PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University College Dublin]On: 7 March 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 922098620]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713417253

The Mornings after…Serbian Spatial Planning Legislation in ContextZorica Nedović-Budića; Dejan Djordjevićb; Tijana Dabovićb

a School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Dublin 14,Ireland b Faculty of Geography, Department of Spatial Planning, University of Belgrade, Belgrade,Serbia

Online publication date: 18 February 2011

To cite this Article Nedović-Budić, Zorica , Djordjević, Dejan and Dabović, Tijana(2011) 'The Mornings after…SerbianSpatial Planning Legislation in Context', European Planning Studies, 19: 3, 429 — 455To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2011.548448URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.548448

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Mornings after. . .Serbian SpatialPlanning Legislation in Context

ZORICA NEDOVIC-BUDIC∗, DEJAN DJORDJEVIC∗∗ &TIJANA DABOVIC∗∗

∗School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Dublin 14, Ireland,∗∗Faculty of Geography, Department of Spatial Planning, University of Belgrade, Studentski Trg 3/III, 11000

Belgrade, Serbia

(Received March 2009; accepted February 2010)

ABSTRACT This paper explores the changes in the Serbian spatial planning legislation and systemas they relate to the political, socio-economic and institutional context and reflect societal dynamicsand broad democratization processes. Drawing on the literature on societal and institutionalembedding of planning, evolution of planning systems and the theory of transition, we present thecase study of the changing societal context and planning legislation in the Republic of Serbia bycomparing the contents, processes, and tools prescribed by the laws enacted in 1985—before thefall of communism—and in 1995 and 2003—in the post-communist era. We find that the societalcontext and the level of political centralization in particular, are strong determinants of spatialplanning legislation and system in Serbia. Other factors, such as the economic system andcircumstances, professional culture and institutional maturity also significantly influence planninglaws and their implementation. Planning systems and laws, indeed, mimic the societal dynamicswith tendencies in path-dependency and discontinuity as well as innovation and re-invention thatevade easy qualifications. The case study exposes the complex nature and meaning of societaltransition vis-a-vis evolutionary and transformational views of planning.

1. Introduction

In the two decades that have elapsed since the overthrow of state socialism (or commun-

ism) in Central, East and Southeast Europe (CESE), substantial changes have occurred in

the nature, role and functioning of government and other institutions involved in spatial

development and urban policy (Tasan-Kok, 2004). Urban planning and policy responses

of localities have been quite diverse, reacting to specific and often dramatic conditions:

political democratization, reintroduction of market principles, commercialization, privati-

zation, the state’s fiscal crisis, discontinuation of “welfare state” programmes and intensi-

fied international financial transactions and investments (Tsenkova & Nedovic-Budic,

Correspondence Address: Zorica Nedovic-Budic, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy,

University College Dublin, Richview Campus, Planning Building, Clonskeagh Road, Dublin 14, Ireland.

Email: zorica.nedovic-budic@ucd.ie

European Planning Studies Vol. 19, No. 3, March 2011

ISSN 0965-4313 Print/ISSN 1469-5944 Online/11/030429–27 # 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09654313.2011.548448

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

2006). The new circumstances have prompted not only new institutions but also a “new

notion of planning” that strives to regain its legitimacy, become more flexible, and

adapt to the new economic and political situation (Kornai, 1997; Maier, 1994). In the

process, a distinctive mix of old, new and innovative practices interjects into the changing

reality (Nedovic-Budic, 2001; Nedovic-Budic & Cavric, 2006).

The case of former Yugoslavia and present Serbia illustrates well the responses of plan-

ning systems and institutions to the changing political regime and socio-economic circum-

stances. Similar to other CESE countries, the planning systems in Serbia underwent a major

change after the World War II (WWII) and more recently after the fall of communism.

However, the Serbian case was particularly heavy in societal dynamics and its scope went

beyond what could be considered a typical experience and context of a communist or a

post-communist country (Nedovic-Budic & Cavric, 2006; Vujosevic & Nedovic-Budic,

2006). Former Yugoslavia departed from the Soviet centralized planning model soon after

the WWII to develop a participatory system of integral (i.e. comprehensive or integrated)

planning. In the 1990s, the six of its formerly constituent republics (turned to independent

countries) have moved to a range of mixed models of state and market intervention. In

most of them, Croatia and Slovenia in particular, the new system was established with an

eye to the practices in the western neighbouring countries, political patrons and the European

Union context (Cavric & Nedovic-Budic, 2007; Pichler-Milanovic, 2005). In contrast, the

Serbian planning system and laws have encountered a more turbulent period of re-centrali-

zation of political power and planning controls in the 1990s, a lagged reform process that

only started from 2000, and a continued search for an effective planning modus operandi.

The more extreme variation in how planning profession and practice operated in Serbia

as part of former Yugoslavia and how it responded to the societal circumstances of the

1990s and 2000s offer a rich set of observations about the relationship between planning

laws, their broader context and planning practice. The lingering transition or what Thomas

(1998) terms “the moment of discontinuity”, which in Serbia seemed to have been more

complex and less predictable than in other European post-communist countries, has

allowed for an extended period to study the processes and issues that underlie the for-

mation of planning systems and their legislative base.

Conceptually, this study draws on the notions of societal embedding and contextual

nature of spatial planning, the evolution of planning systems and the theory of transition.

According to Pajovic (2005), “urban law and system ‘spring’ from society, are ‘born’ with

the state, and ‘grow’ in the space for which they are tied, in which they are ‘rooted’” (p. 6).

Building on his assertion, in this paper, we examine: (1) the changes in the planning

legislation in Serbia as the defining factor of its evolving planning system and as a reflec-

tion of the dynamic political, socio-economic and institutional context; and (2) the contents

of 1985, 1995 and 2003 planning laws in terms of their reference to urban sustainability,

process transparency and implementation tools as the key elements of the planning

system. In the following sections, we document and discuss the complex nature of societal

change and the related dynamics in the planning system, legislation and institutions.

2. Planning Context, Law and Change

2.1 Context

Planning as a future-oriented activity for managing urban development and change is

embedded in and inseparable from the societal context and the circumstances under

430 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

which it is practiced. Friedmann (1987) defines the modern planning practice as “a social

and political process in which many actors, representing many different interests, partici-

pate in a refined division of labor” (p. 25). He views planning as one element in the public

domain described as the territorially based system of social relations that includes political

and bureaucratic practice (Figure 1). Vujosevic and Nedovic-Budic (2006) complement

this framework with governance as an extension of bureaucracy and economic relations

(economy and market). We add to it the legislative activities under the system of political

order (constitutional law); bureaucratic practice, governance and related administration

(administrative law) and planning (planning law).

Similarly, but without explicit reference to planning, Tasan-Kok’s (2004) framework

positions society at an intersection between forces of state, market and space. Spatial

change occurs as a result of opportunities and restrictions created by those forces, including

institutions and market conditions. Alden et al. (2001) emphasize institutions—cognitive,

cultural, social, economic and political—on which planning as a societal activity depends.

In the same vein, Verma (2007) suggests that “institutions such as government or market

provide the framework within which planning operates; other institutions rooted in cultural

norms, mores, and practices, also provide the context for planning” (p. 1). Clearly, planning

is embedded in the societal context and can only be understood as part of it.

At the most general level, it is the government organization and structure that determine

the placement and role of spatial planning. Balchin et al. (1999) suggest the following

typology of government in Western and Central Europe: (1) classic unitary states (Luxem-

bourg, Greece, Ireland and UK), (2) unitary states devolving power to local authorities

(Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway), (3) unitary states devolving power to the

regions (Portugal, France, Netherlands, UK and Finland), (4) regionalized unitary states

Figure 1. Planning and law in the public domain: basic conceptsSource: Adapted from Friedmann (1987) and Vujosevic and Nedovic-Budic (2006).

Serbian spatial planning legislation 431

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

(Italy and Spain) and (5) federal states (Switzerland, Austria, Germany and Belgium).

Alden (2001) extends this typology to 10 countries applying for European Union member-

ship as of 2000 and categorizes them as moving from the first category to categories two

and three (or mixed): Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia and Lithuania with

decentralization to the local level; Slovak Republic, Bulgaria and Czech Republic with

regional intermediary; and Poland to a mixed category.

2.2 Law

Laws are defined as a “[d]iscipline and profession concerned with the customs, practices,

and rules of conduct that are recognized as binding by the community” (Encyclopedia

Britannica, www.britannica.com). The main characteristic of laws is their enforceability

through a controlling authority (e.g. group of elders, regent and court). Planning laws

and institutions are formalized expression of planning doctrines or models defined as “con-

ceptual schem[a] giving coherence to planning by means of conceptualizing an area’s

shape, development challenges, and ways of handling them” (Faludi, 1999, p. 333).

Planning doctrines are, the context-specific planning practices and approaches. Formal-

ized planning doctrines represent planning systems differentiated by “variations in

national legal and constitutional structures and administrative and professional cultures”

(Healey & Williams, 1993, p. 701). Planning models or doctrines, therefore, are formal-

ized in the form of laws and systems, with legal acts representing one element or dimen-

sion of the planning systems. The families of planning laws and systems include:

European, Anglo-Saxon and Spanish. The branches of the European family are Continen-

tal and British, and further Continental model includes: Nordic, German and Napolean

(Newman & Thornley, 1996; Thomas, 1998). Interestingly, East European is not included

in this typology. The recent European documents on the implementation of the European

Spatial Planning Perspective recognize the uniqueness of the East European context in

addition to four other emerging perspectives: (1) North-Western, characterized by

strong institutionalization and progressive cooperation; (2) British/Irish, connecting

spatial planning with local landuse planning and multi-level system of governance; (3)

Nordic, underlined by public discourse and the quality of interactions between decision-

makers and territorial policies at all levels and (4) Mediterranean, where planning practice

is shaped and diversified by local complexities (ESPON, 2006).

More specifically with respect to development control, Booth (1996) categorizes practices

as discretionary and regulatory, the former entailing maximum flexibility, and the latter pro-

viding certainty in development process and outcomes. The room for change and adjustment

is secured in the less flexible systems through negotiations, zoning appeal boards, variances

and other mechanisms. Those diverse practices are determined by governmental structure,

the role of law, culture and history. However, the author admits that the task of placing

countries into these categories is difficult. There seem to be more hybrids and variations

than prototypical cases. In general, UK exemplifies a flexible system. France, Germany,

Netherlands, and, to some extent, the US have systems based on legal certainty.

2.3 Change

The move of post-communist countries to democracy and markets is unanimously

described as “transition”. The theory of transition, therefore, is a natural starting point

432 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

for understanding post-communist change. We complement this approach with transfor-

mational and evolutionary perspectives to offer alternative ways of discussing and under-

standing change.

According to Stark (1992) “transition” is the period, stage, process or policy that leads

from one period or situation to the next. The theory of transition is rooted in the democra-

tization theory that views transition as primarily a political process (Offe, 1997). The study

of transition espouses (1) a comparative approach; (2) an emphasis on democratization

(civil society, political society, rule of law and constitutionalism, state apparatus, econ-

omic society with an institutionalized market); (3) categorization of the pre-transition situ-

ation such as authoritarian, totalitarian, post-totalitarian or sultanism and (4) the

deterministic influence of the past on the path of transition (i.e. path dependency). The

theory also includes a “moment of discontinuity” defined as a period, where the structure

and function of a country or city does not correspond to the external environment with

which it has to interact (Thomas, 1998).

The transition of societies and cities from communist to post-communist involves—

among other things—new economic order; new systems of government (or governance);

new legal, constitutional and institutional frameworks; new rules of social integration; and

new policy choices for privatization and redistribution of public assets (Andrusz et al.,

1996; Harloe, 1996). The idea of transition also implies an identifiable starting point—

perhaps a ubiquitous “socialist city” (or planning) as described by French and Hamilton

(1979)—and an end point—a “capitalist city” (or planning). However, it has been

argued that the transition of societies and cities from communist (or state socialist) to

post-communist is not an unilinear process with respect to its contents, sequence or

timescale (Harloe, 1996). A discourse based on the idea of transition might therefore be

challenged by evidence that the concepts “revolutionary change” and “path dependency”

increasingly map out diverging scenarios for the cities in the new systems (Pickles &

Smith, 1998).

The arguments above are demonstrated by the substantial variation in the nature and

speed exhibited by CESE countries in establishing their new institutional, planning and

development environments. They vary on many aspects including the speed of transition

of the political and economic system, influx and placement of investments, public controls

over land market and planning and building processes and privatization of land and

housing (Tosics, 2005). For example, East Germany has moved and restructured the

fastest with intense investment activity; Hungary also has transitioned and privatized

rapidly, but with slower institutional change; Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland

have advanced well but at a slower pace on all fronts and towards a mixed model with

some remnants of the state control; Bulgaria and Romania have a mix of actions on pri-

vatization and dissolution of old institutions, but lag in the overall transition to a new

system and in both private and public investments; Albania has been quick to abandon

or privatize the old, but replaced it with an unregulated mostly illegal environment (e.g.

unofficial housing market); former Yugoslavia has made a slow progress after being

stalled by the ethnic unrest of the 1990s, but in a somewhat chaotic and illegal regime;

Baltic states have picked up speed on all fronts—transition, investments, privatization

and new controls, with some remaining elements of the state control; and the Russian

Federation along with other former USSR states has taken major steps in the direction

of market-based societies, but with emphasis on the local political control. The diversity

of transitional paths is evident.

Serbian spatial planning legislation 433

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

Transition of specifically urban phenomena and processes, too, is viewed as essentially

political and economic, and hardly distinguishable from the transition in general (Holmes,

1997; Wu, 2003). If cities are viewed as the means of accumulation in the material, func-

tional and symbolic senses, then the bottom line of transition is the “internal shift of the

logic of production”. Moreover, the focus on transition tends to emphasize discontinuities

rather than continuities, by which, for example, state socialism is considered as part of

European modernity and the current changes are viewed in the context of global restruc-

turing of late modernity (Bodnar, 2001). Marcuse and von Kempen (2000) also challenge

the notion of a distinctive or new “spatial order” resulting from the transitional periods and

processes.

Transformation offers an alternative approach. This framework encompasses a new

economic order, new legal and constitutional order and new rules of social integration

(Offe, 1997). During the transformation periods, institutional and organizational structures

are under reconstruction, property markets are affected, and urban development may be

disturbed (Tasan-Kok, 2004). Path-dependency is evident primarily from the nature of

the previous political regimes and the continuity of social relations, cultural practices

and the built environment (Beauregard & Haila, 1997; Wu, 2003). From his examination

of the transformations in 21 former communist European countries, Dostal (1998)

concludes “that a successful early post-communist transformation means (1) a quick

resumption of macroeconomic balance and economic growth resting on (2) genuine demo-

cratization and economic liberalization and (3) higher levels of inherited modernisation”

(p. 281). Across CESE countries and cities, the process of transformation is at various

stages, focus areas and levels of success. The process is bound to continue through a

series of incremental changes, diverse in context, contents, scales and emphases (Hamilton

et al., 2005; Stanilov, 2007).

Evolution is yet another way of framing the changes in planning systems and their

related laws and institutions. Drawing primarily on previous work on typologies, frame-

works and factors (Nasr & Volait, 2003; Saunier, 1999; Sutcliffe, 1981; Ward, 1999,

2000; Wood, 2004), Nedovic-Budic and Cavric (2006) propose a comprehensive frame-

work for understanding the evolution of planning systems (Figure 2). In their framework,

the evolution is presented as a series of cycles or “waves”, each resulting from internal and

external influences that can substantially change the ways in which local planning systems

operate. Internal influences include politics, economics, culture, planning models, plan-

ning education and big ideas and personalities; the external factors are: history, culture,

natural environment, government institutions, democratization, social stratification, econ-

omic development, planning education and professional milieu and individuals (experts,

politicians and citizens). Under these various influences, the planning systems evolve

through invention, adoption, adaptation or transformation. Imports of ideas, practices

and models happen through either borrowing or imposition.

The overall system displays various levels of maturity and corresponds to the settle-

ments designed and developed during particular periods. While the intermediate or

“within the wave” maturity in terms of Faludi’s (1999) doctrinal stage (or stability) is poss-

ible, Nedovic-Budic and Cavric (2006) suggest a normative concept of maturity. The

authors suggest that over time a planning system moves (with occasional setbacks)

towards an ideal state which is ethically just and equitable, operationally efficient and

substantively capable of producing high-quality environments, in terms of spatial design

and organization, use of natural resources, social engagement and standard of living.

434 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

The framework includes the measures of outcomes such as responsiveness of planning

institutions, efficiency and effectiveness of the planning, decision-making, administration

and monitoring of urban development, and the characteristics of urban environment and

quality of life as promoted by particular aspects of an established and matured planning

system.

In the following sections, we first present a chronological overview of the Serbian plan-

ning legislation and then discuss the dynamics of state socialism and post-communism

through the changes of the planning law, system and institutions. Along with the societal

embedding of planning and its legal foundations we draw on the theory of transition and

the transformation and evolutionary perspectives reviewed above. These approaches are

not explicitly tested but used to frame the discussion of changes in spatial planning

system and laws and relate them to the shifts in the political, socio-economic and insti-

tutional context.

3. Serbian Planning Context and Laws through Time

Urban planning and related legislation that concerns Serbian territory have a long and rich

history, dating back from the times of Roman Empire. Nedovic-Budic and Cavric (2006)

Figure 2. Framework for studying evolution of planning systems (after Nedovic-Budic & Cavric,2006)

Serbian spatial planning legislation 435

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

offer a general overview of the evolution of the Serbian planning system, while Pajovic

(2005) provides an extensive and detailed review of urban legislation of Serbia. The

authors present their studies within a broader geographical area of empires, states and

regions determined by both historical and urbanization processes. Based on Solovjev

(1998), Pajovic (2005) identifies the following periods in the evolution of urban legislation

of Balkan countries:

(1) during the Roman and Byzantine Empires (regulation of cities “cardo” and “decuma-

nus”; “Agricultural law”—Nomos georgikos);

(2) during the existence of feudal South Slavic states, the Serbian medieval state in

particular (Tsar Dusan’s Codex);

(3) time under other empires (Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian) until the renewal of the

Serbian state and founding of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians (Yugoslavia;

1864 Order of the Ministry of construction about the regulation of streets, regulation of

settlements and notification on construction);

(4) from the founding of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia until the Second World War (1931

Construction Law) and

(5) the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the third millennium

(p. 9).

Pajovic (2005) places urban legislation of modern (post-WWII) Serbia within the “East

European” branch of the European family, “South Slavic” or “Yugoslavian” tradition, and

the context of the twenty-first century Balkans. The post-WWII period that this paper

focuses on may be categorized in several ways. For example, Nedovic-Budic and

Cavric (2006) use the underlying political organization to differentiate the period of

central-command planning (1947–1965), political decentralization and societal

self-management (1965–1989) and “democratic” planning from 1989 on. Borovnica

(1980) (cf. Pajovic, 2005) bases his periodization on the nature of urban planning organ-

izations: (1) from 1946 to 1953—formation of central urban planning institutions; (2) from

1954 to 1959—organizational division of the professional urban planning organizations

(dispersion within the centre); (3) from 1959 to 1970—decentralization and establishment

of professional urban planning organizations in many urban centres and (4) after 1970—

adjustment of urban planning organizations to new economic conditions and the market.

We agree with Pajovic (2005) that the periods concerned with urban planning legislation

should relate closely to the important milestones of the Serbian state and the activities

around the creation and changes of its constitution, in particular. Accordingly, tied to

the most influential constitutional changes (1945, 1953, 1963, 1974 and post 1989), the

author identifies five periods and four generations of urban legislation (Table 1): post-

war reconstruction (1945–1953); institutional decentralization and the first generation

of urban planning laws (1953–1963); strengthening of the republican level legislation

and the second generation of laws (1963–1973); hyper-production of urban statutes and

regulation and the third generation laws (1974–1989) and post-socialist planning and

the fourth generation of laws (from 1989).

The overview of the changes of the national constitutions of former Yugoslavia and the

Republic of Serbia and the evolution of spatial planning legislation shows an extreme

dynamism of the post-WWII period (Figure 3). It affirms Haussermann’s (1996) thesis

about the diversity of planning systems that emerged under the broad umbrella of commu-

436 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

Table 1. Post-WWII periodization of the legal context of spatial planning in Serbia (after

Pajovic, 2005)

Period Constitutional frameworkUrban planning legislation and

institutions

Post-WWII reconstruction(1945–1953)

1945 Constitution of the FederalPeoples Republic ofYugoslavia (Federalnanarodna republikaJugoslavija—FNRJ) and theConstitution of Serbia

The 1931 Construction Law isstill in use until 1949Central-command economy,the first 5-year plan, andcentralized urban planningUrban Planning Bureau(Urbanisticki zavod) of thePeople’s Republic of Serbia(Narodne republike Srbije—NRS) is operational from 1947to 1952 as part of the PlanningCommission (Planskakomisija) of NRSInstruments of urbandevelopment are implementedthrough the centralizedeconomic planningcommissions, state ownershipand federal investment funds

Institutional decentralizationand the first generation ofplanning laws (1953–1963)

1953 Constitutional Law of theFNRJ

Departure from the centralizedstate administrative systemIntroduction of economicsystem of self-management,and the nationalization of landfor construction1961 Law on Urban andRegional Spatial Planning(Zakon o urbanistickom iregionalnom prostornomplaniranju)

Strengthening of the republicanlevel legislation and thesecond generation ofplanning laws (1963–1973)

1963 Constitution of theSocialist Federal Republic ofYugoslavia (Socijalistickafederativna republikaJugoslavija— SFRJ) and theConstitution of Serbia1971 ConstitutionalAmendments XX-XLII andthe Constitution of Serbia

1965 Law on Urban and RegionalSpatial Planning of NRS(Zakon o urbanistickom iregionalnom prostornomplaniranju Narodne RepublikeSrbije)Spatial planning legislation ofindividual republics andprovinces leave the federallevel with only general policyand harmonization roles

Hyper-production of urbanstatutes and regulation andthe third generation ofplanning laws (1974–1989)

1974 Constitution of the SFRJand the Constitutions ofSerbia, Socialist IndependentProvince (Socijalistickaautonomna pokrajina— SAP)of Kosovo and SAP of

Planning documentationproliferates, especially at thelevel of the republics (exceptfor the Spatial Plan of Serbiawhich was started in 1967,completed in 1993, and

(Continued)

Serbian spatial planning legislation 437

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

nist regimes and socialist planning. The view of socialist planning as monolithic, uniform

and static is challenged by the different modes displayed among communist countries as

well as within the particular countries over time. The state of continuous transformation is

only certain. The case of Serbia brings this experience to its extreme. After the WWII,

Serbian societal pendulum swings from a centralized state and command and control

economy to a decentralized society functioning as a semi-market economy based on the

principles of self-management and, finally, to a society in turbulent transitioning to the

western model of democracy and markets.

This swinging is closely related to the level of centralization of the political and govern-

ance systems and the corresponding approaches to policy implementation—top-down in

case of centralized systems and bottom-up in case of decentralized systems (Mazmanian

& Sabatier, 1989). This dichotomy represents the ends of a centralization–decentraliza-

tion continuum and the extreme manifestations of a range of practices that reflect the

Table 1. Continued

Period Constitutional frameworkUrban planning legislation and

institutions

Vojvodina1989 Constitution of theSocialist Republic ofYugoslavia (Sociajlistickarepublika Jugoslavija—SRJ)

adopted in 1996) andcommunes, with aproportional lack ofimplementation power1974 Law on Planning andArrangement of Space1985 Law on Planning andArrangement of Space (Zakono planiranju i uredjenjuprostora; builds on 1974 Law)as the formal culmination ofthis period and its fullydecentralized approach toplanning1989 Law on Planning andArrangement of Space, whichis fundamentally similar to1985 Law except for theintroduction of therequirement for the SpatialPlan of Serbia

Post-socialist planning and thefourth generation of planninglaws (from 1989)

1990 Constitution of Serbia1992 Constitution of SRJ2006 Constitution of theRepublic of Serbia

1995 Law on Planning andArrangement of Space andSettlements of the Republic ofSerbia (Zakon o planiranju iuredjenju prostora i naseljaRepublike Srbije)2003 Law on Planning andConstruction of the Republicof Serbia (Zakon o planiranju iizgradnji Republike Srbije)2009 Law on Planning andConstruction

438 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

unique complexities of the systems in which they are embedded. Urban planning activities,

therefore, range from the initial role in supporting the economic sector planning during the

post-WWII recovery, to an integrated fully decentralized participatory process concerned

with physical development and closely coupled with economic and social spheres; and to

post-1989 strife for re-legitimatization and re-establishment of a planning system that

would address the changing societal circumstances and needs.

To shed additional light on the complexities and challenges the spatial planning and

urban development processes and their actors face in Serbia, the remainder of the paper

focuses on the planning legislations enacted in 1985—just before the fall of communism

and the laws of 1995 and 2003 enacted in post-communist Serbia. Following the review of

the socio-economic, institutional and political context in which these laws are created, we

compare the rationale and contents of the three legislative acts.

4. Planning Laws in Context: 1985–1995–2003

4.1 The Context

The end of twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century in Serbia displays

characteristics of a highly complex and dynamic system. The post-WWII socio-economic

and political system in Serbia is best described as “market socialism” (Dawson, 1987;

Table 2). Although through the end of the 1980s the political regime is formally still a

single-party communism, it is substantially decentralized (devolved or polycentric) and

relatively liberal, particularly after the political and ideological re-directing away from

the Soviet Block almost immediately following WWII. The economic system was

based on “societal self-management”, which, however, led to recessionary trends in the

1980s. The ownership of economic enterprises and land was mixed—public and

private. This relatively advanced but still not fully functional form of socialism was in

the 1990s replaced by attempts towards political pluralization and socio-economic

reforms. However, after the disintegration of former Yugoslavia, the trends could be

(at best) described as retrogressive, including the re-centralization of political power,

Figure 3. The swinging pendulum of the post-WWII planning legislative context in Serbia (1–4 inthe context of former Yugoslavia)

Serbian spatial planning legislation 439

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

Table 2. Societal context in Serbia in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s

Decade Political Economic Interests/ownership

1980s Single-party communistsystem, decentralized, butauthoritarian (until Tito’sdeath); decision-making isshared by central,republican and municipalbranches of governmentand by enterprises;municipality is the basicand the most importantlocal government unit withconsiderable executivepower

Self-management ofenterprises by theiremployees in a so called“market socialism”;ownership of the largeindustrial enterprisesremains societal (asopposed to state), but mostof the small businesses areprivate; most ofagriculture is also inprivate ownership;economic reforms areintroduced to deal withrecession and inflation(stagnation) in the 1980s

Urban land is allocatedthrough a number of non-market mechanisms,coordination, compromiseand control being mainlyset and implementedwithin the governmentsystem and throughpertinent (rather arbitrary)administrative decisions

1990s Multi-party, with politicalpluralization and attemptstowards democratizationand establishment of a civilsociety; societalretrogression, suspendedtransitional reforms;societal integration drivenby negative nationalisticforces; the formerinstitutions collapse andre-centralize by weakeningthe constitutional role ofmunicipalities andintroducing the “top-down” principle ofgovernment

Overall economic crisis isaccompanied by a sharpdecrease in domestic andforeign investments; theinformal sector of theeconomy expands underthe circumstances of theinternational isolation ofFRY

Cosmetic legal changes areintroduced to substitute“state/collective landownership” for former“social landownerhip”,and to improve the termsof compensation forcompulsory purchase ofagricultural land; upsurgeof new legitimate privateinterests (competing for abroader public relevance)parallel the retreat of manyprevious, unequivocallypublic interests;institutional andprocedural arrangementsthat could make thepartnership between thetwo workable are absent

2000s Some progress towardsdemocracy is made fromthe autumn of 2000 whenthe autocratic regime ofSlobodan Milosevic isreplaced by freely electedpresident and government;change of power brings yetanother re-decentralizationof government

Process of post-socialist,proto-capitalist laissez-faire, privatization andmarketization; thetransition is quite coarse,resembling initialcapitalistic accumulationwith no respect for rulesand institutions and strongpresence of so called“tycoons”; investments arestill low due to highlyrisky and socially and

Social collapse is manifestedthrough the loss oftraditional values, breakup of family structures,decreased family size(very small birth rate) andgrowth of single andelderly households; publicinterest is unprotected inall spheres—socialsecurity, health, educationand spatial policy

(Continued)

440 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

weakening of local institutions and replacement of “societal” by “state” ownership. Under

the leadership of the socialist party and Slobodan Milosevic, this situation went parallel to

an ongoing civil war in Croatia, Bosnia and Hertzegovina and the province of Kosovo, and

the final bombing of Serbia by NATO forces from March to May 1999. The almost entirely

ceased economic production and the international isolation led to the expansion of the

informal sector and gray economy. Probably, the only successfully completed reform

was the privatization of the housing stock, although not without its own flaws and abuses.

Finally, the early 2000s saw the first democratically upheld elections and some progress

(but continued challenges too) on both the political and socio-economic fronts. While the

majority of the CESE formerly communist countries underwent the most dramatic phase

of transition in the 1990s, in Serbia it started a decade later. In addition to yet another political

re-decentralization, the country entered a phase of extreme economic liberalization and mar-

ketization that were manifested in the form of initial capitalist accumulation and grab for

resources (with urban land being a major target in this process). The privatization of major

state enterprises is still ongoing, but corrupted by political deal making. Foreign direct

investments have been low despite the central bank’s effort to keep the currency stable.

High unemployment and loss of traditional values has led to an overall societal atrophy.

Based on the path of Serbian post-communism, one could question the meaning and

qualification of transition. First, could the retrograding trends in the 1990s be considered

as transition? Does the transition, particularly in the context of post-communism, imply the

positive direction of change? Namely, in the Serbian case, the change was away from

democracy and towards an outdated model of unregulated capitalism of primary accumu-

lation. If the turmoil of the 1990s cannot be regarded as transitional period, would we

declare the early 2000s as the beginning of transition in Serbia? Second, could almost

two decades of searching for post-communist societal modus operandi and spatial planning

system as one aspect of it, count as the “moment of discontinuity”? How long or how short

of a period and how much of a structural misfit would be allowed to justify the use of the

term “moment” in conceptual and practical terms? The continuous attempts to adjust to the

changing internal and external realities through various legislative and institutional

reforms as well as policy initiatives are incremental, and one could say experimental, in

their nature. Obviously, in the case of Serbia, resolving the structural mismatches is a

long and difficult process.

Table 2. Continued

Decade Political Economic Interests/ownership

politically unstableenvironment; highunemployment; increasedindividual debt (throughcredit cards) and widenedincome gap; labour marketis undefined and missesmechanisms fordevelopment andenforcement ofemployees’ rights (e.g.unions)

Serbian spatial planning legislation 441

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

More generally, the characterization of the context points to an overall societal situ-

ation. For example, Petovar’s (2003) claim that Serbian cities are “between the state

and the citizen” echoes Tasan-Kok’s (2004) conceptual intersecting of the society, state,

market and space. It is hard to tell whether this qualification is applicable only to

Serbia or to CESE countries in general, particularly given the diversity of paths even in

seemingly homogenous and uniform societal developments during and after communism.

Furthermore, could both the Serbian and various CESE region’s situations be only the

incarnations (or versions) of the relationship between those general elements that give

shape to each society and its space? Does this imply that cities in all societies are

placed between their state and citizens, but in their own ways?

This exploration into the Serbian spatial planning context leads to more questions posed

than answered. However, regardless of the answer and without an explicit comparison and

measurement via formal indicators of societal structures and processes, we find a substan-

tial diversion of the Serbian case from the general trend among the CESE countries.

During the communism, the mixed economy approach and decentralized decision-

making was introduced earlier than in countries that took a similar direction (e.g.

Hungary); in the 1990s, the reforms were going in the opposite direction from most of

the post-communist world; in the 2000s, Serbia has possibly arrived at a more comparable

footing with the rest of the pack. It has entered a challenging trajectory towards market-

based civic society—the path that is flavoured and bounded by local circumstances.

4.2 Planning Laws and Practice

The Serbian planning system has retrograded from the culmination of its unique (self-

made) type of socialist planning in the 1980s to a centralized system under the authorita-

tive regime of President Slobodan Milosevic in the 1990s, and moved on towards a

revamped liberalized planning system after democratic elections in year 2000. The laws

enacted in 1985, 1995 and 2003 reflect those systems and their corresponding political

environments (Table 3).

4.2.1 1980s—the golden age of socialist planning. The 1980s was characterized by a pro-

liferation of planning or “p(l)andemonium”. By the end of 1980s, the SFRY was known as

a country with one of the most decentralized systems of planning and policy. The 1985 Law

on Planning and Arrangement of Space embodied the system’s basic premises and pro-

cesses. Although these are considered the “golden ages” of spatial/physical and urban

planning in the SFRY, preparation, discussion and implementation of planning decisions

was over-loaded with various types of individual, group and general public participation

processes. In this context, it is interesting to note that the principle of the “cross-

acceptance” was practiced in the former Yugoslavia for more than a decade before it

was conceived and practiced in certain developed Western countries (Cullingworth, 1997).

The planning practice was characterized by an integration of the social, economic,

environmental and spatial/urban aspects into documents at all levels, except federal.

The central government was responsible for large infrastructural projects, socioeconomic

development and environmental policy. Despite an extensive network of regional planning

and policy institutions and organizations, regional planning was underdeveloped both in

terms of planning and implementation methodology (Pleskovic and Dolenc, 1982).

The regional disparities increased despite some progress and substantial investments

442 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

(Ocic, 1998). At the local level, this hypertrophied planning system resulted in a massive

number of detailed plans—over one thousand just for Belgrade alone by the late 1980s. An

example in Figure 4 illustrates a cost breakdown for the development site preparation and

infrastructure and an outlook of the detailed landuse plan for the community of Lajkovac.

The land development in the 1980s was still primarily in the hands of the societal sector.

But, interestingly, even with the socialist technocratic terminology the detailed plans were

indirectly already in service of what was later termed “investment urbanism” and “urban

(construction) mafia” that both went rampant in the 1990s.

4.2.2 1990s —planning lost. The 1990s brought the disintegration of the SFRY and the

subsequent radical re-centralization of government in Serbia (until 2006 in the same

federal state with Montenegro). All planning authorities at the subnational (substate)

levels were deprived of previous powers, and the two republics assumed the key role in

the socio-economic, spatial/urban and environmental planning. The federal government

dealt with overall socio-economic policy and the common spatial development (landuse)

policy, although at a rudimentary level. At the opposite end, the local authorities (municipa-

lities) lost the planning auspices enjoyed during communism. The 1995 Law on Planning and

Arrangement of Space and Settlements formalized this centralized control of planning and

urban development. General/master urban plans were approved by the republic’s planning

authorities. In comparison with the previous period, the number of spatial and urban plans

Table 3. Characteristics of planning in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s

Period/law Approach Authority and actors

1980s/1985 Societal self-management planning(drustveno samopuravno planiranje)Integral/integrated planning(comprehensive)Decentralized, “bottom-up”, consensusbuilding, principle of the “cross-acceptance”Public ownership of urban land (only“use” granted)

Key authority: local communities (ormunicipalities)Actors: citizens in local communities;workers in the so-called “organisationsof associated labour”; members of theso-called “socio-politicalorganizations” (comprising the rulingcommunist party and a number of otherpara-political organizations)

1990s/1995 Mandated spatial and urban planning at alllevelsCentralized power and control at therepublic levelState ownership of urban land

Key authority: republic (Serbia andMontenegro)Actors: citizens (but with very lowlevel of participation)

2000s/2003 Modelled after French planning law and the1931 Construction Law (Kingdom ofYugoslavia)Dealing with illegal constructionStreamlining/expediting the issuance ofbuilding permitsUse of “implementation contract” tocontrol realization of approved projectsOpens ownership of urban land to privateentities

Key authority: municipalityActors: public (still marginalized, lowinvolvement); land developers;investors; engineers

Serbian spatial planning legislation 443

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

sharply decreased, indicating shrinkage of planning activities and a crisis of the spatial and

urban planning practice at the theoretical, methodological and practical levels. The pro-

cedures that were ideally to be followed in the preparation of spatial and urban plans

during this period were void of or had a low level of public participation. Much of the invol-

vement happened towards the end of the plan preparation when the interested actors and the

public at large were expected to express their opinions and concerns during the public review

of the draft planning documents. Finally, even though the problem of regional governance

and planning characterized the 1980s, it was amplified in the 1990s.

In the period from 1992 to 2000 only two plans were completed: one special purpose

plan for a water basin (accumulation) and the Republic’s plan. Most of urban development

bypassed planning and happened through illegal construction. Zegarac (1999) reported

data from occasional field surveys of Belgrade’s metropolitan area, indicating over

30,000 illegally constructed objects in 1975; 76,669 in 1995 and 84,072 in 1997 (with sus-

pected 30–50% underestimate). While the illegal urban development was the legacy of the

previous decade’s socialist planning and its incapacity to deal with socio-economic and

urban development realities, the process went rampant in the 1990s. The constructed

objects were about equally split between residential and auxiliary buildings which rep-

resented over 90% of total illegal activity. The weekend cottages were smaller in

numbers but made substantial impact on the rural and natural landscape in the vicinity

of Belgrade. The residential development was clearly driven from the 1960s on by the

massive economic immigration from all parts of former Yugoslavia (provincial Serbia

and Montenegro in particular) to Belgrade and the shortage in supply of housing

through societal enterprises, cooperatives or state provision. In the 1970s and 1980s, it

was the construction of private residences on the peripheral agricultural land, with Kalud-

jerica—a settlement of over 20,000 inhabitants (12,000 in 1981)—being a prototypical

result of this era (Martinovic i Ratkaj, 2009; Figure 5a).

Figure 4. Detailed plan for Lajkovac—excerpt from the cost table and landuse mapSource: Detaljni urbanisticki Plan Vojni krug - Lajkovac (Detailed urban plan - Army base -

Lajkovac), JUGINUS - Jugoslovenski institut za urbanizam i stanovanje (Yugoslav Institute forUrbanism and Housing), Beograd, 1985.

444 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

Residential additions to already constructed public and private buildings within the city,

rooftops in particular, were also typical for the 1990s (Figure 5b). This phenomenon

followed the privatization of public housing as a response to housing shortage and as an

investment opportunity. With no lack of controversy from the aesthetic and structural

engineering point of view, the top floors were added to individual houses as well as apart-

ment buildings. Not many of these additions were approved through the planning and

building administrative process. More often, creative arrangements were made to enable

the top floor additions, including agreements to renovate the facades in exchange for

the “permission” to build (and own) the added storeys.

4.2.3 2000—moving forward. As the Serbian transition spilled into 2000s, the long-

awaited societal reforms were finally on the way. The 2003 Law on Planning and

Construction attempted to correct the problems inherited from the past, primarily

having to do with illegal construction. This Law was modelled after French planning

law and had an engineering flavour. Its intent was to connect to the European Union

and the European Spatial Planning Perspective, at least through common terminology

(e.g. trans-border cooperation, construction rules, public participation, transparency,

etc.). This Law incorporated three previous laws—Law on Planning and Arrangement

of Space (Zakon o planiranju i uredjenju prostora), Law on Construction (Zakon o

izgradnji) and Law on Construction Land (Zakon o gradjevinskom zemljistu). Its main

goal was to reintegrate the planning process with its ultimate implementation point—

the issuance of a building permit—and to shorten this process for prospective applicants.

With the same aim, it introduced the Implementation Contract. Finally, it made private

ownership of urban land possible, although this aspect was delayed by the debates over

the model of restitution of the previously nationalized private property.

Figure 5. Kaludjerica—the largest illegal settlement in the Balkans—the legacy of socialist andpost-socialist planning (a, left). Rooftop additions—the legacy of the 1990s (b, right)

Sources: Blic online, 10.03.2010. L. Gedosevic. Ista taksa razlicito kosta. Foto: S. Djalic (a, left).Beobuild Forum, Beobuild Real Estate, 28. January 2009. Contact: Andrej Vasiljevic, Public

Relationship, a.vasiljevic [at] beobuild.net (b, right).

Serbian spatial planning legislation 445

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

The 2003 Law was criticized for all items mentioned above, primarily from the groups

subscribing to different professional cultures (i.e. social scientists and architects). But also,

these innovations did not work as intended. The process for obtaining a building permit,

even though streamlined to involve only one institutional point, was still burdened by

substantial required documentation that could take about a year (according to a developer).

There was also an institutional failure to respect the deadlines and accuracy desired by

investors, land developers and other involved actors. Similarly, the Implementation

Contract missed its aim. It turned out to be difficult to achieve, as it represented an obli-

gation that some local and private, but most frequently state (national) institutions did not

want to get into, because of the required commitment not only of promises and wishes, but

of funding.

At a more general plane, the Law was criticized for its turn away from the integrated

planning, recession to the functionalism and physicalism and avoidance of more

complex issues of social, economic, political and ethical implications of planning inter-

ventions. In justifying such a departure and explaining, the rationale of recalling the

1931 Construction Law (Zakon o izgradnji), Djordjevic (2003) suggests that this law

used rules: “to regulate the concrete construction and arrangement of cities and towns

(arrangement base—regulation plan and construction codebook), [while] the statutes

and laws which proliferated after [the 1931 Law] were slipping away from the concrete

space” (p. 46). The author finds that by late 1990s the regulatory proliferation led to 30

rigid laws and 31 ordinances for guiding and administering urban development and to a

period as long as 3 years needed for obtaining a building permit. He also observes a par-

allel growth of illegal construction and the number of laws and statutes (Figure 6).

The possibility for legalization of illegally built structures was another sore spot for

many observers and critics. Even though it may not be the most proper solution, it was

a pragmatic and efficient attempt to give a chance to municipalities and planning to

Figure 6. Relationship between the number of permits needed and the land usurpation (afterDjordjevic, 2003; cf. Kresic, 2002, 2004)

446 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

catch up with reality. This was what some other post-communist countries did as well in

order to adjust to the new circumstances before they were in position to guide urban devel-

opment (Nedovic-Budic, 2001). With regards to plan-making activity in the period of

about 5 years after the Law’s enactment, two provincial plans, several plans for special

purpose areas, the General Urban Plan for Belgrade, the Regional Plan for Belgrade

and about 20 municipal plans were completed, with many municipalities experiencing dif-

ficulties with the Contract phase. The spatial plans for special purposes were particularly

focused on the protected natural areas and infrastructural corridors. The spatial plan for the

E-75 corridor which is an important southeast part of the European network, was commis-

sioned in 2003, but its realization is progressing very slowly (Figure 7).

The Strategy for Development of Serbia was initiated in the autumn of 2008 and was

completed in 2009 but never formally adopted. The Spatial plan of the Republic was

adopted in 2010. Djordjevic and Dabovic (2010) present the City of Belgrade Develop-

ment Strategy as one of the City’s “recovery” plans ensuing after the post-communist

decline. As the Regional plan, the Strategy concerns a territory of 3224 km2 and popu-

lation of 1,597,000 according to the 2005 data. The Strategy’s basic goal is to raise the

City of Belgrade to the level of large European cities, as a capital in which citizens will

live prosperously, safely and in a healthy environment; to develop a modern system of

City governance with an emphasis on an innovative financing; participation of citizens

in projecting and achieving proposed directions and strategic priorities by 2012. The Strat-

egy is defined as neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but realistic. The uncertain legislative

framework with respect to territorial organization, restitution, denationalization and regu-

lation of local government is identified as the main threat for the development of the City.

In most of the local planning activities, private interest and investment rationale prevail.

Clearly, the public sector lags in defending and interpreting the 2003 Law and protecting

the public land and interests. Among many examples, the decisions regarding the selection

of the project for the new bridge over river Sava and the upgrade of mass transit system

have prompted major debates and controversy (Figure 8a and b). In both cases, the

decisions are questioned from the perspective of efficient allocation of public resources

(including the funds borrowed or awarded internationally) and the capability of the

selected solutions to address the specific urban problem. The political corruption is at

the core of the suspected causes of the unjustified decisions. The debate between propo-

nents of the metro and the proponents of light rail has been ongoing for over three

decades since the first long-term projections of Belgrade’s population approached

Figure 7. Beograd-Nis segment of the E-75 corridor—reference mapSource: Prostorni plan podrucja infrastrukturnog koridora autoputa E-75 deonica Beograd - Nis

(Spatial plan for the territory of the infrastructural corridor of highway E-75 - section Beograd-Nis),IAUS - Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije (Institute of Architecture and Urbanism of Serbia),

Beograd, 2003.

Serbian spatial planning legislation 447

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

2 million. In 2000s, when the projections were coming true, light-rail advocacy is written

into the latest General Plan, but the construction is yet to begin. The bridge project,

however, is under way.

5. Comparison of 1985, 1995 and 2003 Planning Laws

Three planning legislative acts adopted in mid 1980s, mid 1990s and early 2000s are com-

pared with respect to their basic premises, required spatial and urban planning documents,

transparency of the process, implementation, sustainability component and a

miscellaneous category for items that stand out in some way (Table 4). In the basic pre-

mises, the departure from the socialist declaration of rights and obligations in the 1985

Law to more substantive guiding principles in the 1995 and 2003 Law was clear; the

2003 Law also explicitly included harmonization with European norms as one of its

premises. Sustainability was referred to in all three—in the former with its integrated

and comprehensive nature, and in the latter two as a standard normative base of planning

that is accepted internationally. In terms of required documents, the 1995 Law was

peculiar in excluding the spatial plans at the municipality level, and in skipping the

detailed plan (although some of its aspects are covered in the urban and subdivision

plans and projects). Detailed plans were the legacy of the socialist planning, but still

lingering in the 2003 Law. The 1995 Law also had a section especially devoted to the

formation of an urban information system.

Process transparency is similar in the 1995 and 2003 Law, formally ensured by the

public review of the draft plans and the professional review; it was a stark departure

from (and probably an overreaction to) a hypertrophied participatory process of the social-

ist period. However, the true participatory nature was emerging with citizen activists and

neighbourhood groups voicing their opinions regarding projects that are inconsiderate or

insensitive to local issues or general public interest. A successful example of a full-blown

public involvement is the process of developing the City of Nis Development Strategy that

was completed in 2007. The process was managed by the local government with the

support from the UN Habitat and Emilia-Romagna Regional Development Agency—

ERVET (financed by the government of Italy; http://www.unhabitat.org.yu/index.htm).

The quality of the plan and the success of the process were acknowledged by the pro-

fessional community of urbanists and planners through an award received the same year.

Figure 8. Capital projects: bridge over Sava (a, left). Belgrade’s light rail (b, right)Source: Belgrade Land Development Public Agency (Direkcija za gradjevinsko zemljiste i izgradnju

Beograda J.P.), brochure, Belgrade, 2009.

448 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

Table 4. Comparison of the main elements of the 1985, 1995 and 2003 planning laws

1985 Law 1995 Law 2003 Law

Basic premises Right and obligation ofworkers and citizensGoals of socio-economic developmentHarmonization(coordination) ofinterests

Protection andpreservation ofnatural and createdassets andenvironmentsRational use of space

Sustainable developmentEfficiency andresponsibility in theuse, management andprotection of spaceBalanced andcoordinateddevelopmentHarmonization withEuropean norms

Urban propertyownership

Land—societal, municipal(only given to use)Buildings—societal,enterprise, municipal,cooperative, private

Land—state, municipalBuildings—state,municipal, private

Land—public (national,local), privateBuildings—public(national, local),private

Spatial plans SR Serbia—republicMunicipalitySettlementRegional associationsof municipalitiesSpecial purpose areas

SR SerbiaRegionSpecial purpose areasInfrastructurenetwork

Strategy for spatialdevelopment of SerbiaSchemes of spatialdevelopmentSpecial purpose areasRegional spatial planMunicipal spatial plan

Urban plans GeneralRegulation baseDetailed

General city/settlementplanGeneral landscapeplanGeneral plan ofinfrastructurenetworkRegulation planUrban plan, urbanproject andsubdivision plan (aspart of general orregulation plan)

General urban plan forarrangementRegulation plan(general and detailed)

Processtransparency

Agreements on plan basisand goals among all“subjects” of planningExtensive publicparticipation in allphasesProfessional control

Professional controlPublic review of thedraft

Professional controlPublic review of thedraft

Implementation Midterm plans of socio-political entitiesUrban conditions(locational andtechnical) fordevelopment issued by

Urban permit andagreementValid for 5 years

Implementation contractUrban conditions andproject (expires in 3years)Building permit(expires in 2 years)

(Continued)

Serbian spatial planning legislation 449

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

The efforts to ensure implementation of planning documents are commendable in all

three Laws, primarily through the issuance of urban locational and technical conditions.

In addition, the 1985 Law uses midterm plans devised by socio-political entities; the

1995 Law reduces the tools to an urban permit and agreement; the 2003 Law goes into

the building permitting process (in the part of the Law that deals with construction) and

introduces a few other implementation tools and institutions: the Directorates for Urban

Development, the Chief Architect, and the Implementation Contract. The 2003 Law is

also responsible for several other innovations, such as the founding the Republican

Agency for Spatial Planning, legalization of built structures and introduction of the possi-

bility of private ownership of urban land.

In the meantime, a new Law for Planning and Construction was adopted in 2009 to instil

balance in the planning system and institutions that was probably disrupted with the some-

what experimental nature of the 1995 and 2003 legislation. Based on relatively brief

experience in implementing the 2003 Law, the new legislation includes adjustments to

deal with overlooked or impractical elements. The sustainable development continues

to pervade the overall philosophy with the concerns with energy efficiency more explicitly

introduced. The 2009 Law returns to more control for planning and development at the

local government level, including the preparation and infrastructural equipping of land

for future development. There was also a requirement for public access to planning docu-

Table 4. Continued

1985 Law 1995 Law 2003 Law

the socio-political unit;expires in 2 years(could also be delayedfor 2 years if detailed orregulation plan are notavailable)

Detailed regulationplan (Plan detaljneregulacije —PDR)Directorates for UrbanDevelopment(Direkcije za izgradnjugradova)Chief Architect (Glavniarhitekta)

Sustainability Environmental protectionemphasized

Included in the basicpremises (althoughthe specific term isnot used)

Explicit reference tosustainabledevelopment in thebasic premises

Other Detailed plan developedby the state offices

Information system forarrangement of spaceand settlements

Establishment of theRepublic’s Agency forSpatial Planning(Republicka agencijaza prostorno planiranje)Coupled withconstruction law(construction rules)Legalization of builtstructures (requestwithin 90 days)Private ownership ofurban land

450 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

mentation via an online Registry to be maintained by the Republic’s Agency for Spatial

Planning—an arm of the Ministry of Environment and Planning. The Implementation

Contract is replaced by the Programme for Implementation. The legal saga of Serbian

spatial planning continues while the cities develop with their own mind.

6. Discussion and Conclusion

Over the past half a century Serbia experienced major societal turbulences—post-WWII

reconstruction, nationalization, frequent changes in constitution, several shifts of societal

practice (centrally planned economy, self-management, decentralization, etatization), the

dissipation of former Yugoslavia, fall of communism and establishment of a multi-party

system, privatization and return to market economy. All those changes were followed

by continuous alterations of the planning system and legislation used to guide development

and arrangement of Serbian settlements. By mid-1980s, the planning system in Serbia was

highly integrated and participatory in its nature. Unfortunately, the mostly negative cir-

cumstances of the 1990s prompted a rather incoherent response by political leadership,

professionals and other entities involved in the land development process and spatial plan-

ning. The twenty-first century started on a positive political footing—concerned with the

move towards democracy, but was somewhat obstructed by the dynamics of initial capi-

talist accumulation and partial and slow implementation of social, economic and insti-

tutional reforms.

This review of the contexts surrounding the 1985, 1995 and 2003 planning laws, their

contents and implementation capacity confirms a strong interaction between planning

legislation and societal setting. While no law is perfect and none of these laws was

used long enough for their utility and applicability to be fully tested, in their own right

all three represented an attempt to improve planning practice and deal with extremely

dynamic urban reality of the past three decades, e.g. illegal construction, housing shortage,

lack of building maintenance and economic crisis among many other issues. Under these

conditions, urban planning legislation followed the moves of a swinging pendulum—from

centralized (top-down) model to fully decentralized (participatory bottom-up approach), to

yet another re-centralization and re-decentralization after the 1989. After year 2000, the

new swing was coupled with a revived planning pragmatism reflected in the 2003

Law’s emphasis on construction, streamlining of the implementation process and legaliza-

tion of illegally built structures. Clearly, establishing a planning system requires careful

balancing of the roles of government and markets (Nedovic-Budic, 2001) and the roles

of national and sub-national levels, especially given the potentially still important tasks

retained at the state level as a developer and investor in capital projects, strategic

planner, or only a “guarantor” (Djordjevic, 2004).

We find the state of Serbian planning quite complex—driven by conflicting professional

cultures and highly politicized set of other actors who represent narrow private or commer-

cial interests. The system still lacks the capacity to exert strong guidance and implemen-

tation of generally well-conceived plans and to promote (let alone protect) public interest.

It is our tentative conclusion that the institutional and societal (political and economic)

problems are more of an obstacle than the laws themselves. It is not the laws but their

implementation that is based on flawed institutional processes and difficult societal cir-

cumstances. Legislative activity seems to be only the means of masking the practice

that disregards or abuses the laws. So, we could complement Pajovic’s view by stating

Serbian spatial planning legislation 451

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

that urban planning laws and systems are not only born out of but also may be strangled by

the societal circumstances, as has been the case in Serbia. Broadly speaking, Serbian plan-

ning system takes a regulatory approach, with an innovative and internationally eclectic

model developed during the communist period, a reactionary model used in the 1990s,

and almost full circle to the re-invention and pragmatism from the early 2000. The

system developed during communism was quite mature and comprehensive, with multi-

disciplinary professional base. However, it was not fully functional and effective in

guiding and controlling urban development. It was well conceptualized but failing in

implementation just as the state socialism itself.

At the theoretical end, it is useful to differentiate more clearly in concrete and measur-

able terms some of the concepts that are used interchangeably, transition and transform-

ation in particular. This distinction would promote better understanding of the coupling

of the societal and planning changes and also more consistent testing of the validity and

robustness of the individual constructs. The discussion of the Serbian case presented

above prompts many questions, including: (1) uniqueness of transition to post-commun-

ism; (2) the extent of change that would warrant qualification as transitional vs transfor-

mational or evolutionary (e.g. substantial vs minor; abrupt or revolutionary vs gradual,

etc.); (3) the direction of change (i.e. could retrogressing be considered as a transitional

state as well); (4) determination of the start and end points and (5) the length of the

“moment” of discontinuity. As an alternative, would transformation then be characterized

with continuity and incremental change? Finally, would the evolutionary perspective

recognize the constant presence of change and the complex influences that espouse the

change to take a particular direction. These influences include systemic, circumstantial,

as well as personality (individual) factors; the changes happen through invention (and

re-invention), innovation, borrowing and imposition.

The research presented in this paper demonstrates the complex and dynamic nature of

planning systems and associated laws and suggests several potential ways of framing their

change. The case study of Serbia shows that planning is deeply embedded in the societal

context and that legislative acts clearly reflect this connection. The level of political and

administrative centralization and the loci of political power seem to exert substantial influ-

ence over the planning system and practice. The professional cultures involved in plan-

ning—planners, architects, engineers, economists, sociologists, geographers—are also

prominent factors. Those professional groups are in search for self-identity and the bound-

aries of the planning field. They are active participants in the formation of the Serbian

planning doctrine and planning system, occasionally pulling in different directions.

While this is a long-standing and ongoing productive and creative battle that will certainly

continue in future, what is currently needed for Serbia is to settle on an operational and

effective practice that would exert some order and care in the process of urban develop-

ment. Institutional improvements and a firm action in curbing corruption and opportunism

in urban transactions and land development would be important first steps. The new 2009

Law is a move in the right direction. But, beyond the day-to-day administration of urban

development, for Serbian cities and the capital Belgrade in particular to prosper, visions

and mechanisms for major urban initiatives are needed.

In sum, whether the changing societal and institutional environment over the past two

decades in Serbia could be qualified as transition is hard to tell. The research presented

here does not explicitly test the theory of transition, but, nevertheless, we find it somewhat

limited in dealing with the complex and diverse responses to the post-communist circum-

452 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

stances and variable length of time needed for reforms to be introduced. The notions of

societal transformation and evolution of planning systems and practice also offer useful

research bases. However, many questions regarding the viability and value of those frame-

works in explaining and possibly predicting the change remain to be explored.

References

Alden, J. (2001) Planning at a national scale: A new planning framework for the UK, in: L. Albrechts, J. Alden &

A. da Rosa Pires (Eds) The Changing Landscape of Planning, pp. 55–82 (Aldershot: Ashgate).

Alden, J., Albrechts, L. & da Rosa Pires, A. (2001) Search of new approaches for planning, in: L. Albrechts, J.

Alden & A. da Rosa Pires (Eds) The Changing Landscape of Planning, pp. 1–7 (Aldershot: Ashgate).

Andrusz, G., Harloe, M. & Szelenyi, I. (Eds) (1996) Cities after Socialism—Urban and Regional Change and

Conflict in Post-socialist Societies (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).

Balchin, P., Sykora, L. & with Bull, G. (1999) Regional Policy and Planning in Europe (London and New York:

Routledge).

Beauregard, R. & Haila, A. (1997) The unavoidable incompleteness of the city, American Behavioral Scientist,

41, pp. 327–341.

Bodnar, J. (2001) Fin de Millenaire Budapest—Metamorphoses of Urban Life (Minneapolis: University of Min-

nesota Press).

Booth, P. (1996) Controlling Development: Certainty and Discretion in Europe, the U.S. and Hong Kong

(London: UCL Press).

Borovnica, N. (1980) Osvrt na institucionalni razvoj i obrazovanje kadrova urbanisticko planerske delatnosti u

Srbiji od 1945. do 1980. godine, Saopstenja, 10, Decembar, IAUS, pp. 43–58.

Cavric, B. I. & Nedovic-Budic, Z. (2007) Urban development, legislation and planning in post-socialist Zagreb,

in K. Stanilov (Ed.) The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern

Europe after Socialism, Chapter 19, pp. 385–411 (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer).

Cullingworth, B. (1997) Planning in the USA—Policies, Issues, and Processes (New York: Routledge).

Dawson, A. H. (1987) Yugoslavia, in: A. Dawson (Ed.) Planning in Eastern Europe, pp. 275–291 (New York: St

Martin’s Press).

Djordjevic, D. (2003) Ka novom zakonu o planiranju i izgradnji, in: Decentralizacija, lokalna samouprava i pros-

torno planiranje, Collection of works, Francusko-srpski FORUM for Spatial Planning and Regional

Policies, pp. 45–75, October 31–November 2, 2002, Belgrade.

Djordjevic, D. (2004) “Decentralizovana Srbija” i njen prostorni razvoj: Pitanje instrumenata i pitanje koncepta,

in: N. Milasin, N. Spasic, M. Vujosevic & M. Pucar (Eds) Odrzivi prostorni, urbani i ruralni razvoj Srbije.

Symposium Proceedings, Beograd, Institut za arhitekturu i urbanizam Srbije—IAUS, pp. 3–6.

Djordjevic, D. & Dabovic, T. (2010) Strategic planning as an instrument of spatial development of Belgrade, in:

M. Krevs, D. Djordjevic & N. Pichler Milanovic (Eds) Challenges of Spatial Development of Ljubljana and

Belgrade, GeograFF 8, pp. 299–320 (Ljubljana: Scientific Publishing House of the Faculty of Arts).

Dostal, P. (1998) Democratization, economic liberalization, and transformational slump: A cross-sectional analy-

sis of twenty-one postcommunist countries, Environment and Planning C, 16(3), pp. 281–306.

European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) Monitoring Committee (2006) Project 2.3.1 Appli-

cation and effects of the ESDP in the Member States (Luxemburg: ESPON Coordination Unit).

Faludi, A. (1999) Patterns of doctrinal development, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(4),

pp. 333–344.

French, R. A. & Hamilton, I. F. E. (1979) The Socialist City: Spatial Structure and Urban Policy (New York: John

Wiley).

Friedmann, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-

versity Press).

Hamilton, F. E. I., Dimitrovska Andrews, K. & Pichler-Milanovic, N. (Eds) (2005) Transformation of Cities in

Central and Eastern Europe: Toward Globalization (Tokyo: United Nations University Press).

Haussermann, Hartmut (1996) From the socialist to the capitalist city: Experiences from Germany, in: G.

Andrusz, M. Harloe & I. Szelenyi (Eds) Cities after Socialism—Urban and Regional Change and

Conflict in Post-socialist Societies, pp. 214–231 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).

Harloe, M. (1996) Cities in the transition, in: G. Andrusz, M. Harloe & I. Szelenyi (Eds) Cities after Socialism—

Urban and Regional Change and Conflict in Post-socialist Societies, pp. 1–29 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).

Serbian spatial planning legislation 453

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

Healey, P. & Williams, R. (1993) European urban planning systems: Diversity and convergence, Urban Studies,

30(4–5), pp. 701–720.

Holmes, L. (1997) Post-communism: An Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press).

Kornai, J. (1997) Reforming the welfare state in postsocialist societies (editorial), World Development, 25(8),

pp. 1183–1186.

Kresic, M. (2004) Serbian planning and constructing law approach to city politics and urban management. Were

we ready? in: Z. Nedovic-Budic & S. Tsenkova (Eds) Winds of Societal Change: Remaking Post-communist

Cities, pp. 171–180 (Urbana-Champaign: Russian, East European and Eurasian Center, University of

Illinois).

Kresic, M. (2002) Zakon o planiranju i izgradnji (Presentation, Beograd: Inzinjerska komora Srbije).

Maier, K. (1994) Planning and education in planning in the Czech Republic, Journal of Planning Education and

Research, 13(4), pp. 263–269.

Marcuse, P. & van Kempen, R. (2000) Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order? (Oxford: Blackwell).

Martinovic, M. & Ratkaj, I. (2009) Prostorno-demografski preobrazaj naselja Kaludjerica. Presentation at the

conference Teritorijalni razvoj Srbije i susednih zemalja (Territorial Development of Serbia and Neighbor-

ing Countries). Divcibare, October, 2009.

Mazmanian, D.A. & Sabatier P.A. (1989) Implementation and Public Policy (Lanham: University Press of

America).

Nasr, J. & Volait, M. (2003) Introduction: Transporting planning, in: J. Nasr & M. Volait (Eds) Urbanism:

Imported or Exported, pp. xi–xxxviii (Chichester, England: Wiley-Academy).

Nedovic-Budic, Z. (2001) Adjustment of planning practice to the new Eastern and Central European context,

Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), pp. 38–52.

Nedovic-Budic, Z. & Cavric, B. (2006) Waves of planning: Framework for studying the evolution of planning

systems and empirical insights from Serbia and Montenegro, Planning Perspectives, 21(4), pp. 393–425.

Newman, P. & Thornley, A. (1996) Urban Planning in Europe (London: Routledge).

Ocic (1998) Ekonomika regionalnog razvoja Jugoslavije (Beograd: Ekonomika).

Offe, C. (1996) Varieties of Transition—the East European and East German Experience (Cambridge, MA: The

MIT Press).

Pajovic, D. S. (2005) Pregled urbanistickog zakonodavstva Srbije (Novi Sad: Udruzenje urbanista Srbije).

Petovar, K. (2003) Urbana sociologija—Nasi gradovi izmedju drzave i gradjanina (Beograd: Geografski fakultet

Univerziteta u Beogradu, Arhitektonski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu and Institut za arhitekturu i urba-

nizam Srbije).

Pichler-Milanovic, N. (2005) Ljubljana: From “beloved” city of the nation to Central European “capital”, in: I. F.

E. Hamilton, K. Dimitrovska Andrews & N. Pichler-Milanovic (Eds) Transformation of Cities in Central

and Eastern Europe—Towards Globalization, pp. 318–363 (Tokyo: United Nations University).

Pickles, J. & Smith, A. (Eds) (1998) Theorising Transition: The Political Economy of Postcommunist Transform-

ations (London: Routledge).

Pleskovic, B. & Dolenc, M. (1982) Regional development in a socialist, developing, and multinational country,

the case of Yugoslavia, International Regional Science Review, 7(1), pp. 1–24.

Saunier, A. P. (1999) Changing the city: Urban international information and the Lyon municipality, 1900–1940,

Planning Perspectives, 14(1), pp. 19–48.

Solovjev, A. (1998) Istorija slovenskih prava—Zakonodavstvo Stefana Dusana cara Srba i Grka (Beograd: Sluz-

beni list SFRJ).

Stanilov, K. (Ed.) (2007) The Post-socialist City—Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and

Eastern Europe after Socialism (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer).

Stark, D. (1992) The great transformation? Social change in Eastern Europe, Contemporary Sociology, 21,

pp. 299–304.

Sutcliffe, A. (1981) Towards the Planned City: Germany, Britain, the United States, and France 1780–1914

(Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Tasan-Kok, T. (2004) Budapest, Istanbul, and Warsaw—Institutional and Spatial Change (Delft, The Nether-

lands: Eburon).

Thomas, M. (1998) Thinking about planning in the transitional countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Inter-

national Planning Studies, 3(3), pp. 321–333.

Tosics, I. (2005) City development in Central and Eastern Europe since 1990: the impacts of internal forces, in: I.

F. E. Hamilton, K. Dimitrovska Andrews & N. Pichler-Milanovic (Eds) Transformation of Cities in Central

and Eastern Europe—Towards Globalization, pp. 44–78 (Tokyo: United Nations University).

454 Z. Nedovic-Budic, D. Djordjevic & T. Dabovic

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011

Tsenkova, S. & Nedovic-Budic, Z. (2006) Urban Mosaic of Post-socialist Europe—Space, Institutions and Policy

(Heidelberg: Springer).

Verma, N. (Ed.) (2007) Institutions and Planning (Oxford, Amsterdam: Elsevier).

Vujosevic, M. & Nedovic-Budic, Z. (2006) Planning and societal context—the case of Belgrade, Serbia, in: S.

Tsenkova & Z. Nedovic-Budic (Eds) Urban Mosaic of Post-socialist Europe: Space, Institutions and

Policy, pp. 275–293 (Heidelberg: Springer).

Ward, S. V. (1999) The international diffusion of planning: A review and a Canadian case study, International

Planning Studies, 4(1), pp. 53–77.

Ward, S. V. (2000) Re-examining the international diffusion of planning, in: R. Freestone (Ed.) Urban Planning

in a Changing World, pp. 40–60 (London: E&FN Spon).

Wu, F. (2003) Transitional cities (commentary), Environment and Planning A, 35(8), pp. 1331–1338.

Wood, A. M. (2004) Domesticating urban theory? US concepts, British cities and the limits of cross-national

applications, Urban Studies, 41(11), pp. 2103–2118.

Zegarac, Z. (1999) Illegal construction in Belgrade and the prospects for urban development planning, Cities,

16(5), pp. 365–370.

Serbian spatial planning legislation 455

Downloaded By: [University College Dublin] At: 10:42 7 March 2011