Talk:Economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Contradiction
The economy was organised as a mixed planned socialist and market socialist economy: factories were nationalized, but they were not owned by the state — they were rather socially owned, which roughly corresponds to public ownership in other economic systems.

This sentence contradicts itself. The public ownership article states that it is synonymous with state owned. I will remove this pending clarification. - FrancisTyers 22:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps its a play on definitions, shall we say it was nationalized in the since that factories where not privately owned, but neither by the state, rather by workers councils? Profit was distributed among workers, something alike when profits are distributed amongst stock holders. Here is what seems alike other economic systems. Shall we rewrite as "The economy was organised as a mixed planned socialist and market socialist economy: factories were nationalized, but they were not owned by the state, neither privately — they were rather socially owned, which roughly corresponds to stock ownership in other economic systems. Profits where primarly distributed among workers." Foant 22:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed it's a play on definitions. The reality was almost all the profits and decision powers went to the factory managers - directors. Any other wording that does not reflect that is just facade.--Cigor 05:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. As an aside, this article could do with more sourcing. - FrancisTyers 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Ill add sources when I start reading about the subject in college, which might take some time. Foant 00:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This somehow fell of my watchlist, so sorry for neglecting to answer these questions earlier. There was indeed a difference between socially and state owned property. State owned property was managed by the state, and socially owned property was managed by self-management organs like worker's councils. For instance, the workers of a factory could decide to sell some of the factory's socially-owned real property, while such things were decided by the government for state-owned property.

There is also a real difference in how the privatization of both categories is handled in post-Yugoslavia states. Also, at least in the Balkans, publicly owned and state owned doesn't mean the same thing even now in capitalism - again, publicly owned property is not directly managed by the government. Zocky | picture popups 09:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial sentence
Slovenia, Croatia, and finally, Bosnia fought bloody civil wars against "rump" Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) or Serbian nationalists or both.

This sentence (I'm not going to go into details if it's correct or not) is very "heated". It could hardly be said that those countries were fighting FRY (especially not Slovenia); and it might seem dubious, as Croatia & Bosnia fought against their own inhabitants of Serb/Croat ethnicity, rather. And the "fighting against Serbian nationalists"-implying bit doesn't sound very attracting either. The sentence puts it as if Serbia and Montenegro were to Yugoslavia what was Germany to Europe in World War II (hardly comparable). The two "or'"s are also fishy. Last but not least, "Civil wars" are wars within and not against another state. lol :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zavodi Crvena Zastava.jpg
The image Image:Zavodi Crvena Zastava.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --11:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

GDP per cities
Hi I have information on the GDP per capita level of several main cities for 1981. Would anyone be against me including this information under GDP per republics. I think it gives a pretty good sense of which areas were developed or not. These figures are in relation to the Yugoslav average.

1. Ljubljana 260% 2. Zagreb 188% 3. Novi Sad 172% 4. Belgrade 141% 5. Split 137% 6. Sarajevo 133% 7. Nis 110% 8. Banja Luka 97% 9. Skopje 90% 10. Podgorica 87% 11. Pristina 70%

Also for 1981 here's republics and provinces by their GDP per capita (Yugoslavia 100%)

1. Slovenia 180% 2. Vojvodina 129% 3. Croatia 128% 4. Serbia 96% 5. Montenegro 78% 6. Bosnia 69% 7. Macedonia 65% 8. Kosovo 33% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugo91aesop (talk • contribs) 06:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added GDP per capita for cities. I think it gives an excellent idea of which were the poorer and richer parts of the country and also of the economic development of Yugoslavia before the wars. It can be seen here that cities such as Sarajevo and Belgrade both affected terrible during the 90's, one by war the other by bombings, were actually fairly developed. Hope this info is of use to people. Yugo91aesop (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Smederevo?
The town has never had 144,000 people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WimbledonGreen (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140624003635/http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904a/yugodismantle.html to http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904a/yugodismantle.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050318070211/http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/libertarianism/yugoslavia.html to http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/libertarianism/yugoslavia.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041026065147/http://www.uni-koeln.de/ew-fak/Sozio/pub-seib/rollen2.pdf to http://www.uni-koeln.de/ew-fak/Sozio/pub-seib/rollen2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Addition of Information Regarding Western Advisers
I believe there's a substantial amount of information missing pertaining to the role of western advisers in the economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I found a paper titled "The Political Dimension of Ante Marković's Reform Project. 'We must develop democracy and a Third Yugoslavia.'" that could serve as a relevant source for adding this missing content. The paper can be accessed via this link.

This paper discusses the role of Jeffrey Sachs and Steve Hanke, who were key foreign advisers of Marković's economic program, and their commitment to neoliberal ideas. For instance, Sachs suggested that privatization should commence by establishing that the central government owns the enterprises and alone has the power to privatize them.

Furthermore, I'd like to include some news articles that would add more context to the discussion:

1. "Bush Meets With Yugoslav Prime Minister" from October 13, 1989 - link 2. "Yugoslav Chief to See Bush and Seek His Support" - link 3. "HOW YUGOSLAVIA CAN SAVE ITSELF" written by Jeffrey Sachs and David Lipton - link

There's also a significant document from the World Bank that discusses the debt that would be inherited by the newly formed countries titled "FORMER YUGOSLAVIA'S DEBT APPORTIONMENT" authored by Milan M. CAM and Mojmir Mrak - link.

I believe these resources could enrich the existing content on this page. I would like to know what other editors think about these proposed additions. Thanks! - Valent 23:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Source 62 on the "The collapse of the Yugoslav economy", WP:BIASEDSOURCES?
Hey all, as per WP:BIASEDSOURCES:

"However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

However I'm looking at source 62 - https://web.archive.org/web/20140624003635/http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9904a/yugodismantle.html, and it's a bit strong on it's POV for how the information is presented in the article:

Strength of POV:

"the press and politicians alike portray Western intervention in the former Yugoslavia as a noble, if agonizingly belated, response to an outbreak of ethnic massacres and human rights violations [...] But through their domination of the global financial system, the Western powers, in pursuit of national and collective strategic interests, helped bring the Yugoslav economy to its knees and stirred simmering ethnic and social conflicts."

Info it's sourcing:

"The collapse of the Yugoslav economy was partially caused by its non-aligned stance that had resulted in access to loans from both superpower blocs on different terms."

It's quite a strong POV for the subjectivity ("was partially caused by") of the sentance it's sourcing. I'm new to wikipedia and I don't get how this all works so apologies if I'm misunderstanding WP:BIASEDSOURCES

Thanks All! Storsed

Storsed (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)