IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wii/mpaper/mr2021-06.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monthly Report No. 6/2021

Author

Listed:
  • Ivo Bićanić
  • Vladimir Gligorov

    (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw)

  • Veronika Janyrova

    (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw)

  • Branimir Jovanović

    (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw)

  • Milica Uvalic

Abstract

​Special Issue 30th Anniversary of the Break-up of Yugoslavia Chart of the month Winners and losers from the Yugoslav transition by Branimir Jovanović ‘I do not believe the break-up of Yugoslavia was at all inevitable’ An interview with Vladimir Gligorov by Vladimir Gligorov and Veronika Janyrova Yugoslavia could have been saved if the elites in place at the time had not resisted democratic change and had not turned to separatism. EU integration of the Western Balkans has generally been a disappointment. A way forward would require, above all, an intensification of the accession negotiations with Montenegro and North Macedonia; that would send a powerful, positive signal to the rest of the region. Economic roots of Yugoslavia’s disintegration by Milica Uvalic Pronounced regional economic disparities, which widened during the 45 years of the country’s existence, the decentralisation of economic policies introduced under the 1974 Constitution, and the severe economic crisis of the 1980s all contributed to the break-up of Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, had it not been for the progressive worsening of the political crisis, these economic factors alone would not necessarily have led to the disintegration. Break points and convergence in Western Balkan economies in 1952-2013 by Ivo Bićanić None of Yugoslavia’s successor states, either while they were part of Yugoslavia or as independent states, have ever had episodes of sufficiently high growth that were long enough for them to experience ‘modern economic growth’. Their growth performance was particularly disappointing after the 1980 debt crisis, which marked a major break point in their long-term growth paths. Yugoslavia was not a ‘convergence machine’ only after independence was there a degree of convergence of the successor states’ growth paths. Monthly and quarterly statistics for Central, East and Southeast Europe

Suggested Citation

  • Ivo Bićanić & Vladimir Gligorov & Veronika Janyrova & Branimir Jovanović & Milica Uvalic, 2021. "Monthly Report No. 6/2021," wiiw Monthly Reports 2021-06, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
  • Handle: RePEc:wii:mpaper:mr:2021-06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wiiw.ac.at/monthly-report-no-6-2021-dlp-5822.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivo Bićanić & Milan Deskar-Škrbić & Jurica Zrnc, 2016. "A Narrative Explanation of Breakpoints and Convergence Patterns in Yugoslavia and its Successor States 1952-2015," wiiw Balkan Observatory Working Papers 122, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Velimir Šonje, 2021. "The Sling Effect: Croatia and SEE After the Fall of the Berlin Wall," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2021(2), pages 85-109.
    2. Sándor Gyula Nagy & Dzenita Siljak, 2019. "Economic convergence of the Western Balkans towards the EU-15," Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, Universidad Católica de Colombia, vol. 11(1), pages 41-53, February.
    3. Siljak Dzenita & Nagy Sándor Gyula, 2019. "Do Transition Countries Converge towards the European Union?," TalTech Journal of European Studies, Sciendo, vol. 9(1), pages 115-139, June.
    4. Beata Farkas, 2017. "Market Economies of the Western Balkans Compared to the Central and Eastern European Model of Capitalism," Croatian Economic Survey, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb, vol. 19(1), pages 5-36, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wii:mpaper:mr:2021-06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Customer service (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wiiwwat.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.