense determined the spatial distribution ofthe individual nations and nationalities. This distribution, in fact, influenced the locationof the borders of the republics within Yugoslavia. The compactness of the population ofeach nationality in its given republic is undeniable. This is clearly evidenced by thefindings of each of the four postwar censuses. Thus, according to the last, in 1971 Serbsmade up 71.2% of the population in Serbia, Croats 79.4% of the population in Croatia,Slovenians 94.0% of the population in Slovenia, Macedonians 69.3% of the population inMacedonia, and Montenegrins 67.2% of the population in Montenegro, while 37.2% ofthe population in Bosnia—Hercegovina were Serbs, 20.6% Croats, and 39.6% Moslems (asa nationality). In Kosovo, 73.7% of the population were Albanians, 18.4% Serbs, 2.5%Montenegrins, and 2.1% Moslems. In Vojvodina, according to the last census, 55.8% wereSerbs, 21.7% Hungarians, 3.7% Slovaks, 2.7% Rumanians, etc.

Religious affiliation was investigated only during the 1953 population census.Respondents declared their religion according to strictly subjective criteria. According tothe findings,. 12.6% of the population had no religion, 41.2% were Orthodox, 31.7%Catholic, 12.3% Moslem and 0.9% Protestant.

The ethnic structure emerging from the data on nationality and on mother tonguein the main coincide. However, specific questions regarding mother tongue (defined asthe language used in early childhood) have proven very valuable in clarifying ethnicstructure, particularly with children of mixed marriages and respondents failing todeclare a specific nationality (1.9% in the 1971 census), as well as with the members ofnationalities and ethnic groups in which awareness of a distinctness is only justbecoming.

Households and Families

All the censuses conducted on the territory of Yugoslavia since 1921 havecollected information on households, with the household at the same time being treatedas a separate statistical unit. The problem of the family, so to speak, was not investigateduntil the 1953 census, although data on families was derived from the information onhouseholds, so that until that date, the family appeared as a derived statistical unit.

The household is defined on the basis of objective criteria such as commonresidence and pooled earnings and expenditures. Defined in this way, the household maybe considered a single socio-economic category.

The family is conceived of as a sociological—biological category, that is, as ¡icommunity based on legal bonds of marriage and blood relationship, or adoption, andresiding within a household. •

It is characteristic of the Yugoslav population that growth in households hasoutpaced growth in the population, as a result of a decrease in average household size(Table 26).

In the period since the last war the size of the household has shrunk from onecensus to the next. Apart from purely demographic factors (fertility, mortality, naturalincrease, marriage and divorce rates) the reduction in average household size has beencontributed to by population migrations, foremostly on a rural-urban scale, which have .

40

TABLE 26. — HOUSEHOLDS IN YUGOSLAVIA, 1921—1971

Census

192119311948195319611971

Number ofhouseholds(000)

2 4602 8483 6273 9634 6495 375

Personsper

household

5.105.14

. 4;374.293.993.82

been very strong during this period. Moreover, changes have also taken place in the ruralpopulation which, in addition to a general trend of change in the family composition ofhouseholds, has also been a contributing factor.

The distribution of households by size class in 1961 and 1971 (Table 27)*shows arise in the relative proportion of 3 and 4-person households, and to some extent of2—person households, along with a decline in frequency of the other size classes.

TABLE 27. — PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OP HOUSEHOLDSBY SIZE CLASS

Persons perhousehold

Total12345678 and over

1961

100.013.615.417.218.613.6

9.35.47.0

1971

100.012.916.319.021.312:98.04.35.3

Rural and urban differences in average household size are very pronounced, andare the product of the level of fertility and the marriage and divorce rates, as well as thefamily composition of the households. Thus, in 1971, average household size in urbansettlements was 3.2, and in rural settlements 4.3.

Similarly, interregional differences in average household size are appreciable (Table28).

In all regions, except for Kosovo, average household size diminished over theperiod observed. In the more developed regions (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia Proper andVojvodina), household size was low (from 3.2 to 3.6 persons), in Montenegro,Bosnia—Hercegovina and Macedonia, somewhat higher (4.3 to 4.7), and in Kosovo, very

41

TABLE 28. — AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY REPUBLIC AND PROVINCE.1948 AND 1971

Bosnia Mont-—Herceg- ene-ovina gro

SerbiaCroat- Mace-ia donia

Slov-enia Total Sna K o s o v o

19481971

3.14.4

4.54.3

3.93.4

5.34.7

3.83.3

4.43.8

4.53.6

3.63.2

6.46.6

high (6.6). In Kosovo the slight downturn in fertility did not have any effects because itwas offset by a simultaneous downturn in infant mortality and, furthermore, changestaking place in family composition had but little effect.

in the 1961 and 1971 censuses, households were classified as agricultural ornon—agricultural on the basis of the source of the household income. The followingthree categories were obtained: households earning income a) solely from agriculture; b)from both agriculture and non—agricultural activities; and c) solely from non—agricultu-ral activities.

TATJLE 29. — HOUSEHOLDS ACCORDING TO SOURCE OF INCOME, 1971

SFRYBosnia—HercegovinaMontenegroCroatiaMacedonia•SlovenicaSerbia

ProperVojvodinaKosovo

Totalhouse-holds

5 375

849122

1 289352516

2 2481446

613188

Total Number of householdsby source of income

Agri-cult-ural

1373

23429

2789653

68443018965

Mixed

754

12815

1874770

3072110

6531

Non-aprj.

CUlxU"

ral3248

48778

825209392

1257806359

82

% of householdsby source of income

Agri-cult-ural

25.6

27.623.521.627.210.330.529.730.934.7

Mixed

14.0

. 15.012.414.513.413.713.614.610.616.3

Non-agricult-ural

50.4

57.464.163.959.476.055.955.758.549.0

Comparisons show that over the decade from 1961 to 1971 there was a sizeabledrop in the proportion of purely agricultural households in all regions, and a decline in'mixed' households, while there was a considerable upsurge in the proportion of'non—agrieultural' households (from 43.4 to 60.3%).

The concept of the family is narrower than that of the household, and the

42

following data gives a picture of the family composition of households in 1953 and 1961(Table 30).

TABLE 30. — FAMILY COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLDS, 1953 AND 1961

100.012.2

53.928.2

5.7

100.014.0

69.625.7

1.7

Family composition 1953 1961

TotalOne—personNuclear familyExtended familyOthers

Households consisting of extended families decreased in frequency during thisperiod, while those mads up of nuclear families increased. This process is understandablein this country because the heavy now from rural to urban settlements is breaking downthe multi-family rural household. On the other hand, there is a mounting inclinationamongst the young to found their own households to avoid likely generation conflicts.For these reasons, the incidence of aged households is growing from one day to the next,as is the need for the construction of homes for the care of the aged.

. The category of 'nuclear families' is very numerous and especially interesting, notonly in Yugoslavia, but in other countries as well (Table 31).

TABLE 31. — COMPOSITION OF NUCLEAR FAMILIES IN YUGOSLAVIA,1953 AND 1961

TotalMarried couples without childrenMarried couples with childrenMothers with childrenFathers with children

1953

100.022.161.414.02.5

1961

100.022.964.111.1

1.9

The incidence of complete families (married couples with or without children) rosefrom 1953 to 1961 in all regions, both absolutely and relatively, while the reverse is trueof incomplete families. This is understandable because incomplete families wereexceptionally frequent directly after the war, due either to direct war casualties, orbecause the disruption of conjugal life led to an increase in the number of divorces. Atthe same time, however, numerous other factors have been operative in the increase inthis category during this period, such as: emancipation of the woman, reform of maritaland family legislation in Yugoslavia, the growth of industry, urbanization, etc.

43

IV POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, INTERNAL MIGRATIONAND THE AGRICULTURAL, NON-AGRICULTURAL,

URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONS

Population Distribution and Internal Migration

The density and regional distribution of the population of Yugoslavia hasdeveloped under the influence of multifarious natural factors and social, economic,demographic and political developments in the past. The presently more developedregions (Slovenia, Vojvodina, Croatia, Serbia Proper) were much more densely populatedin 1880 than the other regions. This state of affairs continued up to 1921, and to someextent 1948 when the effect of demographic factors became stronger. Namely, as aconsequence of fertility and mortality dynamics, natural increase became moreregionally differentiated, while internal migration only partially mitigated the effects ofnatural increase on total population trends. Particularly outstanding in this respect isKosovo, where the high natural increase, sustained an entire 90 years, and particularlyover the last two and a half decades, has made this the most densely populated region inthe country. Shifts in population density in Yugoslavia are presented in Table 32.

TABLE 32. — POPULATION DENSITY IN YUGOSLAVIA BY REGION,1880—1971

-

SFRYBosnia-HercegovinaMontenegroCroatiaMacedoniaSlovenia.Serbia

Serbia ProperVojvodinaKosovo

1880

34.722.615.044.120.558.237.533.955.222.0

Population per km

1921

49.037.022.560.631.463.654.5

. 50.871.540.3

1948

61.950.127.366.944.871.473.974.274.367.3

1961

72.564.132.273.654.778.686.589.286.388.5

1971

80.273.238.478.264.185.295.593.790.7

114.3

44

Natural factors have had a great influence on population density in certain regions.Broadly speaking, the lowland areas are more densely settled. Themost sparselyjsettledare areas in the central highland belt of the country. Settlements there are generallysmall and scattered. Along the coast, density is lower than on the northern plains, butgreater than in the central highlands. The influence of regional economic developmenton population density is also manifest throughout the period, although the very greatsignificance of demographic factors must be stressed. Right up to the end of the fifthdecade of this century only Serbia Proper and Vojvodina had positive net migration inrelation to the other regions, but they were subsequently joined in this respect bySlovenia and Croatia.

In the interval from 1921 to 1971, population density increased the most inKosovo, followed by the other less developed regions with relatively high fertility andnatural increase rates (Macedonia, Bosnia—Hercegovina and Montenegro) and SerbiaProper, which had a positive net migration throughout this span of time. In theremaining regions (Slovenia, Croatia and Vojvodina) density grew at a much lower rate.During this period there was a strong spatial redistribution and flow of the populationfrom the south to the north, from the Dinaric karst to the Pannonian Plain. But, in spiteof this, a relatively higher rise in density was recorded in the southeastern parts of thecountry, where agricultural density is higher and urbanization lower. In the south, then,there was demographic expansion powered by the high rate of natural increase, and inthe north an increase in population density that may be ascribed in considerable degreeto immigration. These processes are a function of the respective differences in naturalfactors and the level of socio-economic development in the various parts of the country(the given phase of demographic transition).

Areas with a general population density of over 100 include northern SerbiaProper, southwestern Vojvodina. Kosovo, northwestern Macedonia, northeastern Bosnia,northwestern Croatia and central and eastern Slovenia.

Sparsely settled regions (up to 25)are considerably frequent in Montenegro andliosnia-Hercegovina. They make up the greater part of the highland and karst region ofYugoslavia.

Such areas are less common in Macedonia and Slovenia and virtually absent fromSerbia, except in karstic eastern Serbia.

As a whole then, an outstanding feature is the great differentiation of the territoryof Yugoslavia and its constituent republics according to population density. This is anindicator sui generis, of the Yugoslav social, economic and demographic mosaic.

Internal migration has had an even greater effect in recent times on the populationdynamics of smaller and larger regions than in the past . After the formation of a unifiedstate in 1918, spontaneous and organized internal migration over long and shortdistances resurged. After the Second World War and the People's Revolution of1941-1945, internal migration became even more intensive. In organized migratorymovements (agrarian colonization after the war) the population abandoned depressedfarming-herding regions of the Dinaric karst and settled on the Pannonian Plain.Subsequently, parallel with the industrialization of the country and the development of

* An historical account of internal migration in the country is presented in the introductory chapter.

45

other non-agricultural economic activities, a transfer began to take place fromagricultural to non—agricultural activities (deagrarianization) which very often alsoentailed spatial mobility as rural—to-urban migration (the rural exodus).

Therefore, even though the spatial mobility of the population within the countryitself had been appreciable between the wars, both absolutely and relatively it does notcompare with the volume of migration during the war and in the period of postwarsocialist construction. The tumultuous war years and the new social relations that sprangup from the social revolution accelerated the disintegration of the patriarchal structureof the population. Village traditions dissipated and the thirst for land abated whiledeagrarianization impulses led tö strong internal migration.

By 1948 31% of the total population was domiciled away from their place of birth(allochthonous population). In 1953 this figure had risen to 35%, in 1961 to 37% and in1971 it reached 40%. This gives a clear indication of the degree of internal spatial :

mobility of the Yugoslav population, which was a function of the rapid and radicalsocio-economic transformation of the country.

Amongst the individual republics, the highest relative proportion of internalmigration is found in Slovenia (46%), Croatia (43%) and Serbia (42% allochthonouspopulation), that is. in the more developed republics. The proportions in the otherrepublics, which are at the same time less developed, are lower (Bosnia—Hercegovina30%, Macedonia 38% and Montenegro 39%). Of the two autonomous provinces,component parts of the Republic of Serbia, more developed, agricultural-industrialVojvodina has a high proportion of migrants (47%), while less developed Kosovo hasonly 31% (69%. then, live in their place of birth).

The acceleration of internal migration and its positive correlation with generalsocio-economic development of the country is lawful and clear. Of the total number ofthe population not domiciled in their place of birth today only 16% migrated before1941 and only 5% during the war (1941—1945), while 36% migrated betv/een 1946 and1960, and as many as 42% during the last decade (1961-1971).*

Characteristically, short-range migrations predominate, that is, migrations oversmall distances (36% have migrated from one settlement to another in the same district,47% from one district to another in the same republic or province, and 15% from onerepublic or province to another, 2% are unknown.)

Of the total number of migrants registered at the 1971 census (8,236,000),4,584,000 resided in towns (55.7%) and 3,652,000 (44.3%) in other settlements.Rural—to—urban migration is the most significant type of urban immigration. However,inter—rural and inter—urban migrations have also been important (Table 33).

Long-distance internal migration (inter-republican or inter-provincial) in thepostwar period bears the following characteristics:

- All the more developed regions (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia Proper, Vojvodina)have a positive balance in respect to internal migration. This was only the case in SerbiaProper and Vojvodina until around 1956/57, but after this the trend appeared inSlovenia and Croatia as well. In Macedonia the balance of migration is at an equilibrium,

* In interpreting the 1971 census data, account must be taken of the tact that the distribution ofpersons that have migrated is influenced to a great extent by mortality and re-migration. Thegreater the lapse of time since the census was taken, the greater is the likelihood of repeatedmigration, and that the total number has been affected by mortality. Nevertheless, detailedanalyses show that spatial mobility has grown, parallel with economic and social development.

46

TABLE 33. — MIGRANT POPULATION IN YUGOSLAVIA BY TYPE OF PLACEOF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION, 1971

TotalMigrated fromurbanmixedruralFrom abroadUnknown

urban

inOOO's

4584

1546499

24282428

45

Domiciled in

settlements other

%

100

33.710.953.0

1.41.0

in 000's

3652

364265

29633228

settlements

Vo

100

10.07.3

81.10.90.8

while in all the other, less developed regions throughout the postwar period there hasbeen an excess of emigrants over immigrants from other parts of the country.

. - Whereas migration from the developed to the less developed regions (above all,migration of highly-trained workers) was still strong up to 196Ü, over the succeedingdecade this type of migration virtually disappeared.

— In the past period, migration of labor from the less developed to the moredeveloped (especially Slovenia) regions has been growing, though it is noteworthy thatthese migrants leave their families at home in their place ot origin.

To give a clearer picture of inter—regional migration, average annual netmigration is presented in Table 34 for the period 1953-1971.

TABLE 34. — ANNUAL NET INTER-REPUBLICAN (INTER-PROVINCIAL)MIGRATION, 1953—1971

Bosnia—HercegoviaaMontenegroCroatiaMacedoniaSloveniaSerbia ProperVojvodinaKosovo

Annual

1953-1961

No.

-13220-1629+2126+ 2164+ 1765f+440

+11730-3720

average

1961-1971

No.

-18328-1534+6368-162

+3266+7328+6815-3913

Under the conditions of insufficient development coupled with very rapidtransformation of the country, daily and weekly commuting (of the labor force, studentsand pupils, etc.) is important. Migrants of this kind constituted as much as 36% of allemployed in the country on 31st March 1961 and although there has been a downtrendover the last decade their incidence is still relatively high today. For this reason, then,this is a significant form of spatial (horizontal) and economic (vertical) mobility of the

47

population, and a bridge between the city and its surroundings.The heavy commuting of the 1950's was influenced by the following factors:— the fast but spatially and temporally uneven development and location of

production in small and large territorial units;— the pressures exerted by the latent surplus labor released from the previously

insular and over-populated village;- the drive of the young for social and economic restructuring (reinforced by the

revolution);- the diminished importance of natural factors in determining the economic

opportunities of individual parts of the country;— the inability of the society to absorb all deagrarianized workers and provide

housing for them near their place of work;- the commuting worker's low skills and earnings both from his property and

his job (forcing the need to double up occupationally in order to temporarily bolster hissocial and economic position).

The decline in commuting since 1960 has been brought about by the followingfactors:

— the introduction of thé social and economic reforms (with consequentreduction in the rate of employment of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, the majorityof which are commuters);

- liberalization of the labor market and departure to work in other countries;- a rise in family home-building in the suburban belts (construction, generally

unlicensed, of family homes has made it possible for some of the commuters to movecloser to their place of work);

- retirement of a part of the generation of mixed peasant-workers (crossbreedsthat usually stay on in the village as a source of supplementary income and goods).

Agricultural and Non-agricultural Population

Whereas before World War II Yugoslavia had an outstandingly agrarian structurewith the agricultural population making up over 70% of the total, after the war, withaccelerated development of industry and other non—agricultural activities, there was amarked tendency to decline in the agricultural population (Table 35).

TABLE 35. — AGRICULTURAL AND NON-AGRICULTURAL POPULATIONIN YUGOSLAVIA, 1948—1971

1948195319611971

TotalinOOO's

15842169911854920524

Agricultural

in OOO's

1064610348

91987 840

%

57.260.949.638.2

Non—agricultural

in OOO's

519666439351

12683

%

32.839.150.161.8

48

From 1948-1953 not only did the relative proportion of the agriculturalpopulation decrease, but its absolute number as well, and from then on the annualtransfer of the agricultural population to non-agricultural activities surpassed its naturalincrease. While estimated average annual transfer in the period 1948-1953 was around203,000, and over 1953-1961 around 229,000, in the period 1961-1971 it rangedaround 217,000. When compared with urban population trends (in 1971 the urbanpopulation accounted for slightly over 38%), the process of deagrarianization of thepopulation has been considerably faster than the process of urbanization. That is, asizeable portion of the population dwelling in mixed and rural settlements isnon-agricultural. Occupational mobility is often but not always linked to spatial(geographical) mobility. According to the findings of an agricultural census, in 1969there were 1,420,000 economically active persons living on farms but holding jobsoutside, mainly in non-agricultural fields. Such a significant number of persons living onfarms and holding outside jobs, which together with their dependents are categorized asnon-agricultural, shows that there are considerable mixed groups earning part of theirincome from non-agricultural employment and part from agricultural work, for they alsodo a fair amount of farm work on their own properties. On the other hand, someagricultural workers themselves gain part of their income from non-agricultural work, forexample through seasonal (e.g. construction) and other employment. During theimmediate postwar period, the transfer of agricultural population to the non-agriculturalsector was largely direct, but today this proceeds predominantly via training. The highlevel of this transfer created additional difficulties, particularly just after the economicreform (1964) when the policy of intensive employment was adopted, mainly inproviding employment for the contingents just entering their economically active periodof life. This was compounded by the fact that there was strong demographic pressure onemployment at the same time. In this period departures to take up temporaryemployment abroad also became significant, and unemployment was higher.

The shifts in the relative proportion of the agricultural population, and the levelattained in 1971, differed regionally. The most developed region (Slovenia) had thelowest percentage of agricultural population (20.4%), and Kosovo, as the leastdeveloped, the highest percentage (51-5%) in 1971 (Table 36).

TABLE 36 - PROPORTION OF AGRICULTURAL POPULATION(Percentage)

Bosnia Mont- n , w c , S e r b i a

Croat— Mace— Slov—

1948 71.8 71.6 62.4 70.6 44.1 72.3 72.4 68.Í 80.91971 40.0 35.0 32.4 32.9 20.4 44.0 44.1 39.0 41.3

The decrease in relative proportion of agricultural population has been very fast inall regions (from 26 to over 35 percentage points). But it must be noted that the rankordering of regions according to development does not coincide completely with the

49

ranking according to the relative size of the agricultural population. Certain lessdeveloped regions have a lower percentage of agricultural population than some of themore developed. This inconsistency is partly due to the age distribution of thepopulation, or the dependency coefficients (the number of dependents per economicallyactive person in the agricultural and non-agricultural category), and partly to the factthat Yugoslavia's richest agricultural land lies in Vojvodina, Serbia Proper and in part ofCroatia (Slavonia).

Settlements, Rural and Urban Population

The population of Yugoslavia dwells in 27,568 settlements with an average of 744inhabitants per settlement (Table 37). Different parts of the country differ widely in theaverage size, type and location of settlements. Generally, a redistribution of thepopulation is underway, with a tendency for the population to concentrate in the biggersettlements. Thus, according to the 1948 population census, 48,1% of the populationlived in settlements with over 1,200 inhabitants, and in 1971,60.2%.

TABLE 37. — NUMBER OF SETTLEMENTS AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTIONBY SETTLEMENT SIZE

Bosnia Mont-Cro-Mace-Slov- S e r b i a

SFRY Her- enegro atia donia enia „ , . „ Voi- ^r-ponvina Total Proper v o j . Kosovocegovina c vodina

a) Number ofsettlements

k 1971 27568 5872 1259 6666 1695 6001 6075 4189 451 1435

Av. inhabitants.per settlement 744 638 421 664 972 288 13901253 4330 867b) Population distribution by settlement size class (%)up to 299 pop. 9 6 1 1 7 23.8 11,8 6.8 30.2 2.9 3.3 0.2 5.5

300-599600-11991200-49995000-1499915000 and over

12.617.629.99.427.9

16.522.425.91

7.416:1

18.417.411.37.4

15.7

14.816.318.813.431.7

11.416.818.36.5

42.0

16.710.613.04.7

22.0

8.817.727.4

7.530.4

10.121.025.712.830.5

0.83.2

32.69.4

35.6

16.126.926.33.621.6

On average, the largest rural settlements lie on the plains (Vojvodina, Pannonianparts of Serbia Proper and Croatia), and along the Adriatic coast. The smallest arelocated in the central highlands of the country (the mountain area of Croatia, Bosnia,.Hercegovina and Montenegro). In appearance they are orthogonal in Vojvodina,shoe-string in the peri-Pannonian zone,-scattered and irregular in the central highlandsand compacted and meandering on the coast.

50

Yugoslavia as a whole is characterized by the considerable vestiges of rurality.Accordingly, urbanization is low although great changes have been wrought since thewar, particularly in the past fifteen years.

A pre-eminently primary producing country with a traditional and poly-cultura!heritage before the Second World War, Yugoslavia has since then gone through great and .rapid changes. Nevertheless, despite the appreciable attainments in industrialization andthe development of the tertiary sector, in 1971 61% of the population still lived in ruraland mixed settlements (Table 38).

TABLE 38. — PERCENTAGE OF URBAN POPULATION*

BosniaSFEYHerce

govina

Mont-en-egro

Croat- Mace—ia donia

Slov-enia

Serbia

Total Proper V o j : Kosovovodina

1953 21.7 15.0 14.2 24.3 26.1 22.0 22.5 21.2 29.5 14.61961 28.3 19.5 21.6 30.3 24.9 29.0 29.8 28.6 38.3 19.5

.197138.6 21.9 34.2 41.0 48.0 48.1 37.7 40.6 40.8 26.9

The percentage of urban population rose from 21.7. to 38.6% in the period1953-1971. The process was very rapid even though the general level of urbanization isstill rather low.

Outstanding in Yugoslavia is the fact that a sizeable portion of the population livesin mixed settlements. These are settlements that are losing their rural features andstructure, but which have not yet grown into urban centers in terms of population sizeand economic activities. The percentage of the population dwelling in mixed settlementsin 1953 (statistics are available only for 1953 and 1961) was small (1.6% for the countryas a whole) but had jumped by 1961 (around 11%). Regionally, in 1961 the percentageof the population living in mixed settlements was low in Kosovo (4.1%) and in SerbiaProper (5.7%), and high in Slovenia (21.0%), while in the other regions it ranged from12-14%.

The classification into urban, rural and mixed settlements is based on analytic criteria, namely, thenumber of inhabitants and the percentaec ot" non-agricultural population in the total populationof the settlement. According to this criteria, tiic following arc reierrcd to as urban:

a) settlements with 2000-3000 inhabitants, at least 90% non-agricultural;b) settlements with 3000-10,000 inhabitants, at least 70% non-agricultural;c) settlements with 10,000-15,000 inhabitants, at least 40% non-agricultural;d) settlements with 15,000 inhabitants and more and at least 30% non—agricultural.The following are classified as mixed settlementsa) settlements with 300-1000 inhabitants and at least 70% non-agricultural;b) settlements with 1000-2000 inhabitants, and at least 60% non-agricultural;c) settlements with 2000-3000 inhabitants, and from 50-90% or more non-agricultural;d) settlements with 3000-10,000 inhabitants, 40 to 70% non-agricultural;e) settlements with 10,000-15,000 inhabitants, 30 to 40% non-agricultural;f) settlements with 15,000 and more inhabitants, with less than 30% non-agricultural

population.

51

Further regional comparisons show that urbanization is lowest in Bosnia--Hercegovina, Montenegro and in Kosovo, and strongest in Vojvodina, Serbia Proper.Croatia and Slovenia, Macedonia is rather idiosyncratic in that it has a relatively highproportion of the population in urban type settlements that are partly agrarian. All in allthere is a very clearly pronounced difference in the urbanization of the population andsettlements in the northwestern regions of the country on the one hand, and thesoutheastern regions on the other. The extremes in this respect are Kosovo, which is stillthe most rural, most agrarian and most tradition-bound, and Slovenia which is the mosturbanized in regard to urban, mixed and rural settlements. Slovenia does not on averagehave bigger urban and mixed settlements than other parts of Yugoslavia but ruralurbanization there has reached a very high level.

Throughout the period 1953-1971 there was strong spatial redistribution of thepopulation. The rural exodus was exceptionally heavy and urbanization swift under theadditional- effects of return streams of workers from abroad that are largelydeagrarianized and opt for urban and mixed settlements. This changed not only theresidential structure of the population, but its economic structure as well.

In view of the data presented above and certain estimates, it must be mentionedthat the greatest shifts were recorded in Slovenia, the coastal area of Croatia, around bigtowns and cities on the Pannonian Plain and in the industrial-mining heartlands ofBosnia, eastern Serbia and central Macedonia. The village, in this way, and through theotherwise diminishing natural increase of the population over recent years, is becomingemptier and demographically older. The situation is quite different in this regard in thecentral and southeastern parts of Yugoslavia (eastern Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia) wherethe rates of natural increase are very high.

Of the 27.568 settlements in Yugoslavia, 127 are cities with more than 10.000population. There are few big cities because by European standards and considering thelevel of urbanization, population density is low. Only 21 cities have more than 50,000population (1971), 9 more than 100,000 and only 2 over 500,000 population.Nevertheless, metropolitanization has been relatively fast where the concentration ofpopulation in the capital city of the Federation and of Serbia is concerned (Belgrade,770,000 inhabitants in 1971). However, it is checked by the polycentric urban networkand the growth of the capital cities of the several republics and provinces (Zagreb,Ljubljana, Sarajevo, Skopje, Titograd, Novi Sad and Pristina). Polycentrism is alsostrengthening leading regional industrial and port-shipping centers (Rijeka, Split andOsijek in Croatia, Maribor in Slovenia, Nis and Kragujevac in Serbia, Banja Luka, Zenicaand Mostar in Bosnia-Hercegovina. etc.).

In 1948 the total population of the capital cities of the republics and provinceswas 1,065,000, or 6.7% of the total population of the country. In 1953 this figure hadrisen to 1,247,000, or 7.3%; in 1961 to around 1,629,000 or 8.8%, and in 1971 to2,382,000 or 11.0% of the Yugoslav population. Obviously the trend towardsconcentration of the population in these centers has been growing in recent years. Incomparison with the increase in the total population of the country, the population inthese capital cities virtually doubled over the period 1948-1971 (growth index for thetotal population, 1948-1971 was 129, and for the capital cities 224). Titograd,otherwise the smallest of the republican centers, had the highest growth index (550).while the second-largest center, Zagreb (population 556,000 in 1971) had the lowest(180).52

The index of growth of the population in the capital cities and in thecountry as a whole over the period 1921—1971 likewise show an increasing rate ofgrowth of the population of the capital cities from the first to the last intercensalinterval (Table 39).

TABLE 39. - POPULATION GROWTH INDICES OF THE CAPITALCITIES AND TOR YUGOSLAVIA AS A WHOLE 1921 1971 (1921=100)

YugoslaviaCapital cities

1921

100.0100.0

1931

115.6163.0

1948 1953

126.0 135.1240.5 281.7

1961

147.4368.3

1971

162.5538.5

100.0100.0

118,1213.7

134.9327.3

144.2391.7

148.0523.8

173.8689.1

Belgrade, the capital city of Yugoslavia and of the Republic of Serbia increased itspopulation from 112,000 (1921) to 770,000 (1971; index 1921 = 100, 1971 =689). Inthe same span of time the population of Yugoslavia grew by only 63%. The process ofcmetropolitanization' which began after the First World War, was continued in socialistYugoslavia. The greatest expansion, both absolutely and relatively was recorded in thelast intercensal interval, 1961-1971 (Table 40).

TABLE 40. - POPULATION GROWTH INDICES FOR BELGRADE ANDTHE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA, 1923-1971 (1921=100)

1921 1931 1948 1953 1961 1971

SerbiaBelgrade

Zagreb, as the capital of the Republic of Croatia, is also its biggest urbanagglomeration (and second biggest in the country). Population growth in Zagreb is afunction of its very favorable geographical position and its role as a republican center.From a city of 109,000 inhabitants in 1921 it has grown into a big agglomeration of566,000 (1971; index 1921 = 100, 1971 = 521). In half a century, then, its populationhas multiplied more than five times over, while the population of Croatia has grown byonly 29%.

TABLE 41. — POPULATION GROWTH INDICES FOR ZAGREB AND THEREPUBLIC OF CROATIA, 1921—1971 (1971 = 100)

1921 1931 1948 1953 1961 1971

CroatiaZagreb

100.0100.0

110.4170.8

110.1289.6

114.6322.8

121.0396.4

128.5520.8

53

These differences may be ascribed to Zagreb's exceptionally strong dynamics, andits gravitational pull which far surpasses the borders of its republic (the strongestindustrial center in the country).

Ljubljana is the capital of the most developed and most urbanized republic(Slovenia). However, its population growth dynamics lags far behind Belgrade's andZagreb's. Most probably this is because Slovenia has a more even population distribution,a high level of urbanization of rural and mixed settlements, a small area and a moreuniform urban network than any other republic in the country. As a result, the processhas unfolded more slowly, smoothly and painlessly, particularly after the Second WorldWar. Ljubljana-has grown from a city of 53,000 inhabitants (1921) to one of 213,000(1971; index 1921 = 100, 1971 =400).

TABLE 42. — POPULATION GROWTH INDICES FOR LJUBLJANA AND THEREPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA, 1921—1971 (1921 = 100)

1921 1931 1948 1953 1961 1971

Slovenia 100.0 107Í4 111.7 116.7 123.2 133.5Ljubljana 100.0 112.1 183.6 211.5 251.8 399.6

Sarajevo, the capital of the Republic of Bosnia- Herzegovina has undergonerelatively fast population growth only since the Second World War. Prior to thatconditions were not favorable for rapid urbanization. Only after the war were its centralfunctions consolidated (earlier it had shared the functions of regional center withMostar, Tuzla and Banja Luka to a greater extent than at present). Its growth index forthe period 1921-1971 is the lowest of all the capitals. In 1921 Sarajevo had apopulation of only 66,000, and in 1971 244,000, with an appreciably altered appearanceand structure (index 1921 = 100, 1971 = 367.9).

TABLE 43. — POPULATION GROWTH INDICES FOR SARAJEVO AND THEREPUBLIC OF BOSNIA — HERCEGOVINA, 1921—1971 (1921 = 100)

1921 1931 1948 1953 1961 1971

Bosnia-Hercegovina 100.0 122.5 135.8 150.2 173.0 196.4Sarajevo 100.0 117.9 148.6 165.2 215.8 367.9

Skopje, the capital city of the Republic of Macedonia, has the highest growth.index of all the republican and provincial centers over the period 1921-1971 (and thesame goes for the Republic as a whole). From a city of 41,000 in 1921 it has evolved,especially after the disastrous earthquake of 1963, into a modern city of 312.000 (1971 :index 1921 = 100, 1971 =767:2).

54

TABLE 44. — POPULATION GROWTH INDICES FOR SKOPJE AND THEREPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA, 1921—1971 (1921=100)

192Í 1931 1948 1953 1961 1971

Macedonia 100.0 117.2 142.8 160.9 173.1 202.0Skopje 100.0 168.0 215.5 293.0 407.0 767.2

This rate of growth indicates a more highly accentuated urban and migratorymonocentrism in this than in the other republics.

Titograd is the capital of the Republic of Montenegro. From a town of 8,000 in1921 it has developed into a city of 55,000 in 1971 (index 1921 = 100, 1971 = 669.8).Despite the fact that it performs the functions of republican center, population-wise itcannot grow significantly because its gravitational belt is narrow and sparsely settled andApart from this, it shares economic functions with Niksic and Cetinje. It must also bementioned that Montenegro is the most sparsely populated republic in Yugoslavia,mentioned that Montenegro is the most sparsely populated republic in Yugoslavia.

Novi Sad is the capital of the Province of Vojvodina, and its population has risenfrom 39,000 in 1921 to 152,000 in 1971 (index 388.5). Vojvodina is agriculturallydeveloped and has a uniform urban network.

Pristina, is the capital of the Province of Kosovo and its population has grownfrom 14,000 to 70,000 over 1921-1971 (index 488.2). In Kosovo, the percentage ofurban population is still relatively low, which also holds for the level of urbanization.

55

V. LABOR FORCE (ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION)

From the economic aspect, the population may be differentiated into producers —the labor force (economically active population) and consumers (the whole population).The size of the labor force in Yugoslavia and its dynamics over the last few decades ha;,been determined in great measure by demographic factors — shifts in the age and sc.\composition of the total population, economic (economic development) and otherfactors (educational coverage of the young, female employment, pension schemes, etc.).Since the action of these demographic, economic and other factors has differed widely inthe different parts of the country, regional differentials in the relative size of the laborforce have been very pronounced.

Working—age Contingent of the Population

The working-age contingent, as the demographic framework within which thelabor force is formed, made up 62.6% of the total population of Yugoslavia in 1971.Regional differences were very sharp and were conditioned by variations in agecomposition of the populations (Table 45).

TABLE 45. — SHARE OF THE WORKING—AGE CONTINGENT IN THETOTAL POPULATION

(Percentage;

YugoslaviaBosnia-HercegovinaMontenegroCroatiaMacedonia¡SloveniaSerbia

Serbia ProperVojvodinaKosovo

1953

61.758.355.563.755.961.263.564.865.452.7

1961

60.656.554.762.856.162.262.063.563.451.7

1971

62.658.958.164.260.063.164.166.566.150.8

•" The working—age contingent includes all males aged 15-64, and all females aged 15-59

56

The less developed regions (Kosovo. Bosnia—Hercegovina and Macedonia) haverelatively smaller working-age contingents than the more developed (Slovenia, Croatia.Vojvodina, Serbia Proper). The pattern of changes in the relative size of the working-agecontingent has paralleled the fertility pattern. In addition, the two wars had a heavyimpact on these changes. The last census (1971) shows absolutely and relatively fastergrowth in the working-age contingent due to the influx of those born during thecompensatory period when fertility rates were high.Thus, for Yugoslavia as a whole, theworking—age contingent increased annually by around 93.000 in the period 1953—1961,and by around 161.000 in the period 196! 1971.

The sex composition of the working-age population has shown the same trends asthe total population, which means that there has been a tendency towards equilibrium,though the fact that this population category covers males aged from 15 to 64 years andfemales from 15 to 59 years must be kept in mind. Namely up to age 35 there is anexcess of males, a balance of the sexes around this age, followed by an excess of femalesthat rises with increasing age, as was shown in the age and sex structure of the totalpopulation of Yugoslavia.

The age composition of the working-age contingent has been characterized bya decline in the relative proportion of the younger age groups. Whereas, for example, in1961 15-34 year olds accounted for 57.1% of the total Yugoslav working-agecontingent, in 1971 they accounted for around 54.9%, etc. The more developed regions(Slovenia, Croatia. Vojvodina and Serbia Proper) have a generally older working-agecontingent and the less developed (Bosnia—Hercegovina, Macedonia. Montenegro andKosovo) a younger. Regionally, the percentage of 15-34 year olds in the totalworking-age contingent ranged from 47% (Vojvodina) to 6 i% (Kosovo) in 1971.

Total Population by Economic Activity Category

The activity rate (percentage of active population in the total population) inYugoslavia shows a tendency to gradual decrease, while the percentage of income—reci-pients (old age, invalid and family pensions, welfare aid) has been rising CT;ible 46). Inthe period examined, the percentage of dependents has remained level.

The gradual downtrend in activity rate has been brought about by the fasterdecline in the percentage of youth in the working population, due to rising educationalrequirements, and by the decline in the activity rate amongst the older population with

TABLE 46

195319611971

. - STRUCTURE OF THE POPULATION BYACTIVITY, 1953-1971

Totalpopulation

(000's)

169911854920523

Activepopulation

46.345.043.3

Percentage

income-recipients

3.23.76.0

ECONOMIC

dependents

50.551.350.1

57

the increasing compass of pension insurance. These changes are closely correlated to theeconomic structure of the population, namely the rapid decrease in the share of theagricultural population in the total population. Schooling of the young is considerablygreater amongst the non—agricultural population, but it must be noted that in recentyears the proportion of the agricultural youth attending secondary, vocational andhigher schools has been rising quickly. On the other hand, the activity rate of the femalepopulation, both agricultural and non—agricultural, aged 25—49 years, has alsoincreased; Amongst the aged population, however, there is a decline in activity rate,particularly in relation to economic sector, agricultural-non-agricultural. Namely, agedpersons previously engaged in non—agricultural economic activity move to theincome—recipients group in accordance with pension provisions, while those in theagricultural population continue to be designated as economically active.

All these factors have acted to produce a decline in the activity rate of the malepopulation in Yugoslavia, from 63.0% in 1953 to 56.4% in 1971, while the activity rateof the female population has stayed at the same level (around 31%). However, theactivity rate of females aged 25—34 has risen from 45.0 to 53.6% and of females aged35-49 from 34.9 to 46.2%.

The proportion and number of income—recipients grew rapidly in the periodobserved, particularly from 1961 to 1971. Namely, in the postwar period there was ahigh rate of employment in practically all age categories. Since all employed persons(and many persons engaged in other non-agricultural occupations, irrespective ofemployment status) have pension insurance, a considerable number have become eligiblefor old age pensions. Moreover, the invalidity rate has been relatively high, and hasinfluenced the growth in the number of invalid pensioners, etc.

Growth in the labor force and the activity rate has differed widely in the variousrepublics and provinces (Table 47). For the country as a whole, over the period1953—1971, average annual increase in the labor force amounted to around 58,000, andof the total population around 196,000. The 7 %„ growth rate of the labor force isconsiderably below the 10'!lw rate of the total population. With the exception of onlySlovenia, in all regions the labor force has grown more slowly than the total population.The activity rate in the developed regions ranged from 42.7 (Vojvodina), 45.5 (Croatia),48.4 (Slovenia) to 51.5% (Serbia Proper) in 1971. All of these regions show advancedprocesses of demographic ageing, but in Slovenia and Serbia Proper the activity rates areraised by the very high level of female employment: in both the agricultural andnon—agricultural sector in Slovenia, and in the agricultural in Serbia Proper. Activityrates in the less developed regions are lower: from 32.7 to 38.3% in Montenegro,Bosnia—Hercegovina and Macedonia, and in Kosovo 26.0%. These low rates are due inlarge measure to the age structure, especially of the population in Kosovo where around527' are under 20 years of age (1971). In addition, female activity rates are very low inMontenegro and Kosovo.

The trends of change in activity rates in the republics and provinces have in themain been similar to those for the country as a whole, i.e. the proportion of the laborforce in the population has dropped (except in Slovenia). Whereas everywhere the maleactivity rate has declined, the female activity rate has risen in Slovenia, Croatia andSerbia Proper, and flattened out or declined slightly in the other regions.

58

TABLE 47. — LABOR FORCE (ACTIVE POPULATION) AND ACTIVITY RATESBY SEX IN YUGOSLAVIA AND REGIONALLY*

Total

a) Active population

SFRYBosnia-Herce-govinaMontenegroCroatiaMacedoniaSloveniaSerbia

7849

1210153

1870532704

3381Serbia Proper 2334VojvodinaKosovo

778268

b) Activity rate

SFRYBosnia-HercegovinaMontenegroCroatiaMacedoniaSloveniaSerbia

Serbia PropeiVojvodinaKosovo

46.3

42.535.447.740.848.048.452.445.433.2

1953

Male

in ooo's

5169

816109

1212384429

22181452541225

63.0

58.953.865.458.361.965.066.765.754.6

Female

2680

39444

658148275

1163882237

43

30.7

26.920.331.822.935.532.638.626.710.9

Total

8890

1374173

2016630837

38592703

833323

43.3

36.732.745.533.348.445.751.542.726.0

1971

Male

5686

940119

1239440473

24741635567272

56.4

51.34S.157.'952.756.659.363.259.742.7

Female

3204

43454.

Ill190364

13853068266

51

30.7

22.719.934.023.440.832.'440.126.5

8.4

* In 1971,7.0% of the Yugoslav labor force was working temporarily abroad. Excluding these wouldconsiderably lower the activity rates, namely to: 40% for Yugoslavia, 40.0 -49.0% in the moredeveloped regions, and 24.0 — 35.0% in the less developed regions.

Activity Rates by Age

The action of various factors (education of the young, pension insurance for thenon—agricultural employed, female employment, etc.) on the rate of activity may beappreciated by an examination of age—specific activity rates in the tota], agricultural andnon-agricultural populations (Tables 48 and 49).

59

TABLE 48. — AGE—SPECIFIC MALE AND FEMALE ACTIVITY RATESYUGOSLAVIA, 1953, 1961 AND 1971

Age

group

Total10-1415-2425-3435-4950-6465 and over

1953

63.020.087.6

-96.897.787.560.3

Male

1961

59.67.7

79.096.996.786.356.3

1971

56.42.9

60.496.594.172.950.9

1953

30.720.363.045.034.923.011.8

Female

1961

31.111.760.050.542.728.114.3

1971

30.94.9

46.353.646.228.515.5

TABLE 49. — AGE AND SEX—SPECIFIC ACTIVITY RATE OF THF,AGRICULTURAL AND NON—AGRICULTURAL POPULATION,

YUGOSLAVIA, 1971

Agegroup

Total10-1415-2425-3435-4950-6465 and over

Agricultural

Male

65.57.4

70.597.699.298.488.2

Female

42.912.464.463.260.046.932.8

Non-agricultural

Male

51.10.3

54.896.196.649.6

6.8

Female

22.60.3

35.548.736.610.8

1.2

The percentage of economically active in the youngest age group (10—14) isinsignificant today. Similarly, there has been a great drop in the activity rate of the age15—24 group of both sexes during the period observed because of the increasingpercentage of youth extending schooling, particularly those under age 20, though thesame holds to a considerable extent for the age 20—24 group in view of the rise in thenumber of students at universities and higher, schools. In the 25—49 year^ group therehave been only slight changes in the male population rate, while the female rate has beenrising. The activity rate of males over 50 has declined as a result of the increase in theproportion of the non—agricultural population in this age group as well, while the lowrate of females of this age shows a slight upturn influenced by the rise in females activein the agricultural sector.

The activity rate is considerably higher in the agricultural than the non—agricultu-ral population. According to the 1971 census in the age 10-14 group it was 7.4% for

60

males and 12.4% for females, and in the age 15-24 groups the rates for both sexes weremuch higher than in the non—agricultural population. In both populations the maleactivity rates in the 25—49 year group were high, though non—agricultural males aged35-49 had a slightly lower rate than the agricultural due to the effects of invalidity.Namely, the agricultural population is not covered by the invalid pension scheme. A highrate of activity is sustained in the oldest age group of the agricultural population.

Amongst females, too, the activity rate is considerably higher in the agriculturalpopulation. The effects of the pension system are marked on the activity rate of age50-64 non-agricultural females. Females are eligible for old age pensions five yearsearlier than males.

Sex and Age Structure of the Labor Force

In the postwar period there has been a trend to a gradual increase in theproportion of females in the overall Yugoslav labor force. This trend is evident in mostof the republics and provinces as well (Table 50).

TABLE 50. — PERCENTAGE OF FEMALES IN THE TOTAL LABOR FORCE

YugoslaviaBosnia-HercegovinaMontenegroCroatiaMacedoniaSloveniaSerbia

Serbia ProperVojvodinaKosovo

1953

34.132.529.035.327.739.034.437.830.516.0

1971

36.031.331.338.431.343.335.839.431.816.3

The more developed regions (with the exception of Vojvodina) have a higherproportion of females in the labor force (38—43%) than the less developed, togetherwith Vojvodina (31-32%), while in Kosovo it is only around 16%. due to the highfertility (females tend the family and household) and traditional attitudes. towardsfemale employment (amongst the Moslem population). In Kosovo, namely, even femalesin agricultural households declare themselves at census as housewives (dependents) eventhough they perform some agricultural work, although to a lesser extent than in otherregions.

Like the total population, the age structure of the labor force has changed greatlyover the last few decades (Table 51).

With the growing range of children covered by compulsory education, the relativeweight of the youngest age group in the labor force has dropped rapidly. Similarly, theincreasing number of the young attending secondary and higher schools has also brought

61

TABLE 51. — AGE STRUCTURE OF THE LABOR FORCE, YUGOSLAVIA, 1953,1961 AND 1971

(Percentage)

Age group

10-1415-1920-2425-3435-^950—64 malesand 50-59 females

65 + malesand 60 +females

1953

100.04.9

16.516.921.923.3

12.4

4.9

1961

100.0 p2.3 '

10.214.528.323.5

15.9

5.3

1971

100.00.88.9

13.623.833.6

12.2

6.8

a decrease in the relative weight of the 15—19 and 20-24 year groups. The lowerpercentage of 25—34 year olds in 1971 was conditioned by the low birth rate during theSecond World War. The percentage of the labor force aged 35-49 has grown strongly,while the decline in ages 50—64 (males) and 50—59 (females) is attributable in part tolow fertility during the First World War and in part to the rise in the proportion ofnon-agricultural population in this age group as well (eligibility for old age and invalidpensions). All in all, there has been a shift in the age structure of the labor force towardsa higher average age. The ageing of the labor force is much more pronounced in regionsin which demographic ageing processes are advanced (Vojvodina, Croatia, Slovenia.

' Serbia Proper) and in the agricultural population because of the high transfer ofpredominantly younger age groups to non-agricultural employment.

Labor Force by Economic Sector

Of the total labor force in the country in 1953, 70.9% were engaged in theprimary sector, 16.3% in the secondary and 12.8% in the tertiary. After 1953 thisdistribution began to change. By 1971 the relative weight of the primary sector haddropped to 48.7% and conversely, the relative weights of the secondary and tertiarysectors had risen to 29.5 and 21.8% respectively (Table 52).

Similar changes in the structure of the labor force took place in all regions overthe period 1953-1971, due to the rapid growth of industry and other non—agriculturalactivities. The rise in the secondary sector has been greater than the rise in the tertiary.Although relative growth in the tertiary labor force is a function of the productivity andthe proportional level of the work force in the secondary sector - which is still relativelylow in Yugoslavia — nonetheless the present level of the labor force in the .tertiary sectormay be considered low.

62

TABLE 52. —

YugoslaviaBosnia-Her-cegovinaMontenegroCroatiaMacedoniaSloveniaSerbia

Prim-ary

70.9

73.070.667.272.453.6 .75.6

Serbia Proper.76.6VojvodinaKosovo

71.478.6

LABOR

1953

Secon-dary

16.1

15.914.418.214.928.712.812.214.911.7

FORCE

Terti-ary

13.0

11.115.014.612.717.711.611.213.79.7

BY ECONOMIC

Prima-ry

59.7

63.858.053.862.439.565.266.258.674.5

1961

Secon-dary

23.0

21.321.526.020.937.919.318.423.815.0

SECTOR

Terti-ary

17.3

14.920.520.116.722.615.515.417.510.5

(Percentage)

Prima-ry

48.7

52.646.542.449.927.255.156;.948.058.8

1971

Secon-dary

28.7

28.226.231.729.046.025.6-24.530.123.9

Terti-ary

21.6

19.227.425.921.126.719.318.621.917.3

* The primary sector includes agriculture and forestry; the secondary: manufacturing, trades andcrafts, mining and construction; the tertiary: transport and communications, commerce, hotelsand catering, services, housing-sanitary services and non-economic activities. The followingcategories have been excluded from the total labor force: unemployed and unknown, and in1971, workers temporarily employed abroad.

Status Composition of the Labor Force

Over the last twenty years the status composition of the Yugoslav labor forcehas altered greatly. The number of employees has shown a constant rise and the numberof own-account workers, unpaid family workers and employers a constant decline. Thisis the product of economic development and the growth of socialist relations.

Employees accounted for 31.67o of the total labor force in 1953, and 49.5% in1971. The percentage of own-account workers has dropped steadily, from 32.0% in1953 to 22.3% in 1971. The same has happened with unpaid family workers (Table 53).The classification 'temporarily employed abroad' appears for the first time in i 971.Regional differences are still strong in respect to the status composition of the laborforce. The percentage of employees ranges over an interval from 39.6% (Kosovo) to69.6% (Slovenia). These differentials are in great degree a function of the share of thenon—agricultural work force in the total, since more than 90% of the agricultural laborforce are own—account workers and unpaid family workers.

Employment

Employed persons ('employees' in the terms of the economic status classification)made up 49.5% of the total labor force in. Yugoslavia, according to the 1971 census.

63

TABLE 53. STATUS COMPOSITION OF THE LABOR FORCE, YUGOSLAVIA,1961 AND 1971

Total in 000's

Percent compositionEmployeesOwn-account workersEmployersUnpaid family workersUnknownTemporarily employedabroad

1953

7849

31.632.0

0.735.7

0.0

—

1961

8340

43.626.4

0.429.30.3

—

1971

8890

49.522.3

0.421.10.1

6.6

Around 98% of these were employed in the social sector. It is important to note herethat the social sector of the economy produced 81.8% of the total social product.

Employment in the social sector lias Had a decisive effect in the socio-economictransformation of the working and total population in the postwar period. With a totalpopulation of 15.6 million in 1939 there were 920,000 employed persons, and in 1972.when total population was 20.7 million, 4,210,000 employed. Detailed figures for thepostwar period are presented in Table 54.

TABLE 54. — EMPLOYMENT DYNAMICS

Popul- Average employed per yearatinn "^—^ Z '•, '• ~, Percentauon T o t a j Females % insocial „ f , .

sector ° f l a b o r

forceemployed

a) Number in 000's

1952 16798 1734 421 24.3 1684 22.21962 18819 3318 959 28.9 3250 37.21964 19222 3608 1053 29.2 3535 42!51972 20722 4210 1372 32.6 4115 48.2

b) Average annual growth rate in percentage

1953-1972 1.1 . 4.5 6.1 - - 4.61953-1962 1.1 6.7 8.6 - 6.81963-1967 1.1 1.4 2.7 - 1.31968-1972 0.9 2.0 3.4 - 1.9

64

Employment rose quickest in the period from 1953 to 1962 (6.7%), slowed downto a very low rate from 1963 to 1967 (1.4%) and then rose again to over 2% after 1968.During the period of low growth in employment there was a large rise in theworking-age contingent due to the fertility trends of the earlier period, and thisdemographic pressure compounded difficulties in providing employment for theup-coming generations. At the same time the transfer to non-agricultural employmentremained at the same high level, generated especially by the propensity ol the young fornon—agricultural occupations. In view of the current age composition of the population,the relatively high numbers seeking employment and the added problem of findingemployment for workers returning from abroad, as well as the age composition of theemployed segment of the labor force (crude annual reproduction rate of this segment isestimated at around 2.1 to 2.2% for Yugoslavia as a whole), the employment growth ratewhich was around 2.0% over 1968-1972 should be raised to around 3.0% over theforthcoming long-term period. Over the next ten years or so an average annual rate ofaround 3% would in the main meet demand, though in the initial years the rate wouldhave to be higher than this and then drop subsequently, giving a ten-year average of 3%.

Female employment in the country as a whole has risen faster than total and maleemployment. The female population .is increasingly entering the ranks of theeconomically active, which leads to greater involvement in other activities as well(political and social). The large numbers of females attending secondary vocationalschools and university have influenced the growth in employment. In view of thefindings presented earlier on differential female fertility, and the greater geographicmobility of the employed population, etc., evidently with the rise in female employmentthere is an increase in the number opting for family planning in order to coordinateprocreation with their other goals and desires. Accompanying this is a growing need formore intensive social support, particularly by the working organizations în which thefemale is employed, to help coordinate her reproductive and other functions. Legislationis important in this regard, but the implementation of this legislation is the crucialfactor. In Yugoslavia, although much has been done in this field, the low rate ofreproduction, especially in some categories of the employed, points to the need for evengreater social involvement.

Further, as Table 54 reveals, the significance of the employed segment of the laborforce is increasing, namely, the percentage of the labor force employed rose from 22% in1952 to around 47% in 1972.* In the latter year, regional differences ranged from 36.0%(Kosovo) to 53.0% (Croatia), and to as much as 71.0% (Slovenia). The percentage offemales in the total employed was very high in Slovenia (around 42%) and low in Kosovo(17%), ranging in the other regions from 25 to 27% (Bosnia—Hercegovina, Montenegroand Macedonia) and 30 to 36% (Serbia Proper, Vojvodina and Croatia). Comparison ofindices of fertility and birth rate with the share of females in the total employed shows avery marked correlation between them. Regions with lower female employment havehigher fertility.

The rate of growth of employment was high over 1953—1962 in all regions andthen — after the economic reform and implementation of the intensive—employment

* Excluding those temporarily employed abroad from the total labor force would put thispercentage at 51%.

65

TABLE 55. — EMPLOYMENT IN YUGOSLAVIA, THE REPUBLICS ANDPROVINCES (1952—1972)

Bosnia Mont- Croat Mace- Slov- SerbiaSFRY -Herceg en- -ia donia enia Total Proper Voy Kos-

ovina egro vodí ovo_ .—•— na

1. Average annual rate of growth of employment

1953-1972 4.5 3.9 5.7 4.0 6.1 4.1 5.0 5,0 4.9 5.71963-1972 2.4 2.5 2.5 1.8 3.3 2.4 2.6 32 0.9 4.21953-1962 6.7 5.2 9.0 6.2 8.9 5.9 7.5 6.9 9.0 7.3

2. Number employed per 1000 population

1952 103 96 72 122 70 178 87 90 99 481962 176 133 148 208 148 292 lfrl 158 213 771972 203 150 169 235 174 341 189 200 223' 90

3. Number seeking employment per 1000 employed

1952 26 16 17 29 66 18 26 24~~ 30 181952 71 63 62 66 153 20 84 83 60 2251972 75 66 70 45 205 22 94 90 72 216

policy - dropped appreciably (Table 55). Over the entire period the average rate ofgrowth varied regionally from 4-6%. The employment rate per 1000 population wasconsiderably lower in the less developed regions than in the more developed, namelyranging from 90 (Kosovo), to 150 (Bosnia-Hercegovina), 169 (Montenegro) and 174(Macedonia) in 1972. Growth in the number of employed per 1000 population is afunction of both the employment growth rate and total population trends. These regionshad a considerably higher rate of population growth during this period. In the moredeveloped regions, however, the number of employed per 1000 population ranged from200 (Serbia Proper), 223 (Vojvodina), 235 (Croatia) to as high as 341 (Slovenia). Theshare of industry in the total employed rose in all regions, increasing at a faster rate than,the proportionate shares of the employed in other economic branches. The shares of theemployed in non-economic activities (education-culture, social activities, social and stateservices) have either remained unchanged or dropped slightly. The number seekingemployment (temporarily out of work) was on the rise in all regions in the periodobserved, but was considerably higher in Macedonia and Kosovo, that is, in the lessdeveloped, high population growth, regions.

Skills Structure of the Employed

With the expansion of education and the acquisition of skills in other ways, theskills structure of the employed in Yugoslavia is improving rapidly. Whereas in 1961.10.2% of the total employed were highly-trained or highly—skilled, by 1971 this

66

•percentage had risen to 16.7%. The percentage of skilled or trained increased from 34.5%to 40.8% over the same period. The remainder were semi-skilled and unskilled. Becauseof the interdependency between demographic processes and the socio-o.ccupationalstructure of the employed and their dependents (housewives), changes in the skillsstructure of the employed are also reflected in demographic development.

Manpower Reserves

Only a part of the working—age contingent of the population (males aged 15—64and females aged 15-59) are economically active (62.6% in Yugoslavia in 1971). Theremainder belong to various categories of dependents (secondary school and universitystudents, housewives, occupationaJly unfit) or income-recipients (old age, invalid orfamily pensioners, etc.). As pointed out earlier, the category of pupils and students isgrowing, causing a decline in the percentage of economically active in the working—agecontingent, but the increasing number of female youth being schooled will raise theactivity rate of the female population. The absolute number of housewives and theirrelative share in the working—age contingent depends on many factors but primarily onthe level of economic development, the qualifications and educational structure of thefemale population, and on the action of demographic (number of children in the family),social (possibility of placing children in pre—school care centers, scnools etc. duringworking hours) and psycho—social factors (attitude towards female employment, etc.)Current development, economically and socially, in Yugoslavia favors greater inclusionof the working—age female population in the labor force.

Determining manpower reserves would in the main amount to examination of thecategory of dependents mentioned, especially in regard to the housewives group, were allthose registered by the census as economically active actually fully employed. Someeconomically active persons, however, are not fully employed, that is, are only partiallyemployed. In (his, as in other countries, there are considerable so-called latentmanpower reserves in the private agricultural sector, when the available labor supply iscalculated on the basis of the economically active aged 16—64 years and labor demand iscalculated on the basis of the present level of development of the production forces.These reserves are greater in the less developed and depressed agricultural regions, and-vary as a function of the organization of agricultural production or the development ofthe productive forces, and the age and other distributions of the agricultural labor force.In the past period these reserves were at a high level but with changes in thesocio-economic structure of the population they are diminishing. Latent manpowerreserves in agriculture have been depleted by the transfer of the farm population tonon-agricultural activities, which has been very significant throughout the postwarperiod, that is during the industrialization of the country. Although there are certainmanpower reserves in other economic branches as well, they are of tar less significance,specially since the economic reform of 1964, when the intensive-employment policy wasadopted.

67

VI. PROJECTIONS OF THE YUGOSLAV POPULATION TO THE YEAR 2000

According to population projections prepared in Yugoslavia, a slackening isexpected in population growth over the coming period. This will be influenced, aboveall, by a continuing gradual decline in natural increase. It is assumed that in the coming •period the number of emigrants will outweigh the number of immigrants as before. As aconsequence of net migration, total growth of the population will be lower than naturalincrease*.

Total Population

Taking only the components of natural increase into consideration, the totalpopulation of Yugoslavia is expected to increase from 20,371,000 in 1970 to23,236,000 in 1985 and 25,653,000 in 2000. With the migration component, expectedgrowth would be lower, and the estimated total population in 1985 is 22,896,000inhabitants. Anticipating an unchanged trend in regard to external migration, by the endof the millenium there would be around 24,900,000 inhabitants in Yugoslavia. Specificprojections for the republics and provinces are presented in Table 56.

Un the assumed fertility variants** (gradual rise in low-fertility regions, i.e. inVojvodina, Serbia Proper, Croatia and Slovenia, and further decreases in the medium tohigh-fertility regions, i.e. Bosnia-Hercegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Kosovo) adecline may be expected in the crude birthrate from 18 (around 1970) to about 16%«in the year 2000. There should be no substantial change in the level of the crude birthrate in the low-fertility regions, while in the presently medium to high-fertility regionsthis rate should be at around 16 to 18ftó» at ilie end of the millenium (Bosnia-Hercego-vina, Montenegro and Macedonia). In Kosovo, luwever, the birth rate may be expectedto drop from 36*«, , (around 1970) to around 26 '•;><, at that time.

Crude 'female reproduction in Yugoslavia as a whole may be expected to be at a

* Population projections have been prepared in Yugoslavia up to the year 2000. These have takenonly the natural components of population dynamics (fertility and mortality) into account. As inother countries, four different variants were used to estimate future fertility (high, medium, lowand constant fertility), and here the ' medium' variant is employed as the most plausible. Onlyone variant of age-specific mortality was used in the projection.

Migration (external and internal, amongst the republics and provinces) has been estimatedonly up to 1985, on the basis of past long-term trends. •

** Age-specific fertility rates were used in defining all the fertility assumptions.

68

TABLE 56. — TOTAL. POPULATION PROJECTIONS TO THE YEAR 2000

Bosnia Mont-Croat Mace Slov-MoCroat MceSFRY -Herce-en- -ia donia enia Total Proper Voj- Kosovo

govina egro vodina

a) based on natural increase (OOP's)

1970 20371 3703 523 4412 1626 1720 8387 5226 1948 12131985 23236 4523 630 4662 2053 1876 9492 5645 2031 18162000 25653 5258 725 4829 2413 2015 10414 5830 2055 2529

b) based on natural increase and migration (OOP's)

1985 22896 4194 591 4679 2005 1908 9516 5726 2082 1707

rate of around 1.11 in the year 2000, and between 1.00 and 1.16 in the republics andthe province of Vojvodina. The rate in Kosovo, however, should drop from 2.61 in 1970to 1.56 in 2000.

Mean life expectancy at birth in Yugoslavia should rise, for males from 66.4 in1970 to 68.6 in 2000, and for females from 69.7 to 72.1 years over the same period.Regional differences in this respect are expected to decrease considerably. It is assumedthat there will be a substantial drop in the still rather high level of infant mortality.

Under the infuence ot demographic ageing processes, a mild uptrend is expected inthe crude death rate (from 9.2 in 1970 to 10.2 %i at the end offne millenium).Regional differences will be conditioned by the particular age distribution of thepopulations. Regions with low fertility today .md ;i higher proportion of the aged intheir total populations should have an 11 to 12"«» crude death rate by the end of themillenium; the other regions characterized at present by medium to high fertility and ayounger age structure, from 6 to 8.5"Sw

Whereas natural increase in Yugoslavia in the first five-year projection (1970-1975)is estimated at 9"¡m. (rather close to the actual natural increase in the period1970-1973), by the end of the niilienium it is expected to decrease to around 6"¡m .Regional differences at the beginning and end of the projection period are indicatedbelow:

Natural increase per 1000 population per year

BosniaHercegovina

13.78.7

Mont-ene-gro

12.28.4

Croat-ia

3.82.1

Mace-donia

16.39.3

Slovenia

5.64.5

SerbiaTotal

8.65.8

Proper Voj-vodina

6.11.8

2.30.5

Kosovo

27.019.6

<t> 1970-1975<t> 1995-2000

69

Accordingly, considerable differences in level of natural increase may be expectedto be sustained over the coming period between regions that presently have low, mediumand high fertility. Namely, in view of the trends in crude death rate resulting from thedifferent age structures of the population, over the coming period the mortalitycomponent may be expected to have a somewhai greater effect on natural increase than •is the case today.

The masculinity rate should increase gradually from 966 to 993 males per 1000females over the period 1970—2000. In Macedonia and Kosovo it may be expected toremain over 1000.

Migration is expected to have substantial effects on total population dynamics.They have been projected only up to 1985. In some regions inter-republican andinter—provincial migration will be more significant than external migration. Migrationout of less developed regions distinguished by a high rate of natural increase could evencontinue to rise after 1985. Taking into consideration both external migration andinternal migration and the effects of migration on natural increase, the differencesbetween projections for 1985 based only on natural increase, under (a) in Table 56. andbased on migration as well, are as follows (in thousands);

Yugoslavia -340 Croatia +17 Serbia (Total)+24 Vojvodina + 5 1Bosnia-Herce-govina -326 Macedonia -4S Serbia Proper +g[ Kosovo . -109Montenegro — 39 Slovenia -32

The balance of migration (internal and external), then, should in the comingperiod have a sizeable effect on population trends in Yugoslavia as a whole, and in •Bosnia—Hercegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia (negative net migration). 'Although the more developed regions (Slovenia, Croatia, Vojvodina and Serbia Proper)will have a more significant positive balance of migration in relation to the other, lessdeveloped regions, this balance will be considerably diminished because of externalmigration. It must be pointed out that migration may be expected to have an evengreater effect on the composition of the population (age, economic, etc.) than on thetotal size of the population.

Changes in the Age Compositionand Age Contingents of the Population

Changes in the age structure of the Yugoslav population produced by the seculardecline in fertility will continue in the coming period. Demographic ageing of thepopulation will be more marked in the populations of Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegroand Macedonia as well, but will be slower than over the past few decades in the moredeveloped regions (Slovenia, Croatia, Vojvodina and Serbia Proper). The population ol'Kosovo, on the other hand will only have entered the first phase of demographic ageingby the year 2000. The most important changes expected in the age composition'of thepopulation of Yugoslavia are presented in Table 57.

70

TABLE 57. — PROJECTED AGE COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION OFYUGOSLAVIA BY MAIN AGE GROUPS

(Percentage)

Age group !SFRYBosniaHerce-govina

a) based on natural increase

0-191970 20-59

60 +

0-191985 20-59

60 +

0-192000 20-59

60 +

37.250.812.0

32.155.512.4

30.453.216.4

46.246.2

7.6

35.856.28.0

32.354.912.8

Mont-enegro

43.545.610.9

34.754.810.5

31.154.514.4

Croat- Mace-ia

32.353.014.7

27.757.015.3

27.053.419.6

b) based on natural increase and migration

0-191985 20-59

60 +

32.155.412.5

35.855.88.4

34.654.510.9

27.757.015.3

donia

43,647.7

8.7

37.552.89.7

33.ó54.112.3

37.652.59.9

Slew- . Serbia

enia Total Proper

33.551.814.7

30.855.014.2

29.753.217.1

30.955.114.0

34.852.512.7

31.555.213.3

30.452.017.6

31.555.213,3

32.152.513.4

27.358.114.6

26.153.120.8

27.658.014.5

Voj-vodina

30.755.114.3

26.057.916.1

26.053.321.3

26.358.015.7

Koso-vo

53.339.7

7.0

50.243.7

6.1

50.248.2

7.1

51.142.6

6.3

Over the period as a whole the population in the youngest age group (0-19) willincrease by 234,000, but will decrease up to 1980. In relation to the total population,however this group will decline from 37.2 lo 30.4%, which together with an ageing indexof 0.54 indicates that by the year 2000 the Yugoslav population will have moved to theolder population group. A regional analysis shows thaï the rates of change in the mumage groups will differ. In the lo\v-feii¡liiy regions the proportion of the youngest agegroup in the total population may be expected to decline till 1985 and then flatten outtill the end of the projection period, but at the low level of 26 to 30%. At the same time,as a consequence of the long-term fertility decline, the proportion of the agedpopulation will rise appreciably (to 17-21% in the year 2000). In the medium-fertilityregions the proportion of the youngest age group will drop throughout the projectionperiod but this drop will be much steeper up to 1985. In these regions the process ofageing will continue, although their populations will not yet be old by 2000, Thesmallest changes in age composition are anticipated in Kosovo. As a consequence of theexpected fertility decline there should be a relative drop in the youngest populationgroup even though in absolute size it should practically double. As a function of earliertrends in fertility and mortality, up to the year 2000 the proportion (and absolute

71

number) of the middle-aged, especially the younger middle-aged group, should rise, whilethe proportion of the aged population (over 60 years) should remain constant. <

The working-age contingent (15-64 year old males and 15-59 year old females) isof especial importance for economic and social planning. In Yugoslavia this contingentwill undergo little change, relatively speaking, although in absolute size it will grow by3,452,000 over the coming 30 years, which will create additional demands foremployment and training in occupations capable of absorbing this surplus. Employmentpressures will be greater throughout the period in the medium to high-ferility regions,while in the low-fertility regions this will hold only up to 1985, after which there shouldbe a relative decline in this contingent.

The number of pre-school children in Yugoslavia is expected to increase by200,000, owing largely to increases in Kosovo (130,000) and in part in Macedonia(29,000).

The number of school-age children in Yugoslavia will grow by only 83,000 to theend of this century. Increases are expected in Macedonia (41,000), Slovenia (16,000)and in Kosovo (214,000), while a decrease totalling 188,000 may be expected in theother republics.

Especially interesting is the anticipated rise in the contingent of fertile females by892,000 by the end of the century, because this increase will produce an absolute..increase in births, regardless of the fact that a decline in fertility is expected in thisperiod. As in the other contingents, differences between regions with medium and lowfertility will be influenced by differences in past and future trends in fertility andmortality.

Up to 1985 migration will not have a significant effect on age composition but;ifter this date its effects could be greater should there be a rise in the intensity ofinternal fin ter—republican and inter—provincial) migration in response to heightenedlabor demands in the presently more developed regions which will have a mon'unfavorable age composition as demographic ageing processes become even morepronounced. '

Labor Force Trends to 1985

Further changes are expected in age—specific activity fates in the coming period.Amongst the young, this rate will be on a downtrend because of the increasing scale ofsecondary and higher education, amongst females aged 25 to 49 years it will rise, whileamongst the upper middle—aged and especially the aged population it will decline withshifts in the economic structure of the population. In view of all this, and correlatedwith the age composition, the labor force will rise only gradually, stagnate or even gointo decline in the more developed regions. However, in the less developed regions it willgrow more rapidly (Table 58).

Projections of the Agriculturaland Non—Agricultural Labor Forces

Trends in the total and active agricultural and non-agricultural populations havebeen estimated on the basis of an assumed annual rate of growth of 3% in employment

72

TABUE 58. — PROJECTIONS OF THE YUGOSLAV LABOR FORCE

(in 000}

Year SFRJ Bosnia Monte- Croa- Mace- Slove- - Serbia

Herce- negro tia donia nia Total Proper Voj- Kosovogovina • vodina

Excluding migration

1970 8848 1353 171 2012 622 835 3855 2710 829 3161985 9645 1754 224 2044 776 850 3997 2611 871 515

Including migration

1985 9516 1615 209 2052 755" 867 4019 2650 894 475

in the non-agricultural sector, and estimated trends in the dependency coefficients in theagricultural and non-agricultural populations.

According to the projections, the total agricultural population will drop in thecoming period, from 38.2% in 1970 to 22.5% in 1985, while the agricultural labor forcewill decrease from 48.2% to 30.0% in the same period.

Regional differentials in the proportionate weights of the total and activeagricultural populations will diminish over the coming period.

Projections of the Number and Size of Households

The total p umber of households in Yugoslavia is expected to grow trom 5,343,000in 1970 to 6,733,000 in 1985 (accounting for migration as well), which would entail anaverage increase of around 92,000 per year. As in the .preceeding period, the totalnumber of households will have a faster trend of growth than the population since it isexpected that average household size will drop from 3.8 persons in 1970 to 3.4 in 1985.Regional differences in average household size should diminish but will remainpronounced, particularly as concerns Kosovo, where average size of household isexpected to shrink from 6.6 in 1970 to 5.2 in 1985.

Review of Changes in OtherPopulation Distributions, Pattern of Settlement, etc.

Projections are not available for changes in other structures of the population.Nevertheless; present trends in respect of education of the young, social andoccupational mobility, shifts in the skills structure of the employed, etc., suggest that

73

even faster changes can be expected in these characteristics in the coming period. Thesame holds for the general state of health of the population.

Past trends in the level of urbanization should continue4possibly at an even quickerrate than to date since urbanization is lagging considerably behind deagrarianization.This should be facilitated by faster residential construction in urban—type settlements,which is slated in the long—term economic and social plan of development forYugoslavia. This means that more accelerated changes must be expected in the regionaldistribution of the population,which will be characterized by greater concentration insettlements offering many—sided opportunities for development. However, the problemof excessively heavy concentration of the population in principal cities shall have to begiven special attention in overall and regional, planning.

74

VII SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND POLICYRELATED TO DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION

The nature of population change in Yugoslavia makes some, at least briefreference to economic and social circumstances in the past essential. Even despite greatadvances in the postwar period, regional differentials are still wide and the country todayis a true demographic mosaic composed of many varieties of demographic transition,ranging all the way from those typical of Asian countries to those found in northwesternEurope. The roots of these disparities unquestionably stretch back into the distant past.

Cultural factors have played an important role in creating this demographicdiversity. The traditional influences of three religions - Orthodox, Catholic and Moslem— and the intercrossing of oriental philosophy with European rationalism have beencompounded more recently by the influence of socialist thought and ideology. Theramifications of each of these have not been fully evaluated but they must beconsiderable. Finally, that set of many circumstances which, unable to identify, we callthe historical factor, had of course a defínate influence on the current demographicsituation.

The situation is even more complex than may at first appear, and cannot beexplained by any one group or combination of groups of factors. It is not quite clear, forexample, why a one-child family system has been the custom for a long time in a largearea of eastern Serbia and not in other parts of Serbia where the population has the sameethnic origins, the same agricultural and rural, educational and cultural characteristics,and even though they fought the same wars and shared the same political destiny. Or.similarly, why infant mortality was long far higher in Vojvodina than in certain otherparts of the country despite its economic, social and educational advantage. Historicalstatistics are available for small regions only and do not allow generalization. For morerecent periods there are inconsistencies that contemporary data cannot explain. Inseeking answers, then, we can only speculate that behavior must have been subject todiverse pressures and heavy stresses to have led to such divergent attitudes toward birth,death and migration.

Attempts to explain economic and social change, or the absence thereof, arcalso hampered by the scant historical statistics. But we can accept the generalproposition that the advance of industry, commerce and monetary economy in the 19tl:.ind 20th Century proceeded gradually from the northwest to the southeast, and :n•.•conomic dichotomy between the northwestern and southeastern parts of the countn .with marked transitional features in the interspace, was an obvious consequence. In tlu-

75

postwar period, as the more abundant statistics show, there was rapid economicdevelopment of the country as a whole, but even this could not erase the persistentregional differences.

i There is a high level of agreement amongst Yugoslav investigators on theimportance of the national liberation war and the adoption of a socialist model ofsociety in the acceleration of economic development. The introduction of planning isassociated with these crucial events, which allowed more direct social control to beexerted on the direction and intensity of economic and social change. However, thesocio-political system has not remained static during the postwar period. As early as thebeginning of the 1950's, Yugoslav socialism shifted away from the predominant role ofthe state and central decision-making, towards self-management and decentralization.There were a number of stages in this progressive development (which cannot be goneinto here) and the outcome is a socialist model unique to Yugoslavia. This model ischaracterized by a reliance on self-management in all spheres of life, the federativesystem's protection of the rights of-the republics and provinces whilst simultaneouslyensuring a uniformity in the basic elements of the socialist development of the entirecountry. Obviously, self-management socialism is not only an expression of theaspirations and social and ethnic realities of Yugoslav society, but also an importantfactor in the formulation and pursuit of developmental policy.

The Historical Legacy in Brief

The ramifications of the Turkish conquest of the Balkan countries, which hasbeen discussed earlier, and the military campaigns in the north and south that went onfor more than two centuries, were still vividly present in the 19th and early 20thCentury. Regions south of- the Sava and Danube Rivers remainded predominantlyagrarian with the very modest beginnings of commerce and industry. Serbia and thesouthern areas were only linked up by rail to the north and Europe after 1884. In thenorthern and western areas, manufacturing began to develop around the middle of the19th Century, based on coal and mineral resources in Slovenia, for example, and on rich

. agricultural resources in Vojvodina. Extension'of the railroads and abolition of customsbarriers within Austro-Hungary gave strong impetus to transport and communications,trade and commerce. But, as a whole, industrial development was slow and laggedconsiderably behind Central Europe. The turn of the 20th Century seems to have given aspurt to economic growth, but this was cut short by the First World War anil theextensive war devastation, particularly in Serbia and parts of Macedonia.

With the founding of the new, unified state in 1918 the centuries-long strivings ofthe Yugoslav peoples for national independence were realized. Economically, conditionson the new national territory improved: the enlarged market demanded new productswhile the large supply of cheap labor v/as a key factor in economic activity. Between1918 and 1929 some 1200 new industrial plants were established and invested capitalincreased by about 35%. But numerous factors put a brake on growth, particularly theinadequate communications between regions, the agricultural crisis of the mid-1920'sand the Depression of the early 1930's. Later, growth did not pick up adequatelybecause of the difficult situation in agriculture and the absence of suitable state policies.

76

Understandably, under these circumstances, regional economic differences continued losharpen.

A crucial characteristic of the between-vvars economic and demographicsituation was sluggish structural change. From 1923/25 to 1939 the primary sectorremained the most important sector of the economy, its share in national income onlydropping from 58 to 51%. There was modest growth in tiie secondary sector, which rosefrom 21% to 30%, while the tertiary slipped from 21% to 19%. With such slow growth inthe non-agricultural sector it was not possible to find employment for even the naturalincrease in the labor force let alone for a transfer of the population from agriculture.Actually, there was a decrease in the percentage of agricultural population, from 79% in1921 to 75% in 1938, but the absolute number dependent on agriculture rose from 9million to 11.5 million. Agricultural over-population grew and constituted an intricateprocess of degradation, in which extensive use of natural resources was accompanied bylow yields and slow technological advance, and the massive under-employment by a lowstandard of living and fast reproduction of the poor population. As a conseguence. theaverage rate of economic growth from 1926 to 1939 was less than 2.2% yearly, barelymore than the rate of population growth. Per capita national income in the prewarperiod is estimated at around 180 US dollars, one of the lowest in Europe.

Meeting the cultural and social demands of a multi-national and multi-lingualcommunity with divergent cultural backgrounds, as is the case with Yugoslavia, is initself a difficult matter. It was especially difficult with a centralistic monarchy which,particularly after 1931, resorted to dictatorial methods to settle conflicts betweenhegemonistic and centifugal tendencies and at the same time.stjfle the aspirations of thepoor classes. One of the far-reaching consequences of this political situation was thedenial of various ethnical groups the right to the use of their mother tongues, whichretarded the development of education. In the first ten of the between-war years theilliteracy rate declined from 51% to 45%, but illiteracy" continued to prevail amongst theyoung generations. In this respect, Yugoslavia was one of the most backward countries inEurope. Deficient education affected all spheres of human life and, moreover,constituted an enormous social problem. Similarly, health and sanitary conditions wereunenviable. The high general and infant mortality mirrored not only the low standard ofliving but also the numerous diseases prevalent, such as tuberculosis, malaria andendemic syphilis which threatened not small regions. Labor and social welfare legislationwas rudimentary and the legal system remained under the influence of earlier divisions ofthe land. Urban pauperism, unhealthy settlements (slums) and under-employment wereameliorated with great difficulty, slowly and not sufficiently thoroughly. However, intheir magnitude and reprecussions on the populace, socio-economic conditions in thevillage were most likely even harder, because the general backwardess was reinforced byan obsolete agricultural system and the peasant's heavy indebtedness. Two agrarianreforms initiated in the between-war period were not carried through properly for anumber of reasons, and as a whole did not bring the results anticipated. It can be said, atlittle risk, that the basic determinants of the population of Yugoslavia in the.between-war period rested in the backward economy and in the traditional peasantsociety which had only barely begun to be sloughed off with industrial progress.

War operations from 1941 to 1945 dealt heavy blows to the Yugoslavpopulation, economy and society. Direct war losses of human lives are estimated at 1.7

77

million, and the loss through diminished birth rate, between 400,000 and 600,000.Postwar assessments of war damages show that 36% of industrial plant was destroyed,52% of normal-gauge and 33% of narrow-gauge railway lines, 61% of overseas and 67%of coastal shipping was sunk or confiscated, etc. Prewar livestock herds were halved, andnearly 300,000 hectares of forest destroyed. More than a fifth of residential units wereeither destroyed or severely damaged, as well as many schools, hospitals and publicinstitutions. During the war economic activity was reduced to a minimum and the heavywar devastation hit the already poor and backward country even harder.

Postwar Reconstruction of the Society and Economy

For Yugoslavia,the end of the war and liberation meant the beginning of radicalsocial and economic change. During the war the people's liberation movement, led byMarshal Tito, had won the great support of the populace, and with the new constitutionof 1946, the country was reorganized into a federative republic with a direct socialistcourse. There is no need to go into political events of the time here, and only theeconomic and social reforms of direct relevance to the population will be discussed.

In the immediate postwar years social legislation was changed profoundly,including laws pertaining to marriage and family, labor and employment, education,social insurance and the health services. Industry, banking, communications andtransport, and commerce were nationalized and after the unsuccessful attempt atcollectivization only agriculture and small crafts and trades remained in the privatesector. One crucial measure was the agrarian reform, which entitled poor peasants to anecessary minimum of land and enabled formation of large social agricultural enterprises.It was accompanied by colonization of Vojvodina and part of Slavonia and representsthe biggest, and last, organized migration of farm population.

Rehabilitation and reconstruction of the economy started up in the last fewmonths of the war in liberated parts of the country, but systematic work only began inmid—1945. Repatriation of prisoners of war, the compulsory mobilization of workers;md former concentration camp internees created a large labor pool in search ofemployment and available for reconstruction. This was based mainly on labor-intensivemethods and the participation of volunteer youth brigades. Owing to its status as an allyand as a founding member of the United Nations, in the reconstruction years Yugoslaviareceived considerable aid in food, transport and equipment, foremostly throughUNRRA. Economic rehabilitation took from 1945 to 1947 and consisted of very diverseorganized measures and spontaneous actions undertaken by the government and thepopulace to normalize economic conditions as far and fast as possible. Naturallysystematic data on this effort does not exist because often it could not be measuredstatistically. Existing estimates suggest that reconstruction of the economy was basicallyachieved somewhere around 1948, with the prewar level of industrial output actuallysurpassed by 1947, while agricultural output was raised much more slowly.

In 1948 Yugoslavia went over to planned development of the economy, basedon the first five-year plan. Although the plan had to take the many demands of postwarreconstruction of the economy into account, it nevertheless put the main stress on

78

industrialization as a mode of economic development that ensures rapid advance of theentire economy. The development of agriculture, transport and communications,commerce and other branches was seen as functionally related to industrial advance, inthe light of which the significance of labor, training and education was emphasized.Great attention was given to social problems, in keeping with the new conceptions.Later, in the early 1950's a new, important dimension was added to developmentalpolicy - worker and social self-management — as an expression of the socialist andhumanitarian demands of a society in the process of rapid social reconstruction.

It is especially relevant to note here that initially, demographic aspects ofdevelopment were not taken into consideration at all. This came much later, in the1951 — 1961 plan, which paid particular attention to changes in employment and thesocio-economic structure of the population. Subsequently, there was a gradualappreciation of the other components of population change as well, generally more inresponse to rather than in anticipation of these changes.

Economic Growth and Structural Changes

The orientation towards accelerated economic growth has on the long-run provenjustified. Until the 1960's it called for considerable sacrifice because the high rate ofinvestments dictated a high rate of saving and restricted consumption. But this policy hasundeniably borne fruit. On average for the past 25 years, the social product has grown6.6% annually. The socialist economy has grown appreciably faster, at a rate of 7.9%.With the steady decline in population growth, the increase in per capita social producthas really been impressive. This progress has however been marred by wide annualoscillations in growth of social product and two substantial slowdowns. The former wasthe consequence of the economic blockade and serious difficulties in foreign trade whichled to a 1.7% average annual growth rate from 1948 to 1952, and the latter was due tothe introduction of the economic reform and stabilization measures which pulled thegrowth rate down to 2-3% between 1956 and 1967.

Industry has contributed most to the growth of the social product, gaining at arate of almost 10% per year on average. The lively growth of other non—agriculturalactivities basically followed the pace of the manufacturing industries. Right up to themid-195O's, agricultural output was lower than the prewar level so that with theconsiderable population increase large quantities of foodstuffs had to be imported.Numerous measures to promote agriculture have had results and over the last few years ithas been able to meet domestic demand as well as achieve a small net export.

There are at least three aspects of Yugoslav economic growth that are of director indirect significance for demographic change. The first relates to structural changes inthe economy, which have definately been favorable. From 1947 to 1972 the share of theprimary industries in the social product dropped from 48% to 20%, notwithstanding anappreciable rise in agricultural output. The secondary industries' share increased from29% to 47%, largely because of a tenfold rise in the volume of industrial output. Thetertiary industries' share grew from 23% to 33%, although this figure does not reveal thefull extent of growth in this sector since Yugoslav statistics do not include such activitiesas health, education, etc. here. The second aspect concerns the rapid proportional

79

growth of the socialist sector which accounted for 82% of the social product in 1972 asagainst 60% in 1947 (after nationalization). The third, regional aspect of developmentalso reveals substantial advance, for all regions show a high rate of growth. However,even though policy has aimed throughout at speeding-up the growth of theless-developed regions, regional economic differences per capita have continued toheighten. Thus, despite substantial changes in the structure of the social product and inspite of an improvement in its sources, on the regional plane features of an unevenness indevelopment have persevered and in their own way bolstered regional differences inreproduction and population growth.

Essentially, the fast growth and diversification of the economy have been ableto meet the rising demands of the population, particularly because at first agriculturalshortfalls were compensated by imports and later rectified by raised production. Thestandard of living has improved very substantially, but with perceptible differencesbetween individual strata and regions. The personal incomes of workers in theleast—developed region is around 20% lower than in the most-developed, but theirstandard of living is considerably lower because of the large family size and low familyemployment rate. Social and regional differences in living standards arise, then, not onlyfrom production differentials bufalso differential demographic situations. Consequently,policies to raise these standards came up against a serious problem that could not beremoved solely by accelerating economic growth.

A serious stumbling-block in satisfying the material aspects of the standard ofliving was and still is the housing problem. Right up until the 1960's economic policydiscouraged housing constuction because of the needs of direct production investmentseven in spite of the severe effects of the war on housing supply. For familiar reasons, thenumber of households grew faster than the population, so that the housing shortagebecame more and more critical. After the adoption of the new policy the rate of housingconstruction quickly caught up with the rate of increase in the number of households,and in a short time even overtook it. But the time lost has still not been made up, and atpresent the housing shortage runs at about 700,000 units. This shortage obviously arosefrom a failure to synchronize home construction with demographic change. It hascertainly been a factor in the drop in birth rate, for senior workers with longer years ofservice have priority in the allocation of housing, which puts young couples in a difficultposition. However, the actual extent of this influence cannot be precised.

Growth and Problems of Employment

In a society that suffers from high chronic under—employment in agriculture,which shows an upward trend because of the high population increase and inadequateemployment opportunities, employment becomes a central political problem. This is thecase in Yugoslavia, except that the tasks of employment policy are more complex thania many other countries. As an undeveloped country, Yugoslavia has had to maximalizethe employment growth rate; because of its socialist system it has had to attain highstandards of employment and social security; its participation in world markets demandshigh productivity. With such ambitious, sometimes contradictory demands, Yugoslavpolicy, has concentrated on the formation of favorable economic and social conditions of

80

employment, respecting the individual as a worker and producer, and encouraging therapid growth of non—farm employment as a component of the rapid growth of theeconomy as a whole.

The arguments for rapid increase in non—farm employment lay in the growth o\.general and sector productivity, in the transfer of the population from low incomes inagriculture to high incomes in the urban economy, i.e. in raising the standard of living,and in changes in the socio-economic composition of the labor force and thepopulation. This policy has heen pursued implicitly or explicitly from the very firstpostwar years, and was formulated in detail in the mid—1950's in the 1957-1961 Plan.

Over 1947-1972 around 3 million new joßs were opened up in thenon-agricultural sector, and the total number of workers employed rose from 1.2million to 4.2 million. The average annual rate of growth in employment has amountedto over 5% in the last two and a half decades. It has been fastest in the economy and alot more gradual in non—economic activities. Industry and mining have been thepropulsive sectors employment—wise, and the socialist enterprises and institutions havebeen the main source of new employment. Although growth rate has been higher in theless—developed regions* the absolute increase in the number of employed has beengreater in the more-developed.

The basic determinants of growth in the labor force and employment have beendiscussed elsewhere. But, it must be reiterated here that non—farm employment hasgrown much faster than the labor force. The non—farm sector, as a result, has been ableto absorb not only the entire natural increase but also a significant portion of the relativelabor surpluses in agriculture. This positive trend brought faster changes in the economicstructure of the labor force and the population, which has been attributed specialimportance in Yugoslav policies. On the one hand this has diminished the relativeproportion of traditional forms of employment, the work of children and the elderly,and considerably raised the proportion of women and skilled workers employed in thenon—agricultural sector. On the other hand the total population dependent onagriculture was whittled down from 10.6 million in 1948 to 7.8 million in 1971, that is,by 2.8 million, while the non—farm population increased during the same period from5.2 million to 12.7 million, that is, by 7.5 million. The share of the farm population inthe total population has constantly decreased and by 1971 had fallen to 38%. This wasone of the chief motives of the social transformation. The shifts in the economicstructure of the labor force and the population stimulated economically—justifiedmigration, the growth of towns and cities and the urban population.

But this fundamentally very positive trend was not without its attendantdrawbacks. By the beginning of the 1950's patent unemployment appeared as thecombined resultant of the heavy pressures of the farm labor force on agriculturalresources and the increasing opportunity for employment in industry. The first laborexchanges were established then, their scope and significance in the individual republicsand provinces growing with the growth in labor supply. Adding considerably to the swellof people seeking employment were farm migrants, unskilled workers, and women.Although the number of unemployed gradually increased, the absorption capacities ofthe economy were high, so that the faster rise of employment constantly diminished thesocial importance of unemployment.

81

This was not the case, however, in the mid—1960's, when restrictive measuresaimed at establishing an l'intensive model' of the economy produced stagnation and evena slight decline in the number of employed. Coinciding with high influx from the largeposwar 'baby boom' generations, these measures caused a sharp jump in the number ofunemployed, which exceeded 330,000 by 1969.

This slowdown in employment and rise in unemployment coincided with highdemands for labor in Western Europe v/hich, given the liberal passport conditions andcheap fares over the relatively short distances, could not but lead to heavy departures totake up temporary work abroad. The number of temporary emigrants from Yugoslaviaclimbed sharply and reached, according to the 1971 census, 672,000 and most probablyeven more. These were predominantly economically active (592,000) people, young andmale. In response to this newly—arisen situation Yugoslav policy turned first towardsprotecting the labor and social rights of the workers and, then through bilateralcontracts, to regulation of the volume and directions of this temporary emigration. Atthe end of the I960's employment policies were re—examined in this new light and stresswas placed on the need to create better opportunities for employment and to raise livingstandards so as to gradually reduce the number of temporary emigrants. Elements of thispolicy were written into the 1971-1975 Social Plan of Development of Yugoslavia andare reckoned on in the program of long-term development.

The paradoxical situation in which Yugoslavia has in the course of twenty—fiveyears quadrupled non—farm employment and at the same time has over 300,000unemployed, nearly 800,000 temporary emigrants and almost one—third surplus labor inagriculture, is the outcome of numerous factors in the distant and near past. Itdemonstrates that the problem of the labor force and employment is very intricate evengiven rapid economic growth, a decline in the rate of population growth and loweredlabor force increase, because the excess population in agriculture has a decisive effect onthe supply of labor. The structural aspect obviously makes the problem of employmentfar more complex than it is believed to be in even the most authoritative scientificworks. Its complexity is the greater inasmuch as it also has a regional dimension which,as pointed out earlier, is weighed down in Yugoslavia with considerable economic,demographic and social differences.

Migration and Urbanization

The profound changes in the economy and society of Yugoslavia, condensedinto a short span of. two and a half decades, necessarily led to a considerable rise inmobility. After the extensive and long—lasting pre—industrial migrations, the settlementof Yugoslavia in its present-day form took shape somewhere before the end of the 19thCentury. In keeping with its predominantly agrarian character, the population lived in28,000 settlements, in the great majority of cases, small villages. Postwar industrializa-tion began to change the- settlement pattern and heightened the propensity to migrate.With time, migration became more complicated, including very numerous migrationflows over short distances, long distances and between large regions, together with flowsabroad. At the same time there was an intensification of movement from the village into

82

towns and between urban centers.Wartime and postwar circumstances naturally affected migration on the

Yugoslav part of the Balkan Peninsula. The withdrawal of the German national minorityfrom the northern parts of Yugoslavia with the German occupation army took place inthe last few months of the war. One of the first measures directly after the war was thecolonization of Vojvodina which, coupled with the agrarian reform was the biggestorganized migrationary undertaking. In the 1950's small groups of Italians, aninsignificant number of Jews and large parties of Turks departed from Yugoslavia. At thesame time small groups of former Yugoslav emigrants returned to the country fromEuropean and overseas countries. All these were, one—time migrations arising frompostwar readjustments and carried out on the basis of ad hoc bilateral agreementsbetween Yugoslavia and the relevant countries. It must be added here that at the timeYugoslav policy was not disposed towards external migration and restricted it by largelyadministrative measures.

The evolution of policy during the 1960's led to complete liberalization inchoice of place of abode and movement over the borders, and to a reform of thepassport regime accompanied by agreements with numerous countries on the abolitionof visas. Migration policy was thus also liberalized, but more out of respect for theconstitutional rights of citizens than with the intention of encouraging or discouraginginternational migration. One of the consequences of this policy was a moderate volumeof emigration, which in the 1960's slightly exceeded 200,000, or around 10% of theten-year natural increase. Another consequence was temporary emigration for thepurpose of employment abroad, which has been dealt with earlier. A third consequence,though much smaller in extent, was a rise in the number of Yugoslavs working abroadfor Yugoslav enterprises (on construction sites, in commerce, etc.).

It must be noted that in accordance with the recognition of the rights ofcitizens, Yugoslav policy is extremely tolerant towards external migration. This standseems to have changed somewhat with time, above all because of the volume oftemporary emigration, and could be qualified as 'concerned permissiveness'. Over the lastfew. years there have been endeavors to stem the flow, primarily by channelling itthrough organized labor exchanges, by averting the departure of persons with deficitaryskills and to stimulate temporary migration from the less—developed regions.

For a long time internal migration was treated as the individual's personal affairand, basically, as a labor exchange problem. By the 1960's however, the need came to befelt for a more organized balancing out of regional labor surpluses and labor demands.From then on the role played by republican and provincial employment institutions hasgrown with the increasing elaboration of positive measures in the sense of job training,labor exchange, and the. stimulation of migration. A niore complete policy towardsinternal migration was formulated in the 1971—1975 Plan, which emphasizes thatinternal migration should be regulated by agreements between the republics andprovinces. This sound policy is expected to be supplemented by additional measures thatmore fully and suitably regulate the treatment of migrants as well as the rights andobligations of both the emigratory and the immigratory regions.

An important component of internal migration has been the growth of thétowns and cities and the urban population, especially since Yugoslavia was a

83

' predominantly rural country earlier. The primary déterminants of urbanization were thefederative system and the decentralization of political, economic and cultural affairs.The Yugoslav urbanization model is exceptionally decentralized because it has takenshape through the growth of the eight republican and provincial capitals and a largenumber of sub-regional centers. Not only has administration been very substantiallydecentralized, but also the foundation of new industries, schools and universities,scientific, health and other institutions has tended towards the formation ofmiddle—sized and smaller centers that have acquired increasing importance in regionaldevelopment. These circumstances encouraged the dispersion of urban settlement andthe gradual evolution of small settlements into urban centers. But this did not entirely

• preclude centralization and hyperconcentration of economic activity and population incertain republican capitals, because inherited comparative advantages and thecontemporary policies of local governments reinforced centralizing tendencies.

The favoring of direct production investment at the expense of housingconstruction had the immediate effect, up to the beginning of the 1960's of seriouslyslowing urbanization down. In the early 1960's almost a million workers werecommuting daily to work outside their place of domicile. Even at the start of the 1970'sthe number of commuters was at roughly the same level, notwithstanding theconsiderable rise in urban population growth. This fact made urbanization even moredecentralized, and allowed the gradual urbanization of certain aspects of ruralsettlements. This trend seems to have been stimulated by the system of the formation ofincome of local communities, and was buttressed by substantial advances in localtransport and communications and the decentralization of commerce and services.

Yugoslav development plans do not directly regulate the process of urbanizati-on, although the growth of urban settlements is considered an important component ofdevelopment. However, the Permanent Conference of Towns and Cities and the systemof regional and local urban planning institutions have played and play a significant partin the development and organization of cities.

It is interesting to observe that there is wide regional variation in the percentageof urban population (ranging from 27% of the total population in Kosovo in 1971 to49% in Vojvodina, in comparison with 39% on average for the whole country).Moreover, the degree of urbanization is not markedly correlated to level of economicdevelopment. But nevertheless it does seem that the differences in quality ofurbanization are considerably bigger and that the basic reason for these differences isinuch more directly related to the level of development.

Health, Education and Social Services

Throughout the postwar period Yugoslav social policies have been confrontedwith the demands of a socialist society for maximalization of effects in the fields ofhealth, education and social services, and with the meager funds that the insufficientlydeveloped economy could set aside for this purpose. This contradiction has constantlybeen present — at all times, and in its regional aspects — but with visible oscillations fromthe period of forced production investments to the subsequent emphasis on the standardof living. The principle of the socialization of all social services was adopted directlyafter the war and was instituted in the first postwar reforms. However, numerous

84

economic and personnel limitations hampered its implementation. In addition, thegrowing role of the republics and provinces led to perceptible nuances in evaluations ofneeds and capabilities, which influenced the development of the individual social servicesand created regional differences in their availability.

The reduction in general and specific mortality, which has already beendiscussed, cannot be separated from the influence of health policies. On the one hand,the health service in general, and especially the network of health institutions, wasdeveloped, and on the other, the compass of the health insurance scheme was broadened.Immediately after the war there were only a little over 4000 doctors in the country andin 1949. after repair of war damage, around 50,000 hospital beds. By 1971 the numberof doctors had soared to over 25,000 and the number of hospital beds to over 120.000.Thus, at the beginning of the 1970's, there was one doctor per 814 population and onebed per 170. These indexes only partially reveal the magnitude and direction ofexpansion of the material and personnel training programs, the promotion of medicalresearch and the construction of the necessary health institutions. On the other side,compulsory health insurance was a direct factor in the growth of requests for medicalservices.. Immediately after the war, health insurance was limited to small segments ofthe population, for which no statistical data is available. In 1952 health insurancecovered almost 4.4 million persons, or 26% of the total population, and twenty yearslater it encompassed over 14.5 million persons, or 70%. Relevant for the development ofthe demographic situation was the fact that health policies were aimed at constantlyexpanding health services in the critical moments tied to birth and death. At thébeginning of the 1970's almost 70% of all births took place in medical institutions, andover 65% of persons dying received treatment prior to death.

The successes of the policy of intensifying and expanding health services are, inthe final instance, diminished by two phenomena related to Yugoslav mortalitycharacteristics. The first refers to the high share of infant mortality in total mortalityand to the unfavorable etiology specific to both the developed and the undevelopedregions. The second is related to the great regional differences in the availability ofhealth services. As a result of these differences the chances that a child will be born in amedical institution is three times lower in the least than in the most developed region,while the chances of being treated for a fatal disease are twice as low. Though not themost important determinants, these unquestionably affect regional demographicdifferences and. consequently, obviously call for additional correctives.

Reform of the educational system, instituted directly after the end of the warand resumed at the beginning of the I9607s in essence had two primary objectives: todemocratize education and adapt instruction to the requirements of a society andeconomy in process of development. In view of the conditions prevailing in the country,policy in advancing education placed stress on a number of key aspects v/hich can bebriefly summarized as follows.

The prolongation of compulsory education from four to eight years was aprerequisite to modernization of the entire educational system. This was closely relatedto the expansion of the primary school network and more complete coverage of theschool-age population. From 1938/39 to 1971/72 the number, of schools surged from

85

9,000 to 14,000, with contemporary schools being considerably larger than the prewar,much better-equipped and with a higher number of highly-trained teaching staff. Overthe same period, the number of pupils grew from 1.5 million to 2.9 million, with 94% ofall children aged 7-10 years and 84% of those aged 11-14 years enrolled in school. Inthe lower grades the sex differential in enrollments is minimal but amounts to aroundten percentage points in the higher grades. The effects of educational policies are slightlypoorer in the less than in the more-developed regions both in terms of the percentageenrolled and the sex composition. As a result, in Bosnia—Hercegovina for example,special measures have been undertaken to raise the educational level of the population,and have been given high priority.

The succeeding group of educational measures was directed towards modifica-tion of the structure of the school system. Accompanying the consolidation ofsecondary schools was rapid expansion of vocational schools for skilled workers and the

• foundation of new universities through the creation of a new type of tertiary schooloffering 2—3 years of post-secondary education. In comparison with prewar levels, thenumber of secondary schools was doubled, while the number of pupils climbed from213,000 to 720,000. In addition, numerous adult education centers were also openedwith over 100,000 enrolled. The number of students at universities and higher schools ofeducation rose from 17,000 to 283,000. From 1935 to 1939 a total of just under 15,000students graduated, and from 1965 to 1969 nearly 148,000.

With such expansion of the educational system, by 1971/72 there were almost4 million persons, or 19% of the total population, enrolled in schools of all levels.

In view of the ethnic composition of the population and the federative system,educational policy has encouraged the development of all kinds of schools in allrepublics and in all the tongues of the Yugoslav nations and national minorities. At thebeginning of the 1970's in addition to Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian,primary and secondary instruction was conducted in the following tongues: Albanian,Bulgarian, Czech, Italian, Hungarian, Rumanian, Ruthenian, Slovakian and Turkish.There were over 315,000 pupils receiving instruction in these languages at primaryschools and over 45,000 at secondary schools. Full-rank universities have been foundedin all republican and provincial capitals as well as certain other large centers. Togetherwith the five academies of science, national libraries, publishing houses and otherscientific and cultural institutions, this is considered a very significant factor in thedevelopment of science, art and culture in all the republics and provinces and in allethnic groups in Yugoslavia.

The enduring effects, as well as the weaknesses, of such rapid expansion ofeducation are clearly evident from the educational characteristics of the population. Thepercentage of illiterate adults shrank from 25% in 1953 to 15% in 1971, but with wideregional variation, ranging from 1.2% in Slovenia to 23% in Bosnia-Hercegovina and32% in Kosovo. The proportion of the population over age 10 with less than three gradesof primary education dropped from 429? to 24r/r in the same interval, and with only 4—7grades from 46% to 42%. Impressive advances have been made at the other educationallevels: the proportion of the population with complete primary education rose from 4%to 15%, and complete secondary education from 6.6% to 15.2%, while those finishingthe highest level of education rose from 0.6% to 2.8%. As in other domains, here tooregional differences are- great, but also very complex in terms of causes, and especiallyconsequences.

86

In other fields of social welfare and protection immediately after the warYugoslavia was faced with the necessity of rehabilitating the severe human sequelae ofwar. In this regard, special attention was devoted to war invalids, war orphans andfamilies that had lost their breadwinner. Of course no policy or social assistance canerase the consequences of human losses. But the value of policies in this field lay in theendeavor to minimize the adverse social and economic effects and to help those afflictedto adapt to their new situation.

As the significance of this domain of social policy gradually narrowed, with thedecline in the numbers and change in the status of persons eligible for social welfare,another domain, old age insurance, gained in importance.

The Yugoslav system of old age insurance compulsorily includes all employedpersons and their dependents. Certain other categories, such as for example, tradesmen,and in some regions private farmers, are also covered by the scheme. Decentralized incharacter into republican and provincial insurance communities, the system guaranteescertain common rights and benefits to all pension-beneficiaries in all parts of thecountry.

Before the war, the old age pension scheme had ensured pensions only to civilservants and certain categories of private contributors. The scheme was extended to allcategories of the employed only after the end of the war. Initially, the number ofpersons drawing on this form of social insurance was small but from 1952 to 1972 it rosefrom 350,000 to over 1.3 million. The absolute increase in the number of beneficiarieswas also accompanied by a relative increase, since in 1952 there were 19.3 beneficiariesper 100 active insurant and almost 26.3 in 1972. Liberal policy in this respect wasintroduced in the mid-1960's when the option of early retirement was allowed undervery attractive conditions. The significance of old age insurance for the well-being of thepopulation has grown with the increase in employment, and promises to continue togrow in the future. Obviously the differential ageing of individual social groups of thepopulation has a bearing on this domain of social policy. The problem of supportingelderly farm workers who are no longer able to work, yet have not contributed to thescheme, will become more acute with time.

Fertility and Family Planning

The Yugoslav attitude towards fertility and reproduction is far less defined and.'to a certain extent, more involved than the attitude towards other components of humandevelopment. On the one hand, the Constitution proclaims the value of the family as theprimary social unit, and all issues pertaining to marriage, parenthood and birth have beenplaced under civil jurisdiction. The importance of motherhood and child-rearing isemphasized, professional medical assistance at birth is assured with the health insurancesystem, and provisions have been made for financial assistance to the family. On theother hand, the equality of the woman entails her emancipation and active participationin economic, social and political life. Humani/atinn of marital and parent-child relationshave been keynotes in the new policy. Naturally, it has not been easy to satisfy thesehigh demands in a backward environment even though they have enjoyed the activesupport of political and social organizations. Somewhat removed, but still directlyrelated to these considerations has been the work of the Conference for the Social

87

;

Activity of Women in the liberalization of abortion regulations and the adoption offamily planning as a policy. /'•

The sensitive matter of reproduction has been affected by the situation in otherareas, such as the slow development of child day-care facilities, the housing shortage,prolonged and expensive schooling, and employment conditions. Nor must we forget theformative influence of the socio-political climate and social norms on individualreproductive behavior. This intricate and insufficiently understood complex involves alarge spectrum of factors ranging from the maximalization of material consumption andmodernism, up to obsolete customs, primitive beliefs, and religious ethics.

Distilling out the essence of policies that have a bearing on rcprodution andbirth rate, it will be seen that the common denominator is the humanistic orientation ofsocialist society, much more than demographic intentions. All those measures which areusually considered to be of direct relevance to reproduction and fertility have in factbeen the outcome of this orientation no matter whether they were concerned with thefamily regime, economic assistance to the family, the woman's status in society, healthinsurance, family planning or induced abortion. In evaluating postwar shifts in fertility ilis important to recognize two circumstances. Firstly, all these measures had vary in i;effects on fertility, some stimulating, some depressing and yet others having no eft'ecieither way. Judging from the available demographic data and everything else, the secondgroup seems to have had the decisive influence in many parts of Yugoslavia. Secondly,the intensity of individual measures, for example, the availability of health services orthe level of child endowments, was differentiated regionally and, moreover, acted in ahighly regionally-differentiated environment. Herein, it would seem, lie the commonroots of the regional differences in reproduction which, together with differences inlevels of economic development, education, employment and others explains at least inbroad outline, the diversity of the demographic situation.

In the postwar period Yugoslavia, as a whole at least, has not been under thepressures of hypo or hyperfertility and therefore forced to pursue particular policies.Given this, the orientation towards humanitarian measures and towards the individual'sover-riding influence on- reproduction was not out of place, and moreover was the moreacceptable since it involved less social intervention. One of the crucial questions ofreproduction, namely its regulation, was taken up in the mid 1950's when provisions forinduced termination of pregnancy were liberalized. With time, socio-economic andpersonal indications for abortion in medical institutions have become foremost anddecisive. The great increase in the number of legal abortions impelled official policy tostart propagating the use of contraceptives by the early 1960's. Later, in 1969, theFederal Assembly promulgated a resolution on family planning that stresses thehumanitarian and health values of conscious birth control and the importance ofresponsible parenthood in rearing the young generation. Family planning was therebymade the responsibility of health, social and other institutions, the intention being topromote the use of modern contraceptive methods through educational and healthactions and to curb the high incidence of abortion. It is typical of Yugoslavcircumstances, that a central role in the implementation of this policy was accorded theFederal Council for Family Planning, a non-governmental body with representation of allrelevant factors.

88

The values of family planning were re-affirmed in the new 1974 Constitution of•Yugoslavia, It defines the right of parents to decide the size of their families as one ofthe fundamental rights of man, which can be denied only under considerations of health.

In the framework of this general policy, regional policies and measures are ofgreat significance, not only because of the role played by the republics and provinces inshaping the social and economic conditions of procreation, but also because of thedemographic differences that exist. In some low-fertility regions, recent measures aredirected towards strengthening economic support of reproduction and minimizing theadverse effects of high female employment on maternity. In certain high-fertility regionsit is hoped to pare fertility down by the spread of educational and health services infamily planning. Although these trends are of recent date, it seems safe to say that inYugoslavia the common goal is humanitarian and rational reproduction, and this on thebasis of moderate fertility, while spe'cific regional measures seek to either raise or lowerfertility as circumstances dictate.

Concluding Remarks

Viewed as a whole, developmental policy in Yugoslavia has gradually givenmore and more attention to the population, not just because of its productive functions,but also in order to create more favorable demographic conditions for development aswell as for individual well-being. Indisputably, economic development and social policieshave influenced changes in the population, mainly favorably. The incidence andincreasing importance of measures designed to affect individual demographic variablesare undeniable even though they have not yet been rounded-out into a consistent whole.It is characteristic that these measures have primarily been motivated by the interests ofthe individual and by humanistic considerations. Demographic arguments seem to haveappeared more as correctives rather than as the inspiration of such policies. Lately,voices have been heard in scientific circles calling for a more thorough population policyand for energetic intervention in places where it seems indispensable. To what extentthese demands will influence the fashioning of future policies is very difficult to say.However, whether implicitly or explicitly, this policy will undoubtedly assume increasingimportance, because embarkation on a more mature phase of economic and socialdevelopment of Yugoslavia obviously entails devoting more and more attention to tin-population.

89

STATISTICAL SOURCES

Statistical Yearbooks of Yugoslavia, 1939,1934-35, and 1940Federal Institute of Statistics. Belgrade, yearbooks of vital (from 1950 to 1955) and

demographic statistics (from 1956 to 1972).Federal Institute of Statistics, Belgrade, Statistical Yearbooks of Yugoslavia, from 1964 to

1974.Federal Institute of Statistics. Belgrade, Popis stanovnistva od 1948. godine (Population

Census of 1948) - 10 volumes of final findings.Federal Institute of Statistics, Belgrade. Popis stanovnistva od 1953. godine (Population

Census of 1953) — 16 volumes of final findings.Federal Institute of Statistics. Belgrade, Popis stanovnistva od 1961. godine (Population

Census of 1961) - 16 volumes of final findings.Federal Institute of Statistics. Belgrade. Popis stanovnistva od 1971. godine (Population

Census of 1971 ) - Statisticki bilten No. 738.Federal Institute of Statistics, Belgiude. 1965, Jugoslavia 1945-1964 (Yugoslavia

1945-1964).Federal Institute of Statistics, Belgrade, 1973, Máterijalni i dnistveni razvoj SFRJugoslavijc

1947-1972 (Material and Social Development of SFR Yugoslavia. 1947-1972).Federal Institute of Statistics and the Center for Demographic Research. Belgrade. 1973,

Projekcije stanovnistva Jugoslavije 1970-2000. godine (Projections of the Population of Yugoslavia.1970-2000).

90

Table 1. Age and sex distibution of the Yugoslav population, 1921—1971

Age group

TOTAL

0—4

5—9

10—14

15—19

20—24

25—29

30—34

35—39

40—44

45—49

50—54

55—59

60—64

65—69

70—74

75 and ovci

Unknown

TOTAL

12545000

1276942

1465207

1600188

1345801

1130145

836794

820986

756768

696537

541383

543230

435089

426921

255726

201373

208111

3799

1921

M

6164898

653134

750577

822285

671885

544525

392223

362164

350825

320293

265092

262672

220172

210503

132872

99322

104510

1844

F.

6380102

623808

714630

777903

673916

585620

444571 .

458822

405943

376244

276291

280558'

214917

216418

122854

102051

103601

1955

1

T O T A L

14534000

2034247

1822887

1150216

1346122

1440639

1220988

1039591

791548

756286

667558

595935

457163

427956

316844

236888

226744

2388

1931 •

M

7198956

1031518

931168

592683

676609

741795

610018

503354

376105

340821

314170

272233

220941

203124

157936

114489

110626

1366

F.

7335044

1002729

891719

557533

669513

698844

610970

536237

415443

415465

353388

323702

236222

224832

158908

122399

116118

1022

T O T A L

15841566

1653135

1692511

1804699

1729740

1456020

1068269

789248

1142412

1004583

896269

657309

572881

487081

388033

235447

263078

852

1948 .

M

7615023 .

842495

861049

917845

869288

670493'

488499

361873

545541

501580

426580

298478

245453

211473

165092

103746

113060

478

F.

8226543

810640

831462

886853

860452

785527

587770

427375

596871

503003

469689

358831

327428

275608

222941

131701

150018

374

TOTAL

16991449

2053951

1513025

1607862

1761722

1727466

1440119

1071126

755409

1090487

981485

844475

630750

497512

422632

293372

298784

1272

1953 .

M

8231936

1048742

772303

819256

893159

875211

666592

485788

342059

523141

483033

403917

281056

212030

178355

123193

123626

475

F.

8759513

1005209

740722

788606

868563

852255

773527

585338

413350

567346

498452

440558

349694

285482

244277

170179

175158

797

TOTAL

18549291

1936778

2001022)1832922

1378092

1581536

1647499

1558374I

1245471

756956

914639

997879

851009

683497

430401

338191

377260

7765

1961 .

M

9043424

990036

1023109

935684

694489

797132

824722

766675

563086

342767

42294b

483287

409233

310965

184170

136335

149960

8828

F.

9505867

946742

977913

897238

683603

784404

822777

791699

682385

414189

491693

514592

441776

372532

246231

201856

227300

8937

TOTAL

20522972

1795512

1831567

1873176

1984944

1754327

1291218

1522805

1601852

1505700

1203386

722020

848281

881003

683705

482448

448749

92279

1971

M

10077282

918100

938166

959039

1013455

900219

649334

761738

802573

738203

540228

322606

383319

413884

314997

206209

169573

45589

. F.

10445690

877412

893401

914137

971489

854108

641884

761017

799279

767497

663158

399414

464962

467119

368708

276239

279176

46690

Source: Simeunovié V. The Population of Yugoslavia and the Socialist Republics1921—1961, Belgrade, Savezni zavod za statistiku and Final Results of the1971 Population Census, Statistiöki bitten, N* 738.

I(A

CO O>

so Q\ H *^" OS *•*ro so "O r-4 r* O? ¡ O ( N VO OO - ^

, ( N » ^ o m v«

O

ro r- »om •<»• rom « CT>to GO O\CT\ IO Ul

1•e U-J <v| yin 1/5

ro So °O 00o *-< ^ o \m •«• tn "ir _ í > >o <NIO -H1 » - T-l

H » t; NCT\ r - ^ otil o\ O r^Tj- A A r~•u- 00 m 0000 «s <N «

in<3\in

eom

00ro

jo

r— 10 oo rO O «N

—. CO -O «r- 00 o\ 00CM >O rt r;r«- 10 »o fo

mCM

00ro

o *o i> °° t(*j in ö i/i Is* £2r - - oo t**« *-• u~i ^ f

S S ? S 3

rN

5296Í

f - r

K

ro

ro_•-^

•o

IfN

[,701756

199

:

o

1Da

1535¿

1,115336

202

[9233

o.

a00

625726

387

S-

Sc

0 0

gC/3

O\ O\ O\^^ ro in •o

8è^

Table 3. Labor force of Yugoslavia by activity and economic status in 1971

TotalEmplo- Own Employ- Unpaid |ycos account crs

workersy J~

workers c

TOTALIndustry

Agriculture andfishing

Construction

Transport andCommunications

Commerce andhotels andcatering

Trades and craftsand productive andservice

Others

88901)

1575

3903

398

323

524

434

1M4

4399

1575

•221

393

307

506

279

1118

1980

—

1818

3

14

11

119

15

32

—

3

1

0.5

4

23

0,5

1879

. —

1860

1

0.4

3

12

3

11

—

1

0.1

0.1

0.1

1

. 8

') Difference is accounted for by persons working temporarily abroad

Source: The Material and Social Development of Yugoslavia 1947—1972, Saveznizavod za statistiku, Belgrade, 1973, p. 85

c5

o>oa

I3

aoa_oaEu.•*'

3

3

2;

•a

n 5

a

_Q ?

reO

Os CS — <Nin ro Œ (--OV Os OO Tf

rN•oOsoo

Oo•ofN

in r-i ' soso in t*so sO sO

O U

I I in "3" o oo fN oo r-in o in —in r— r-- —

oo oo oo

io r-irn Om —

fv| O\ — O so-T -— ~r O »-*

m T — ~-, CO OO -sO fN

o inso fNrN rN

rN

in o in•a- so ro

— fN

mvOo\ sO

Oro

•vTfNOO

-a-

3

ONOOONCM

<

CO t ^fi ON NO— —- ON

Cí> OIO -ce m

GO OC--1 NO CJ *—'o m "=i" —•O r*l ÛO fS»-• r<l r-l fN

ON inTj- in

g 2ro *a-

co -a- so so~~ oo oo inin in os -a-fN fN — Oin in TÍ- ro

sG ÇG sOfN rt -a-— O fNfN ro rr

fNO

oOssOfN

625.

68

908

OO

OS

OO

SO

_^

mCNOO

6477

7,2

33

4847

718

25

in

• 33467

3429

8

in so osC3 — oor- o rN— so inOS so T

oo oro ro

** 3;so O

inr-r-OsfN

fNCO

s9°äoSOOS

ofNinOS

OsOO

OS COoo O• 2 '4r— inOS OO

•-a- r* osoo i—• r^

°° 2 osso Os

T

os•<a-

— fN fN ro

.1 i J. a

Os QOO Oci oo

in in

r~- oo

2 S• * OS

O\ •* ON

TÍ- io in

I I Xn m

in

•— ooin r-

•a-rofNrN

r~-oooO

sOr-l

O

inOrN

oo-a-

sOOr»s

— inO r~^- fN

-a* ^

I X 1 Xin m so .-o

SOro

OinfNCNin

CO

or~-cosOrO

OS

Ï

ininCN

inoOO•»

OSrofNsOr-fN

•«a-

r-

roSOCN

OOsOO

^

S O

OS

r--fN

T3C •_a oin e*1^ 3

OsCN

-a-r~inoro

Ss

>0

Unk

n

Table 5. Total population of Yugoslavia by bocio-occupational categoryand economic activity in 1971.

1. Total

2. Private farmers1

3. Farm workers

4. Miners

Total

inOOO's

205236602

425

2245. Production-process and

related workers 4930

6. Proprietors- produo. tion craft shops

7. Sales, catering andservice workers

8. Proprietors* of ca-tering, commercialand trade servicesconcerns

9. Personnel speciali-zed in protectionservice

10. Clerical and rela-ted workers

11. Managerial -personne12. Professional and

technical workers

13. Artists

14. Unknown

15. Persons with in-come of their own

16. Supported bylegalperson

17. Persons temporarilyemployed abroad

435

1162

74

451

¡060

I 236

1148

49

357

2208

30

1131

' " . i

100

32.2

2.1

1.1

24.0

2.1

5.7

0.4

2.2

5.2

1.1

5.60.2

1.7

10,8

0.1 '

5.5

Ec. active1

inOOO's

10131'3680

141

64

2000

158

616

33

148

53292

656

24

156

1239

592

100'

36.4

" 1.40.6

19.7

1.6

6.1

0.3

1.5

5.20.9

6.5

0.2

1.5

12.2

5.8

inOOO's

10392

2922

285160

2930

277

546

40

304

528144

492

2520!

970

30

539

Dependants

100

28.1

2.7

1.5

28.2

2.7

5.3

0.4

2.9

5.1

1.4

4.7

0.2

1.9

9.3

0.3

5.2

per 100active

10279

203249

146

175

89

121

205

99

156

75104

129

78

91

Source: The Material and Social Development of Yugoslavia 1947—1972,Savezni zavod za «tatistiku, Belgrade, 1973, p. 84

1) Inclusive persons with income of their own.2) Inclusive unpaid family workers

Table 6. Labor force of Yugoslavia, the republics and provinces according tosocio-occupational category and economic status in 1971.

SFRYBosnia-Herce-govina

Monte-negro

Croa-tia

Mace-donia

Slove-nia

Serbia

Total Proper Vojvo-dina

Ko-sovo

Labor force in 000's 8890a) by socio-occupation category in %i

1374 173 2016 630 837 3859 2703

1) Inclusive unpaid family workersSource: The Material and Social Development of Yugoslavia 1947—1972,

Savezni zavod za statistiku, Belgrade, 1973, p. 234

833 323

Private farmers1

Farm workers

Miners

Production-process andrelated workers

Proprietors1 productioncraft shops

Sales, Catering andService workers

Proprietors1 of catering commercialand trade services concernsPersonnel specialized inprotection service

Clerical and related workersManagerial personnel

Professional and technical workers

Artists

UnknownPersons temporarily employed abroad

b) by economic status in '/•

Employees

Own account workers

Employers

Unpaid family workers

UnknownPersons temporarily employed abroad

41.41.6

0.7

22.5

1.8

6.9

0.4

1.76.0

1.0

7.3

0.3

1.8

6.6

49.9

22.3

0.4

21.1

0.1

6.6

44.21.8

1.5

21.3

1.3

5.8

0.3

1.5

5.0

0.9

6.1

0.1

1.0

9.2

44.822.0

0.3

23.6

0.1

9.2

40.81.4

0.6

21.4

1.4

8.4

0.3

2.4

6.4

1.4

8.80.2

2.6

3.9

53.4

24.2

0.2

18.2

0.1

3.9

34.4

1.70.4

24.5

1.6

8.3

0.4

1.9

6.6

1.0

7.8

0.3

1.5

'9.6

53.6

21.0

0.5

15.1

0.2

9.6

40.22.5

0.7

21.1

2.7

5.7

0.3 .

2.1

6.0

1.17.2

0.3

2.2

7.9

48.7

21.8

0.3

21.3

0.0

7.9

22.61.8

1.2

36.5

1.6

9.9

0.4

1.57.8

1.4

8.5

0.2

1.2

5.4

69.6

15.1

0.6

9.1

0.2

5.4

48.4

1.2

0.6

19.2

1.9

6.1

0.4

1.5

5.6

1.07.3

0.3

2.2

4.3

44.6

24.6 .

0.3

26.1

0.1

4.3

52.1

0.6

0.6

17.9

1.7

5.9

0.3

1.4

5.5

1.0

7.3

0.3

1.7

3.7

41.8

23.4

0.3

30.7

0.1

3.7

35.8

3.3

0.1

24.8

2.3

7.8

0.6

1.9

6.5

1,17.8

0.42.1

5.5

55.4

26.4

0.5

12.1

0.1

5.5

49.9

1.1

1.3

14.8

2.5

3.7

0.4

1.7

4.10.7

6.8

0.16.4

6.5

39.6

29.4

0.2

24.2

0.1

6.5

I1o.•o

1

11

et

I

OH

O çj

CO

s

oo«--t—t1—1in

vOO

coooCM

OO

es

oo

• * —«r*5 rr>

ss

i

vO»-4in

oin

in•omooin

m

s;

O \O—• rr,

Soo oo

m

m1

o ooo o

00

00eo

m ooO <N

s 2

i n

i n

o fim ¡smm

?i min -H

Os 00in i^o oo

m r-

m. ^^¡2 2

tomr-

I

•a2CA

OOOO»N

<nin

in o» »-< fBfsj in tn in

in rr> t» f

£ WÄ"| I il I

ë

1

Ï

Table 8. Skills structure of the employed in the sooial sector at end 1970,Yugoslavia, republics and provinces

' " (percentage)

(In OOO's)

Total ( in .%)

High qualification

Higher „

Secondary „

Lower

Highly skilled

Skilled

Semi-skilled

Unskilled

SF

RY

(3851)

100

5.1

3.8

14.2

7.9

6.6

25,2

12.7

24.5

Bos

nia

Her

ce-

govi

na

(530)

100

4.2

3.7

13.6

7.5

7.2

25.8

13.0

25.0

Mon

te-

neg

ro

(78)

100

5.9

5.0

15.9

6.2

7.3

24.8

12.2

22.7

Cro

a-(947)

100

5,2

3.7

13.7

7.8

5.6

25,5

13.2

25.3

Mac

e-do

nia

(262)

100

5.3

4.1

15.0

8.8

8.1r23,9

14.0

20.8

Slo

ve-

nia

(540)

100

3.7

2.8

12.7

8.1

4.7

26.2

15.6

26.2

3t—

(1493)

100

5.7

4.2

15.1

8.0

7.4

24,8

11.0

23.8

Serbia

Pro

per

(989)

100

6.4

4.2

15.3

7.8

7.6

24.7

11.2

22,8V

ojvo

-d

ina

(404)

100

4.5

4.0

13.5

8.0

6.8

25.6

10.4

27.2

Ko-

sovo

(101)

100

4.0

5.6

19.0

92

7.8

21.9

11.3

21.2

Source: Statistical Yearbook of Yugoslavia 1972., Savezni zavod za statistiku.Belgrade, 1972f

Table 9. Female age-specific rates irj. 1972, Yugoslavia, republics and provinces

Agegroup

15—49

15—19

20—24

25—29

30—34

35—39

400—44

45—49

SF

RY

68,7

55.8

167.4

130.1

71.8

33.1

10.3

1.1

Bos

nia-

Her

ce-

govi

na

80.6

49,7

182.2

148.7

93.4

49.8

17.8

1.9

Livebirths per 1000M

onte

-neg

ro

78,4

323

171.6

153.8

101.9

45.8

15.9

1.3

Cro

a-ti

a

55.9

.! 52,5

148.7

107.1

54.9

22.5

5.6

0.4

Mac

e-do

nia

88.1

45,7

186.S

177.0

97.7

4S.I

155

1,8

women

¿• Sa

C/3'c

63,2

51.2

158.5

114.6

67.1

31.3

92

0.5

by age

oH

66.8

65.7

167.4

125,2

64.3

28.8

9.1

1.3

Serbia

Pro

per

53.6

69.9

151.6

933

40.7

14.0

3.4

0.4

Voj

vo-

din

a

49,7

58.3

142.5

90.1

38.2'

13,6

• 3.Î

0,3

ái168.9

59,8

279,9

306.4

233,2

1S3.0

67.7

13.7

Source: Statistical Yearbook 1974, Yugoslavia. Published by the Saveznl zavod zastatistiku, Belgrade

Table 10. — Specific mortality rates of the Yugoslav population

Agegroupe

a)

Total

0

1—4

5—9

10—14

15—19

20—24

25—29

30—34

35—39

40—44

45—49

50—54

55—59

60—64

65—69

70—74

' 75—79

80—84

85 and

tn

males

9.7

47.6

1.8

0.6

0.5

0.9

1.5

1.8

2.1

2.9

4.5

6.7

10.0

16.7

25.3

41.4

64.6

L123.

156.0

over 223.6

.2 è *

mx su

7.6

54.0

1.9

0.7

0.6

0.9

1.7

1.7

2.4

3.1

4.9

7.3

11.3

17.5

26.9

44.6

69.9

119.8

160.3

194.1

Deaths

il6.6

33.9

0.7

0.3

05

0.7

0.9

1.3

1.6

2,8

3.6

•4.5

8.7

13.7

15.7

23.6

40.9

64.2

103.0

145.3

per

L

11.6

31,7

I.I

0,7

0.4

l.l

1.8

2.1

2.4

3.6

5.5

7.7

11.5

18.9

29.5

• 44.4

70,9

122.4

171.9

244.2

1000 population

-j aS S3-3

8.2

78.3

2.9

0,7

0.5

0.7

1.2

1.2

1.5

1.7

3.1

5.2

7.9

13.8

20.1

34.5

50.7

85.5

117.4

212.7

i

c/3"c

11.5

24,3

1,0

0,7

0.6

1.3

2.0

2.3

2.7

4.1

' 5.6

7.7

. 12.2

17.5

27.7

47.1

71,5

121,9

186.7

261.4

by age

"3"oH

9.9

49.0

2.0

0,6

0.6

0,9

1.4

1.6

1.9

2.5

4.0

6.1

8.9

15.7

23.3

39.4

61.7

109,5

152,9

225.1

Serbia

I9.7

36,5

1.2

0.6

0,5

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.8

2.3

3.7

5.7

8.2

14.9

22.6

37.8

612

109.4

154.1

223.9

à

>-a

11.8

36.5

1.1

0.6

0.6

0.9

1.7

2.0

2.4

2.9

4.8

7.8

10.7

18.0

26.1

45,4

67.4

117.8

175.4

2592

o

âl

7.9

77.4

3.9

0.6

0.6

0.7

I.I

1.4

1.4

2,5

3.8

4.9

9.0

14.4

19.9

34.2

49.1

80.4

98.4

179.3

Source: Statistical Yearbook 1974, Yugoslavia. Savezpi zavod za• Statistiku, Belgrade

Table 10. — Specific mortality rates of the Yugoslav population

Agegroupe

b)

Total

ü

1—4

5—9

10—14

15—19

20—24

25—29

30—34

35—39

40—44

45—49

50—54

55—59

60—64

65—69

7íJ—74

75—79

•80—84

85 and

tíe/3

females

8.6

45.0

1.7

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.7

0.8

1.1

1.6

2.3

3.6

5.4

9.5

15,0

26.7

47.0

88.4 -

134.7

over 201.5

aX ?i,

6.5

46.5

2.0

• 0 , 5

0.4

0.5

0.8

0.8

1.3

1.8

2.3

3.9

6.9

11.4

19.6

33.3

52.9

97.2

130.8

146.9

Deaths

c ^

Ic

6.4

32.5

1.4

0.0

0,5

0.8

0.5

1.3

1.2

1.4

1.3

4.1

4.2

7.1

10,8

15.4

29.9

62.1

83.4

144,3

per 1000 population

§

10.0

25.1

0.8

0.5

0.3

• 0 . 6

0.6

0.8.

1.0

1.5

2.3 '

3.7

5.5

9.6

14,1

24.9

46.6

88.2

148.1

221.4

•¿•sJS 5

7.4

82.8

2.7

0.4

0.3

0,4

0,6

0.9

1 . 0 •

1.6

2.1

3.6

5.1

9,0

13,5

25.2

44.5

83.0

111,4

215.3

cô'E

• 9.4

18.7

0.7

0,3

0.4

0.4

0,6

0.6

I.I

1.4

2.5

3.2

5.0

8.9

12.9

25.5

41.1

82.2

138.4

215.8

by age

0

9.1

49.6

1.9

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.6

. 0.8

1.1

1.7

2.3

• 3.5

5.0

9.2

15.0

27.1

48.6

90.4

133.6

204.8

Serbi

1p

9.1

32.6

1.0

0,3

0,3

0.5

0.6

0.9 •

1.0

1.6

2.2

'3.4

5.0

9.3

15.2

27.8

51.7

94.7

141.0

201.1

a

| |

9.8

29.1

0.7

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.6

1.1

1.4

2.3

3.9

5.0.

9.2

14.7

25.7

43.3

85.7

132.6

238.0

• 8.0

01.1

4.4

0.6

0.5

0.7

0,9

• 1,2

1.5

3,0

3.3

3.9

5.1

9.0

15.1

25.4

41.3

70.5

92,0

¡50.3

BIBLIOGRAPHY

B a n . M.: Naselfa u Jugoslavifi i njihov razvoj u periodu 1948-1961 (Settlements inYugoslavia and Their Development in the Period 1948—1961) Belgrade: Center for DemographicResearch. 1970.

B j e 1 o g r 1 i c. D. Dvadesetpet godina ekonomskog razvoja (Twenty-five Vears of Fcono-mic Development)- Belgrade, 1973.

B r e z n i k. D., M. R a S e v i c, A. M o j i c and M. P a n c i c: Fertilitet stanovnistvau Jugoslaviji (Fertility of the Population in Yugoslavia) - Belgrade. Center for DemographicResearch, 1972.

B r e z n i k , D.. and M. S e k a r i c. "Smrtnost stanovnistva .liiiyislavije prema starosti ipolu" (Age and Sex-Specific Mortality of the Population of Yugoslavia) Sninovmsrvo. Belgrade.No. 2: 1963.

B r e z n i k , D. : Demografski metodi i modeli (Demographic Methods and Models) -Belgrade: Center for Demographic Research, 1972.

C v i j i c , J.: Balkansko poluostrvo i juznoslovenske zemlje (The Balkan Peninsula andSouthern Slav Countries) Vol.1. - Belgrade, 1922.

C o b e lj i c, N.: Privreda Jugoslavije - rast, struktura i funkcionisanje (The Fconomy ofYugoslavia - Growth, Structure and Operation) Vol.1. - Belgrade, 1972.

F r i g a n o v i c , M. Socijalna geograflja i stanovnistvo svijeta (Social Geography and thePopulation of the World) - Zagreb, 1968.

G i n i c J. Dinamika i struktura gradskog stanovnistva (Dynamics and Structure of theUrban Population) — Belgrade: Center for Demographic Research, 1967.

K 1 a u z e r, I.: Fertilitet i bruto reprodukcijä stanovnistva ^rvatske od 1857-1953(Fertility and Gross Reproduction of the Population of Croatia from 1857—1953) EkonomskipregledNo. 4 - 5 : 1961.

K o n d e v. T.: Razvoj na naselenieto na teritorijata na SR Makedonija vo lekot naposlednieto sest decenii (Development of the Population on the Territory of S. P. of Macedoniaduring the Past Six Decades)— deografskirazgledi, Skopje, 1965.

M a c u r a. M.: Stanovniítvo i radna snaga kao citu'oci privrednog razvoja Jugoslavije (ThePopulation and Labor Force as Factors of the Economic Development of Yugoslavia) — Belgrade.1958.

M a c u r a, M.: Savremeni tokovi i Perspektive demografskog razvitka Jugoslavijc(Contemporary Trends and Prospects of Demographic Development of Yugoslavia) — Cvijicc;zbomik, Belgrade, 1968.

M a c u r a, M.: Razmisljanja povodom osnova demografske teorije (Considerations on tinFundamentals of Demographic Theory) -Stanovnistvo, Beigrade, No. 1, 1966.

91

M a k s i m o v i c, B.: Prelazak poljoprivrednog stanovnistva u nepoljoprivredne delatnosti.(Triinsfer of the Agricultural Population to Non-Agricultural Activities) - Stanovnistvo, Belgrade.No. 1: 1964.

M i h a . j 1 o v i c , K. , a n d E . B e r k o. v i e : Razvoj i z i v o t n i standard regiona Jugoslavije(Development and Living Standards of the Regions of Yugoslavia) - Belgrade, 1970.

M i k i c, F.: Vitalne snage naseg naroda (The Vital Strengths of Our People) - Paspravejugoslovenske akademije znanosti i wnjetnosti, Zagreb, No. 5: 1955.

M l a d e n o v i c , D.: Promené u ekonomskoj strukturi stanovnistva Jugoslavije posledrugog svetskog rata (Changes in the Economic Structure of the Yugoslav Population after theSecond World War) in: Demografskisimpozijum, Ohrid, april 1973 (Demographic Symposium. <~>hrid.April 1973) - in press.

Populaciona politika u Jugoslaviji (Population Policy in Yugoslavia),Nase teme, Zagreb, No4.1974. p, 535-760

N j e g i c, R.: Prirodno kretanje stanovnistva Srbije od 1853-1954 (Natural Dynamics ofthe Population of Serbia from 1853-1954). - Belgrade: Serbian Office of Statistics, 1957.

P e j a n o v i c, D.: Stanovnistvo Bosne i Hercegovine (The Population ofBosnia-Hercegovina) - Belgrade, 1955.

O b r a d o y i c. S.: Stanovnistvo po rodnom kraju (Population by Place of Birth) in: Popisstanovnistva od 1948. godine, VI(Population Census of 1948, Vol. VI) - Belgrade: Federal Instituteof Statistics, 1955.

O b r a d o v i c , S., and I. G i n i c.: Stanovnistvo Narodne republike Srbije od1834-1953 (Population of the People's Republic of Serbia from 1834-1953) - Belgrade: SerbianOffice of Statistics. 1953.

R a s c v i c M. Determinante fertiliteta stanovnistva u Jugoslaviji (Determinants of the.Fertility of the Population of Yugoslavia) - Belgrade: Center for Demographic Research, 1971.

S e n t i e , M. NaSi gradanina privremenom radu u inostranstvu (Our Citizens TemporariKWorking Abroad) -Stanovnistvo, No. 3-4. 1972. Belgrade.

S e n t i e , M., and D. B r e z n i k: Projekcije migracija i aktivnogstanovnistva Jugoslavijedo 1985. godine (Projections of Migration and the Working Population of Yugoslavia up to 1985)Stanovnistvo, Belgrade, No. 3-4: 1972, and No. 1-2: 1973.

5 i f re r, Z.: Razvitak stanovnistva Sbvenije u poslednjih 100 godina (Development of tru.1

Population of Slovenia in the Last 100 Years) - Stanovnistvo, Belgrade, No. 3: 1963.T a s i c, D.: Dugorocne promené starosne strukture stanovnistva Jugoslavije (Long-tertr

Changes in the Age Composition of the Yugoslav Population) —Stanovnistvo, Beigrade. No. 1: I96.;.T a s i c . D., D. B r e z n i k , A. M o j i e , Lj. B a s t a , P. D u j a n o v i c . and D. J a-

k o v 1 j e v i c: Smrtnost odojeadi u Jugoslaviji (Infant Mortality in Yugoslavia) — Belgrade: Centeifor Demographic Research. 1965.

T o d o r o v i c . G. and D. B r e z n i k . Projekcije stanovnistva Jugoslavije po republikama,1965-1986 (Projections of the Yugoslav Population by Republic, 1965-1986) - StanovnistvoBelgrade, No. 1-2: 1968. •

T o d o r o v i c . G. andA. P l a v e c . Projekcije stanovnistva Jugoslavije 1970-2000.godine (Projections of the Yugoslav Population, 1970—2000) — Stanovnistvo, Belgrade, N'o. 3—4:1972 and 1-2: 1973.

V o g e 1 n i k, D. Razvoj prebivalstva Slovenija zadnjih 200 let (Development of tlu-Population of Slovenia in the Last 200 Years) - Ekonomski Zbornik, Ljubljana, Vol. 7: 1965.

92

• V o g e 1 n i k, D. Urbanizacija kao odraz privrednog razvoja SFRJ (Urbanization as aReflection of Economic Development) — Belgrade. 1961.

W e r t h e i m e r, A. B a l e t i c : StanovniStvo SR Hrvatske (Population of S.R. ofCroatia) - Zagreb: Skolska knjiga, 1971.

Mulina T r i p o: Záposlenost u dugorocnom razvoju Jugoslavije, (Employment in theLongterm Development of Yugoslavia) - Belgrade, 1973. manuscript.

93

Foreword 3

I. POPULATION GROWTH 3

I listorical Overview ! 8Population Trends since the End of the 19th Century . . . . 10

II. COMPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH ],1

Long-term Changes in Fertility 14Age-specific Female Fertility • . . .Legitimate and Illegitimate Fertility 17Female Fertility according to Socio-economic and Educational Cha-racteristics 13Mortality 20Mortality by Age and Sex 21Infant Mortality 23Mortality according to Marital Status 25Cause Mortality 25Natural Increase of the Yugoslav Population . 2 6External Migration . 26

i n . COMPOSITION OF THE YUGOSLAV POPULATION . . . . 29

Sex and Age Structure 29Distribution by Marital Status 33Educational Structure of the Population . 35Nationality Structure of the Population 38Households and Families . 40

IV. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, INTERNAL MIGRATION ANDTHE AGRICULTURAL, NON-AGRICULTURAL, URBAN ANDRURAL POPULATIONS 44

Population Distribution and Internal MigrationAgricultural and Non-agricultural Population 48Settlements, Rural and Urban Population 50

V. LABOR FORCE (ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION) . . 56

Working-age Contingent of the Population 58Total Population by Economic Activity Category 57

94

Activity Rates by Age 59Sex and Age Structure of the Labor Force 61Labor Force by Economic Sector 62Status Composition of the Labor Force 63Employment 63Skills Structure of the Employed 66Manpower Reserves 67

VI. PROJECTIONS OF THE YUGOSLAV POPULATION TO THEYEAR 2000 68

Total Population 68Changes in the Age Composition and Age Contingents of. the Po-pulation 70Labor Force Trends to 1985 72Projections of the Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Labor Forces- 72Projections of the Number and Size of Households . . . . . 73Review of Changes in Other Population Distributions, Pattern ofSettlement, etc 73

VII. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND POLICY RELATED TODEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION 75

The Historical Legacy in Brief 76Postwar Reconstruction of the Society and Economy . . . . 78Economic Growth and Structural Changes 79Growth and Problems of Employment 80Migration and Urbanization 82Health, Education and Social Services 84Fertility and Family Planning 87Concluding Remarks 89

STATISTICAL SOURCES 90

BIBLIOGRAPHY 91

95

Stampa: Grafiöko preduzece »Radiäa Timotic«, Beograd, Jakáiéeva 9 — 1975.