selo u postsocijalistidsackoj transformaciji

, . LVI, 2008. Collection of the Papers, vol. LVI, 2008

95

Original scientific article

: . ; , . - - , , , , - . - - , : , / . . : , , , , , , , . Abstract: The process of transition of the Serbian society and economy affects the material status of rural families in Central Serbia. Serbian village and agronomy share the fate of the global Serbian society; rural areas fall behind urban areas and average indices of the quality of life of the society in general. Ownership of land is no longer of primary importance for the existence of a farming family and as a criterion for its social status, resulting in declining levels of interest for enlarging the property, impoverish-ment of rural households and the appearance of new category of mixed village house-holds oriented towards non-farming activities. The village suffers isolation and margi-nalization on the part of the state rural population is excluded from social flows, while rural areas and population lose status: in socialism they became urban working class, while during the period of transition the remaining smallholders and those with-out farming land became outsiders. All of these caused high levels of dissatisfaction of the members of rural families on material situation and rural forms of family life. Key words: impoverishment, marginalization, lose status, the period of transition, the village, farming family society, central Serbia.

316.334.55(497.11)199/... 314.117.3:631(497.11)199/...

...

96

- , - 2001. 2002. , 580 ( -) (, , -, , ), - :

, . , .

, .

: , , , .

, - , 1 ha, , , , .

, - , : ( -), / , - .

- -

Impoverishment and marginalization of villages and rural families in...

97

, , e , , , , , - . . . - 10 : , , , - , ( , , , , ), ( ), , , . - , , : , , , . , "" , . , :

: , , , , , , , , , ( 6700 ), 3 8 ha, , - , - , . , , : , : , , ' ... , , .

...

98

: , : , , ; , , , ; 1999. , '; , , , ; ' , , , , , ...; , . , , .

: , 3 ha 10 ha, : e , e , , : , , , , , : " , "; " , , , , "; " ". , , , - , . - .

- , . , (, , - .), , . - -


99

, , , , .

-

. , , . - -, , , , : , - . : - ? - , , , . , - , -. , - 21. .

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

...

100

. - ( 1).

1. -

%

2.4

27.8

69.8

2. - ,

. . . . . . 3.1 2.0 1.1 7.0 1.0 - 2.4 34.4 24.0 29.5 27.0 20.0 32.3 27.8 62.5 74.0 69.3 66.0 79.0 67.7 69.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

, - - , , -. , .

, . , .

, - . , , : , , . , -


101

: - (69.8%) , - . , , , - ; , , -, . "- " , , , (27.8% ) , 2.4%. - - 1960. 1977. (1981: 43), " , - : 2/3 1/3 , 27.8% 2.4%. , , ; - , , .

, 1983-1988 , : - , 1991: 157-192. 1988, : 1983-1988. 16.7%, 46.4%, 36.9%, 2.4%, 27.8% 69.8%. : 16.7% 46.4%, . . , - , - , , - , 2/3 . :

...

102

, , , , - . , , - , . , - , ( : ; ; -; ; , .

1986. , - . , ( 2008. 6.700 ).

: - , - -. : -? ?, -- . , - . - e -: (75.9%) ( 3). 3. -

o . N % N % N % N % 13 13.5 81 84.4 2 2.1 96 100.0 24 24.0 75 75.0 1 1.0 100 100.0 1 1.1 80 90.9 7 8.0 88 100.0 53 53.0 46 46.0 1 1.0 100 100.0 15 15.0 79 79.0 6 6.0 100 100.0 14 14.6 79 82.3 3 3.1 96 100.0 120 20.7 440 75.9 20 3.4 580 100.0


103

- , . - , , - ( , : , , , , ). , - .

, - : 10 ha ( 1953. ) 80% ( ). , . 1969. ( 4 ha) (27.2%, : , 1981: 28.), 2002. 3 ha. , 3 5 ha ( 4). , ( 4) : , ( 1 ha 1 3 ha) - . - - . - , , , , - . , : , - , .

...

104

4. - 2002. , %

2002. . . . .

. 0.3 0.6 0.2 - 10.0 0.7 1 ha 8.5 32.6 7.1 6.7 60.0 15.9 1.01-3 ha 26.9 36.6 27.2 13.3 - 27.4 3.01-5 ha 24.3 16.1 25.4 26.7 - 22.0 5.01-8 ha 21.9 8.9 22.3 24.2 5.0 19.3 8.01-10 ha 8.4 2.5 8.2 13.3 - 6.3 10.01 + 9.7 2.7 9.6 13.3 - 4.3 - - - 2.5 25.0 4.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 : , 2002., , , . 2, .

( 4). , . . , - , . -. , - .

, - 3 5 ha 8 ha ( 5).

- , . -: ? : 1. , ' , 22.2% -; 2. , , -, , , , ; , , . 22.1%; 3. , , 31.0%; 4. : 24.7%.

5. , %

3 ha 21.4 3 5 ha 28.6 5 8 ha 21.4 8 ha 21.4


105

- . , - - ( 6). - 5 . , - . - , 1 ha , - ( 1- ha), , (27.3%) ( 6). - - - : , . - , - : " ", - ( 1960- 1970- , , , 2004: 26). 6.

1 2 3 4 5 . 6 . 7 + 1 ha 33.2 26.5 16.4 27.3 13.2 11.1 5.8 15.5 1-3 ha 46.7 26.5 34.5 23.2 24.6 24.4 13.6 23.6 3-5 ha 6.7 20.4 21.8 20.2 23.7 20.0 31.1 22.2 5-10 ha 6.7 14.3 20.0 19.2 30.7 34.1 35.9 27.4 10 + - - 3.6 3.0 6.1 6.7 13.6 6.0 6.7 8.2 3.6 4.0 1.8 3.7 7.8 4.5 - 4.1 - 3.0 - - - 0.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

...

106

. - , - ,

7.

1 ha 39.3 6.2 39.5 13.0 5.2 3.1 1-3 ha 25.8 22.7 25.9 50.7 19.9 4.7 3-5 ha 11.7 26.3 11.1 11.6 32.5 15.6 5-8 ha 9.2 23.9 8.6 11.6 25.5 31.3 8 10 ha 3.1 9.3 3.1 4.3 7.7 21.9 10 + 1.2 7.9 1.2 4.3 5.6 21.9 6.7 3.7 7.4 4.3 3.5 1.6 3.1 - 3.1 - - - 27.9 72.1 27.9 11.9 49.2 11.0

, -

, , 72.1% , 49.3%. , , , . , , (55.2%) 5 ha. , 11% - ( ), 5 ha ( 7). , , - - - , (, , ), 49.3%, - : 1 3 ha, , 25.8% ( 7).

-


107

3 ha. - , . - , . , - - , - , , , - , k . : ? - , 23.3% , , , , , 2/3 (65.8%) - , .

-, , - .

, - , - o , - - -: ; . , , ; .

-. ( - 1 ha 8 10 ha)

...

108

. 1-3 ha 10 ha. . , . , : , ( 8, 9, 10, 11). , ( 0,541): , 8 ha. , , .

8.

0-1 ha 1-3 ha 3-5 ha 5-8 ha 8-10 ha 10 ha + 4.0 1.4 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 8.8 11.6 22.2 21.9 19.0 6.9 5.9 91.2

9. 0-1 ha 1-3 ha 3-5 ha 5-8 ha 8-10 ha 10 ha +

40.0 18.9 9.5 7.4 6.3 3.2 16.4 5 12.5 28.1 22.1 20.6 6.8 4.3 48.4 6 - 10 8.1 25.6 27.9 19.8 7.0 10.5 14.8 11 + 8.4 15.1 28.6 27.7 10.9 9.2 20.5

c = 0.406 10.

0-1 ha 1-3 ha 3-5 ha 5-8 ha 8-10 ha 10 ha + 22.8 25.6 21.4 16.2 6.3 2.8 60.4 5 9.6 44.2 21.2 17.3 3.8 1.9 9.0 6 10 2.4 20.2 26.2 31.0 9.5 4.8 14.5 11 + 3.2 7.4 22.3 24.5 12.8 21.3 16.1

0.414 11.

0-1 ha 1-3 ha 3-5 ha 5-8 ha 8-10 ha 10 ha + 39.2 29.8 11.1 7.6 2.9 0.6 29.4 12.0 32.0 35.0 11.0 4.0 2.0 17.2 6.5 31.2 21.7 26.1 4.3 7.2 23.8 1.2 6.4 26.2 32.0 16.9 12.8 29.6

0.541

- , - 97.5% 93% .


109

, . - , - .

. 83.3% - ( ).

, - . , - - 2000. , . - .

12. 5. 2000.

12.5 20.0 18.9 77.5 68.7 70.2 10.0 11.3 10.9 100 100 100

2000. : - 2000. . - -, , 30 , , , . , , 68.7% - . . (, 2004: 35), 2004., 74% , 51% "" "".

...

110

: , - . , : , 50 km, , , - .

: 2000. : ; . , , , ; , , , ; , ; , ; ; ; ; , , , ..., . 70.2% . : , , ; , ; , , ; , ; , ; ', ; ' 25 30, ' , ; , , , ' ?; , , , , . 18.9% , (10.9%): , ', .

?

( 13).


111

- - (42.5%), 23.3% , , , , , 2/3 (65.8%) , - - . , , . :

13. -

. 42.5 22.4 20.0 26.5 . 15.8 22.2 35.0 21.3 1.8 4.3 10.0 4.0 . 0.8 3.9 5.0 3.3 15.0 23.2 30.0 21.7 23.3 22.0 - 21.5 , 0.8 2.0 - 1.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

, . , , - : , , , ( 14).

14. ,

. . . . . % . % . % . % . % . % . % 1 6 6.3 1 1.0 1 1.1 6 6.0 6 6.0 1 1.1 21 3.6 2 53 55.2 49 49.0 41 46.6 59 59.0 56 56.0 41 42.7 299 51.6 3 33 34.3 48 48.0 42 47.7 29 29.0 35 35.0 51 53.1 238 41.0 4 4 4.2 1 1.0 2 2.3 4 4.0 3 3.0 3 3.1 17 2.9 5 - - 1 1.0 1 1.0 2 2.0 - - - - 5 0.9 6 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 100 580 100 : 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 , 6 - .

...

112

( 14) , 55.2%, , . - , - - , . - - , , - .

15.

. . . . 2.4 2.32 2.52 2.4 2.35 2.6 2.5

16. -

8.3 1.8 15.0 3.6 55.8 49.9 65.0 51.6 33.4 44.5 10.0 41.0 2.5 2.9 5.0 2.9 - 0.9 5.0 0.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

17. - e

2,20 2,51 2,15 2,50

18. -

76.2 33.7 15.5 - - 26.5 . 14.3 25.3 18.1 5.9 20.0 21.3 - 4.7 3.4 5.9 - 4.0 . - 3.0 3.8 5.9 - 3.3 - 13.0 30.7 58.8 80.0 21.7 9.5 19.0 26.1 23.5 - 21.5 , - 1.3 2.5 - - 1.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

= 0.385

- -:


113

( , , ) .

- , . - , , : .

, :

1. , . , - . , - , - . - , : (1980) (1981).

2. . 1/2 - ( - 55.2%), 3.6% - , 69.8% , , - . , , " -", " ", " , ". , "" -: - - - 1990. 17% 1994- 34%, 69.8% (), , , -

...

114

, . - , - .

3. ( ) , ( ) ( ). , (70.2%), "" , .

4. , - , -. - - ( -) , - . , , . , , , -. : ( , , ), , , , . - - : 1 ha ( 270.033 27% 15.5%, ; 25% 60 -, 25.5%, 51 ). , , , (: , 1991, 1997; , 2004).

5. - - , () , -, ,


115

. , - , - , .

6. : . , . , .

Antoni, S. (2004). Drutvena osnova i sadanji pokuaj modernizacije, deo

projekta: Drutvena transformacija i strategije drutvenih grupa: svakodne-vica Srbije na poetku treeg milenijuma, priredila: Anelka Mili, Beograd.

Boli, S. (ur.) (1995). Drutvene promene i svakodnevni ivot. Beograd: ISI FF. Browne, K. (2005). Sociology. Cambridge, UK. DiliFirst, R. (1978). Hipotetski okvir za istraivanje poljoprivredne porodice.

Sociologija sela, 40-42. Dili, E. (1976). Traktorizacija individualne poljoprivrede. Sociologija sela,

53-54, 67-84. Gidens, E. (2001). Sociologija. Beograd: Ekonomski fakultet u Beogradu. Grbi, V. (1991). Agrarne neusklaenosti u Srbiji. U Mihailo V. Popovi (ur.),

Srbija krajem osamdesetih: socioloko istraivanje drutvenih nejednakosti i neusklaenosti (str. 157-192). Beograd: Institut za socioloka istraivanja Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu.

Hodi, A. (2002). Seoska svakidanjica. U Selo: izbor ili usud. Zagreb: Insti-tut za drutvena istraivanja u Zagrebu.

Jovanovi, D. (1997). Seljak - svoj ovek, Izbor tekstova. Lefevr, A. (1988). Kritika svakidanjeg ivota. Zagreb: Naprijed. Lazi, M. (ur.) (1994). Razaranje drutva. Beograd: Filip Vinji. Lazi, M. (ur.) (2000). Raji hod. Beograd: Filip Vinji. Mendras, H. (1986). Seljaka drutva. Beograd. Mili, A. (1981). Domainstvo, brak i porodica u Jugoslaviji. Beograd: ISI FF. Mili, A. (2002). Dobitnici i gubitnici u procesu tranzicije iz ugla porodine

svakodnevice (1991-2001). U Srbija krajem milenijuma: razaranje drutva, promene i svakodnevni ivot. Beograd: Institut za socioloka istraivanja Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu.

Mitrovi, M. (2002). Srpsko selo i poljoprivreda izmeu preivljavanja i razvo-ja. U Srbija krajem milenijuma: razaranje drutva, promene i svakodnevni ivot. Beograd: Institut za socioloka istraivanja Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu.

...

116

Mitrovi, M. (2004). Srpsko selo i seljaci na prelazu vekova izmeu strategija preivljavanja i modernizacije. U Drutvena transformacija i strategije dru-tvenih grupa. Beograd: Institut za socioloka istraivanja.

Rural women in the process of accession to the European Union: a collection of essays, editor: Mojca Pajnik, Open Society Institute Slovenia, 2000.

Vukosavljevic, S. (1962). Pisma sa sela. Beograd: Savremena kola. Ljubica Rajkovi

IMPOVERISHMENT AND MARGINALIZATION OF VILLAGES AND RURAL FAMILIES IN POST SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF SERBIA

Summary

Financial status of rural families in conditions of the post socialist transformation of Serbia has been caused by the transitional processes of Serbian society and economy, the lasting of the transition as well as by the preceding period of late and unfinished so-cialist modernization of Serbian village. Serbian village is falling behind urban areas and average indices of the quality of life of global society as well-non modernization and rural devastation. Dramatic disturbances of socio-economic position of peasantry are still present. The disturbances are the consequence of global disorganization of ru-ral way of life, and moreover of the increasing marginalization of socio-economic posi-tion of peasantry, which is especially applied to aged households. The greatest losers are farming households: research of the impoverishment and inequalities by socio-economic categories of the population has shown that farming households and rural population participated with 17% of the whole poverty in 1990 at the beginning of the transition, 34% in 1994, while the current index poverty is 69.8% due to actual de-crease of salaries and other incomes, absolute decrease in the number of employed in formal sector, low possibilities of employment and production increase for own needs-real consumption. Income decrease of rural families is also caused by uncharged gov-ernments debts as well as by an ignorant position of the government toward rural re-gions. Nowadays, Serbian village is economically more dependent on the government, while in the meantime it has also become socially devastated.

selo u postsocijalistidsackoj transformaciji

Documents