IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/eaeuco/v20y2014i1p99-124n5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politics in the Balkan countryside: case study in Serbia

Author

Listed:
  • Lukić Tamara
  • Penjišević Ivana
  • Đerčan Bojan
  • Đurđev Branislav
  • Živković Milka Bubalo
  • Armenski Tanja

Abstract

Thanks to the field observations conducted on the territory of central Serbia, it was noticed that people in rural environment, beside the optional conversations about weather conditions, most often talk about the politics. The aim of this work was to find out how many people who live in the countryside have the contact with the politics. Hypothesis were made within the communication with several examinees, but they were verified by the poll in which more than 100 persons took part. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, using T-test, one-factor analysis of ANOVA variance, and also they were checked by Post-hoc Tukey test. The work task was to find out if gender, age, as well as, professional and regional differences exist in relation to the countryside inhabitants considerations about certain political issues they have been talking about. The importance of this work is to discover whether the distance from urban environments and, life in nature can make a man less interested in and indifferent to the politics.

Suggested Citation

  • Lukić Tamara & Penjišević Ivana & Đerčan Bojan & Đurđev Branislav & Živković Milka Bubalo & Armenski Tanja, 2014. "Politics in the Balkan countryside: case study in Serbia," Eastern European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 20(1), pages 99-124, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:eaeuco:v:20:y:2014:i:1:p:99-124:n:5
    DOI: 10.2478/eec-2014-0005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/eec-2014-0005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/eec-2014-0005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chad Kendall & Tommaso Nannicini & Francesco Trebbi, 2015. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 322-353, January.
    2. Bhagwati, Jagdish & Panagariya, Arvind (ed.), 2012. "India's Reforms: How they Produced Inclusive Growth," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199915187.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bojan Đerčan & Milka Bubalo Živković & Dragica Gatarić & Tamara Lukić & Aleksandra Dragin & Bojana Kalenjuk Pivarski & Miloš Lutovac & Boris Kuzman & Anton Puškarić & Maja Banjac & Biljana Grubor & Ol, 2021. "Experienced Well-Being in the Rural Areas of the Srem Region (Serbia): Perceptions of the Local Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, December.

    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. Juan Pablo Atal & José Ignacio Cuesta & Felipe González & Cristóbal Otero, 2024. "The Economics of the Public Option: Evidence from Local Pharmaceutical Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 114(3), pages 615-644, March.
    2. Romain Espinosa & Thibaut Arpinon & Paco Maginot & Sébastien Demange & Florimond Peureux, 2024. "Removing barriers to plant-based diets: assisting doctors with vegan patients," Post-Print hal-04479493, HAL.
    3. Arvind Panagariya & Megha Mukim, 2014. "A Comprehensive Analysis of Poverty in India," Asian Development Review, MIT Press, vol. 31(1), pages 1-52, March.
    4. Alan Gerber & Mitchell Hoffman & John Morgan & Collin Raymond, 2020. "One in a Million: Field Experiments on Perceived Closeness of the Election and Voter Turnout," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 287-325, July.
    5. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    6. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5868, CESifo.
    7. Yann Algan & Quoc-Anh Do & Nicolò Dalvit & Alexis Le Chapelain & Yves Zenou, 2015. "How Social Networks Shape Our Beliefs: A Natural Experiment among Future French Politicians," Working Papers hal-03459820, HAL.
    8. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/78vacv4udu92eq3fec89svm9uv is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Aki Tomizawa & Li Zhao & Geneviève Bassellier & David Ahlstrom, 2020. "Economic growth, innovation, institutions, and the Great Enrichment," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 7-31, March.
    10. Lydia Mechtenberg & Grischa Perino & Nicolas Treich & Jean-Robert Tyran & Stephanie Wang, 2021. "Self-Signaling in Moral Voting," Discussion Papers 21-01, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    11. Monica Martinez-Bravo & Carlos Sanz, 2022. "The Management of the Pandemic and its Effects on Trust and Accountability," Working Papers wp2022_2207, CEMFI.
    12. Nathan Canen & Kristopher Ramsay, 2024. "Quantifying theory in politics: Identification, interpretation, and the role of structural methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(4), pages 301-327, October.
    13. Zhipeng Liao & Xiaoxia Shi, 2020. "A nondegenerate Vuong test and post selection confidence intervals for semi/nonparametric models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(3), pages 983-1017, July.
    14. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2013. "Men Vote in Mars, Women Vote in Venus: A Survey Experiment in the Field," CEPR Discussion Papers 9547, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Michaeli, Moti & Spiro, Daniel, 2013. "The Distribution of Individual Conformity under Social Pressure across Societies," Memorandum 12/2014, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    16. Srinivasan, Sunderasan, 2014. "Economic populism, partial deregulation of transport fuels and electoral outcomes in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 465-475.
    17. Vincenzo Galasso & Massimo Morelli & Tommaso Nannicini & Piero Stanig, 2022. "Fighting Populism on Its Own Turf: Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9789, CESifo.
    18. Francesco Drago & Roberto Galbiati & Francesco Sobbrio, 2020. "The Political Cost of Being Soft on Crime: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(6), pages 3305-3336.
    19. Ardanaz, Martin & Otálvaro-Ramírez, Susana & Scartascini, Carlos, 2023. "Does information about citizen participation initiatives increase political trust?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    20. Abhijit Banerjee & Nils Enevoldsen & Rohini Pande & Michael Walton, 2024. "Public Information Is an Incentive for Politicians: Experimental Evidence from Delhi Elections," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 323-353, July.
    21. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/78vacv4udu92eq3fec89svm9uv is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Borge, Lars-Erik & Parmer, Pernille & Torvik, Ragnar, 2015. "Local natural resource curse?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 101-114.

    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:vrs:eaeuco:v:20:y:2014:i:1:p:99-124:n:5. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.