Underdeveloped communities in Croatia: synergy of unfavourable economic and social development

1. Underdevelopedcommunities in Croatia: synergy of unfavourable economic and social development Ana Miljenović Faculty of Law, dept. for Social Work Social Work Social Development 2012: Action and Impact

2. Startingpoint for understanding UC: understandingcommunitydevelopment • Community development is process and outcome (Phillips and Pittman, 2009)regarding 3 dimensions of ˝community˝:

3. Startingpoint for understanding UC: understandingcommunitydevelopment (II) • Community development as outcome: community resources are increased or improved in certain sense: • Infrastructure • Physical environment • Economical • Social: e.g. equal opportunities for all members • Cultural • Better social status of community • Improved political autonomy • Better quality of life • Better demographical structure …

4. Starting point for understanding UC: understanding community development (III) • Community development as process: activities, strategies and methods used to increase community resources Or //what happens in community to increase its resources • Foundation of ˝capable or sustainable community˝ concept (Wallman, 1982, Schoenberg, 1979 and Schoenberg i Rosenbaum, 1980) Its members have competencies to participate in developmental processes, negotiate, and establish organizations for actions, be involvedin activities, maintain connections with significant sources andestablish mechanisms for further communication

5. Based on CD- community could be seen as underdeveloped in terms of:

6. Underdeveloped communities as Croatian issue • Importance of dealing with UC issue inCroatia:

7. Detecting UC or developmentally vulnerable communities in Croatia • Several foundations for detecting UC: • War affected communities • Communities in adverse geographical location (mountains, islands) • Other communities with adverse structural indicators (mostly economical, demographical, educational)

8. Approach to UC in Croatia • There hasn’t been any holistic scientific or practical approach • Most interesting in practical and scientific sense were war affected communities and issues of: • Psychosocial consequences of war • Relations among ethnic groups (mostly Serbs and Croats, even though demographical changes were more complex) • Minority rights • Rebuilding of outdoor infrastructure

9. Politicalapproach to UC – threestages • 1. post- war – accent on war affected communities • 2. end of 90’s and beginning of 2000. – accepting various foundation of underdevelopment- several legislative acts • 3. more integrative approach to all communities in detecting their development status – in 2010. * ˝Community˝ refers to municipalities based on their political establishment in early 90’s

10. Stage 1: war affected communities • Recognised in Act on areas under special state care (Official Gazette, 1996) • In beginning two groups: first by state border and second • Restrictive state injection measures – state provides help only in housing, fiscal sense, higher salaries to public administers (even though often they weren’t from affected areas) and benefits in using minerals and land • At first it referred to 72 municipality in total, and partially on some villages in 32 municipalities

11. Stage 2: recognisingvarioustypesofdevelopmentissues- late 90’s and 2000.

12. Stage 2. (II) • In 2001. Vukovar got special status with more state support than other affected communities and special fund was aimed to Vukovar’s development • New focus on developmentally vulnerable communities due to adverse geographical location: islands and mountain – hill areas. • * islands had much more attention, policy maker approch them as resource and gave larger autonomy in making developmental plan • Other mountain areas – detected as problem, not resource, with very limitied measures: mostly oriented to agriculture

13. Stage 2. (III) • Areas under special state care: situation got complicated in 2003. • Third type of communities were introduced, but not as war affected, but ˝other ˝ underdeveloped community • However, law had some paradoxes: • Measures remained the some, but reduced (to housing and fiscal benefits) • Rights were given gradually in sense that first group had most, and third least right. Eventhough, they weren’t grouped by same criteria Total of 110 municipalities

14. Stage 3 – 2010/2011. new regional policy • 2010. Croatia entered new regional policy with Strategy of regional development and Act on regional development • Very ambitious start traing to deal with problems that previous acts had: • - reduction of measures • - neglecting process aspect of development • - uncelar criteria for selecting • - disconnection with wider social surrounding • - passive and state directed measures

15. Stage 3 (II) Concrete changes: • Introducing index of development • Wider approach to development as social, economical, political, ecological… • Establishing infrastructure for monitoring and statistical data base • More accent on process dimensions: building strategicplans, cooperationamong all stakeholders • Introducingfund for regionaldevelopment • Development as dinamic, notstaticprocess • More influence byregionalauthorities (counties), andlessby state

16. Threeunderdevelopedcommunities – threestories, one solution?General indicators of underdevelopment: demographical

17. Threeunderdevelopedcommunities – threestories, one solution?General indicators of underdevelopment: economic

18. Threeunderdeveloped communities – threestories, one solution? Specific local context:

19. Workingdefinitonanddevelopmentalprospects of underdeveloped communities

20. Workingdefinitonand developmental prospects of underdeveloped communities (2)

21. Thankyou for yourattentionmiljenovic.ana@gmail.com