Regionalism in Slovenia
Assembly of European Regions Study on Regionalism
Primož Pevcin
Associate Professor for Public Sector Economics & Management
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Administration
Gosarjeva ulica 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana
[email protected]
June 2015
The publisher:
The Assembly of European Regions (AER) is the largest independent network of
regional authorities in wider Europe, bringing together regions from 35 countries
along with 15 interregional organisations. Further information under: www.aer.eu
Director of publication:
Agnès Ciccarone: https://fr.linkedin.com/pub/agnes-ciccarone/7/216/1b1
Assistant editors: Anne Saline, Andrea Przybyla, Julie Nicolas
Disclaimer: This report is part of an overall study run by AER in 2014-2015 about the
state of regionalism in more than 30 countries in Europe. The other reports can be
found under:
http://www.aer.eu/en/knowledge-centre/thematic-expertise-thematicissues/regionalism/aer-publications/20142015-study-on-regionalism.html
Each report was written by independent experts, mostly academic representatives.
Information provided in this report therefore only engage its authors. Should you
notice any inaccurate piece of information, or should you be willing to comment on
this report, we invite you to send your comments to:
[email protected]
Reproduction authorized with mention of the source
2 Author Biography
Primož Pevcin is currently an associate professor for public
sector economics and management at University of Ljubljana,
Faculty
of
Administration.
He
defended
his
doctoral
dissertation in 2004, and thesis focused on the empirical
verification of factors affecting size of government as well as
on the possible determination of the optimal size of
government. His research interests are widely associated
with the public sector economics and management topics, including also subnational
government financing and organization.
intergovernmental
transfers,
efficiency
of
This involves addressing the topics like
subnational
governments,
economics
of
decentralization and regionalization, subnational government consolidations etc. He has
been involved in several national and international research projects that addressed various
public sector issues. During his career he has also performed several managerial posts at
the faculty, where he served as a vice-dean for international cooperation and scientific
research, and currently as a vice-dean for academic affairs.
3 INTRODUCTION
Slovenia is a country with approximately 2.1 million residents, and with a surface of slightly
more than 20 thousand square kilometres. It belongs to the group of small countries. It is a
relatively homogenous country in terms of population’s structure, both ethno linguistically and
economically (Gini index is relatively small), but it is geographically diverse. Namely, the
western part of the country is actually part of Mediterranean, the northern part of the country
belongs to the Alpine region, the southern part of the country to the Dinaric planes, whereas
the eastern part of the country belongs to either Panonic or sub-panonic region.
Slovenia has only one tier of subnational government, i.e. municipalities. Currently, there are
212 municipalities, of which 11 are so-called urban municipalities (cities). This means that
there are no other tiers of government, like counties, regions etc. Some other forms of
regional segmentation exist, but not in the form of subnational government. For instance, the
country is segmented in 8 voting districts (each having 11 voting units) for the purpose of
holding national parliamentary elections (to fill 88 seats in the parliament of 90 members, two
separate sits are allocated to the representatives of Hungarian and Italian minorities).
Moreover, the country is fragmented into 8 police districts, 14 financial districts (previously
tax & customs offices) and 12 statistical regions (for calculating regional unemployment,
income level, real estate price etc. variations), as well as in 2 cohesion regions (Western and
Eastern Slovenia).
4 PART ONE: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
As already noted, currently there is no intermediate “legal” level of government in Slovenia.
However, this does not mean that, throughout the history, there were no regions in the
territory of present-day Slovenia. In fact, the terms Slovenia or Slovene lands was coined in
the early 19th century, which was quite common to some other European countries, where
regional affiliations of residents prevailed. Prior to that, the residents of Slovenia used to call
themselves according to the regional origin, and five historical regional attributes could be
pointed out: Carniola (Upper, Lower and Inner Carniola), Styria (Lower or Slovene Styria),
Carinthia, Littoral (Gorizia, Gradisca and Istria, also sometimes called Venetian/Friulian
Slovenia) and Vendig Slovenia (i.e. Panonic Slovenia).
The history of regionalism in the territories of present-day Slovenia is closely related to the
development and internal fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire. Namely, throughout the
centuries, these territories belonged to this highly decentralized agglomeration of entities,
which can be observed also in the map below. Moreover, this map also shows references to
traditional regions of present-day Slovenia in light-brown coloured circle.
5 Picture 1: Historical development of Slovene regions, 16th century
Source: Wikimedia Commons (2015a).
This division was further promoted after this empire ceased to exist in 1806 and his lands
were incorporated into the Habsburg Monarchy again in 1816 (from 1867 onwards labelled
as Austria-Hungary), where these regions were labelled as duchies constituting the
monarchy (#7 – Littoral, #4 – Carniola, #3 – Carinthia and #12 – Styria). In fact, Littoral,
Carniola and Carinthia were first separated in 1849, as before this date they constituted the
so-called Kingdom of Illyria.
6 Picture 2: Historical development of Slovene regions, 19th century
Source: Wikimedia Commons (2015b).
After the World War I, the major part of Slovenia (excluding the littoral that was allocated to
Italy, and Carinthia that was allocated to (German) Austria) entered into the Kingdom of
Serbs, Croats and Slovenes in December 1918 (renamed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia in
1929). This country existed till 1941 and was divided into 9 banates (i.e. provinces). The
territory of Slovenia predominantly (slight deviations existed) corresponded to the province
labelled as Drava Banate. This reflects the deviation from the previous regionalism to the
unification of territories. Administratively, Drava Banate was subdivided into 29 counties, but
there was no other lower/intermediate level of government.
7 Picture 3: Drava Banate in Kingdom of Yugoslavia (in red)
Source: Wikipedia (2015).
The same trend existed during the socialist period of the second Yugoslavia (1945-1991),
when Slovenian territories existed as the so-called Socialist Republic of Slovenia within the
Yugoslav federation (i.e. Second Yugoslavia). Again, the centralization pressures were
substantial, leading to the fact that there were no regions, and only one tier of sub-national
government existed in the form of the so-called communal municipalities, totalling from 58-63
during this period.
Slovenia gained the independence in 1991. This enabled further transformation and
democratisation of the country, which included also administrative reforms, involving also the
transformation of local self-governments. In this context, the Local Self-Government Act was
adopted in 1994. It enabled the transformation of the previous communal municipalities,
which would also reflect the self-determination of the citizens. This has lead to the
fragmentation of the local self-government units, and currently 212 municipalities exist.
8 According to the Local Self-Government Act (2007), municipalities perform local matters of
public interest in order to meet the needs of their citizens. Specifically, municipalities manage
the municipal assets and organise municipal administration, develop conditions for economic
development of the municipality, provide spatial development plans and create conditions for
housing, manage and regulate local public utilities and local public services provision,
provide social services (in particular pre-school and primary school education, social, cultural
and recreational activities etc.), organise local road maintenance, fire safety etc. It is worth
noting that among them 11 are the so-called urban municipalities (cities), which have legally
special status. Namely, they also perform tasks given to them from the central government
involving the development of the city (urbanism etc.), and they should also be in a sense
economic, social, and cultural centres of specific “geographical regions”, which means that
they should have hospital(s), theatres, at least secondary schools etc.
9 PART TWO: THE PRESENT SITUATION
a. The attempt to introduce regions – professional and technical considerations
The administrative reforms in 1990’s and 2000’s also involved pressures to create
intermediate tier of government, the so-called regions. The reforms began in June 2006,
when the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia was amended, in order to enable the
transfer of responsibilities from the central government to the second tier of sub-national
government, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The main issue under
consideration was to fulfil the existing gap between the central government and the very
fragmented local level of government, where very small municipalities prevailed.
The intended implementation of regions in Slovenia perceived three groups of tasks that
regions should deliver (Vlaj, 2007):
(1) tasks of local importance that regions should deliver as their own in accordance with their
autonomy, together with appropriate involvement of municipalities;
(2) tasks of regional importance that involve regional development assurance, spatial
planning etc.;
and (3) tasks of national importance, the so-called transferred tasks, which regions should
deliver for and instead of central government (e.g. issuing building permits etc.).
One of the main issues associated with the implementation of regions, related to their
territorial size and number of residents. Several variants were delivered that involved
introduction of 3, 6, 8, 12 and even 14 regions (Plut, 2004). For instance, the first variant
perceived three large regions, which mostly corresponded to three historical lands/regions of
Slovenia: Littoral, Carniola and Styria. This model corresponded to the European demands to
have larger regions, but it failed to incorporate the current situation, where current centres of
gravity do not relate to historical ones anymore, but it was more correlated to the notion
represented by “cohesion regions”.
10 Picture 4: Planned three regions of Slovenia
Source: SVLR (2012).
The second option related to the implementation of six regions. In essence, this model was
still based on the historical regions’ principle, although it further fragmented Carniola into
Central, Upper and Lower parts; and Styria would be fragmented into Western (Savinja
region) and Northeastern part; Littoral region staying the same as in three region alternative.
11 Picture 5: Planned six regions of Slovenia
Source: SVLR (2012).
A similar alternative was also the introduction of 8 regions, where Littoral would be further
fragmented into Gorizia and Lower Littoral; and Northeastern region into Drava and Mura
regions.
12 Picture 6: Planned eight regions of Slovenia
Source: SVLR (2012).
It is worth noting that these two models (six or eight regions) were among the most
appreciated variants that ought to be introduced, when professional discussions took place.
Namely, these two models tried to optimize the combinations of technical and allocative
efficiencies, so that the preferences and attachment of residents to particular regions would
be met, but simultaneously cost inefficiencies would not be too large. Since the first model
(three regions) would disregard allocative issues (at least to some extent), these two models
took into the consideration also the necessity to have a polycentric model of development,
spatial integration and round up of regions and also perceive greater regional affiliation of
residents (SVLR, 2012).
The whole issue of regionalisation was actually plagued predominantly with the territorial and
population size of regions, namely with the number of regions. There were also two other
extremes presented, that further fragmented Slovenia at the regional level. Those two
proposals involved creating 12 and even 14 regions, and the allocative issues were the main
backbone of those proposals.
13 Picture 7: The model of 14 regions in Slovenia
Source: Plut (2004).
Interestingly, these two extreme proposals (12 and 14 regions) were soon abandoned in
professional discussions; since this would cause that several regions would be rather small,
both in population size as well as in economic capacity. Consequently, this would limit the
ability of regions to deliver administrative and developmental tasks, which would not solve
the current problem of very small and relatively economically weak municipalities (Plut,
2004).
b. The attempt to introduce regions – political considerations
The main considerations within the discussions on the regionalisation were related to two
opposing views: should regions be the form of voluntary cooperation of municipalities or
should the central government impose regions (and municipalities should subsequently find
other frameworks for potential cooperation). The debate involved numerous discussions on
the pros and cons of regionalisation of Slovenia. For instance, Plut (2004) delivered following
two crucial reasons to impose regions in Slovenia:
(1) internal differences in development across the geographical parts of the country that
have even increased after the independence in 1991;
14 (2) and (2) the lack of capacities of municipalities to run developmental tasks, which in
combination with the lack of coordinated action prevents the sufficient resource
utilization for regional development.
Nevertheless, also strong arguments have existed and still exist that do not favour
regionalisation trends. Some authors have suggested that regions would become additional
fiscal burden for the country and they might even reduce the unity of the country, not to
mention the possibility of disputes between regions and municipalities on the allocation of
their tasks and subsequently resources etc. (Kovačič, 2007).
The political process of establishing regions started in 2006, when constitutional
amendments related to the local self-government issues enabled the implementation of the
second tier of sub-national government in Slovenia. The main focus was put on further
decentralisation of the country and the strengthening of the subsidiarity principle when
dealing with local issues. The original plan was to adopt all the necessary legislation in 2007
and establish the regions during the year 2008. Ultimately, they would start to function in
January 2009.
From the political stakeholders’ point of view, it seemed that only municipalities (and their
mayors) were somehow sceptical on the introduction of regions, which could be contributed
to the possible reduction in their available resources, as some of the tasks would be
transferred to the regional level (see Bačlija & Brezovšek, 2006). It seemed, in the middle of
2006, that political parties represented in the parliament agreed on the necessity to establish
regions, but the main difference among them existed on the question of how many regions
should be introduced.
The existing government favoured the option of smaller regions, which was, in contrast,
disliked both by experts and by the opposition at that time. Specifically, the government
favoured the models of 12 or even 14 regions (Šuštar, 2008). The main argument was that
Slovenia was a geographically very diverse and fragmented country, where physical
landscape prevented the formation of larger gravitational centres (Vlada RS, 2014).
Nonetheless, the existing government tried to push the approval of the act to establish 14
regions through the parliament in 2007, but the act was not approved by the parliament. This
postponed the process of establishing regions (Vlaj, 2009). 1
1
Interestingly, since the political parties were not able to find a compromise on the issue of the size
and number of regions, the decision was made to run a non-obligatory popular referendum on this
issue. The referendum took place in June 2008, and became known for extremely low attendance –
only slightly more than 10 percent of the eligible electorate voted on this issue (MMC RTV SLO, 2008). 15 The process continued in late 2009, and ended in 2010. Act on Regions was not approved,
and effectively this meant that the process of regionalisation was over. Namely, in 2010, it
became evident that the country was entering the period of increased fiscal stress, and
numerous cutback strategies and measures started to be implemented. Effectively, cutback
management since 2009 pushed for the increased centralisation of political and public
decision-making (see Pevcin, 2014), which turned the focus away from potential
decentralisation and regionalisation of the country.
16 PART THREE: CURRENT / FUTURE TRENDS
When Slovenia entered into the economic downturn in 2009, and when this downturn
contributed to mounting fiscal problems of the country, it became evident that imposed
cutback
measures
pushed
for
the
additional
centralisation,
rather
than
for
the
decentralisation of the country. In essence, since 2010, the debates on the possible
introduction of the regions in Slovenia practically do not exist anymore. Similarly, also the
political process related to this issue has been stopped almost entirely.
However, it seems that there has been interesting trends going on recently, where some sort
of regionalisation activities are gaining ground. This approach is bottom-up oriented, as
municipalities are establishing the so-called joint municipal administration (JMA) bodies,
which represent the form of inter-municipal cooperation.
Namely, it became evident, not just due to the economic downturn, that especially smaller
municipalities are often facing the problem that they are not large enough or do not have
sufficient resources in order to effectively and efficiently perform their tasks and organize
efficient service delivery. Currently, more than 90% of Slovenian municipalities belong to
some JMA body (Fonda & Žohar, 2015). Interestingly, the creation of JMA bodies could
indicate those areas where potential or better put, necessity for the establishment of regions
might be necessary.
17 CONCLUSION
Slovenia is a rather small country, which might limit the necessity to create an intermediate
level of government. The historical evidence indicates that regions and regional affiliation
existed and prevailed until the early 20th century, when the unification of the territory was
established. The presented evidence suggests that pressures and initiatives to introduce
regions existed recently, but this top-down approach was unsuccessful. The result is that
there are no regions in Slovenia yet. However, although mainly political and technical
considerations prevented the introduction of regions in the previous decade, it seems that the
economic downturn reversed the process during the last few years. Nevertheless, some kind
of bottom-up initiatives started to emerge recently that might in future lead to the potential
introduction of regions in the future.
18 References
•
Bačlija, I. & Brezovšek, M. (2006). Katalog kompetenc in regije v Evropski uniji.
Teorija in praksa, 43(3/4).
•
Fonda, M. & Žohar, F. (2015). Predstavitev kart sodelovanja v skupnih občinskih
upravah po posameznih področjih nalog. In Zbornik VIII. posveta Delovanje skupnih
občinskih uprav v Sloveniji, marec 2015, Ljubljana: Fakulteta za upravo.
•
Kovačič, N. (2007). Pokrajine v Sloveniji Gorenjska pokrajina – razvojna priložnost.
Javna uprava, 43(2).
•
Local Self-Government Act (2007). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia,
94/2007.
•
MMC RTV SLO (2008). Proti pokrajinam na dveh območjih. Downloaded from
http://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/proti-pokrajinam-na-dveh-obmocjih/89571, dated June
22, 2008.
•
Pevcin, P. (2014). Austerity and Cutback Management in the Public Sector: A Case
Study for Slovenia. Administrative Culture 15(1).
•
Plut, D. (2004). Načela, kriteriji in regionalizacija Slovenije z vidika členitve na
pokrajine. In Vlaj, S. (Ed.) Pokrajina druga raven lokalne samouprave, Ljubljana:
Fakulteta za upravo.
•
SVLR (2012). Modeli regionalizacije in decentralizacije Slovenije. Služba Vlade RS za
lokalno
samoupravo
in
regionalno
politico.
Available
at
http://www.arhiv.svlr.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/podrocje_lokalne_samouprave/pokraj
ine.
•
Šuštar, M. (2008). Pokrajine – ustanavljanje, pristojnosti in financiranje. Ljubljana:
Fakulteta za upravo.
•
Vlada Republike Slovenije (2014). Downloaded from the web page on December 18,
2014, www.vlada.si/fileadmin/.../0401071027118_54v3c_priloga1_bv.doc.
•
Vlaj, S. (2007). Uvedba pokrajin in njene posledice. In Haček, M. & Zajc, D. (Eds.).
Slovenija v evropski družbi znanja in razvoja, Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.
•
Vlaj, S. (2009). Pristojnosti, financiranje in velikost bodočih pokrajin. Časopis
Skupnosti občin Slovenije (68/69).
•
Wikimedia Commons (2015a): Imperial Circles 1512 en. CC BY-SA 2.5 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperial_Circles_1512_en.png#mediaviewer/F
ile:Imperial_Circles_1512_en.png
•
Wikimedia
Commons
(2015b).
Kaisertum
Osterreich.
CC
BY-SA
3.0
-
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KaisertumOsterreich.png#mediaviewer/File:Ka
isertumOsterreich.png
19 •
Wikipedia (2015). Drava Banovina. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drava_Banovina
20