1
10
1
-
https://eprints.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/d22bf44085cbc96c2f36d66d6fe90015.doc
fe0cfc03b176b1360a1d537e5054348a
https://eprints.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/ec4e09f9d88c5d74ee62d91833c8b200.pdf
d5476c95039f4772b9e701fb3299badc
PDF Text
Text
Investigation of Development Indicators in the Balkan Countries for the
Post-Socialist Period
Fatih ÇELEBİOĞLU
Dumlupınar University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences, Department of Economics, Kütahya, TURKEY
fcelebi@dumlupinar.edu.tr
Abstract: Since the collapse of central economic planning in the world,
former Iron Curtain Countries have been changing as social, economic and
political structures. Some former socialist countries (such as Bulgaria,
Slovenia and Romania) and Greece became full members of the EU. Some
Balkan countries (such as Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, BosniaHerzegovina, and Macedonia) lived through difficult war years. After the
wars, they have started to struggle for the economic, social and political
reconstruction process. Each country in the Balkan Peninsula wants bigger
real per capita income, a better welfare level, and generally to become a
developed country. But these countries have some political, economic and
social problems in the development process. The aim of this paper is to
analyze Balkan countries in terms of development indicators such as per
capita GDP, population growth, life expectancy, consumption potential,
education, national income and income distribution in the period of the
2000’s. In addition, new suggestions for accelerating the development
process will be discussed at the end of the study.
Key Words: Balkan Countries, Development, Development Indicators
�Introduction
The Balkan Peninsula is an important area, having witnessed important historical and
political experiences and incidents for ages. But it has been living through a historical
alteration in recent decades. Although some Balkan countries (such as Turkey and Greece)
were relatively stable in the 1990’s, there was war in Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, BosniaHerzegovina, and Macedonia. Some former socialist countries (Bulgaria, Slovenia and
Romania) and Greece became full members of the EU. The others have been struggling
toward this goal. Although Kosovo declared independence in 2008, many countries have not
accepted this situation. Nevertheless the Balkan Peninsula is in a relatively stable condition
nowadays, compared with the last ten years. All the Balkan Countries, especially those which
have gained independence in recent decades, want to become rapidly developed. But all
Balkan countries have some political, economic and social problems in this process.
After a long war and an unstable political period, the Balkans has now seized the opportunity
for their development process. This region has been gaining stable structures over time and
this stable period has been supporting development indicators. In this paper, the Balkan
countries will be analyzed in terms of development indicators such as education, population,
national income and income distribution in the 2000’s.
Conceptual Analysis of Development1
Since World War II, one of the important discussion subjects has been development.
However, generally the development concept is accepted as a problem of underdeveloped
countries. Underdeveloped countries which have not gone through the industrial revolution
do not experience the evolution process that it brings, and do not fulfill the necessities of the
development process.
Development is used sometimes instead of concepts such as improvement, modernization,
structural changing, and industrialization. This semantic shift complicates the definition of
the development concept. According to Peet and Hartwick (2009:1), development as a better
life for most people means, essentially, meeting basic needs: sufficient food to maintain good
health; a safe, healthy place in which to live; affordable services available to everyone; and
being treated with dignity and respect. Anther definition of development is innovative
changes resultant in the socio-economic structure of a country. It can be understood from
these definitions that development is related not only to economic paradigms but also social
life, health systems, educational and vocational structures, democracy, freedoms, human
rights etc. For this reason, it is multidimensional and it extends over a very long time.
Development is also related to economic growth. A stable economic growth process is very
important for development. Unstable economic conditions negatively affect this process. On
this point, a stable economic structure comes into question. When there is a stable economic
structure, economic growth supports the development process. This concept is more
important for developing countries. For example, Turkey had big problems with unstable
economic and political structures in the 1970’s and 1990’s. Also, almost all the Balkans
experienced unstable political and economic periods in the 1990’s.
There are also new approaches to the development concept. The most important of these
belongs to Amartya Sen, who won the Nobel Economics Prize in 1998. Amartya Sen
(1993:3) defines development “as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people
�enjoy”. Again according to SEN, development requires the removal of major sources of
unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic
social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of
repressive states (Sen, 1993:3). The approach of Sen combines two important concepts:
freedoms and development. Also he recommends developing freedoms before other
indicators.
Main Development Indicators
For years, many indicators have been used by economists in order to explain different levels
of development among countries. However, which indicators are the best explanatory
indicators of development levels? We need to investigate indicators that are being used to
explain the development process by international institutions such as the World Bank
(especially World Development Indicators-WDI Online Database) and the UN (United
Nations, especially UNDP-United Nations Development Programme, 2010a).
The World Bank uses more than 331 indicators from the World Development Indicators
(WDI) covering 209 countries. These indicators fall under 16 headings such as Agriculture &
Rural Development, Infrastructure, Aid Effectiveness, Labor & Social Protection, Economic
Policy and External Debt, Poverty, Education, Private Sector, Energy & Mining, Public
Sector, Environment, Science & Technology, Financial Sector, Social Development, Health,
and Urban Development (for details look at The World Bank, WDI Online Database).
UNDP calculates the Human Development Index (HDI). HDI includes some special data
such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rates, gross primary-secondary and tertiary
enrolment, and GDP (gross domestic product) per capita (PPP - Purchasing Power Parity).
HDI distinguishes three subgroups as developed (high development), developing (middle
development), and underdeveloped (low development) countries. According to Map 1,
Africa, Middle East, South Asia and some South American countries have big problems in
terms of the level of human development. Especially in Africa, the level of human
development is lower than other regions of the world.
Map 1. World Map Indicating the Human Development Index Based On 2007 Data,
Published On October 2009
0.950 and Over
0.900–0.949
0.850–0.899
0.800–0.849
0.750–0.799
0.700–0.749
0.650–0.699
0.600–0.649
0.550–0.599
0.500–0.549
0.450–0.499
0.400–0.449
0.350–0.399
under 0.350
not available
Source: http://hdr.undp.org/en/, 25.04.2010
Again UNDP (United Nations Development Programme, 2010b) uses eight topics to
determine the development level of each country (particularly developing countries):
�eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote gender
equality and empower, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS,
malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability, and develop a global
partnership for development in scope of Millennium Development Goals (for details look at
UN - Millennium Development Goals 2009 Report).
Also, each country collects some data on development by using international
standards. Hundreds of variables are used by official statistical institutions for this purpose.
Some of these variables are per capita GDP, literacy rate, tertiary education, unemployment
rate, urban population, population growth rate, public expenditure on education, number of
doctor, electric power consumption, number of computer and internet users, final
consumption expenditure, daily newspaper, fertility rate, foreign direct investment, life
expectancy at birth, etc. Also the Human Development Index and Democracy Index 2 are used
to determine the level of development in a country. The next section offers an analysis of
development indicators in the Balkan countries by using some of these variables.
Analysis of Development Indicators for Balkan Countries
In this section, the situation of Balkan countries in terms of some indicators of development
will be investigated. But due to the wars and unstable political period in the Balkans, not all
Balkan countries reached full independence in the same year. For this reason, we have data
that has a different initial year for each country (especially in the 1990’s). This problem has
been almost solved in the 2000’s. But Kosovo’s independence is not accepted by many
countries. This situation complicates the comparison all Balkan countries.
According to UNDP statistics, all Balkan counties (excluding Slovenia and Greece) are
within the High Human Development classification. Slovenia and Greece are within the Very
High Human Development classification (UN, 2009). According to current economic
development literature, the best indicator of development is value of per capita GDP (Gross
Domestic Product) in a country. Mostly Balkan countries have low per capita GDP. For
example Albania had $1677 per capita GDP in 2007; Bosnia and Herzegovina had $2044;
Bulgaria had $2401; Macedonia had $2061; Montenegro had $2269; Romania had $2595 and
Serbia had $1780. Exclusively Greece ($15052), Croatia ($5794), Slovenia ($13333) and
Turkey ($5053) had relatively bigger per capita GDP than the aforementioned countries’ (see
Chart 1). It is possible that the global crisis in 2008-2009 and the financial crisis in Greece
have changed these figures.
The other important indicator of development is final consumption expenditure (% of GDP).
High levels of final consumption expenditure (% of GDP) refer low level or intermediate
product expenditure, capital goods (% of GDP) in a country. According to Chart 2, we can
say that especially Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and partially Albania have
high level final consumption expenditures. These countries also have low level saving rates.
For this reason the investment amount in these countries is lower than in the other Balkan
countries.
Education3 level is a very effective indicator of development. Literacy rates are very close to
percent 100% (excluding Turkey). Turkey has 88.66%. This figure shows that Turkey is the
worst country in terms of literacy rate in the Balkans (see Chart 3). Another important
variable is life expectancy at birth. According to Chart 4, Greece has the best figures with
79.7 years. Turkey has the lowest number with 71.8 years. Life expectancy level in the
�Balkans is on average lower than in the Euro area (80.4 years) and higher than the world
average (68.7 years).
Population growth rate is very slow in the Balkans. Especially Bosnia & Herzegovina (-0.14),
Bulgaria (-0.48), Croatia (-0.04), Romania (-0.16) and Serbia (-0.43) have negative level
population growth figures (see Chart 5). Others (excluding Turkey and Slovenia) have
figures very close to zero. This situation is dangerous for the coming years. The demographic
structure will be very old in the next decades. This can bring social security problems similar
to those of Germany and the other Western European countries.
Nowadays foreign direct investment (FDI)4 has been accepted by many countries as a fact of
the development process. When Chart 6 is investigated, we can see that Serbia (3.95) and
Slovenia (3.34) have the best figures of foreign direct investment (FDI). Macedonia has the
lowest FDI with (-0.01). The lowest value of per capita electric power consumption is in
Albania with 976.1 kWh. The highest value is in Slovenia (7123.5 kWh). Greece has the
second highest value of per capita electricity power consumption with 5372.1 kWh (see Chart
7). In order to comprehend the relation between electric consumption and development, Yuan
et al. (2007) can be consulted.
Unemployment5, as a percentage of the total labor force, is an important indicator of
economic development. Macedonia (36.02%) and Bosnia & Herzegovina (31.09%) had very
high unemployment figures in 2006. The third highest unemployment figure is in Serbia with
20.84%. But the global crisis may have changed these figures in the Balkan countries as it has
in the world generally. For example, the unemployment figure is 14% in Turkey in 2009 (see
Chart 8).
Income distribution6 is another considerable variable of development. The highest value of
the GINI index is in Turkey with 43.2. Macedonia (39.0), Bosnia & Herzegovina (35.8) and
Greece (34.3) respectively follow Turkey. Croatia has the lowest value of the GINI Index
with (29.0). The share of the poorest 10% of population in the GDP is in Turkey with 1.9%.
Again Turkey has the highest value in terms of the share of the richest 10% of the population
in the GDP with 33.2%. The highest share of income in the poorest 10% is in Croatia (3.6%)
and the lowest share of income in the richest 10% is also in Croatia with (23.1%). We can say
that Croatia has the best figures in the Balkans in terms of income equality (see Table 1).
�Table 1. Share of Income or Expenditure (%) and Inequality Measures in Balkan
Countries in 2007
Share of income or
expenditure (%)
Inequality measures
Richest 10%
Poorest
Richest
to poorest
Gini
10%
10%
10%
Index
Greece
2.5
26.0
10.2
34.3
Slovenia
3.4
24.6
7.3
31.2
Croatia
3.6
23.1
6.4
29.0
Bulgaria
3.5
23.8
6.9
29.2
Romania
3.3
25.3
7.6
31.5
Albania
3.2
25.9
8.0
33.0
Macedonia
2.4
29.5
12.4
39.0
Bosnia & Herz.
2.8
27.4
9.9
35.8
Turkey
1.9
33.2
17.4
43.2
Note 1: The GINI index lies between 0 and 100. A value of 0 represents absolute equality and 100
absolute inequalities.
Note 2: Data was compiled from UNDP Human Development Index
Industrial production index is frequently used an indicator of development. When the
industrial production index values of Balkan countries are investigated, Romania (120.6) has
the highest value of industrial production index and Greece (101.1) has the lowest value (see
Table 2). It is interesting that Serbia has lost industrial production capacity, because Serbia
had 113.1 index values in 1998, but Serbia had a 108.6 score in 2007. Also Greece has lost
production capacity. Besides, we haven’t got Albania’s index value.
Table 2. Industrial Production index (2005=100) in Balkan countries
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
97.0
111.5
124.8
100.0
110.7
86.6
81.9
..
..
..
53.7
59.3
64.8
72.8
79.6
83.3
94.4
100.0
107.4
117.3
..
..
68.6
70.0
73.3
82.9
93.5
100.0
106.0
116.2
Croatia
80.5
79.5
80.7
85.5
89.7
92.7
95.6
100.0
104.1
109.3
Greece
95.1
95.1
100.8
98.7
99.3
99.8
100.8
100.0
100.8
103.4
Montenegro
91.4
84.4
87.6
87.0
87.5
89.6
101.9
100.0
101.0
101.1
Romania
76.3
74.4
97.0
100.8
100.9
100.5
102.9
100.0
109.3
120.6
113.1
84.1
93.7
93.8
95.5
92.6
99.2
100.0
104.7
108.6
81.6
81.1
86.2
88.7
90.9
92.1
96.6
100.0
105.7
113.3
Albania
Bosnia &
Herz.
Bulgaria
Serbia
Slovenia
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Turkey
77.8
74.9
79.4
72.5
79.4
86.3
94.7
100.0
105.8
110.6
Explanation: Data comes from UNECE Statistical Division Database, compiled from national and international
(CIS, EUROSTAT, IMF, OECD) official sources.
Economic indicators are necessary, but not by themselves sufficient for the comparison of all
the Balkan countries. For this reason we need other pointers. We investigate Human
Development Index values and Democracy Index values for Balkan countries.
Table 3 shows HDI ranks and values for Balkan countries in 2003 and 2009. The highest
value belongs to Greece with 0.892 and its rank in HDI was 24 in 2003. Again Greece has the
�highest values of human development index with 0.942 and its rank is 25 in the world in
2009. Turkey (0.806) has the lowest value of HDI in 2009 and its HDI rank was 79. When
2009 ranks are compared with 2003, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Bosnia & Herzegovina
lost their former positions. But Croatia, Romania, Albania and Turkey obtained better
positions.
Table 3. Situation of Balkan countries in Human Development Index Values
HDI rank
in 2003
Human
development
index value 2003
HDI rank
in 2009
Human
development
index value 2009
Greece
24
0.892
25
0.942
Slovenia
29
0.881
29
0.929
Croatia
Bulgaria
47
57
0.818
0.795
45
61
0.871
0.840
Romania
72
0.773
63
0.837
Montenegro
-
-
65
0.834
Serbia
-
-
67
0.826
Albania
95
0.735
70
0.818
Macedonia
Bosnia &
Herz.
60
0.784
72
0.817
66
0.777
76
0.812
Country Name
Turkey
96
0.734
79
0.806
Explanation: Data was compiled from UNDP Human Development Report 2009 (calculating with 2007 values)
and UNDP Human Development Report 2003 (calculating with 2001 values)
Another important subject for development is the democracy level in country. We can
investigate the democracy index to understand this relation. The Democracy Index is
calculated by The Economist Intelligence Unit based on the answers to 60 questions for 167
countries (EIU, 2008). According to Table 4, Greece is the strongest democracy in the
Balkans. According to Table 4, the weakest democracy in the Balkans belongs to Turkey.
While Greece and Slovenia have full democracy; Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Turkey
have hybrid regimes. This situation is generally parallel to economic development levels.
Table 4. Democracy Index (2008)
Country Name
Rank in the Index
Kind of Democracy
Score
Greece
22
Full Democracy
8.13
Slovenia
30
Romania
50
51
Full Democracy
Flawed Democracy
7.96
7.06
Flawed Democracy
7.04
52
Flawed Democracy
7.02
Serbia
63
Flawed Democracy
6.49
Montenegro
65
Flawed Democracy
6.43
Macedonia
72
Flawed Democracy
6.21
Albania
81
Hybrid Regime
5.91
Bosnia & Herz.
86
Hybrid Regime
5.70
Croatia
Bulgaria
Turkey
87
Hybrid Regime
5.69
Explanation: Data comes from The Economist, Economist Intelligence Unit
�When Democracy Index (2008) values are accommodated in the Map 2 for each country,
lighter colors show more democratic countries and darker areas represent authoritarian
countries. Especially North America and West Europe have lighter colors. Africa, the Middle
East, and Asian countries have mostly darker colors. Balkan countries have average values.
After analysis of indicators in Balkan countries, we discuss how can accelerate the
development process of Balkan countries in the next section.
Map 2. World Map Indicating the Democracy Index (2008).
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index, 01.05.2010
�Discussion of the Development Process in Balkan Countries
When the special position of the Balkans (multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic) is
considered, it is quite difficult to offer new suggestions. Even so, we explain some ideas for
the Balkan countries below. The Balkans has had important problems throughout its history.
Especially after the Ottoman Empire, an unstable politic and economic life began in all the
Balkan Peninsula. With socialism, there came a relatively stable political and economic life.
However, after the collapse of socialism, war, blood, tears, and unstable politic and economic
life came back to the Balkans.
Nowadays the Balkans has been living more stable days. We know that development is
closely related to stable politic and economic structures. For this reason, the first and the most
important stage are strengthening of the stabilization process. To strengthen the stabilization
process, first of all, the European Union’s full membership process should be accelerated for
Balkan countries that are not members of the EU. Secondly, by considering the ethnic,
religious and cultural structures of the region, bilateral goodwill (bona fides) agreements
should be signed among countries. Thirdly, some countries in the region should play a part in
this process as mediators. For example, Turkey invited the presidents of Bosnia &
Herzegovina and Serbia to talk about the problems between the two countries last April.
After that, all Balkan countries should be invited to international institutions. For example,
Bosnia & Herzegovina was invited to NATO last April, 2010. The invitation of Bosnia &
Herzegovina is necessary, but it is not enough by itself. For this reason, all Balkan countries
that are not members of NATO should be invited. And by protecting cultural, ethnic and
religion diversity, an interior peace law agreeable to different parts of society should be
composed.
EU trade policy should be accepted by all Balkan countries. Free trade should also be
improved in the Balkans. Tariffs and other arrangements should be reciprocally dropped.
Visa applications should be facilitated to improve trade among Balkan countries, especially
�for businessman and scientists. Bilateral trade agreements should be improved. Collective
science, education and R&D agreements should be signed. A Balkan Commonwealth that
includes all Balkan countries should be established in the near future. A substructure of
information and communication technologies should be developed.
Manufacture and service sectors should be supported by governments. Productivity levels of
industry should be accrued. To support industrial production, transfer of technology should
be allowed. Barriers to foreign direct investment should be decreased. A tax system with
progressive rates should be established to decreasing GINI Index and social benefits for poor
populations should be improved. A banking system should be developed and its
trustworthiness level should be boosted. Barriers to touristic travel should be diminished.
Especially visa application should be facilitated. Countries that have insufficient capital for
investment need foreign direct investment to accelerate economic development. For this,
foreign direct investment for whole sectors should be allowed. Democratic reforms such as
human rights, constitutional state, economic freedoms, and freedom of thought should be
carried out, particularly in Turkey, Albania, and Bosnia & Herzegovina. A bigger part of
budgets should go to education and productive investment.
When compared with developed countries, Balkan countries (excluding some full
members of the EU such as Greece and Slovenia) have important problems in economic
development. Many countries in this region have less level GDP figures. Also human
development and democratic levels are not sufficient. Nowadays, the Balkan Peninsula has
some opportunities related to the development process after the war and an unstable politic
and economic life. These opportunities can be realized in the forthcoming periods. But this is
depends on better orientation and management of economic, politic and social processes.
Also, protecting and improving the stabilization process will be important in the next
decades. It is a reality that war and unstable politic and economic conditions encourage
backwardness, poverty and anti-democratic applications of governments. Conversely, peace,
trade, and stable politic and economic life will cause better conditions for all nations in the
Balkans.
�References
Chen C, Chang L., Zhang Y. (1995) The Role of Foreign Direct Investment in China's Post1978 Economic Development. World Development. Volume 23. Issue 4. April. pp 691-703.
Foster J. and Sen A. (1997) On Economic Inequality. Oxford University Press. New York.
Online Etymology Dictionary,
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=develop&searchmode=none, 08.04.2010.
Özay M. (1995) Employment Creation and Green Development Strategy. Ecological
Economics. Volume 15. Issue 1. October. pp. 11-19
Peet R. and Hartwick E. (2009) Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments,
Alternatives, 2nd edition, The Guilford Press, New York.
Przeworski A. & Alvarez M.E. & Cheibub J.A. & Limongi F. (2000). Democracy and
Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990.
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Saviotti P.P. and Pyka A. (2004) Economic Development, Qualitative Change and
Employment Creation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. Volume 15. Issue
3. September. pp. 265-287.
Self S. and Grabowski R. (2003) Education and Long-run Development in Japan. Journal of
Asian Economics. Volume 14. Issue 4. August. pp. 565-580.
Sen A. (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, New York.
The Economist Intelligence Unit –EIU (2008), Democracy Index,
http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf, 01.05.2010
The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Statistical Division
Database, http://www.unece.org/stats/stats_h.htm, 24.04.2010
The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator, 22.04.2010
�The World Bank, WDI (World Development Indicators) Online Database
UN (2009), The Millennium Development Goals Report 2009, New York.
UNDP (2003), Human Development Report 2003, Oxford University Press, New York.
UNDP (2009), Human Development Report 2009, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
UNDP (2010a). Human Development Reports, http://hdr.undp.org/en/, 25.04.2010
UNDP (2010b). Human Development Statistics, http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/, 18.04.2010
Yuan J., Zhao C., Yu S. and Hu Z. (2007) Electricity Consumption and Economic Growth in
China: Cointegration and Co-Feature Analysis. Energy Economics. Volume 29. Issue 6.
November. pp. 1179-1191.
Endnotes
Note 1: According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, Development concept was used for
the first time in 1756, "an unfolding, from develop + -ment). Of property, with the sense
"bringing out the latent possibilities" is from 1885. The meaning "state of economic
advancement" is from 1902. The meaning "advancement through progressive stages" is from
1836.
Note 2: See Przeworski et al. (2000). They investigate relations between democracy and
development.
Note 3: Self and Grabowski (2003) examine the relationship between education and longterm development.
Note 4: See Chen C, Chang L., Zhang Y. (1995). They examine the role of FDI in China’s
economic development process.
Note 5: Özay (1995) analyzes the job-creating development concept. Also Saviotti and Pyka
(2004) investigate the relationship between employment and development.
Note 6: For detailed information about income inequality, see Foster and Sen (1997). In this
study, Foster and Sen investigate measures of inequality.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
2352
Title
A name given to the resource
Investigation of Development Indicators in the Balkan Countries for the Post-Socialist Period
Author
Author
ÇELEBİOĞLU, Fatih
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
Since the collapse of central economic planning in the world, former Iron Curtain Countries have been changing as social, economic and political structures. Some former socialist countries (such as Bulgaria, Slovenia and Romania) and Greece became full members of the EU. Some Balkan countries (such as Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia) lived through difficult war years. After the wars, they have started to struggle for the economic, social and political reconstruction process. Each country in the Balkan Peninsula wants bigger real per capita income, a better welfare level, and generally to become a developed country. But these countries have some political, economic and social problems in the development process. The aim of this paper is to analyze Balkan countries in terms of development indicators such as per capita GDP, population growth, life expectancy, consumption potential, education, national income and income distribution in the period of the 2000’s. In addition, new suggestions for accelerating the development process will be discussed at the end of the study. Key Words: Balkan Countries, Development, Development Indicators
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
International Burch University
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2011-01-30
Keywords
Keywords.
Article
PeerReviewed
JZ International relations