Content uploaded by Slobodan Cvetanovic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Slobodan Cvetanovic on Dec 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Economic Horizons, May - August 2017, Volume 19, Number 2, 111 - 125
UDC: 33 eISSN 2217-9232
© Faculty of Economics, University of Kragujevac
www. ekfak.kg.ac.rs
Review paper
UDC: 330.34: 332.1
doi:10.5937/ekonhor1702109D
INTRODUCTION
Research in the key factors of economic growth and
the development of a region has been present in
economic science from the mid-20th century until
today (Cvetanović, Filipović, Nikolić & Belović,
2015). Although, regarding this issue, no necessary
unity has been achieved in the aitudes of the
theoreticians of the most signicant strategies in the
regional economy, the approach to their classication
into the classical and neoclassical theoreticians, the
theoreticians of the endogenic explication of economic
growth, the authors of a new economic geography
THE THEORETICAL EXPLICATION OF THE FACTORS OF
REGIONAL GROWTH AND THE ECONOMIC CONVERGENCE
(DIVERGENCE) OF THE REGION
Danijela Despotovic*1 and Slobodan Cvetanovic2
1
Faculty of Economics, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, The Republic of Serbia
2 Faculty of Economics, University of Nis, Nis, The Republic of Serbia
For a few last decades, economists have been showing a continuous interest in doing research in the
key factors of regional growth and the developmental convergence (divergence) of the region. However,
beside the wealth of theoretical and empirical research in the mentioned categories, it is obvious that there
is still no generally accepted explication of the key factors of regional growth. The same conclusion can
be borne in mind in relation to the existence of the connection between the accepted economic growth of
a country and a tendency to increase, i.e. decrease regional inequalities. The paper presents a theoretical
explication of a) the key factors of regional growth and b) the phenomenon of developing the convergence
(divergence) of the region, ve representative theoretical approaches to the regional economy (classical,
neoclassical, endogenic, new economic geography and spatial innovation systems). The current economic
reality on the global plan which speaks of an increasing regional inequality conrms the accuracy of the
theoretical considerations of the representatives of the contemporary theoretical approaches related to the
analyzed issues.
Keywords: regional economy, economic growth of region, convergence (divergence) of regional
development, contemporary theories
JEL Classication: O11
* Correspondence to: D. Despotovic, Faculty of Economics,
University of Kragujevac, Dj. Pucara 3, 34000 Kragujevac, The
Republic of Serbia; e-mail: ddespotovic@kg.ac.rs
Economic Horizons (2017) 19(2), 111 - 125
112
and the supporters of the so-called spatial innovation
systems is adopted in this paper (Puljiz, 2009).
Thereby, the last three theoretical strategies belong
to the group of the so-called contemporary theories
of regional development. The analysis of the aitudes
of the theoreticians who represent the mentioned
theoretical strategies in the regional economy shows
a change in the focus in the assessment of the most
signicant factors of regional growth from productive
and natural factors towards the factors of knowledge,
innovations and networking (Trivić & Petrov, 2014).
The theoretical considerations about the convergence
and divergence of the gross domestic product per
capita among the regions also dier, depending on the
individual researchers’ support to the said strategies
in the regional economy.
The research subject in this paper is the theoretical
explication of the key factors of regional growth
and development, as well as the relation between
the economic growth of a country and regional
inequalities in economic science.
The aim of the paper is to investigate the most
signicant factors of the economic growth and
development of a region and the relationship between
the economic growth of a country and regional
inequality in signicant theoretical approaches to the
regional economy from its appearance in the 1950s to
date.
In accordance with the subject and the aim of the
research, the basic hypothesis of the paper is as
follows:
H0: The contemporary theories of regional
development accentuate the signicance of non-
material factors of regional growth
Beside the basic hypothesis, an additional hypothesis
is also dened:
H1: The contemporary theories of regional
development prefer the aitude about the
growing developmental divergences of the
region.
In the methodological sense, the paper avoids the
explications of the complex quantitative presentations
of the signicance of the key factors of the economic
growth of countries and regions, as well as the
relationship between economic growth at the national
level and the regional inequalities that are abundant
in the investigation of these phenomena in relevant
economic literature. An aempt was made to explain
the key factors of the economic growth of the region
and the relationship between the economic growth
of a country and regional inequalities in the light
of the divergent aitudes of certain theoretical
standpoints in the regional economy related to these
two questions by applying a descriptive analysis and
graphic explications.
Beside the Introduction, the Conclusion and the List
of References, the paper is also structured into the
following three sections: Regional Development and
Regional Inequalities; The Factors of Regional Growth
in Economic Theory, and The Non-linear Character
of the Relationship Between the Economic Growth
of a Country and Regional (In)Equalities. The rst
section presents a general survey of the factors of
regional development and the aitudes of the most
signicant representatives of certain approaches in
economic theory regarding the relationship between
the economic growth of the country and tendencies
in the movement of regional (in)equalities. It points
out that, on a purely conceptual plan, the regional
policy is aimed at the optimization of the two
basically contradictory objectives - the acceleration
of economic growth, on the one hand, and a decrease
in the developmental (in)equalities of regions, on the
other. The second section presents the concepts of the
supporters of signicant theoretical strategies which
the contemporary regional economy is based on (the
classical strategy, the neoclassical economic school,
Canesian economic thought, the theory of economic
development, the endogenic theory of growth, the
so-called new economic geography, an approach
to spatial innovation systems) regarding the key
factors of the economic growth of the region, whereas
the third section presents a critical analysis of the
aitudes of these theoretical strategies related to the
mutual relationship between the growth of a country
and an expression of regional (in)equalities.
D. Despotovic and S. Cvetanovic, The theoretical explication of the factors of regional growth 113
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND
REGIONAL (IN)EQUALITIES
The studying of the factors of regional growth and
the economic convergence (divergence) of a region
is possible from dierent theoretical approaches
(Figure 1). R. Capello and G. Perucca (2015) think
that the postulates of the theory of location and the
theory of regional growth and development are of
decisive importance in the procedure of regional
growth assessment factors. The key promoters
of regional development dier depending on the
adopted concept of regionalization. The eciency
of interregional allocation and intraregional
multiplication mechanisms have a predominant
inuence on the productivity of the factors and the
magnitude of income multipliers (Stimson, Stough &
Nijkamp, 2011, 10).
During the 1960s and the 1970s, the regional economy
in the most developed countries of the world was
focused on the consideration of the signicance of
specialized production and the increasing role of
the country in the activation of regional growth. In
the 1980s and the 1990s, certain regions were rapidly
being developed, becoming predominant in the world
economy under the inuence of globalization and
strong technological development.
J. G. Williamson (1965, 3-45) was among the rst to
write about the relationships between the size of
regional inequalities and the achieved level of the
development of a country. J. G. Williamson (1965)
presented the results of his research in the form of
regulation, by which the growth of the gross domestic
product per capita causes an increase in the beginning,
and then, after a certain level of the gross domestic
product per capita has been achieved, it leads to a
decrease in regional inequalities (Figure 2).
Figure 1 The development of a regional economy
Source: Stimson, Stough & Nijkamp, 2011, 10
Economic Horizons (2017) 19(2), 111 - 125
114
The explicated idea of J. G. Williamson’s (1965), related
to a nonlinear connection between the achieved level
of the gross domestic product per capita in the observed
country and regional inequalities in the form of the
reverse leer U was completely taken from S. Kuznets
(1955), who, after having conducted a thorough
empirical research study, came to a conclusion that, at
the early stages of economic development, a tendency
of increasing inequalities in the distribution of the
gross domestic product appeared, which declined
at the higher levels of the economic development of
the country. However, independently of the aitude
related to the originality of the presented idea, the
fact that J. G. Williamson (1965) drew aention of
regional economists to the nonlinear nature of the
relation between the levels of regional inequalities
within certain countries and the size of the gross
domestic product per capita has appeared to be an
extremely signicant standpoint in the consideration
of the regional aspects of economic growth and
development in the last fty years. Because, at purely
conceptual level, the regional policy is aimed at the
optimization of the two, basically contradictory,
objectives - the acceleration of the economic growth
of a country, on the one hand, and a decrease in
the developmental inequalities of its spatial units
(regions), on the other. The creation of economically
developed regions capable of being integrated into
global economic courses is the primary aim of the
management of regional development (Maskell, 2000).
ON THE FACTORS OF REGIONAL GROWTH
IN ECONOMIC THEORY
In economic theory, classical literature on economic
development most often implies the research realised
in the mid twentieth century, when consideration
of the most signicant factors of economic growth
and development of a region and the phenomenon
of regional inequalities prevailed (Puljiz, 2011).
Bearing in mind, conceptual bases of the theories of
regional development, the works of F. Pérroux (1955),
G. Myrdal (1957) and A. O. Hirschman (1988) are
primarily classied here.
According to the views of the classical theoreticians
of regional development, the three key factors of the
economic growth of a region are physical capital,
natural capital and human capital. In relation
to the second issue discussed in the paper, they
decisively support the opinion of expressing regional
inequalities.
The best-known doctrine on the essential issues
of regional development is certainly F. Pérroux’s
theory of the polarities of growth (1955), which
has become nearly synonymous to the theory of
regional development. Similarly to the other classical
theoreticians who considered the issues of regional
growth, F. Pérroux (1955) starts from the fact that
development does not take place equally and
concludes that development is concentrated in certain
spatial foci, i.e. it polarizes. F. Pérroux’s positions his
analysis in a real, polarized area, with considerable
changes in the suitability of locations to aract
investments and accelerate development (1955). F.
Pérroux (1955) dierentiates the wave of polarization
where these polarities of growth are formed, from
the wave of dispersion, when the developmental
stimulation of the polarities of growth is transmied
to their zones of inuence. The intensity of the waves
of dispersion is a criterion for measuring the strength
of the very polarity of development.
One of the best-known explications of the problems
of the polarities of growth in a regional economy is
G. Myrdal’s hypothesis of circular and cumulative
causality (1957). According to this author, the factors
Figure 2 J. G. Williamson’s reverse U-curve
Source: Davis & Weinstein, 1999, 5
D. Despotovic and S. Cvetanovic, The theoretical explication of the factors of regional growth 115
of the economic growth of a region (primarily human
capital) move to faster-developing regions and create
the growth of a prot and distance from more slowly
growing regions. The stated process is often noticed
in developing countries.
In his research, A. O. Hirschman (1988) especially
points to the following two reasons of lagging of
economically less developed regions in relation
to more developed regions. The rst refers to the
phenomenon of extrusion of an enterprise from less
developed areas when faced to competitiveness of
the enterprises from economically more developed
regions, and the second relates to migration of well-
educated individuals from less developed regions to
economically developed regions.
Neo-classicists think that the growth of the value of
production at the national and regional levels is a
result of an increase in physical capital, an increase
in labor and the perfection of technology (Barro &
Sala-i-Martin, 2004). They assume the homogeneity
of the area where each point has an equal locational
convenience. The countries, i.e. regions, which do
not invest in physical capital and have a lower rate
of population growth and which improve their
technology relatively more slowly, have per se lower
economic rates in comparison to the countries, i.e.
regions, that invest in the growth of physical capital
relatively more, have a more pronounced rate of
population growth and more intensively improve
technology in the widest meaning of the word (Figure
3).
The neoclassical explications of the philosophy
of the economic growth of a region start from the
assumptions related to the expression of the economy
of scope, the behavior of economic subjects in
accordance with the prices established on perfectly
competitive markets, the absence of extremities, the
existence of technological changes in the exogamic
character. They completely neglect the signicance
of institutional factors and a possible stimulating
inuence of the regional policy on the economy and
growth (Kurz & Salvadori, 2001). According to the
logic of neoclassical economists, the economic growth
of countries, i.e. regions, in the short and medium
period is based on the use of a greater quantity
of physical capital and work. In the long run, the
economic growth of a region is exclusively possible
exclusively owing to the category of technological
progress.
Endogenic theory claims that the dynamics of the
economic growth of countries and regions is mostly
determined by the character of the key aributes of
the economic system, i.e. the economic policy of a
country and the developmental policy of a specic
region (Todaro & Smit, 2015).
Numerous versions of the endogenic explanations
of economic growth point to the signicance of the
Figure 3 The factors of regional economic growth in the interpretation of neoclassical economists
Source: Armstrong & Taylor, 2000
Economic Horizons (2017) 19(2), 111 - 125
116
existence of corresponding institutional arrangements
(Cvetanov ić et al, 2015). Some of them claim that the
“location of industry can be of decisive importance
for regional development and that the synergic eects
of locations are important for technological and other
inuences of knowledge spillovers and innovations.”
(Dragičević 2012, 20). There is a consensus in the
regional economy that the endogenic theory of
growth is their most important conceptual framework
(Vazquez–Barquero, 2002). This judgement was
additionally emphasized by the global crisis in 2008
(Jakopin, 2012).
The endogenic theory of growth rejects the
neoclassical view of the three basic factors of the
economic growth of a region. In those economists’
opinions, in addition to physical capital, labor and
technology, production, human, social, creative and
economic capital is essentially important for long-
term sustainable regional growth (Figure 4).
By increasing the above-stated ve forms of capital in
less-developed regions, a potential for development
and absorbing the stimuli and the developmental
impulses that come from economically developed
regions is created. If they remain rejected for any of
the stated forms of capital, less-developed regions
will probably remain underdeveloped, even in the
conditions when they are alloed certain funds for
development.
The signicance of production capital (PC) originated
from the neoclassical theories of growth, which imply
that production is predominantly determined by the
traditional factors of production, labor and physical
capital. In the literature on regional development,
physical capital is most often found under the name
of capital goods, whose key characteristic is their
being an output in the previous and an input in the
subsequent process of production. The most important
components of physical capital are production
equipment (machines, tools etc.). The signicance of
physical capital in starting the economic growth of a
region is determined by its structure, the intensity of
increasing and the eciency of use. The infrastructure
is a special segment of physical capital.
Human capital (HC) is included in the central
elements of the contemporary theory of economic
growth. The most signicant components of human
capital are the educational level and the health status
of the population, the motivation of people to work
and develop (Ulrich, 1998; F. Luthans, K. W. Luthans
& B. C. Luthans, 2004). An increase in human capital
leads to the growth of the gross domestic product of
countries and regions (Lucas, 1988). The importance
of the investment of human capital is recognized in
contemporary economies, especially in the conditions
of an overall application of scientic results to the
production process, the intensive development of
new technologies, the improvement of the forms
and methods of management and the organization
of production. In the contemporary conditions of
production, education, skills and knowledge are
certainly the key components of the productivity of
an individual, regions and the economy in general
(Cvetanović & Despotović, 2014). Knowledge as a
component of human capital shows the abilities to
unlimitedly increase and be used without any limits.
Therefore, the categories such as the productivity of
the research and development sector, the cognitive
capacity and the application and diusion of
knowledge are becoming increasingly important
(Lundvall, 1992; Jones, 2004).
Social capital (SC) is the capital of cooperation,
interactive acting, mutual condence and help of
people in economic processes. It cannot be in a
Figure 4 The factors of the economic growth of
a region in the interpretation of the supporters of
endogenic theory
Source: Stimson, Stough & Nijkamp, 2011, 10
D. Despotovic and S. Cvetanovic, The theoretical explication of the factors of regional growth 117
private ownership and has the aributes of a public
good. It includes the institutions, relationships,
aitudes and values that manage interpersonal
interactions contributing to economic and wider
social development. It is mostly a result of the legal,
political and institutional ambience, where economic
participants function, i.e. perform their functions
and realize their aims. It denes the economic benet
of a society, acquired owing to communication,
cooperation and trust between single subjects in
the observed social-economic environment. It refers
to the capital of the permanent, and to a certain
extent institutionalized, relationships between the
individuals and organizations that stimulate the
creation of economic values. The aitudes that only
the participation of people in formal organizations
leads to the creation of social capital are found in
the literature, but diametrically opposite ideas are
often found, too, where the minimum participation
of people in social movements is a component of
social capital. J. S. Coleman (1988, 95-120), as one of
the creators of social capital, denes this category
through its functions. He thinks that social capital
provides individual success, since individuals benet
from it. It is a special form of a public good potentially
at the disposal of everybody included in the system
of social connections and relationships. By R. Putnam
(2008, 20), social capital consists of the aributes of the
organization of a society such as condence, norms,
as well as the most diverse networks that can improve
social eciency through coordinated actions.
Creative capital is fundamentally important for the
economic dynamics of a region (Florida, 2002; 2004).
R. Florida’s identication of a creative class among
“people who add economic value through their
creativity” (2004) goes further than the approaches
based on the traditional indices of human capital as a
factor of economic growth. R. Florida (2002) develops
the theoretical model by which the presence of a
creative class in any position leads to the improvement
of the local “creativeness” that results in growing
innovativeness and the armation of technologically
intensive production sectors. He claims that creativity
is a result of “social interaction”, “authenticity” and
“identity”, which together generate the “power of
ambience” and the resulting economic dynamics at
the regional level. The idea that interaction between
individuals leads to the positive eects of growth is
normally in accordance with comprehensive literature
on learning and knowledge spillover on regional
labor markets.
Ecological capital (EC) consists of amenities in a
region. An ecologically clean environment, the
existence of diverse programs for recreation, sports,
culture, education, etc. considerably increase the
innovative potential of a region, thus aecting the
development of the capacity for the sustainable
growth of a region.
The explanation of the key factors of economic
growth in a region, given by endogenic theoreticians,
is a signicant qualitative step in comparison to the
predominant aitudes in regional geography. The
long and short of it is that the endogenic theory of
regional development “shows threefold change of the
paradigm when strengthening the endogenic abilities
of regional growth: from developmental factors to
innovative factors, from ‘hard’ to smooth’, which are
impalpable - local synergy among the participants,
the positive practice of management, a high level of
human capital and assets based on knowledge - from a
functional to a cognitive approach” (Molnar, 2013, 49).
A step forward in the explication of the key factors
of the economic growth of a region and especially
the expression of the developmental misbalance
during the last twenty years is found in the models
of a new economic geography. They started to develop
intensively after P. Krugman’s paper (1990, 483-499)
was published in 1991. In the 1990s, an increasing
number of reference papers in this domain appeared
(Venables, 1996; Fujita, Krugman & Venables, 2001). At
the end of the twentieth century and at the beginning
of the twenty-rst century, the literature on the new
economic geography was especially enriched by J.
Baldwin and R. E. Caves (1997), G. I. Oaviano and J.
F. Thisse (2005), K. Behrens and J. F. Tisse (2007) and
many others. According to the approach to the new
economic geography, the basic factors of the economic
growth of a region are transportation expenses,
externalities and a prot from invested assets, since
certain enterprises select a specic location on that
basis.
Economic Horizons (2017) 19(2), 111 - 125
118
In the 1980s and the 1990s, a series of the theoretical
concepts of regional growth and development
appeared, based on the innovations as the key factor
of the economic growth of a region (Puljiz, 2011).
In the literature, these concepts can be found as
under the name of “industrial clusters”, “innovative
milieus”, “self-teaching regions”.
Their territorial coverage is dierent and goes from
relatively small (industrial clusters) to far larger
territories (self- teaching regions). These concepts can
be found under the mutual name of spatial innovation
systems (innovation hubs) (Figure 5) (Cheshire &
Malecki, 2004).
Spatial innovation systems include mutually related
enterprises in certain sectors together with the
corresponding suppliers and the service sector, as well
as a series of accompanying institutions, including
universities, institutes, laboratories, professional
associations and agencies.
In economic literature, industrial clusters have been
described as a form of a spatial innovation system
and an increasingly signicant stimulator of regional
competitiveness. In fact, clusters mark a specic
approach to the networking of industrial, public
and private institutions and the industrial sector.
They contribute to the improvement of industrial
production by connecting participants in the
production chain of the production sector. Briey,
they are a specic platform for cooperation between
various subjects, aimed at improving competitiveness
thanks to the functional connections and possibilities
of the dissemination of knowledge and experience in
order to eciently realize new business aempts and
the promotion of manufactured goods on national
and international markets. By networking interested
parties in the realization of various business aempts,
it can be possible to contribute to the strengthening
of the competitiveness of business subjects, the
improvement of regional competitiveness and a more
balanced regional development.
Industrial clusters are the geographical concentrations
of production forms, established in order to decrease
expenses, the use mutual channels of supply and
distribution, marketing strategies, etc. The motives
for the business pooling of a larger number of
productive enterprises in a certain territory are
numerous. They can be: mutual appearance on
markets where it is hardly possible for companies
to succeed independently; the joint use of highly
specialized services, professional labor, rarely used
equipment, etc. A cluster of one industrial branch
is characterized by the whole chains of functionally
connected activities, whereby each activity means
an additional value, from suppliers to nal products
Figure 5 Spatial innovation systems
Source: Authors, according to: Puljiz, 2009, 40, based on: Cheshire & Malecki, 2004
D. Despotovic and S. Cvetanovic, The theoretical explication of the factors of regional growth 119
and their market realization. These chains include
numerous providers of various services, nancial
institutions, travel and information infrastructures,
i.e. everything that has direct or indirect eects
on the activities carried out by the other members
of the cluster. The development of industry leads
to an accelerated economic development, whereas
the improvement of its innovativeness stimulates
change in the economic and market structures. The
development of a greater number of production
enterprises performing similar activities in
geographically close locations gradually leads to
changes in the local environment. The environment
begins to tune itself in to the business enterprise by
aracting customers, laborers, potential partners and
other subjects who want to achieve nancial benets.
The presence of strong local competitiveness is a
powerful stimulus for the creation and preservation
of competitive advantage. Industries performing
the same activity, located in one region, have more
chances to be internationally competitive (Italian
textile industry, Swiss pharmaceutical industry) than
the powerful industries that independently act in the
region. Deformity in competitiveness, as a rule, means
that protected enterprises ask for the subvention
of the country, which often results in a decline in
competitiveness within the international framework.
The industrial cluster of a region is believed to have
comparative advantages by the mere fact that the
productivity and size of the cluster are relatively
large in comparison to other regions (Porter, 2008,
184). An approach to new, innovative technologies is
made easier through the creation of clusters, which
increases the importance and role of a cluster from
the aspect of the imperative of the improvement of
innovation.
The best-known innovative milieus in the world
are Silicon Valley and Boston-Massachuses (USA),
Darmstadt and Munich (Germany), Cambridge (Great
Britain), Grenoble and Sophia-Antipolis (France),
Pisa and Piacenza (Italy). There, the concentration
of innovative institutions and enterprises was
accomplished, which led to “creation of collective
process of learning where the development of
knowledge and skills within one enterprise or
research institution spread over other companies”
(Puljiz 2011, 75). This is due to the fact that, in a
community characterized by strong social and
business ties, the process of the creation of new
knowledge is more pronounced. New knowledge
is cumulatively embodied in the innovations of
products and processes that contribute to the creation
of long-lasting competitive advantages at the regional
level (Armstrong & Taylor, 2000).
The development of a certain form of a spatial
innovation system has become one of the priorities
in many countries; this is logical, bearing in mind
the fact that workplaces in them stand out for the
level of productiveness and the amount of earnings.
However, the problem is in the fact that there is a great
discrepancy between the results of scientic research
and specic advice on particular interventions of a
country. A number of analysts reasonably notice that
future research has to perceive the nature of regional
preconditions necessary for clusters to make a success
(Armstrong, 1995).
The previously listed concepts of regional growth
are characterised by multidisciplinary approach in
the real sense of the word. They count on numerous
innovations in the domain of economy, administration
etc. A great number of factors which interest research
belong to the category of size which not always easy
to measure, such as mutual trust of participants,
quality of institutions, entrepreneur capabilities and
the similar. Spatial innovation systems especially take
care of development and signicance of institution,
which include research and development centres of
enterprises, universities, public sector, and often even
policies of development of science and technology at
the national level (Puljiz, 2009; 2011).
The previously analyzed aitudes conrm the H0
hypothesis, according to which the contemporary
theories of regional development (the theory of
endogenic growth, the new economic geography,
teaching on spatial innovation systems) accentuate
the signicance of the non-material factors of regional
growth.
Economic Horizons (2017) 19(2), 111 - 125
120
THE NONLINEAR CHARACTER OF
THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE
ECONOMIC GROWTH OF A COUNTRY AND
ECONOMIC (IN)EQUALITIES
In the 1960s, F. Pérroux (1955, 307-340) explained the
expression of the non-linear relationship between
the economic growth of a country and regional
inequalities by using the logic of the existence of
the poles of growth. He related the process of the
convergence of the developed by economically less-
developed regions to the expression of the eects
of the acceleration and expansion of development.
It should be noted that at that time F. Pérroux
relied on J. A. Schumpeter’s thesis (1961, 65) that
entrepreneurs’ innovative behavior is the key to
economic growth. The accelerated development
of the poles of development is called polarisation,
whereas the process of convergence developed by
the economically less-developed is denoted as the
eect of the expansion of development. Polarisation
can be performed in two basic ways. The rst is
the mechanism of the disappearance of enterprises
located in less-developed areas as a consequence
of the technological and organizational superiority
of enterprises from the developed areas. The
second process implies the migrations of educated
people from less-developed to economically more
prosperous areas. The inevitable result of this
process is a decrease in the human resources that are
available in less-developed regions, for which reason
it becomes the basis of their long-term regression.
This phenomenon leads to a slowdown in economic
growth in certain regions. On the other hand, the
eects of the expansion of development appear when
the development of the center “draws” the economic
growth of the periphery as well, e.g. due to increased
demand for the products of the enterprises in the
periphery (Clunies-Ross, Forsyth & Hug, 2009).
A diametrically opposite aitude towards the
relationships of the economic growth of a country
and regional inequalities can be found with
neoclassical theoreticians. Their most signicant
message is related to the tendency of a decrease in the
developmental inequalities of a region in accordance
with the progress made in the economic growth of
a country. According to neoclassical economists, the
developmental convergence of a region is a result of
the expression of a decreased yield of physical capital
and labor.
Neoclassical theory suggests that a location does
not play an important role in generating economic
growth. Namely, according to neoclassical
economists, it is unimportant for entrepreneurs
whether a central or a peripheral region is in
question, since they make decisions on investments
in accordance with the expected yield. The claim that
economically less developed regions have a more
pronounced growth rate per capita in comparison to
more-developed regions, as a result of a relatively
less expressed tendency of decreasing the yields of
production factors in economically less-developed
environments, regardless to other elements, is
known as the hypothesis of absolute convergence
in the theory and policy of economic growth. In the
1970s and the 1980s, this hypothesis was subjected to
numerous tests and was subject to frequent rejections
in economic research (Barro & Sala-i-Martin, 2004, 56-
57). Assuming that, in a structural sense, regions are
incomparably more homogenous units than certain
countries are, it can be concluded that the thesis of
absolute convergence is more applicable in an analysis
of regional inequalities in comparison to the research
in economic imbalance in certain countries.
Bearing in mind the starting premises of neoclassical
observations, it is logical to assume the existence of
the pronounced interregional mobility of productive
factors. In that context, the directions of the movement
of the factors of capital and labor are determined by
the expected yield of such factors. Capital owners
will direct their investments towards the regions
where the highest yield will be achieved, whereas
labor will move on to the regions where earnings are
the greatest. According to the logic of neoclassical
theory, a further sequence of events is that the regions
with the high coecients of capital equipment will
be characterized by a low yield of capital and high
earnings. Capital and labor will move on in dierent
directions. The regions with a lower coecient of
the capital equipment of labor will be potentially
D. Despotovic and S. Cvetanovic, The theoretical explication of the factors of regional growth 121
aractive to entrepreneurs for capital investment due
to a high yield, whereas the regions characterized by
relatively high earnings will be aractive to workers
from other regions. In the long run, the equalization
of the relationships between capital and labor (the
coecient of the capital equipment of labor) in
certain regions has to take place, i.e. the convergence
of a region by the criterion of realized production
per employee. However, bearing in mind the fact
that numerous empirical investigations revealed
increasing regional inequalities, it follows that the
message of absolute convergence of regions in a long-
term period is opposite to economic reality. It means
that the neoclassical model of growth has not oered
appropriate guidelines to the creators of the policies
of regional development to overcome increasing
regional divergences within specic countries.
For neoclassical economists the expression of the
law of a decreasing yield of factors and perfect
competition as the predominant ambience where
economic subjects maximize their target functions
has never been brought into question. These
theoretical aitudes, projected on the phenomenon
of the economic growth of a region, implicate the
aitude towards the inevitability of their economic
convergence in the long run. In other words,
neoclassical economists think that, taking a long
period into account, the elimination of regional
inequalities in certain countries is the only logical
outcome of the developmental processes over time.
However, regional reality in many countries was
quite dierent from this statement by neoclassical
economists. Namely, the developmental divergences
of a region were often expressed. The slow economic
growth of many regions, as well as the tendency of
growing developmental divergences in the 1970s,
meant that many factors inuenced the economic
growth of a region, despite great investments in an
increase in physical capital. Hence the message of the
endogenic theories of growth is that the regions of an
observed country need not unconditionally achieve
a stable rate of balance growth. Growth at the rates
higher than the balanced can be sustainable. Regions
need not unconditionally converge. The expression of
the non-decreasing yields of factors is connected with
the eects of “learning by doing”, the phenomenon of
“knowledge spillover”, the activities of research and
development, education, as a factor of an increase in
human capital, etc. (Romer, 2006, 13; Cvetanović &
Despotović, 2014, 13).
The concept of learning by doing originates from K.
Arrow (1971, 131-149). Individuals are beer if they
produce more. Besides, certain producers learn from
the practical experience of others. Incorporating the
hypothesis of knowledge spillover into this teaching,
P. M. Romer (1986) published a large number of
papers in the late nineteen eighties, revived the
interest of macroeconomists in key issues of economic
growth of countries and regions. By P. M. Romer
(1986), independently of the fact that „productive
function for each individual enterprise can also have
standard neoclassical form, the expression of law on
decreasing returns need not appear on macro level.
He considers this possible thanks to the fact that
eciency of factor of capital of particular enterprise
can grow due to increased stocks of physical capital
in other enterprises” (Cvetanović & Despotović,
2014, 13). Accordingly, the growth of physical capital
at macro level initiates the wave of positive external
eects, which means that decreasing returns factors
need not necessarily appear in economy as a whole
(Mervar, 2003).
The applicability of messages of endogenous
models of growth in the explication of regional
divergences is established in the starting point that
the processes of dissemination of knowledge are
considerably geographically limited. Interpersonal
interaction, connected with the level of education
of the population at the local level results in the
existing and araction of new human capital. The
increase of human capital leads to innovations and
economic growth. The regions which are abundant
with this form of capital achieve dominant position
in innovativeness in comparison to the regions with
relatively small scope of human capital (Puljiz, 2011).
Economically less developed regions are not aractive
places for educated individuals (smaller earnings,
uncertain sources of nancing entrepreneur aempts)
are doomed for permanent economic regression.
Economic Horizons (2017) 19(2), 111 - 125
122
The endogenic models of growth explicate the
developmental divergence of regions to a satisfactory
degree (developed regions invest more in education,
research and development, the creation of an
innovation ambience). However, their message of
a possible convergence is far more important, i.e.
the economic convergence of developed regions
by the less-developed, and the need to act towards
increasing the innovation capacity of certain areas by
the most diverse interventions of the regional policy.
According to P. Krugman (1990), the creator of the
concept of the new economic geography, an increase
or a decrease in regional inequalities is determined
by the inuence of centripetal and centrifugal
forces. The former stimulate the concentration of the
economic activities of a region, whereas the laer act
in the opposite direction. When centripetal forces
overpower, their outcome makes regional inequalities
grow. Or vice versa - when centripetal forces
overpower, regional convergences are expressed
(Figure 6).
However, the fact is that competent empirical research
which would test the validity of the key messages of
the new economic geography of the expression of the
developmental inequalities of regions is missing. One
of the reasons for this is that the model of the new
economic geography is very demanding, not only in
terms of the availability of the necessary data, but also
in the expressed problems related to the formulation
of the models of the economic growth of a region and
the course of regional inequalities.
Recent approaches in the theory of regional
development, marked in this paper as spatial
innovation systems (innovation hubs), support
the idea of increasing regional divergence in the
contemporary conditions of enterprising. It is logical,
bearing in mind the fact that according to their
interpretation, the economic growth of a region is
based on the spatial concentration of highly innovative
enterprises, which are in a very close mutual contact,
as well as with other parties in a specic area. For
instance, thanks to their innovation superiority in
certain domains, the regions such as the Silicon
Valley in the USA, the Innovation Centre Antipolis
in France, the Technological Park Pretoria in South
Africa, the Technological Park Hsinchu in Taiwan
and the Center for Software Engineering Bangalore
in India have become the symbols of economic power
in world relations during the last thirty years (Smith,
2010, 266).
The previously explicated aitudes conrm the
H1 hypothesis, according to which contemporary
aitudes in regional theory explain the phenomenon
of the developmental divergence of a region to a
satisfactory degree.
CONCLUSION
The interest of a regional economy in the investigation
of the key factors of regional growth and the
nature and character of the relationship between
the economic growth of a country and regional
inequalities has greatly expanded over the last
decades. However, despite the intensive development
Figure 6 Centripetal and centrifugal forces in the
model of the new economic geography
Source: Authors, according to: Puljiz, 2011, 71, based on:
Krugman, 1990
D. Despotovic and S. Cvetanovic, The theoretical explication of the factors of regional growth 123
of the regional economy in this period, it is obvious
that there are no uniform researchers’ aitudes
related to these issues.
A critical analysis of the aitudes in the ve signicant
theoretical approaches in the regional economy in
terms of the key factors of regional growth, on the one
hand, and the non-linear character of the relationship
between the economic growth of a country and
regional inequalities, on the other, can be considered
as the contribution of this paper. Besides, the paper
concludes that, according to the aitudes expressed
by the representatives of certain theories in the
regional economy, they agree in the opinion that the
so-called non-material sources have a predominant
role among the factors of regional growth, whereas
the developmental divergence of a region corresponds
to the economic growth of the observed country.
The dened basic and additional hypotheses were
tested and conrmed through the research process.
The limitation of the conducted research was in
the omission of quantitative explications, which is
understandable in a certain sense, since the inuence
of the non-material factors of regional growth, on the
one hand, and the complex relationships between the
economic growth of the country and the expression of
regional inequalities, on the other, are very dicult to
precisely dene.
In our opinion, the results of the research can be
useful to the creators of regional policies in small
and insuciently developed countries, such as ours,
in that they should pay more aention to the non-
material factors of regional growth when creating
a policy of regional development. Thus, further
research could quantify the inuence of non-material
factors on regional growth and precisely determine
the character of the non-linear relationship between
the economic growth of a country and the expression
of regional inequalities.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, H. (1995). Convergence among regions of the
Europea n Union, 1950 -1990. Papers in Regional Science,
74(2), 143-152.
doi: 10.1111/j.1435 -5597.1995.tb0 0633.x
Armstrong, H., & Taylor, J. (2000). Regional economics and
policy. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Arrow, K. (1971). The economic implications of learning by
doing. In F. H. Hahn (Ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth
(pp. 131-149). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-1-
349-15430 -2 _11
Baldwin, J. R., & Caves, R. E. (1997). International
competition and industrial performance: Allocative
eciency, productive eciency, and turbulence.
Statistics Canada Research Paper, No 108, 31 Pages.
Barro, R., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004). Economic Growth.
Cambridge, Massachusees, US: MIT Press.
Behrens, K., & Thisse, J. F. (2007). Regional economics: A
new economic geography perspective. Regional Science
and Urban Economics, 37(4), 457-465. doi.org/10.1016/j.
regsciurbeco.2006.10.001
Capello, R., & Perucca, G. (2015). Openness to globalization
and regional growth paerns in CEE countries: from the
EU accession to the economic crisis. Journal of Common
Market Studies, 53(2), 218-236.
doi: 10.1111/jcms.12157
Cheshire, P. C., & Malecki, E. J. (2004). Growth, development,
and innovation: A look backward and forward. In J.
G. Raymond & M. Florax (Eds.), Fifty Years of Regional
Science (pp. 249-267). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:
10.1007/978-3- 662- 07223 -3_11
Clunies-Ross, A., Forsyth, D., & Hug, M. (2009). Development
Economics. McGraw-Hill.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. American journal of sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Cvetanović, S., & Despotović, D. (2014). Knowledge as
the component of human capital in economic growth
models. Škola biznisa, 1, 1-17. doi 10.5937/skolbiz1-5976
Cvetanović, S., Filipović, M., Nikolić, M., & Belović, D. (2015).
Endogenous growth theory and regional development
policy. Spatium, 34, 10-17. doi: 10.2298/spat1534010c
Economic Horizons (2017) 19(2), 111 - 125
124
Davis, D. R., & Weinstein, D. E. (1999). Economic geography
and regional production structure: An empirical
investigation. European economic review, 43(2), 379-407.
doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00063-4
Dragičević, M. (2012) Konkurentnost - Projekat za Hrvatsku.
Zagreb, Croatia: Školska knjiga.
Flor ida, R. (2002). The economic geography of talent. Annals
of the Association of American geographers, 92(4), 743 -755.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8306.00314
Florida, R. (2004). The Rise of the Creative Class: And how It’s
Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life.
(Paperbac k Ed.).
Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. J. (2001). The
Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade.
Massachuses, USA: Cambridge, MIT Press Books.
Hirschman, A. O. (1988). The strategy of economic development.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Jakopin, E. (2012). Post-crisis reallocation of growth
factors. Economic Horizons, 14(2), 79-90. doi: 10.5937/
ekonhor1202077J
Jones, C. (2004). Growth and Ideas. NBER, Working Paper
10767, Cambridge, MA.
Krugman, P. (1990). Increasing returns and economic
geography. Journal of Plitical Economy, 99(3), 483-499.
Kurz, H. D., & Salvadori, N. (2001). The aggregate
neoclassical theory of distribution and the concept of
a given value of capital: A reply. Structural Change and
Economic Dynamics, 12(4), 479-485. doi.org/10.1016/S0954-
349X(01)00015-7
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality.
The American economic review, 45(1), 1-28.
Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic
development. Journal of monetary economics, 22(1), 3-42.
doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7
Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Toward
a theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London, UK:
Frances Pinter.
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004).
Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social
capital. Business horizons, 47(1), 45-50. doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2003.11.007
Maskell, P. (2000) Future Challenges and Institutional
Preconditions for Regional Development Policy
Posed by Economic Globalisation. Possible Paths for
Development: The Next 10-15 Years for the Nordic
Countries in a European Perspective. In I. Karppi (Ed.),
Future Challenges and Institutional Prerequisites for Regional
Development Policy (pp. 27-87). Stockholm, Sweden:
Nordregio Report
No. 2000-1.
Mervar, A. (2003). Esej o novijim doprinosima teoriji
ekonomskog rasta. Ekonomski pregled, 54(3-4), 369-392.
Molnar, D. (2013). Regionalne nejednakosti i privredni rast:
Primer Srbije. Neobjavljena doktorska disertacija,
Ekonomski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd,
Republika Srbija.
Myrdal, G. (1957). Rich Lands and Poor: The Road to World
Prosperity. New York, NY: Harper.
Oaviano, G. I., & Thisse, J. F. (2005). New economic
geography: What about the N? Environment and Planning
A, 37(10), 1707-1725.
Pérroux, F. (1955). La Notion de Pole de Croissance.
Économie Appliquée, 1-2.
Porter, M. (2008). O konkurenciji. Beograd, Republika Srbija:
FEFA.
Puljiz, J. (2009). Čimbenici regionalnog razvoja i regionalnih
nejednakosti u Republici Hrvatskoj. Neobjavljena doktorska
disertacija, Ekonomski fakultet, Sveučilište u Splitu,
Split, Republika Hrvatska.
Puljiz, J. (2011). Teorije regionalnog razvoja u ekonomskoj
literaturi. Godišnjak TITIUS: Godišnjak za interdisciplinarna
istraživanja porječja Krke, 3(3), 63-82.
Putnam, R. (2008). Kuglati sam. Novi Sad, Republika Srbija:
Mediteran Publishing.
Romer, D. (2006). Advanced macroeconomics. Boston, US:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run
growth. The journal of political economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
doi.org/10.1086/261420
Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). The theory of economic development:
An inquiry into prots, capital, credit, interest, and the
business cycle. New York, NY: A Galaxy Book.
D. Despotovic and S. Cvetanovic, The theoretical explication of the factors of regional growth 125
Received on 14
th
April 2017,
after two revisions,
accepted for publication on 23
rd
August 2017.
Published online on 25
th
August 2017.
Danijela Despotovic is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Economics, University of
Kragujevac, the Republic of Serbia. She teaches courses in Theory and analysis of economic
policy and Macromanagement. She received her PhD deegre in Macroeconomics, at the Faculty
of Economics, University of Kragujevac. Her main research interests include: economic policy
and development, and sustainable development.
Slobodan Cvetanovic is a Professor at the Faculty of Economics, University of Nis, the Republic
of Serbia. He teaches courses on Macroeconomics, Financing the Capital Development of the
Economy, Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Management. He obtained his PhD deegre
in macroeconomics, at the Faculty of Economics, University of Belgrade. Narrower eld:
macroeconomics, economic development, innovation, sustainable development.
Smith, D. (2010). Exploring innovation. London, UK:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Stimson, R. J., Stough, R., & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), (2011).
Endogenous Regional Development: Perspectives,
Measurement and Empirical Investigation. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (2015). Economic Development.
London, UK: Addison-Wesley.
Trivić, N., & Petrov, V. (2014). Determination of the
economic growth rates by the growth quality. Economic
Horizons, 16(2), 125-135. doi: 10.5937/ekonhor1402129T
Ulrich, D. (1998). Intellectual capital - competence x
commitment. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 15.
Vazquez-Barquero, A. (2002). Endogenous Development
Networking, Innovation, Institutions and Cities. London,
UK: Routledge.
Venables, A. J. (1996). Equilibrium locations of vertically
linked industries. International economic review, 37(2), 341-
359. doi:10.2307/2527327
Williamson, J. G. (1965). Regional inequality and the
process of national development: A description of the
paerns. Economic development and cultural change, 13(4),
1-84.
Ekonomski horizonti, Maj - Avgust 2017, Volumen 19, Sveska 2, 109 - 123
UDC: 33 ISSN: 1450-863 X
© Ekonomski fakultet Univerziteta u Kragujevcu
www. ekfak.kg.ac.rs
Pregledni članak
UDK: 330.34: 332.1
doi:10.5937/ekonhor1702109D
TEORIJSKA EKSPLIKACIJA FAKTORA REGIONALNOG
RASTA I EKONOMSKE KONVERGENCIJE
(DIVERGENCIJE) REGIONA
Danijela Despotović*1 i Slobodan Cvetanović2
1
Ekonomski fakultet Univerziteta u Kragujevcu;
2
Ekonomski fakultet Univerziteta u Nišu
Tokom nekoliko poslednjih decenija postoji kontinuirano interesovanje ekonomista za istraživanje
ključnih faktora ekonomskog rasta i razvojne konvergencije (divergencije) regiona. Međutim, i pored
brojnih teorijskih i empirijskih istraživanja pomenutih kategorija, evidentno je da još uvek ne postoji
opšteprihvaćeno objašnjenje ključnih faktora regionalnog rasta. Istovetan zaključak je i kada se ima u vidu
postojanje veze između privrednog rasta zemlje i tendencije ka uvećanju, odnosno, smanjenju regionalnih
nejednakosti. U radu je data teorijska eksplikacija ključnih faktora regionalnog rasta i fenomena razvojne
konvergencije (divergencije) regiona, pet reprezentativnih pravaca u regionalnoj ekonomiji (klasičnog,
neoklasičnog, endogenog, nove ekonomske geograje i prostornih inovacionih sistema). Aktuelna
privredna stvarnost na globalnom planu, koja govori o sve većoj regionalnoj nejednakosti, potvrđuje
ispravnost teorijskih konsidercija predstavnika savremenih teorijskih pravaca u vezi sa analiziranim
pitanjima.
Ključne reči: regionalna ekonomija, privredni rast regiona, konvergencija (divergencija) regionalnog
razvoja, savremene teorije
JEL Classication: O11
UVOD
Istraživanja ključnih faktora privrednog rasta i razvoja
regiona prisutna su u ekonomskoj nauci počev od
sredine XX-og veka (Cvetanović, Filipović, Nikolić &
Belović, 2015). Premda u vezi sa ovim pitanjem nema
potrebnog jedinstva stavova teoretičara najznačajnijih
pravaca u regionalnoj ekonomiji, u ovom radu
usvojen je pristup u njihovom razvrstavanju
na klasične, neoklasične, teoretičare endogenih
objašnjenja privrednog rasta, autore nove ekonomske
geograje i pristalice v. prostornih inovacionih
sistema (Puljiz, 2009). Pritom, poslednja tri teorijska
pravca pripadaju grupi v. savremenih teorija
regionalnog razvoja. Analizom stavova teoretičara
koji reprezentuju pomenute teorijske pravce u
regionalnoj ekonomiji zapaža se promena težišta u
vrednovanju najznačajnijih faktora regionalnog rasta,
od proizvedenih i prirodnih faktora ka faktorima
* Korespondencija: D. Despotović, Ekonomski fakultet
Univerziteta u Kragujevcu, Đ. Pucara 3, 34000 Kragujevac,
Republika Srbija; e-mail: ddespotovic@kg.ac.rs
Ekonomski horizonti (2017) 19(2), 109 - 123
110
znanja, inovacija i umreženosti (Trivić & Petrov,
2014). Teorijske konsideracije o konvergenciji ili
divergenciji bruto domaćeg proizvoda po stanovniku
među regionima tokom vremena razlikuju se, takođe,
u zavisnosti od pripadnosti pojedinih istraživača
prethodno pomenutim pravcima u regionalnoj
ekonomiji.
Predmet istraživanja u radu predstavlja teorijska
eksplikacija ključnih faktora regionalnog rasta i
razvoja, kao i relacija između privrednog rasta zemlje
i regionalnih nejednakosti u ekonomskoj nauci.
Cilj je da se istraže najznačajniji faktori privrednog
rasta i razvoja regiona i relacije između privrednog
rasta zemlje i regionalnih nejednakosti, u značajnijim
teorijskim pravcima u regionalnoj ekonomiji, počev
od njenog nastanka tokom pedesetih godina XX-og
veka.
Shodno opredeljenom predmetu i postavljenom cilju
istraživanja, osnovna hipoteza rada je:
H0: Savremene teorije regionalnog razvoja
akcentiraju značaj nematerijalnih faktora
regionalnog rasta.
Pored osnovne, denisana je i sledeća pomoćna
hipoteza:
H1: Savremene teorije regionalnog razvoja
preferiraju stav o postojanju rastućih razvojnih
divergencija regiona.
U metodološkom smislu, u radu su izbegnute
eksplikacije složenih kvantitativnih predstavljanja
najznačajnijih faktora ekonomskog rasta, sagledavanog
na nacionalnom i regionalnom nivou, kao i odnosa
između privrednog rasta zemalja i regionalnih
nejednakosti, koja dominiraju u istraživanjima
ovih fenomena u relevantnoj ekonomskoj literaturi.
Učinjen je pokušaj da se u svetlu divergentnih
stavova pojedinih teorijskih pravaca u regionalnoj
ekonomiji povodom ova dva pitanja, deskriptivnom
analizom i gračkim eksplikacijama objasne ključni
faktori privrednog rasta regiona, kao i odnos između
privrednog rasta zemlje i regionalnih nejednakosti.
Strukturu rada, pored uvoda, zaključka i spiska
korišćene literature čine tri sekcije: Regionalni razvoj
i regionalne nejednakosti, O faktorima regionalnog
rasta u ekonomskoj teoriji, i Nelinearni karakter
odnosa između privrednog rasta zemlje i regionalnih
(ne)jednakosti. U prvoj sekciji učinjen je opšti osvrt na
faktore regionalnog razvoja i stavove najznačajnijih
predstavnika pojedinih pravaca u ekonomskoj teoriji
povodom relacija između privrednog rasta zemlje
i tendencija u kretanju regionalnih (ne)jednakosti.
Ukazuje se da na čisto konceptualnom planu,
regionalna politika ima za cilj da optimizira dva u
osnovi kontradiktorna cilja - ubrzanje privrednog rasta
zemlje, s jedne, i smanjenje razvojnih nejednakosti
njenih prostornih celina (regiona), s druge strane. U
drugoj su prezentovana viđenja, pristalica značajnijih
teorijskih pravaca na koje se naslanja savremena
regionalna ekonomija (klasični pravac, neoklasična
ekonomska škola, kejnsijanska ekonomska misao,
teorija privrednog razvoja, endogena teorije rasta,
v. nova ekonomska geograja, pristup prostornih
inovacionih sistema) povodom ključnih faktora
privrednog rasta regiona, dok se u trećoj sekciji daje
kritička analiza stavova ovih teorijskih pravaca po
pitanju međusobnog odnosa između privrednog rasta
zemlje i ispoljavanja regionalnih (ne)jednakosti.
REGIONALNI RAZVOJ I REGIONALNE
NEJEDNAKOSTI
Proučavanju faktora regionalnog rasta i ekonomske
konvergencije (divergencije) regiona moguće je
prići iz različitih uglova (Slika 1). R. Capello i G.
Perucca (2015) smatraju da su postulati teorije
lokacije i teorije regionalnog rasta i razvoja od
presudnog značaja u postupku vrednovanja faktora
regionalnog rasta. U zavisnosti od prihvaćene
koncepcije prostora, razlikuju se ključni pokretači
regionalnog razvoja. Na produktivnost faktora i
veličinu dohodovnih multiplikatora dominantan
uticaj imaju međuregionlna alokativna ekasnost
i unutarregionalni mulitiplikativni mehanizmi
(Stimson, Stough & Nijkamp, 2011, 10).
Tokom šeste i sedme decenije XX-og veka u ekonomski
najnaprednijim zemljama sveta, regionalna
ekonomija je bila zaokupljena sagledavanjem značaja
specijalizacije proizvodnje i rastuće uloge države
D. Despotović i S. Cvetanović, Teorijska eksplikacija faktora regionalnog rasta 111
u pokretanju regionalnog rasta. U osamdesetim i
devedesetim godinama XX-og veka, pod uticajem
globalizacije i snažnog tehnološkog razvoja došlo
je do ekonomskog uzleta pojedinih regiona koji
su istovremeno počeli da dominiraju svetskom
privredom.
O relacijama između veličine regionalnih
nejednakosti i dostignutog nivoa razvijenosti zemlje
među prvima je pisao J. G. Williamson (1965, 3-45).
On je rezultate svojih istraživanja prezentirao u vidu
zakonitosti po kojoj rast bruto domaćeg proizvoda
po stanovniku najpre uslovljava uvećanje, a nakon
dostizanja određenog nivoa bruto domaćeg proizvoda
po stanovniku dovodi do smanjenja regionalnih
nejednakosti (Slika 2).
Eksplicirana ideja J. G. Williamson-a o nelinearnoj
vezi između dostignutog nivoa bruto domaćeg
proizvoda po stanovniku u posmatranoj zemlji i
regionalnih nejednakosti u obliku obrnutog slova U
u potpunosti je preuzeta od S. Kuznets-a (1955), koji
je na temelju obimnih empirijskih istraživanja došao
do zaključka da u početnim fazama privrednog
razvoja postoji tendencija uvećanja nejednakosti
Slika 1 Razvoj regionalne ekonomije
Izvor: Stimson, Stough & Nijkamp, 2011, 10
Slika 2 J. G.
Williamson-ova
obrnuta U-kriva
Izvor: Davis & Weinstein, 1999, 5
Ekonomski horizonti (2017) 19(2), 109 - 123
112
u raspodeli bruto domaćeg proizvoda koja opada
na višim nivoima privredne razvijenosti zemlje.
Međutim, nezavisno od stava u vezi sa originalnošću
iznesene ideje, činjenica je da je J. G. Williamson
skrenuo pažnju regionalnih ekonomista na
nelinearnu prirodu odnosa između nivoa regionalnih
nejednakosti u okviru pojedinih zemalja i veličine
bruto domaćeg proizvoda po stanovniku, što se
ispostavilo kao izuzetno značajno stanovište prilikom
sagledavanja regionalnih aspekata privrednog rasta
i razvoja tokom poslednjih pedesetak godina. Na
čisto konceptualnom planu, regionalna politika ima
za cilj da optimizira dva u osnovi kontradiktorna
cilja - ubrzanje privrednog rasta zemlje, s jedne, i
smanjenje razvojnih nejednakosti njenih prostornih
celina (regiona), s druge strane. Stvaranje privredno
razvijenih regiona, sposobnih da se integrišu u
globalne ekonomske tokove, osnovni je cilj upravljanja
regionalnim razvojem (Maskell, 2000).
O FAKTORIMA REGIONALNOG RASTA U
EKONOMSKOJ TEORIJI
Najčešće se u ekonomskoj teoriji pod klasičnom
literaturom o privrednom razvoju podrazumevaju
istraživanja koja su realizovana polovinom XX-og
veka, u kojima je dominiralo sagledavanje značajnijih
faktora privrednog rasta i razvoja regiona i fenomena
regionalnih nejednakosti (Puljiz, 2011). Imajući u vidu
konceptualne osnove teorija regionalnog razvoja,
ovde se prvenstveno svrstavaju radovi F. Pérroux-a
(1955), G. Myrdal-a (1957) i A. O. Hirschman-a (1988).
Po mišljenju klasičnih teoretičara regionalnog
razvoja tri ključna faktora privrednog rasta regiona
su: zički kapital, prirodni kapital i ljudski kapital.
Povodom drugog pitanja koje se razmatra u radu,
decidno zastupaju stav o ispoljavanju regionalnih
nejednakosti.
Najpoznatije učenje esencijalnih pitanja regionalnog
razvoja svakako je teorija polova rasta F. Pérroux-a,
koja je postala gotovo sinonim za teoriju regionalnog
razvoja. F. Pérroux, kao i ostali klasični teoretičari
koji su se bavili tematikom regionalnog rasta, polazi
od činjenice da se razvoj ne odvija ravnomerno i
zaključuje da se razvoj koncentriše u pojedinim
žarišnim tačkama u prostoru, odnosno, drugim
rečima, on se polarizuje. F. Pérroux svoju analizu
smešta u realni, polarizovani prostor, sa znatnim
razlikama u pogodnostima lokacija za privlačenje
investicija i ubrzanje razvoja. F. Pérroux razlikuje talas
polarizacije, u kome se oformljuju takvi polovi rasta,
od talasa disperzije kada se razvojni podsticaji polova
rasta prenose na njihovu zonu uticaja. Intenzitet
talasa disperzije predstavlja i kriterijum za merenje
jačine samog pola razvoja (Pérroux, 1955).
Jedno od najpoznatijih objašnjenja problematike
polova rasta u regionalnoj ekonomiji je hipoteza
kružne i kumulativne uzročnosti G. Myrdal-a (1957).
Prema ovom autoru, faktori privrednog rasta regiona
(pre svega ljudski kapital) odlaze u regione koji se
brže razvijaju i ostvaruju rast prinosa, a udaljavaju se
od regiona sa sporijim rastom. Navedeni proces često
se primećuje u zemljama u razvoju.
A. O. Hirschman (1988) u svojim istraživanjima
posebno ukazuje na sledeća dva uzroka zaostajanja
ekonomski manje razvijenih regiona u odnosu
na napredne regione. Prvi se odnosi na pojavu
istiskivanja preduzeća iz manje razvijenih područja
pred konkurencijom preduzeća iz ekonomski
naprednih regiona, a drugi na migraciju školovanih
ljudi iz manje razvijenih regiona u ekonomski
naprednije sredine.
Neoklasičari su mišljenja da je rast vrednosti
proizvodnje na nacionalnom i regionalnom nivou
rezultat povećanja zičkog kapitala, uvećanja radne
snage i usavršavanja tehnologije (Barro & Sala-i-
Martin, 2004). Pretpostavljaju homogenost prostora u
kojem svaka tačka ima jednake lokacione pogodnosti.
Zemlje, odnosno regioni koji manje investiraju u zički
kapital, koji imaju nižu stopu rasta stanovništva i koji
relativno sporije usavršavaju tehnologiju, per se imaju
niže stope privrednog rasta u odnosu na zemlje, tj.
regione koji relativno više investiraju u rast zičkog
kapitala, imaju izraženiju stopu rasta stanovništva
i intenzivnije usavršavaju tehnologiju shvaćenu u
najširem smislu te reči (Slika 3).
Neoklasična objašnjenja privrednog rasta regiona
D. Despotović i S. Cvetanović, Teorijska eksplikacija faktora regionalnog rasta 113
polaze od pretpostavki o ispoljavanju ekonomije
obima, ponašanju privrednih subjekata u skladu
sa cenama utvrđenim na savršeno konkurentnim
tržištima, odsustvu eksternalija, postojanju
tehnoloških promena egzogenog karaktera. Ona,
u potpunosti, zanemaruju značaj institucionalnih
faktora i mogućeg stimulativnog uticaja regionalne
politike na privredni rast (Kurz & Salvadori, 2001).
Privredni rast zemalja, odnosno, regiona, shodno
logici neoklasičnih ekonomista, u kratkom i srednjem
roku temelji se na korišćenju veće količine zičkog
kapitala i rada. U dugom roku, privredni rast
regiona moguć je isključivo zahvaljujući tehnološkom
napretku.
Teoretičari endogenog razvoja smatraju da je
intenzitet ekonomskog rasta zemalja i regiona
značajno determinisan prirodom i kvalitetom
osnovnih privrednosistemskih odrednica zemlje i
politike ekonomskog razvoja konkretnog regiona
(Todaro & Smit, 2015).
Brojne verzije endogenih objašnjenja privrednog
rasta ukazuju na značaj postojanja odgovarajućih
institucionalnih aranžmana (Cvetanović et al, 2015).
Neki od njih tvrde da „lokacija industrije može
biti od presudnog značaja za regionalni razvoj, i da
su sinergetski efekti lokacija važni za tehnološke i
druge uticaje prelivanja i inovacija” (Dragičević, 2012,
20). Postoji konsenzus u regionalnoj ekonomiji da
endogena teorija rasta predstavlja njihov najvažniji
konceptualni okvir (Vazquez-Barquero, 2002).
Globalna ekonomska kriza, dodatno je potencirala
takvu ocenu (Jakopin, 2012).
Endogena teorija rasta odbacuje neoklasično viđenje
tri osnovna faktora privrednog rasta regiona.
Po njihovom mišljenju, pored faktora zičkog
kapitala, rada i tehnologije, od esencijalne važnosti
za dugoročno održivi regionalni rast (ORR) su
proizvodni (P), humani (H), socijalni (S), kreativni (K)
i ekološki (E) kapital (K) (Slika 4).
Uvećanjem pet odnosnih oblika kapitala u manje
razvijenim regionima kreira se potencijal za razvoj
i apsorbovanje podsticaja i razvojnih impulsa koji
dolaze iz ekonomski razvijenijih regiona. Manje
razvijeni regioni, pod pretpostavkom da ostanu
uskraćeni za bilo koji od navedenih oblika kapitala,
verovatno će ostati nerazvijeni, čak i u situaciji kada
im budu dodeljena određena sredstva za razvoj.
Značaj proizvodnog kapitala potiče iz neoklasičnih
teorija rasta po kojima proizvodnju dominantno
determinišu tradicionalni faktori proizvodnje,
rad i zički kapital. Fizički kapital se u literaturi o
regionalnom razvoju najčešće sreće pod nazivom
kapitalna dobra, čija je ključna karakteristika da
su ona output u prethodnom, a input u narednom
procesu proizvodnje. Najvažnije komponente zičkog
kapitala su proizvodna oprema (mašine, alati i dr.).
Značaj zičkog kapitala u pokretanju privrednog
rasta regiona određuje njegova struktura, inenzitet
Slika 3 Faktori privrednog rasta regiona u interpretaciji neoklasičnih ekonomista
Izvor: Armstrong & Taylor, 2000
Ekonomski horizonti (2017) 19(2), 109 - 123
114
uvećanja i ekasnost korišćenja. Poseban segment
zičkog kapitala predstavlja infrastruktura.
Humani kapital se ubraja u centralne elemente
savremene teorije privrednog rasta. Najznačajnije
komponte humanog kapitala su obrazovni nivo i
zdravstveni status populacije, motivisanost ljudi za
rad i razvoj (Ulrich, 1998; F. Luthans, K. W. Luthans
& B. C. Luthans, 2004). Uvećanje humanog kapitala
donosi rast bruto domaćeg proizvoda zemalja i
regiona (Lucas, 1988). Važnost ulaganja u humani
kapital „prepoznat je u savremenim privredama,
posebno u uslovima sveobuhvatne primene rezultata
nauke u proizvodnom procesu, intenzivnog razvoja
novih tehnologija i kontinuiranog i dinamičnog
usavršavanja formi i metoda upravljanja kao
i organizacije proizvodnje. Sigurno je da su u
modernim društvima, obrazovanje, veštine i znanje
ključne komponente produktivnosti pojedinaca i
privrede u celini“ (Cvetanović & Despotović, 2014, 2).
Znanje, kao komponenta humanog kapitala, pokazuje
mogućnosti da se uvećava, i da se koristi bez ikakvih
ograničenja. Stoga na značaju dobijaju kategorije
poput produktivnosti sektora istraživanja i razvoja,
kognitivnog kapaciteta, primena i difuzija znanja
(Lundvall, 1992; Jones, 2004).
Socijalni (društveni) kapital je kapital saradnje,
međusobnog delovanja, uzajamnog poverenja i
uzajamne pomoći ljudi u ekonomskim procesima. Ne
može biti u privatnom vlasništvu i ima atribute javnog
dobra. Dobrim delom predstavlja rezultat pravnog,
političkog i institucionalnog ambijenta u kome
ekonomski akteri funkcionišu, odnosno obavljaju
svoje funkcije i realizuju ciljeve. Reč je o kapitalu
trajnih i u određenom stepenu institucionalizovanih
odnosa između pojedinaca i organizacija, koji podstiču
kreiranje ekonomskih vrednosti. U literaturi se sreću
stavovi da jedino sudelovanje ljudi u formalnim
organizacijama vodi stvaranju socijalnog kapitala, ali
nisu sporadične ni dijametralno suprotne reeksije
u kojima najmanja participacija ljudi u društvenim
pokretima predstavlja komponentu socijalnog
kapitala. J. S. Coleman (1988, 95-120), kao jedan od
tvoraca koncepta socijalnog kapitala, određuje ovu
kategoriju preko njegovih funkcija. Mišljenja je da
socijalni kapital omogućuje individualne uspehe,
budući da pojedinci iz njega izvlače koristi. Predstavlja
poseban oblik javnog dobra koje je potencijalno na
raspolaganju svima uključenim u sistem društvenih
veza i odnosa. Po R. Putnam-u (2008, 20), socijalni
kapital čine atributi organizacije društva poput
poverenja, normi, a takođe i najraznovrsnijih mreža
koji mogu da unaprede društvenu ekasnost putem
koordinisane akcije.
Kreativni kapital ima fundamentalni značaj za
ekonomsku dinamiku regiona (Florida, 2002; 2004). R.
Florida-ina (2004) identikacija kreativne klase među
„ljudima koji dodaju ekonomsku vrednost putem
svoje kreativnosti” ide dalje od pristupa zasnovanih
na tradicionalnim pokazateljima ljudskog kapitala kao
faktora privrednog rasta. R. Florida (2002) razrađuje
teorijski model po kome prisustvo kreativne klase
na bilo kom mestu dovodi do unapređenja lokalne
kreativnosti, koja se ogleda u rastućoj inovativnosti i
armaciji tehnološki intenzivnih sektora proizvodnje.
Tvrdi da je kreativnost rezultat društvene interakcije,
autentičnosti i identiteta, koji zajedno generišu moć
prostora i posledično ekonomsku dinamiku na
regionalnom nivou. Ideja prema kojoj interakcija
između pojedinaca vodi ka pozitivnim efektima rasta
jeste, naravno, u saglasnosti sa širom literaturom o
učenju i prelivanju znanja na regionalnim tržištima
rada.
Slika 4 Faktori privrednog rasta regiona u
interpretaciji pristalica endogene teorije
Izvor: Stimson, Stough & Nijkamp, 2011, 10
D. Despotović i S. Cvetanović, Teorijska eksplikacija faktora regionalnog rasta 115
Ekološki kapital čine uslovi pogodni za život i rad
u nekom regionu. Ekološki čista sredina, postojanje
različitih sadržaja za rekreaciju, sport, kulturu,
obrazovanje i sl, značajno povećavaju inovativni
potencijal regiona, a time utiču na rast kapaciteta
regiona za održivi rast.
Objašnjenje ključnih faktora privrednog rasta
regiona endogenih teoretičara predstavlja značajan
kvalitativni pomak u odnosu na dominantne stavove
u regionalnoj ekonomiji. Endogena teorija regionalnog
razvoja „beleži trostruku promenu paradigme kada je
u pitanju jačanje endogenih sposobnosti regionalnog
rasta: od razvojnih faktora ka inovativnim faktorima,
od ’tvrdih’ ka ’mekim’ faktorima koji su neopipljivi
- lokalna sinergija među akterima, pozitivan način
upravljanja, visok nivo humanog kapitala i imovine
zasnovane na znanju - i od funkcionalnog ka
kognitivnom pristupu” (Molnar, 2013, 49).
Pomak u objašnjenju ključnih faktora privrednog
rasta regiona i, posebno ispoljavanja razvojnih
neravnoteža, predstavljaju modeli nove ekonomske
geograje. Oni su počeli intenzivno da se razvijaju
nakon objavljivanja rada R. Krugman-a (1990, 483-499).
Tokom poslednje decenije XX-og veka publikovan
je veći broj radova iz ove oblasti (Venables, 1996;
Fujita, Krugman & Venables, 2001). U godinama s
kraja XX-og i početka XXI-og veka, literaturu o novoj
ekonomskoj geograji posebno su obogatili: J. Baldwin
i R. E. Caves (1997), G. I. Oaviano i J. F. Thisse (2005),
i K. Behrens i J. F. Thisse (2007). Prеmа pristupu nove
ekonomske geograje, osnovni faktori privrednog
rasta regiona su trаnspоrtni trоškоvi, еkstеrnаliје,
prinosi na ulоžеnа srеdstvа, iz jednostavnog razloga
što se pojedina preduzeća na osnovu njih opredeljuju
za konkretnu teritorijalnu lokaciju.
U godinama s kraja XX-og veka došlo je do armacije
većeg broja različitih pristupa regionalnom razvoju
koji u inovacijama vide ključni pokretač privrednog
rasta regiona (Puljiz, 2011). U literaturi se ovi koncepti
sreću pod nazivima: industrijski klasteri, inovativni
miljei, samoučeći regioni.
Njihova teritorijalna obuhvatnost je različita, i kreće
se od relativno malih (industrijski klasteri), do većih
teritorija (samoučeći regioni). Neretko se pomenuti
koncepti objedinjeno nazivaju prostorni inovacioni
sistemi (Slika 5).
Prostorni inovacioni sistemi se sastoje od većeg
broja međusobno povezanih rmi u pojedinim
proizvodnim sektorima, uključujući dobavljače i
pružaoce mnogobrojnih usluga, kao i niz pratećih
institucija poput univerziteta, instituta, laboratorija
itd.
U literaturi se najviše pisalo o industrijskim
klasterima kao obliku prostornih inovacionih sistema
i sve važnijem pokretaču regionalne konkurentnosti.
Klasteri označavaju svojevrsni princip umrežavanja
industrije, javnih i privatnih institucija i industrijskog
sektora. Oni mogu doprineti poboljšanju industrijske
proizvodnje povezivanjem učesnika proizvodnog
lanca nekog sektora proizvodnje. Rečju, predstavljaju
svojevrsnu platformu za saradnju različitih subjekata,
s ciljem unapređenja konkurentnosti zahvaljujući
funkcionalnoj povezanosti i mogućnosti deljenja
znanja i iskustva, radi ekasne realizacije novih
poslovnih poduhvata i promocije proizvedenih
dobara na nacionalnim i međunarodnim tržištima.
Umrežavanjem zainteresovanih aktera na realizaciji
različitih poslovnih poduhvata može se doprineti
jačanju konkurentnosti poslovnih subjekata,
unapređenju regionalne konkurentnosti, kao i
ravnomernijem regionalnom razvoju.
Industrijski klasteri su geografske koncentracije
proizvodnih rmi, formiranih u cilju smanjenja
troškova, korišćenjem zajedničkih kanala nabavke
i distribucije, marketing strategije, itd. Мotivi za
poslovno udruživanje većeg broja proizvodnih
rmi na određenoj teritoriji su brojni. To mogu biti:
zajednički nastup na tržištima na kojima nije velika
verovatnoća da se rme mogu probiti samostalno,
zajedničko korišćenje visoko specijalizovanih
usluga, stručne radne snage, opreme koja se koristi
povremeno itd. Klaster jedne industrijske grane
odlikuje se čitavim lancima funkcionalno povezanih
aktivnosti, pri čemu svaka aktivnost znači dodatnu
vrednost, počev od dobavljača do nalnog proizvoda
i njihove tržišne realizacije. U ovim lancima učestvuju
mnogobrojni davaoci najrazličitijih usluga, nansijske
institucije, putna i informatička infrastruktura,
Ekonomski horizonti (2017) 19(2), 109 - 123
116
odnosno, sve što neposredno ili posredno deluje
na aktivnosti drugih članica klastera. Razvoj
industrije vodi ubrzanom privrednom razvoju,
dok unapređenje njene inovativnosti stumuliše
promenu privredne i tržišne strukture. Razvoj više
proizvodnih preduzeća sa srodnim aktivnostima
na geografski bliskim lokacijama, dovodi postepeno
do promena lokalnog okruženja. Okruženje
počinje da se prilagođava poslovanju preduzeća
privlačenjem kupaca, radnika, potencijalnih partnera
i drugih subjekata koji žele da ostvare nansijske
koristi. Prisustvo snažne lokalne konkurencije
predstavlja snažan stimulans za stvaranje i očuvanje
konkurentske prednosti. Industrije iste delatnosti,
locirane u jednom regionu imaju više šansi da budu
međunarodno konkurentne (italijanska tekstilna
industrija, švajcarska farmaceutska industrija) nego
jake industrije koje samostalno deluju u regionu.
Deformisanost konkurencije, po pravilu, znači
da zaštićena preduzeća traže subvencije države,
što često ima za posledicu pad konkurentnosti u
međunarodnim okvirima. Smatra se da industrijski
klaster jednog regiona ima komparativnih prednosti
samim tim što su produktivnost i veličina klastera
relativno veliki u odnosu na druge regione (Porter,
2008, 184). Pristup novim, inovativnim tehnologijama
olakšan je kroz udruživanje u klastere, zbog čega
raste značaj i uloga klastera i sa aspekta imperativa
unapređenja inovativnosti.
Najpoznatiji inovativni miljei u svetu su Silicon Valley
i Boston-Massachuses (SAD), Darmstadt i Munchen
(Nemačka), Cambridge (Velika Britanija), Grenoble i
Sophia-Antipolis (Francuska), Pisa i Piacenza (Italija).
U njima je ostvarena „koncentracija inovativnih
institucija“ i rmi što dovodi „do stvaranja
kolektivnog procesa učenja u kojem se razvoj znanja
i vještina unutar jednog poduzeća ili istraživačke
institucije širi na ostale aktere“ (Puljiz 2011, 75).
Zahvaljujući činjenici da takvu zajednicu karakterišu
čvrste društvene i poslovne veze, proces kreiranja
novih znanja višestruko je izraženiji. Nova znanja
se ovaploćuju u inovacije proizvoda i procesa,
što doprinosi kreiranju konkurentskih prednosti
pojedinih regiona (Armstrong & Taylor, 2000).
Razvoj nekog od oblika prostornih inovacionih
sistema postao je jedan od prioriteta mnogih država,
što je razumljivo, imajući u vidu činjenicu da se radna
mesta u njima izdvajaju po produktivnosti i nivou
zarada. Međutim, problem je što još uvek postoji veliki
jaz između rezultata naučnih istraživanja i specičnih
saveta o konkretnim državnim intervencijama.
Jedan broj analitičara, s razlogom, primećuje da se
budućim istraživanjima mora proniknuti u prirodu
regionalnih preduslova neophodnih za uspeh klastera
(Armstrong, 1995).
Prethodno navedeni koncepti regionalnog rasta se
odlikuju multidisciplinarnim pristupom u pravom
smislu te reči. Računaju sa brojnim inovacijama iz
oblasti privrede, administracije itd. Brojni faktori koji
Slika 5 Prostorni inovacioni sistemi
Izvor: Autori, prema: Puljiz, 2009, 40, na osnovu: Cheshire & Malecki, 2004
D. Despotović i S. Cvetanović, Teorijska eksplikacija faktora regionalnog rasta 117
interesuju istraživače pripadaju kategoriji veličina koje
nije uvek jednostavno izmeriti, poput međusobnog
poverenja aktera, kvaliteta institucija, preduzetničke
sposobnosti i sl. Prostorni inovacioni sistemi posebno
vode računa o razvijenosti i značaju institucija, pod
kojima se imaju u vidu centri istraživanja i razvoja
preduzeća, univerziteta, javnog sektora a neretko, čak
i politike razvoja nauke i tehnologije na nacionalnom
nivou. (Puljiz, 2009; 2011).
Prethodno analizirani stavovi potvrđuju hipotezu H0
koja govori da savremene teorije regionalnog razvoja
(teorija endogenog rasta, nova ekonomska geograja,
učenje o prostornim inovacionim sistemima)
akcentiraju značaj nematerijalnih faktora regionalnog
rasta.
NELINEARNI KARAKTER ODNOSA
IZMEĐU PRIVREDNOG RASTA ZEMLJE I
EKONOMSKIH (NE)JEDNAKOSTI
Ispoljavanje nelinearnog odnosa između privrednog
rasta zemlje i regionalnih nejednakosti, F. Pérroux
(1955, 307-340), objašnjavao je postojanjem polova
rasta. On je proces sustizanja razvijenijih od strane
ekonomski manje naprednih regiona vezao za
ispoljavanje efekata akceleracije i širenja razvoja.
F. Pérroux se u najvećoj meri oslonio na tezu da
inovativno ponašanje preduzetnika predstavlja ključ
privrednog rasta (Schumpeter, 1961, 65). Dinamičan
razvoj polova rasta označava v. proces polarizacije,
dok proces sustizanja razvijenih od strane ekonomski
manje razvijenih područja označava efekat širenja
razvoja. Dva su osnovna načina putem kojih se odvija
polarizacija. Prvi je mehanizam nestajanja rmi
lociranih u manje razvijenim oblastima, kao posledice
tehnološke i organizacione superiornosti preduzeća
iz razvijenijih područja. Drugi proces predstavljaju
migracije obrazovanih ljudi iz manje naprednih u
ekonomski prosperitetnija područja. Neminovni
ishod ovog procesa je smanjenje humanog kapitala
kojim raspolažu manje razvijeni regioni i po tom
osnovu njihovo dugoročno ekonomsko zaostajanje.
Ova pojava dovodi do usporavanja privrednog rasta
pojedinih regiona. S druge strane, efekti širenja
razvoja javljaju se kada razvoj centra povuče za sobom
i privredni rast periferije, na primer, zbog povećanja
tražnje za proizvodima preduzeća iz periferije
(Clunies-Ross, Forsyth & Hug, 2009).
Dijametralno suprotno stanovište o relacijama
privrednog rasta zemlje i regionalnih nejednakosti
može se sresti kod neoklasičara. Najvažnija poruka
neoklasičnih teoretičara odnosi se na tendenciju
smanjenja razvojnih nejednakosti regiona u skladu
sa napredovanjem privrednog rasta zemlje. Razvojna
konvergencija regiona, po neoklasičarima, logičan je
rezultat manifestacije opadajućih prinosa činilaca
zičkog kapitala i rada.
Neoklasična teorija sugeriše da lokacija nema
bitniju ulogu u generisanju privrednog rasta. Za
preduzetnike je, naime, po mišljenju neoklasičara,
nevažno da li se radi o centralnom ili perifernom
regionu, budući da oni odluke o investicionim
ulaganjima donose u skladu sa očekivanim prinosima.
Tvrdnja da ekonomski manje razvijeni regioni imaju
izraženije stope rasta po stanovniku u odnosu na
razvijenije regione, kao posledica relativno manje
ispoljene tendencije opadajućih prinosa proizvodnih
faktora u ekonomski manje razvijenim sredinama,
bez uzimanja u obzir drugih momenata, u teoriji i
politici privrednog razvoja poznata je kao hipoteza
apsolutne konvergencije. Ova hipoteza je tokom
sedamdesetih i osamdesetih godina XX-og veka
bila predmet brojnih provera i čestih osporavanja
u ekonomskim istraživanjima (Barro & Sala-i-
Martin, 2004, 56-57). Pretpostavljajući da su regioni
u strukturnom smislu neuporedivo homogenije
celine u poređenju sa pojedinim zemljama, proizlazi
da je teza o apsolutnoj konvergenciji primenljivija
u analizi regionalnih nejednakosti u poređenju sa
istraživanjem ekonomskih neravnoteža pojedinih
zemalja.
Imajuću u vidu polazne premise neoklasičnih
razmišljanja, logično je pretpostaviti postojanje
izražene međuregionalne pokretljivosti proizvodnih
faktora. U tom kontekstu, smerovi kretanja faktora
kapitala i rada, determinisani su očekivanim
prinosima faktora. Vlasnici kapitala će usmeravati
investiciona ulaganja ka regionima u kojima je
Ekonomski horizonti (2017) 19(2), 109 - 123
118
moguće ostvariti najveće prote, dok će se radna
snaga kretati ka područjima u kojima su najveće
zarade. Dalji sled događaja, shodno logici neoklasične
teorije, jeste da će regione sa visokim koecijentom
kapitalne opremljenosti odlikovati niski prinosi
kapitala i visoke zarade. Kapital i rad će se kretati
u različitim pravcima. Regioni sa nižim nivoom
koecijenta kapitalne opremljenosti rada biće
potencijalno atraktivni preduzetnicima za ulaganje
kapitala usled visokih prinosa, dok će regioni koje
karakterišu relativno visoke zarade biti privlačni
radnicima iz drugih područja. Dugoročno, mora
doći do ujednačavanja odnosa između kapitala i rada
(koecijenta kapitalne opremljenosti rada) u pojedinim
regionima, odnosno, do konvergencije regiona po
kriterijumu vrednosti ostvarene proizvodnje po
zaposlenom. Međutim, imajući u vidu činjenicu da
su brojna empirijska istraživanja konstatovala rastuće
regionalne nejednakosti, proizlazi da je poruka o
apsolutnoj konvergenciji regiona u dugom roku u
suprotnosti sa ekonomskom stvarnošću. To znači da
neoklasični model rasta nije ponudio odgovarajuće
smernice kreatorima politika regionalnog razvoja za
prevazilaženje rastućih regionalnih divergencija u
okviru pojedinih zemalja.
Za neoklasičare, perfektna konkurencija i opadajući
prinosi, koji oblikuju аmbiјеnt u kоjem еkоnоmski
subјеkti mаksimizirајu svоје ciljnе funkciје, nikada
nisu bilu dovedeni u pitanje. Ove teorijske postavke
projektovane na fenomen privrednog rasta regiona,
impliciraju stav o neminovnosti njihove ekonomske
konvergencije u dugom roku. Drugim rečima,
ekonomisti neoklasične provenijencije smatraju da
je, dugoročno gledajući, eliminisanje regionalnih
nejednakosti u okviru pojedinih zemalja jedino
logičan ishod razvojnih procesa tokom vremena.
Regionalna stvarnost u mnogim zemljama,
međutim, bila je potpuno drugačija od ove tvrdnje
neoklasičara. Naime, neretko su na delu bile izražene
razvojne divergencije regiona. Spor privredni rast
mnogih regiona, kao i tendencija rastućih razvojnih
divergencija tokom sedamdesetih godina XX-og veka,
uprkos ogromnim investicijama u povećanje zičkog
kapitala, značio je da na privredni rast regiona deluje
mnogo faktora. Stoga je poruka endogenih teorija
rasta da regioni u okviru posmatrane zemlje najčešće
neće ostvarivati v. ravnotežnu stopu ekonomskog
rasta i da mogu zahvaljujući delovanju endogenih
faktora rasti neuporedivo intenzivnije u odnosu na
v. ravnotežni rast. Regioni ne moraju bezuslovno
ekonomski konvergirati. Ispoljavanja neopadajućih
prinosa faktora povezana su sa efektima v. učenja
radom, fenomenom prelivanja znanja, aktivnostima
istraživanja i razvoja, obrazovanjem kao faktorom
povećanja humanog kapitala, itd. (Romer, 2006, 13;
Cvetanović & Despotović, 2014, 13).
Koncept v. učenja radom potiče od K. Arrow-a
(1971, 131-149). Pojedinci su bolji ukoliko više
proizvedu. Pojedini proizvođači uče, pored ostalog,
i iz praktičnog iskustva drugih. Inkorporirajući ovo
učenje, hipotezom „prelivanja znanja”, P. M. Romer
(1986) je obnovio zanimanje makroekonomista za
ključna pitanja ekonomskog rasta zemalja i regiona. Po
P. M. Romer-u, nezavisno od činjenice „što proizvodna
funkcija za svako pojedino preduzeće može imati
standardnu neoklasičnu formu, na makronivou
ne mora doći do ispoljavanja zakona o opadajućim
prinosima. To je po njemu moguće zahvaljujući
činjenici da ekasnost faktora kapitala pojedinačnog
preduzeća može da raste zbog uvećanja stokova
zičkog kapitala u drugim preduzećima“ (Cvetanović
& Despotović, 2014, 13). Dakle, rast zičkog kapitala
na makronivou pokreće talas pozitivnih eksternih
efekata, što znači da u privredi kao celini ne mora
neizostavno da dođe do opadajućih prinosa faktora
(Mervar, 2003).
Aplikativnost poruka endogenih modela rasta u
objašnjenju regionalnih divergencija utemeljena je u
polazištu da su procesi prenošenja znanja značajnim
delom geografski limitirani. Međuljudska interakcija,
povezana sa nivoom obrazovanja stanovništva na
lokalnom nivou, ima za rezultat očuvanje postojećeg
i privlačenje novog humanog kapitala. Uvećanje
ljudskog kapitala vodi inovacijama i privrednom
rastu. Regioni najbogatiji ovim oblikom kapitala
ostvaruju dominantnu poziciju u inovativnosti u
poređenju sa regionima koji poseduju relativno manji
obim ljudskog kapitala (Puljiz, 2011). Ekonomski
manje razvijeni regioni ne predstavljaju privlačna
mesta za školovane pojedince (manje zarade,
D. Despotović i S. Cvetanović, Teorijska eksplikacija faktora regionalnog rasta 119
nesigurni izvori nansiranja preduzetničkih
poduhvata) predodređeni su na trajno ekonomsko
zaostajanje.
Endogeni modeli rasta u zadovoljavajućem stepenu
objašnjavaju razvojnu divergenciju regiona (razvijena
područja više ulažu u obrazovanje, istraživanje i
razvoj, u stvaranje inovacionog ambijenta). Međutim,
važnija je njihova poruka o mogućoj konvergenciji,
odnosno, ekonomskom sustizanju razvijenijih od
strane manje razvijenih regiona, i potrebi da se
najrazličitijim intervencijama regionalne politike
deluje u pravcu povećanja inovacionog kapaciteta
određenih teritorijalnih područja.
Po P. Krugman-u (1990), uvećanje, odnosno,
smanjenje regionalnih nejednakosti određuje uticaj
centripetalnih i centrifugalnih sila. Prve stimulišu
koncentraciju ekonomskih aktivnosti regiona, dok
druge deluju u suprotnom pravcu. Kada nadvladaju
centripetalne sile, ishod su rastuće regionalne
nejednakosti. Obrnuto, kada nadjačaju centrifugalne
sile dolazi do ispoljavanja regionalnih konvergencija
(Slika 6).
Činjenica je, međutim, da izostaje kompetentna
empirijska provera ključnih poruka nove ekonomske
geograje o ispoljavanju razvojnih nejednakosti
regiona. Očigledno, radi se o velikoj zahtevnosti
modela nove ekonomske geograje, ne samo u
pogledu raspoloživosti neophodnih podataka,
već i problema vezanih za formulisanje modela
ekonomskog rasta regiona i kretanja regionalnih
nejednakosti.
Noviji pristupi u teoriji regionalnog razvoja, označeni
u ovom radu kao prostorni inovacioni sistemi,
zastupaju stanovište o sve većoj regionaloj divergenciji
u savremenim uslovima privređivanja. Ovo se zasniva
na činjenici da se privredni rast regiona, po njihovom
tumačenju, temelji na prostornoj koncentraciji visoko
inovativnih rmi koje omogućavaju ne samo bliske
međusobne veze, već i veze sa ostalim akterima na
konkretnom prostoru. Primera radi, zahvaljujući svojoj
inovacionoj superiornosti u određenim oblastima,
regioni poput Silicijumske doline u SAD, Inovacionog
centra Soja Antipolis u Francuskoj, Tehnološkog
parka Pretorija u Južnoj Africi, Tehnološkog parka
Hsinču na Tajvanu, Centra za softverski inženjering
Bangalor u Indiji, postali su simbol ekonomske moći
u svetskim relacijama tokom poslednjih tridesetak
godina (Smith, 2010, 266).
Prethodno eksplicirani stavovi potvrđuju hipotezu
H1, po kojoj savremeni pravci u regionalnoj teoriji,
u zadovoljavajućem stepenu, objašnjavaju fenomen
razvojne divergencije regiona.
ZAKLJUČAK
Interesovanje zа istraživanje ključnih faktora
regionalnog rasta, kao i prirode i karaktera odnosa
između privrednog rasta zemlje i regionalnih
nejednakosti, tokom poslednjih decenija doživelo je
snažnu ekspanziju. Međutim, i pored intenzivnog
razvoja regionalne ekonomije, evidentno je da još
uvek nema jedinstvenog stava istraživača po ovim
pitanjima.
Doprinosom rada može se smatrati analiza stavova
pet značajnijih pravaca u regionalnoj ekonomiji,
Slika 6 Centripetalne i centrifugalne sile u modelu
nove ekonomske geograje
Izvor: Autori, prema: Puljiz, 2011, 71, na osnovu:
Krugman, 1990
Ekonomski horizonti (2017) 19(2), 109 - 123
120
po pitanjima ključnih faktora regionalnog rasta,
s jedne, i nelinearnog karaktera odnosa između
privrednog rasta zemlje i regionalnih nejednakosti,
s druge strane. Pritom, u radu se došlo do zaključka
da su viđenja predstavnika savremenih pravaca u
regionalnoj ekonomiji jedinstvena u stavu da među
faktorima regionalnog rasta dominantnu ulogu imaju
nematerijalni faktori, a da razvojna divergencija
regiona korespondira sa privrednim rastom
posmatrane zemlje.
Osnovna i pomoćna hipoteza su kroz istraživački
proces testirane i potvrđene.
Ograničenje sprovedenih istraživanja je izostavljanje
kvantitativnih eksplikacija, što je u određenom
smislu razumljivo, budući da je teško precizirati uticaj
nematerijalnih faktora regionalnog rasta, s jedne, kao
i složene odnose između privrednog rasta zemlje i
ispoljavanja regionalnih nejednakosti, s druge strane.
Mišljenja smo da rezultati istraživanja mogu biti od
koristi kreatorima regionalnih politika u malim i
nedovoljno razvijenim zemljama, kao što je Republika
Srbija, da nematerijalnim faktorima regionalnog
rasta poklone veću pažnju u osmišljavanju politika
regionalnog razvoja. Stoga bi dalja proučavanja mogla
biti usmerena na kvantikaciju uticaja nematerijalnih
faktora na regionalni rast, kao i na preciziranje
karaktera nelinearnog odnosa između privrednog
rasta zemlje i ispoljavanja regionalnih nejednakosti.
REFERENCE
Armstrong, H. (1995). Convergence among regions of the
European Union, 1950-1990. Papers in Regional Science, 74(2),
143 -152.
doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5597.1995.tb00633.x
Armstrong, H., & Taylor, J. (2000). Regional economics and
policy. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Arrow, K. (1971). The economic implications of learning by
doing. In F. H. Hahn (Ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth
(pp. 131-149). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-1-
349-15430-2_11
Baldwin, J. R., & Caves, R. E. (1997). International competition
and industrial performance: Allocative eciency,
productive eciency, and turbulence. Statistics Canada
Research Paper, No 108, 31 Pages.
Barro, R., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2004). Economic Growth.
Cambridge, Massachusees, US: MIT Press.
Behrens, K., & Thisse, J. F. (2007). Regional economics: A
new economic geography perspective. Regional Science
and Urban Economics, 37(4), 457-465. doi.org/10.1016/j.
regsciurbeco.2006.10.001
Capello, R., & Perucca, G. (2015). Openness to globalization
and regional growth paerns in CEE countries: from the
EU accession to the economic crisis. Journal of Common
Market Studies, 53(2), 218-236.
doi: 10.1111/jcms.12157
Cheshire, P. C., & Malecki, E. J. (2004). Growth, development,
and innovation: A look backward and forward. In J. G.
Raymond & M. Florax (Eds.), Fifty Years of Regional Science
(pp. 249-267). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-
3-662-07223-3_11
Clunies-Ross, A., Forsyth, D., & Hug, M. (2009). Development
Economics. McGraw-Hill.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. American journal of sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Cvetanović, S., & Despotović, D. (2014). Knowledge as the
component of human capital in economic growth models.
Škola biznisa, 1, 1-17. doi 10.5937/skolbiz1-5976
Cvetanović, S., Filipović, M., Nikolić, M., & Belović, D. (2015).
Endogenous growth theory and regional development
pol ic y. Spatium, 34, 10-17. doi: 10.2298/spat1534010c
Davis, D. R., & Weinstein, D. E. (1999). Economic geography
and regional production structure: An empirical
investigation. European economic review, 43(2), 379-407. doi.
org/10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00063-4
Dragičević, M. (2012) Konkurentnost - Projekat za Hrvatsku.
Zagreb, Croatia: Školska knjiga.
Florida, R. (2002). The economic geography of talent. Annals
of the Association of American geographers, 92(4), 743-755.
doi:
10.1111/1467-8306.00314
Florida, R. (2004). The Rise of the Creative Class: And how It’s
Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life.
(Paperback Ed.).
D. Despotović i S. Cvetanović, Teorijska eksplikacija faktora regionalnog rasta 121
Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. J. (2001). The
Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade.
Massachuses, USA: Cambridge, MIT Press Books.
Hirschman, A. O. (1988). The strategy of economic development.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Jakopin, E. (2012). Post-crisis reallocation of growth factors.
Economic Horizons, 14(2), 79-90. doi: 10.5937/ekon hor1202077J
Jones, C. (2004). Growth and Ideas. NBER, Working Paper
10767, Cambridge, MA.
Krugman, P. (1990). Increasing returns and economic
geog raphy. Journal of Plitical Economy, 99(3), 483-499.
Kurz, H. D., & Salvadori, N. (2001). The aggregate neoclassical
theory of distribution and the concept of a given value of
capital: A reply. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,
12(4), 479-485. doi.org/10.1016/S0954-349X(01)00015-7
Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality.
The American economic review, 45(1), 1-28.
Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic
development. Journal of monetary economics, 22(1), 3-42. doi.
org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90168-7
Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Toward
a theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London, UK:
Frances Pinter.
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004).
Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social
capital. Business horizons, 47(1), 45-50. doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2003.11.007
Maskell, P. (2000) Future Challenges and Institutional
Preconditions for Regional Development Policy Posed by
Economic Globalisation. Possible Paths for Development:
The Next 10-15 Years for the Nordic Countries in a
European Perspective. In I. Karppi (Ed.), Future Challenges
and Institutional Prerequisites for Regional Development Policy
(pp. 27-87). Stockholm, Sweden: Nordregio Report
No.
2000-1.
Mervar, A. (2003). Esej o novijim doprinosima teoriji
ekonomskog rasta. Ekonomski pregled, 54(3-4), 369-392.
Molnar, D. (2013). Regionalne nejednakosti i privredni rast: Primer
Srbije. Neobjavljena doktorska disertacija, Ekonomski
fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Beograd, Republika
Srbija.
Myrdal, G. (1957). Rich Lands and Poor: The Road to World
Prosperity. New York, NY: Harper.
Oaviano, G. I., & Thisse, J. F. (2005). New economic
geography: What about the N? Environment and Planning A,
37(10), 1707-1725.
Pérroux, F. (1955). La Notion de Pole de Croissance. Économie
Appliquée, 1-2.
Porter, M. (2008). O konkurenciji. Beograd, Republika Srbija:
FEFA .
Puljiz, J. (2009). Čimbenici regionalnog razvoja i regionalnih
nejednakosti u Republici Hrvatskoj. Neobjavljena doktorska
disertacija, Ekonomski fakultet, Sveučilište u Splitu, Split,
Republika Hrvatska.
Puljiz, J. (2011). Teorije regionalnog razvoja u ekonomskoj
literaturi. Godišnjak TITIUS: Godišnjak za interdisciplinarna
istraživanja porječja Krke, 3(3), 63-82.
Putnam, R. (2008). Kuglati sam. Novi Sad, Republika Srbija:
Mediteran Publishing.
Romer, D. (2006). Advanced macroeconomics. Boston, US:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth.
The journal of political economy, 94(5), 1002-1037. doi.
org/10.1086/261420
Schumpeter, J. A. (1961). The theory of economic development:
An inquiry into prots, capital, credit, interest, and the business
cycle. New York, NY: A Galaxy Book.
Smith, D. (2010). Exploring innovation. London, UK: McGraw-
Hill Higher Education.
Stimson, R. J., Stough, R., & Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), (2011).
Endogenous Regional Development: Perspectives, Measurement
and Empirical Investigation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (2015). Economic Development.
London, UK: Addison-Wesley.
Trivić, N., & Petrov, V. (2014). Determination of the economic
growth rates by the growth quality. Economic Horizons,
16(2), 125-135. doi: 10.5937/ekonhor1402129T
Ulrich, D. (1998). Intellectual capital - competence x
commitment. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 15.
Vazquez-Barquero, A. (2002). Endogenous Development
Networking, Innovation, Institutions and Cities. London, UK:
Routledge.
Ekonomski horizonti (2017) 19(2), 109 - 123
122
Venables, A. J. (1996). Equilibrium locations of vertically
linked industries. International economic review, 37(2), 341-
359. doi:10.2307/2527327
Williamson, J. G. (1965). Regional inequality and the process
of national development: A description of the paerns.
Economic development and cultural change, 13(4), 1-84.
Danijela Despotović je vanredni profesor na Ekonomskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Kragujevcu,
na nastavnim predmetima Teorija i analiza ekonomske politike i Makromenadžment. Doktorirala
je u oblasti makroekonomije, na Ekonomskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Kragujevcu. Oblasti njenog
naučnog interesovanja su ekonomska politika i razvoj, politika unapređenja konkurentnosti, održivi
razvoj.
Slobodan Cvetanović je redovni profesor na Ekonomskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Nišu, na
nastavnim predmetima Makroekonomija, Ekonomija kapitala i nansiranje razvoja, Makroekonomija
i makroekonomski menadžment. Doktorirao je na Ekonomskom fakultetu Univerziteta u Beogradu,
iz oblasti makroekonomije. Oblasti njegovog naučnog interesovanja su makroekonomija, ekonomski
razvoj, inovacije, održivi razvoj.
Primljeno 14. aprila 2017,
nakon dve revizije,
prihvaćeno za publikovanje 23. avgusta 2017.
Elektronska verzija objavljena 25. avgusta 2017.
D. Despotović i S. Cvetanović, Teorijska eksplikacija faktora regionalnog rasta 123
THE THEORETICAL EXPLICATION OF THE FACTORS
OF REGIONAL GROWTH AND THE ECONOMIC
CONVERGENCE (DIVERGENCE) OF THE REGION
Danijela Despotovic1 and Slobodan Cvetanovic2
1
Faculty of Economics, University of Kragujevac, Kragujevac, The Republic of Serbia
2 Faculty of Economics, University of Nis, Nis, The Republic of Serbia
For a few last decades there has been continuous interest of economists in research of key factors of
economic growth and developmental convergence (divergence) of the region. However, besides wealth
of theoretical and empirical research of the mentioned categories, it is obvious that there is still no
generally accepted explication of key factors of regional growth. The same conclusion can be borne in
mind related to the existence of connection between the accepted economic growth of a country and
tendency to increase, i.e. decrease regional inequalities. The paper presents theoretical explication of
key factors of regional growth and phenomenon of developing convergence (divergence) of the region,
ve representative theoretical approaches in regional economy (classical, neoclassical, endogenic, new
economic geography and spatial innovation systems). Current economic reality on global plan which
speaks of increasing regional inequality conrms the accuracy of theoretical considerations of the
representatives of contemporary theoretical approaches related to the analysed issues.
Keywords: regional economy, economic growth of region, convergence (divergence) of regional
development, contemporary theories
JEL Classication: O11