Vlada republike SrbijeGovernment of the Republic of Serbia

Jezici

Overall Economic and Social Context

 

Overall Economic Context

Macroeconomic trends in 2018 are generally favourable, but the Serbian economy still has numerous structural weaknesses. Economic growth in 2018 is assessed at 4.4% – the highest rate of GDP growth in Serbia since the outbreak of the crisis in 2008. Inflation in 2018 was low and stable (on average around 2% annually), and the current deficit of the balance of payments (assessed at around 5% of the GDP) is covered by an influx of foreign direct investment (FDI). Furthermore, trends in the labour market are positive (gradual increase in employment and average salary)[1].

The Republic of Serbia finished 2017 with an estimated real economic growth of 1.9%[2]. After 2014, when a real decrease of 1.8% occurred, the Serbian economy has shown signs of moderate recovery (achieving an economic growth of 0.8% in 2015, and 2.8% in 2016).

According to forecasts presented in the Fiscal Strategy for 2018, with Projections for 2019 and 2020, and the Economic Reform Programme (ERP) for the period 2018-2020[3], an acceleration is expected in the recovery with growth rates of 3.5%, 3.5% and 4%, respectively, during the three-year period (2018-2020).

The Government has undertaken certain steps to resolve the numerous obstacles impeding growth. A new three-year programme of fiscal consolidation was started in late 2014, envisaging budget savings and comprehensive structural reform. The fiscal consolidation measures have reduced public expenditures and moderately increased tax revenues with changes to their structure, implying changes to the structure of aggregate demand. The Progress Report for 2018 by the EC notes that the chosen combination of macroeconomic policies was correct and led to macroeconomic stability and improvements in the key economic indicators. Although there are still significant economic challenges, the main being that economic growth is slow, the restrictive fiscal policy and adaptable monetary policy have ensured price stability, stimulated investment activities, increased employment and reduced the risk premium for the country. Full implementation of reforms in the public sector and strengthening of key fiscal institutions will help maintain these results and the convergence with EU.

After the successfully completed precautionary stand-by arrangement during the period 2015-2017, in July 2018 the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a new 30-month cooperation programme for Serbia, the Policy Coordination Instrument (PCI). It has an advisory character and does not envisage the use of funds. The goal of the instrument is sustaining macroeconomic and financial stability and a continuation of structural and institutional reform to stimulate faster and more comprehensive growth, the creation of new jobs and improvement of living standards. After the IMF mission for discussions on the first audit of the arrangement under the Policy Coordination Instrument (PCI) in October 2018, it was concluded that further progress was achieved in the implementation of structural reform, but that additional efforts are required to maintain the high growth date during coming years[4].

The main goals and guidelines of the economic policy of the Republic of Serbia have been recognized in the Fiscal Strategy for 2018 with Projections for 2019 and 2020:

  1. Maintenance of fiscal stability with support for growth;
  2. Macroeconomic sustainable and inclusive growth of the economy; and
  3. EU accession process.

Fiscal trends in late 2017 show a surplus of the consolidated state sector of 1.2% of the GDP[5]. According to projections presented in the Fiscal Strategy in 2018, the deficit of the consolidated state sector with the application of fiscal consolidation measures will be 0.7% of the GDP, with additional decreases in 2019 and 2020, when it should be at 0.5% of the GDP. Due to fiscal consolidation measures a fiscal space was created for new policies, to be used in 2018 to increase capital investments, increase pensions and salaries in part of the public sector, and reduce taxes on revenues. These measures and their fiscal implications have been designed so as not to endanger the stability of public finance and the tempo of decrease of foreign debt, while on the other hand they should increase the living standard of the population, stimulate private spending and accelerate economic development.

An additional goal of the fiscal policy for the coming period is a further decrease in the share of public debt in the GDP. The trajectory of public debt was overturned in 2016, when the share of public debt in the GDP started to decrease. The public debt of the central level of the government on 31 December 2016 was 71.9%, whereas one year later it was 61.6% of the GDP[6]. A reduction of the share of debt is tightly linked to decreasing the deficit as the main debt factor, so that the dynamics of decreasing the deficit are also decisive for changes to the debt trend. Financial transactions, such as the exchange of an expensive debt for a cheaper one, and an improved positioning of the state in the international financial market, may also contribute to further decreases in debt.

Inter-annual inflation[7] has been reduced from 7.8% in 2013 to 1.2% in 2016, i.e. 3% in 2017. These trends are keeping inflation below the lower limit of permitted deviations from the goal (3±1.5%).

Macroeconomic trends

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
GDP, EUR bln 31.7 34.3 33.3 33.5 34.6 36.8
GDP, per capita, EUR 4,400 4,781 4,672 4,720 4,904 5,226
GDP, real growth in % -1.0 2.6 -1.8 0.8 2.8 1.9
Inflation, growth rate in %, period average 7.8 7.8 2.9 1.9 1.2 3.0
RSD/EUR exchange rate, period average 113.1 113.1 117.3 120.7 123.1 121.3
Current account deficit, % GDP -11.6 -6.1 -6.0 -3.7 -3.1 -5.7
Foreign direct investments, net % GDP 2.4 3.8 3.7 5.4 5.5 6.6
NBS reserves, EUR bln 10.9 11.2 9.9 10.4 10.2 9.9
Consolidated fiscal deficit, % GDP -6.8 -5.5 -6.6 -3.7 -1.3 1.2
Public debt, % GDP 56.2 59.6 70.4 74.7 71.9 31.6
Source: MF, updated on 10 September 2018

For more information on economic developments in Serbia, see:

Overall Social Context

A total of 7,001,444 persons lived in the Republic of Serbia on 1 January 2018[8]In a demographic sense, Serbia is characterized by an expressed depopulation trend (the Republic of Serbia lost 147,736 persons during the period between 1 January 2014 and 1 January 2018), low fertility[9], relatively high (in an European framework) specific mortality rate, high average population age (43 years) and unfavourable age structure.

The year 2017 was the twenty-sixth year in a row marking negative population growth in the Republic of Serbia. Observed relatively across a population of one thousand, the population growth rate was -5.5‰. The true scale of the negative population growth can be analysed at the municipal level. During 2017 negative population growth was registered in as many as 163 of the total of 169 towns and municipalities.

The trend of increase in life expectancy at birth for both sexes has continued. The achieved value of this indicator was 77.9 years for women and 73 years for men in 2017[10]. Despite the achieved historical maximum, life expectancy in the Republic of Serbia is more than five years shorter than the EU average. The dependence index of the elderly population[11] in 2017 was 29.7, with projects of achieving the value of 36.3% in 2041.

Rough estimates based on data from different sources indicate an average annual negative balance of external migration of at least 15,000 persons (data from countries most frequently receiving migrants from the Republic of Serbia, the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia and the Commissariat for Refugees and Migrations)[12].

Trends in salaries and pensions during the period 2014-2017 were under the influence of the measures of fiscal consolidation and the overall macroeconomic situation in the country. Pensions and salaries in the public sector have registered a sharp real decline during the first two years of the observed period, a slight growth in 2016, and another real decline during 2017. The increase of the real amount of net salaries in 2017 compared to 2016 was -0.9%[13], while during the same period pensions went through a real decline of 1.2%. In absolute amounts the average net earnings in 2017 were RSD 47,893 (EUR 395), and the average pension RSD 23,913 (EUR 197).

According to data from the Labour Force Survey[14], employment in the Republic of Serbia during 2017 has increased by 75,300 (+2.8%), half the value of growth registered during 2016 (by 145,200, i.e. +5.6%). The decrease of the unemployment rate, started in 2013, was continued in 2017. The unemployment rate was 13.5%, representing a decrease of 1.8 percentage points (p.p.) compared to 2016. The increase of employment and decrease of unemployment in 2017 was also followed by a slight decrease of inactivity. The inactivity rate was 46.0%, or 0.7 p.p. less than for the previous year.

Key labour market indicators 2012-2017 (working-age population 15-64)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female Total Female
Activity rate 60.1 51.2 61.6 53.2 61.7 53.8 63.4 55.5 65.6 58.1 66.7 59.6
Employment rate 45.3 38.1 47.5 40.1 49.6 42.8 51.7 44.7 55.2 48.4 57.3 50.8
Unemployment rate 24.6 25.6 23.0 24.6 19.7 20.4 18.5 19.5 15.9 16.7 14.1 14.8
Source: FS respective years, SORS

Poverty remained significant, both expressed in absolute terms (the share of people whose consumption is below the threshold required to meet basic needs – 7.3% in 2016[15]), and in relative terms (the share of people at risk of poverty stood at 25.5%[16] in 2016). Regardless of the methodological concept applied, the profile of the poor does not differ significantly according to the concept of absolute poverty or relative poverty. Judging by the profile of the poor, the living standard is decisively influenced by the following elements:  employment status, education attainment, household size and type (households consisting of a single parent with several children are particularly vulnerable) and residence outside urban areas[17].

The at-risk-of-poverty-or-social-exclusion (AROPE) rate, the key monitoring indicator for the Europe 2020 strategy, is at 38.7% in Serbia[18] in 2016. This value is significantly higher than the average value for the EU 28 countries (23.5%). A higher percentage of population at risk of poverty or social exclusion than in the Republic of Serbia has only been registered in Bulgaria (40.4%) and Romania (38.8%)[19].

The at-risk-of-poverty rate by the most frequent activity status (held for more than six months) shows that the unemployed are in the worst situation (48.0% or almost one out of two unemployed people is at risk of poverty). Employment reduces the risk of poverty considerably, but quality of employment remains the key factor for exiting poverty (the self-employed have a significantly higher at-risk-of-poverty rate than those in dependent employment – 32.4% and 9.0% respectively). After those in dependent employment, pensioners are in the most favourable position, with the risk of poverty approximately equal to that of total employed people (15.4%). Education is a decisive factor for the economic status and income-generating capacity; it is, therefore, not surprising that people with lower educational attainment levels are at an above-average risk of poverty. In 2016, the highest at-risk-of-poverty rate was recorded among the population with primary education and below (39.1%), while the population with college or university education had the lowest at-risk-of-poverty rate (10.3%).  This distribution of the population at risk of poverty by educational attainment level clearly indicates that education is worthwhile, given that the highly educated are rewarded in the labour market.

Even though consumption inequality measured by the Household Budget Survey (HBS) indicates that Serbia can be classified among countries with an even distribution (the Gini coefficient stood at 26.1 in 2016), the values obtained through a comparable methodology (SILC) point to a highly pronounced problem of income distribution inequality (Gini 38.6). Part of the explanation for differences in the values of the Gini coefficient based on the two surveys are due to the SILC survey in Serbia registering negative values of income for self-employed persons, while the HBS survey does not record losses[20].

Income distribution inequality measured by another indicator – income quintile share ratio – stood at 9.7, which means that in 2016 the equivalised income of the richest 20% in the Republic of Serbia was nearly 10 times higher than that of the poorest 20%. The value of this indicator measured in recent years was substantially higher than the average for the 28 EU Member States, amounting to just 5.1, but also higher than the highest values registered in Bulgaria (7.9), Romania (7.2) and Lithuania (7.1)[21].

 

—————

[1] Fiscal Council, Fiscal and Economic Trends in 2018 and Strategic Recommendations for the Budget in 2019, October 2018.
[2] Ministry of Finance, Macroeconomic and Fiscal Data, 10 September 2018
[3] Economic Reform Programme for the period 2018-2020
[4] IMF, Press Release no. 18/380 of 04 October 2018
[5] Ministry of Finance, Macroeconomic and Fiscal Data, 10 September 2018
[6] Ministry of Finance, Macroeconomic and Fiscal Data, 10 September 2018
[7] Measured by the consumer price index
[8] According to assessments by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. All data for the Republic of Serbia is presented without data for AP Kosovo and Metohija.
[9] For nine years in a row the total number of live births per fertile-age woman in Serbia has been stabilized at a level between 1.40 and 1.46, and is below the EU average (1.6 in 2016)
[10] Institute for Public Health “Dr Milan Jovanović Batut”, Health-Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Serbia for 2017
[11] Shows the ratio of the number of persons older than 65 and the work-capable population (15-64), and in fact indicates the potential of the country to face the economic consequences of aging.
[12] Nikitović, V. (2017): Ključni demografski izazovi Srbije i njihove buduće tendencije, Demografski pregled, 63:1-4.
[13] Ministry of Finance, Public Finance Newsletter no. 167, July 2018.
[14] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Labour Force Survey 2017
[15] Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction Unit, Poverty in the Republic of Serbia 2006-2016 – revised and new data, 2017
[16] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Poverty and Social Inequality 2016
[17] Regardless of the applied concept (absolute or relative poverty), the lowest living standard is faced by the population of Eastern and Southern Serbia, while the population of Belgrade registers the highest living standards. For more information, see the Second National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction of the Government of the Republic of Serbia.
[18] Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Poverty and Social Inequality 2016
[19] Eurostat database, Table: People at risk of poverty or social exclusion
[20] Mijakovac, N. (2017): “Analiza prihoda domaćinstava i nejednakosti (Gini koeficijenta) na osnovu istraživanja Anketa o potrošnji domaćinstava i Anketa o prihodima i uslovima života – metodološki prilog” Makroanalize i trendovi br. 272/271
[21] Eurostat database, Table: S80/S20 income quintile share ratio by sex and selected age group

Featured

Blog

Earlier
Braća Mohamadi, Maks i Alen (desno), ispred svoje kancelarije u Sodermalmu ©Chris Welsch
Braća Mohamadi, Maks i Alen (desno), ispred svoje kancelarije u Sodermalmu ©Chris Welsch Kada su braća Mohamadi izgubila voljenu osobu zbog [...]
Fri, Nov 01, 2019
Source: Inkluzija blog
Sandra Rej, osnivačica kompanije Glowee, u svojoj laboratoriji u okolini Pariza ©Chris Welsch
Sandra Rej, osnivačica kompanije Glowee, u svojoj laboratoriji u okolini Pariza ©Chris Welsch Francuska dizajnerka proizvodi svetlo bez električne energije Dok je [...]
Fri, Oct 25, 2019
Source: Inkluzija blog
Milutin (foto: Sara Ristić)
Milutin (foto: Sara Ristić) Razgovor vodila: Dragana Nikoletić Milutin Savić zvani Milutko nosilac je laskave titule najkreativnijeg prodavca magazina Liceulice. Kad bi [...]
Mon, Oct 21, 2019
Source: Inkluzija blog
Učenje o emocionalnoj inteligenciji kroz igru ©Chris Welsch
Učenje o emocionalnoj inteligenciji kroz igru ©Chris Welsch Švedska start-up kompanija Peppy Pals (Živahni drugari) osmislila je aplikaciju sa likovima životinja, [...]
Fri, Oct 18, 2019
Source: Inkluzija blog
Stefan na treningu
Dok sam bio mali sport me nije mnogo interesovao. Kada su i prikazivane utakmice na televiziji, više sam voleo sam [...]
Wed, Oct 16, 2019
Source: Inkluzija blog

Documents

Third National Report on Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduction in the Republic of Serbia for the Period 2014–2017
February, 2019 arrow right pdf [5 MB]
National Employment Action Plan for the Year 2019
February, 2019 arrow right pdf [732 KB]
Gender Equality Index for the Republic of Serbia
December, 2018 arrow right pdf [7 MB]
Assessment of Absolute Poverty in Serbia in 2017
October, 2018 arrow right pdf [226 KB]
Periodic evaluation of the local youth employment initiative programmes
October, 2018 arrow right pdf [486 KB]
Monitoring Social Inclusion in Republic of Serbia – Third Revised Edition
November, 2017 arrow right pdf [2 MB]
Poverty in the Republic of Serbia for the Period 2006–2016 – Revised and New Data
September, 2017 arrow right pdf [906 KB]
Mapping Social Care Service within the Mandate of Local Governments in the Republic of Serbia (2015) – Report
May, 2017 arrow right pdf [4 MB] arrow right docx [2 MB]