AREAS OF SPECIAL STATE CONCERN IN CROATIA- REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIFFERENCES AND THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Konzistentna i učinkovita politika uravnoteženog regionalnog razvitka izuzetno je važna za dalji razvitak Hrvatske. Sadašnju situaciju karakterizira veoma visoka razina koncentracije ukupne gospodarske aktivnosti u Gradu Zagrebu (30% ukupnog bruto domaćeg proizvoda). U područjima posebne države skrbi (PPDS) živi 15,3% stanovništva Hrvatske. Demografske i obrazovne karakteristike PPDS izrazito su nepovoljne, premda raznolike, ovisno o pojedinim skupinama PPDS. Analiza korelacije rangova (Spearmanov koefi cijent) pokazuje postojanje slabe korelacije između udjela stanovništva koje živi u PPDS pojedinih županija i razine razvijenosti županija mjerene bruto domaćim proizvodom po stanovniku godine 2001. To ukazuje na pojavu sve značajnijih odstupanja stvarne ekonomske snage nekih područja od potrebe njihova uvrštavanja u PPDS. Posebno je to izraženo u pojedinim županijama, u kojima prevladavaju PPDS tzv. prve i druge skupine. Kod PPDS tzv. treće skupine nema takvih odstupanja, pa stoga valja očekivati da će se u nadolazećem razdoblju cjelokupan sustav kriterija za određivanje PPDS morati sve više približavati jasnim kriterijima treće skupine. To su kriteriji ekonomske razvijenosti, demografski kriterij i kriterij intenziteta strukturnih prilagodbi.A coherent and effective policy of balanced regional development is of vital importance for future growth of Croatia. Current situation is characterised by a very high concentration of economic activity in the City of Zagreb, accounting for 30% of total GDP figure. Areas of Special State Concern (ASSC) represent 15,3% of the total population in Croatia. Demographic and educational characteristics of these areas vary, but are overall of unsatisfactory standard, largely depending on the group within the ASSC. Correlation rank analysis (Spearman’s coefficient) indicates a weak correlation between the population size of the ASSC in different counties and the level of development of these counties, measured by GDP per capita in 2001. This signifi es the appearance of a major gap between the real economic strength of certain areas and the justifi cation of their ASSC classifi cation. This is especially evident in the counties containing areas of the so called first and second group. Areas of the third group do not demonstrate such discrepancies, and it can be therefore expected, that in the future the ASSC criteria will have to adapt to the clear criteria structure of the third group. These criteria are economic development, demographic considerations and the intensity of structural adjustments