Privatization in Serbia: Results and institutional failures

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 1990’s several models of privatization have been applied in Serbia. While much was written concerning the models themselves at the time of their application, remarkably little has been written in regards to the assessment of their implementation over the last decade. The paper investigates the scope, types, and results, with an emphasis on this time period. Given that the official failure rate of privatizations undertaken is around one in four, the paper focuses on the weaknesses of the legal and economic aspects of the model, the weaknesses of the privatization implementation, and the weaknesses in the monitoring of the privatization process. Another focus is on the inadequate attention paid to the need for institutional coherence, which led to results that were not in accord with the goals set out. The paper will also point out the areas of further research that, in the opinion of the authors, should be undertaken in order to come to an assessment of privatization as the central and most important aspect of the transition

Work Engagement in Serbia: Psychometric Properties of the Serbian Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)

“…Since the 1990s, Serbia has been encountering a deep, long-lasting socioeconomic crisis, strongly influenced by the wars in the former Yugoslavia, UN sanctions and political instability. On the economic scene, the country went through several models of privatization, including a high failure rate of approximately 25% of unsuccessful privatizations ( Vujačić and Petrović-Vujačić, 2011 ). Similar to other world countries, Serbia was exposed to the deep global financial crisis that had a negative impact on employees and their health and well-being across the world ( Giorgi et al, 2015 ; Mucci et al, 2016 ; Lopez-Valcarcel and Barber, 2017 ).…”

Privatisation of Socially Owned Enterprises, the Methods Used and the Impact on Economic Growth Empirical evidence from Kosovo

“…Alongside the theoretical aspect, very controversial practices may be observed in particular Central and Southeast European countries where the privatisation process has been criticised for irregularities, for being accompanied by corruption and non-transparency and having little impact on economic growth. In short, most scholars state that privatisation was ineffective and failed to drive growth, creating some economic and social consequences (Čučković, 1993;Goldstein, 1997;Gray & Gray, 1996;Prašnikar, Redek, & Memaj, 2012;Shukarov, 2012;Simoneti et al, 2005;Uvalic, 2008;Vujačić & Vujačić, 2011).…”

Industrial brownfields: An unsolved problem in post-socialist cities. A comparison between two mono industrial cities: Reşiţa (Romania) and Pančevo (Serbia)

“…This appeared as a consequence of privatisation and retrocession process during the post-socialist period, followed by 'en detail' selling of industrial buildings, in some cases. In many cases, the land value was more important to the investor than the factory itself (Vujacˇic´and Petrovic´-Vujacˇic´, 2011).…”