FOLIA GEOGRAPHICA

Menu

Folia Geographica 2021, 63/1, pp. 85-109

RECOMMENDATION FOR A TYPOLOGY OF CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES IN CROATIA ACCORDING TO DEVELOPMENT LEVEL

Zoran STIPERSKI A*, Jelena LONČAR B, Miroslav RAJTER C

Received: November 3, 2020 | Revised: January 11, 2021 | Accepted: February 5, 2021

Paper No. 21-63/1-581

A* University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Marulićev trg 19 / II., 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6329-5115
zstiper@geog.pmf.hr (corresponding author)

B University of Zagreb, Faculty of Science, Marulićev trg 19 / II., 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4963-2669
jloncar@geog.pmf.hr

C University of Zagreb, Research Office, Ulica kralja Zvonimira 8, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2608-3196
mrajter@unizg.hr

 



FULL TEXT

Abstract
The goal of this paper is to create a typology of municipalities according to development level, using what little data are available. Both economic (municipal income, employment, and entrepreneurship) and demographic (educated and immigrant population) indicators are used. Three economic types of municipality were defined using three economic indicators: income per capita (used as the main indicator); number of residents per entrepreneur; and share of employed in the total population. Following this, we defined demographic types of municipalities, using the three aforementioned economic indicators as well as two demographic indicators: average education level of the population and share of immigrants in the total population. Education level of the population is more important than employment or entrepreneurship for economic development. The typology indicates an above-average level of development on the Adriatic coast and islands, as well as in large cities and the immediate surroundings of Zagreb. In contrast, the typology also shows below-average development levels in southeastern Slavonia and northwestern Croatia. Areas of special state concern, such as those that were occupied during the Croatian War of Independence, have above-average municipal income and below-average education levels, employment, and entrepreneurship. Tourism, activities in large cities, and (paradoxically) state subsidies in areas of special state concern contribute the most to development level, while industry and (especially) agriculture do not make significant contributions to development level. The tradition of managing population size is no longer significant for development level, because a large number of sparsely-populated “new” municipalities have significantly higher incomes than “old” municipalities. This paper should serve as a supplement to the frequent discussions regarding the optimization of Croatia’s system of local government units.

Key words Typology of municipalities and cities, economic development index, synthesized development indicators, economic typology of municipalities, demographic typology of municipalities, optimization of the system of local self-government units.

REFERENCES

  1. AJDUKOVIĆ, M., RAJTER, M., REZO, I. (2019). Obiteljski odnosi i roditeljstvo u obiteljima različitog prihoda: kako je život u visokom riziku od siromaštva povezan s funkcioniranjem obitelji adolescenata? Revija za socijalnu politiku, 26(1), 69-95.
  2. BAŃSKI, J., MAZUREK, D. (2018). Smart Specialisation and the Internal Potential of Regions in Poland. Folia Geographica, 60, 1, 5–30.
  3. BIVAND, R., KEITT, T., ROWLINGSON, B. (2020). rgdal:  Bindings for the ‚Geospatial‘ Data Abstraction Library. R-package version 1.5-10.  https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgdal
  4. BAČELIĆ-GRGIĆ, I. (2016). Karakteristike malih općina u Republici Hrvatskoj s obzirom na indeks razvijenosti. Graduate thesis. Split: University of Split.
  5. BLAŽEVIĆ, I. (1980). Utjecaj turizma na proces litoralizacije i na transformaciju agrarnog pejzaža u Istri. In Spomen-zbornik proslave 30. obljetnice GDH. Zagreb: Geographical Society of Croatia, pp. 25-38.
  6. BRAIČIĆ, Z., LONČAR, J. (2018). Spatial concentration and regional distribution of economic activities in the Republic of Croatia. Croatian Geographical Bulletin, 80, 2, 33-54.
  7. CAMAGNI, R., CAPELLO, R. (2013). Regional Competitiveness and Territorial Capital: A Conceptual Approach and Empirical Evidence from the European Union. Regional Studies, 47, 9, 1383-1402.
  8. CAPELLO, R., CARAGLIU, A., FRATESI, U. (2014). Modeling Regional Growth between Competitiveness and Austerity Measures: The MASST3 Model. International Regional Science Review, 1-38.
  9. DOBROTA, A. (2019). Izravan udio turizma u BDP-u je 11,4 posto, uz ukupan utjecaj na gospodarstvo Hrvatske od 16,9 posto. In Cimerfraj.hr. [accessed on 6 April 2020]. Retrieved from:  https://www.cimerfraj.hr/ aktualno/tsa-statistika-2016
  10. DENONA BOGOVIĆ, N., DREZGIĆ, S., ČEGAR, S. (2017). Studija evaluacija postojećeg i prijedlog novog modela za izračun indeksa te izračun novog indeksa razvijenosti jedinica lokalne i područne samouprave u Republici Hrvatskoj. Rijeka: University of Rijeka. Rijeka: CLER – Centar za lokalni ekonomski razvoj Ekonomskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci. Zagreb: Institut za razvoj i međunarodne odnose.
  11. DRŽAVNI ZAVOD ZA STATISTIKU (2011). Popis stanovništva Republike Hrvatske 2011. Zagreb.
  12. MINISTARSTVO FINANCIJA (2018). Prihod općina 2016. Zagreb.
  13. MINISTARSTVO TURIZMA (2020). U 2019. godini 21 milijun turista, 5 posto više nego u 2018., noćenja 2,4 posto više. Retrieved from:  https://mint.gov.hr/vijesti/u-2019-godini-21-milijun-turista-5-posto-vise-nego-u-2018-nocenja-2-4-posto-vise/20762. Accessed on 6 April 2020.
  14. FELETAR, D., STIPERSKI, Z. (1992). Međuzavisnost procesa industrijalizacije i promjena u prostorom rasporedu i pokretljivosti stanovništva u Hrvatskom zagorju. Acta geographica Croatica, 27, 141-161.
  15. FINA, Financijska agencija (2020), Zagreb. Retrieved from: www.fina.hr. Accessed on 10 Mart 2020.
  16. FUJITA, M., KRUGMAN, P. (2004). The new economic geography: Past, present and the future. Papers in Regional Science, 83, 139-164.
  17. GLAMUZINA, M., GLAMUZINA, N. (1998). Problem centralnog naselja u općini Gradac. Geoadria, 3, 57-63.
  18. GRUPACIJA SVJETSKA BANKA (2019). Stanje sektora i analiza javnih izdataka za poljoprivredu i ruralni razvoj. Zagreb: Svjetska banka.
  19. HRŽENJAK, J. (2009). Napomene o lokalnoj I regionalnoj samoupravi u Hrvatskoj. Hrvatska javna uprava, 9, 4, 999–1010.
  20. IVANIŠEVIĆ, S. (2000). Teritorijalna osnova lokalne i regionalne samouprave uz posebni osvrt na položaj Grada Zagreba i njegovu samoupravu. Hrvatska javna uprava, 2, 4, 585-601.
  21. JAŻDŻEWSKA, I., KOTLICKA, J. (2020). Application of Cluster Analysis in Urban Morphology Research. The Example of Industrial Plots in Łódź (Poland). Folia Geographica, 62, 2, 5-21.
  22. KLAMÁR, R., MATLOVIČ, R., IVANOVÁ, M., IŠTOK, R., KOZOŇ, J. (2019). Local Action Group as a Tool of Inter-municipal Cooperation: Case Study of Slovakia. Folia Geographica, 61, 1, 36-67.
  23. KLARIĆ, Z. (2016). Geografski aspekti teritorijalnog ustroja Hrvatske i usporedba s drugim europskim zemljama. Hrvatski geografski glasnik, 78, 2, 49-75.
  24. KOPRIĆ, I. (2010). Karakteristike sustava lokalne samouprave u Hrvatskoj. Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava: časopis za teoriju i praksu javne uprave, 10, 2, 371-386.
  25. LORAH, J. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6, 1, 1-11.
  26. MALIĆ, A., STIPERSKI, Z. (1993). Političko-teritorijalni ustroj i centralitet naselja Republike Hrvatske. Acta Geographica Croatica, 28, 67-83.
  27. MARCELIĆ, S. (2015). Kritička analiza hrvatskog indeksa razvijenosti: tri tipa razvoja i njihov regionalni položaj. Revija za socijalnu politiku, 22, 3, 309-333.
  28. MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2020). First and second order discontinuities in world geographical thought and their primary reception in Slovak geography. Folia Geographica, 62, 1, 52-76.
  29. OBADIĆ, A. (2001). Značaj industrije za gospodarski razvitak. Ekonomski pregled, 52, 9-10, 1100-1112.
  30. PERIŠIĆ, A. (2014). Multivarijatna klasifikacija jedinica lokalne i regionalne samouprave prema socioekonomskoj razvijenosti. Društvena istraživanja, 23, 2, 211-231.
  31. PERIŠIĆ, A., WAGNER, V. (2015). Indeks razvijenosti: analiza temeljnog instrumenta hrvatske regionalne politike. Odabrani prijevodi, 30, 15, 1-24.
  32. PERKOVAC, Ž. (1993). Turizam i geoprostor Poreštine. Pazin: IKD Juraj Dobrila.
  33. PRESTER, J., RAŠIĆ BAKARIĆ, I. (2017). Analiza strukturnih obilježja prerađivačke industrije Republike Hrvatske. Ekonomski pregled, 68, 4, 341-383.
  34. RAŠIĆ BAKARIĆ, I., VIZEK, M. (2010). Analiza konkurentnosti i strukturnih obilježja prerađivačke industrije Republike Hrvatske. Ekonomski pregled, 61, 5-6, 241-270.
  35. SCOTT A. J., STORPER M. (2003). Regions, Globalization, Development. Regional Studies, 37, 6-7, 579-593.
  36. SWIANIEWICZ, P., GENDŹWIŁŁ, A., ZARDI, A. (2017). Territorial reforms in Europe. Does size matters? Territorial Amalgamation Toolkit. EU: Council of Europe.
  37. VOJNOVIĆ, N. (2018).  Intenzitet turizma u vodećim hrvatskim turističkim gradovima i općinama. Geoadria, 23, 1, 29-50.
  38. WICKHAM, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 2016.
  39. ŽULJIĆ, S. (2001). Regionalno i teritorijalno ustrojstvo Hrvatske u razdoblju između godina 1945.-2000. Ekonomski pregled, 52, 1-2, 3-28.