CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS IN STUDYING POPULATION OF VOJVODINA PROVINCE
SODOBNI PROBLEMI PRI PREUČEVANJU PREBIVALSTVA V VOJVODINI
Branislav S. Djurdjev, Daniela Arsenovic, Aleksandra Dragin
Census data often are not comparable due to slight changes in census methodology. Podatki v popisih prebivalstva pogosto medsebojno niso primerljivi zaradi manjših sprememb v metodologiji.
Contemporary problems in studying population of Vojvodina Province
DOI: 10.3986/AGS50105 UDC: 911.3:314(497.113) COBISS: 1.01
ABSTRACT: This paper identifies nine contemporary problems that hamper the population research in Vojvodina Province (northern part of Republic of Serbia) at the beginning of the twenty-first century. These problems are: postponement of census to 2002, changes of the definition of permanent popultion, different definitions in available data of current statistics, changes of the definition of the urban settlement term, changes in the total number of settlements, decreased number of available data of current statistics, absence of the bulletin of current statistics, absence of population register and absence of regional institution for population studies. That implies that collected data in the censuses are often not comparable due to slight changes in methodology, changes in state borders.
KEY WORDS: population, census, current statistics, population register, Vojvodina Province, Serbia
The article was submitted for publication on April 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES:
Branislav S. Djurdjev, Ph. D.
Center for Spatial Information of Vojvodina Province Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: djurdjev@uns.ac.rs
Daniela Arsenovic, M. Sc.
Center for Spatial Information of Vojvodina Province Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: daniela.arsenovic@dgt.uns.ac.rs
Aleksandra Dragin, Ph. D.
Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia E-mail: aleksandra.dragin@dgt.uns.ac.rs
Contents
1	Introduction
2	Main contemporary problems
117
of population research
117 122 122 122
3	Conclusion
4	Acknowledgements
5	References
1	Introduction
This paper analyses contemporary problems of population research in Vojvodina Province. Serbia, and in particularly Vojvodina Province has a long tradition of census statistics (beginning of the time of Maria Theresa), but in this paper accent will be put on the last seventy years. Vojvodina is situated in the northern part of Serbia and is part of the vast Pannonian Plain. It has a total surface area of 21,500 km2, which makes 24.3% of the whole territory of the Republic of Serbia. According to the data from the last census from 2002, 2,031,992 people lived in Vojvodina (27.1% of the population of the Republic of Serbia without Kosovo) while, according to the data of Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, 1.979.389 people lived in Vojvodina in 2008 (26.9% of the population of the Republic of Serbia without Kosovo), (Census of Population, Households and Dwellings 2002, Comparative Review of Number of Inhabitants in 1948-2002; Municipalities of Serbia 2009). Vojvodina is divided into seven districts, 45 municipalities and has 467 settlements. The main rivers in Vojvodina are the Danube, the Sava and the Tisa which divide it into three regions: Banat, Backa and Srem. Vojvodina is situated on the intersection of main corridors that connect east and west. Natural, the shortest and the most rational roads that connect the countries of West and Central Europe as well as the countries of South Europe and Middle and Far East cross its territory (AP Vojvodina Socio-ekonomski profil 2009).
2	Main contemporary problems of population research
In socio-geographic population studies (from 1939 until 1971) accent was placed on the process of colonization as well as on the consequences of this process for both the immigrants and natives (Bukurov 1976). That is the time when the demographic growth in both components provided expanded reproduction of population and labour force and as such encouraged economic development. Nowadays, the situation is rather reverse; demographic growth is a limiting factor of our development and it is more and more obvious that by using measures of social engineering it is necessary to at least lessen great excess of those who emigrated over those who immigrated and deceased over newborns. In order for these interventions to be successful, constant awareness of demographic trends and study of their causes and consequences are necessary. That implies good knowledge of the literature about the examples of successful practice as well as the existence of the whole range of modern primal sources. The process of population research by using these sources is often limited due to:
•	postponement of census to 2002;
•	changes of the definition of permanent population;
•	different definitions in available data of current statistics;
•	changes of the definition of the urban settlement;
•	changes in the total number of settlements;
•	decreased number of published data of current statistics;
•	absence of the bulletin of current statistics;
•	absence of population register;
•	absence of regional institution for population studies.
Although in all seven post-war censuses population was registered following the conception of permanent population, certain methodological changes occurred in some of those censuses that made the gathered data not completely comparable.
An international recommendation was accepted that the census is carried out every ten years, in the first year of the decade and that has been the practice since 1961. However, since Montenegro suddenly postponed the census in 2001, census was moved to year 2002. Since Montenegro also postponed the
2002	census, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia made a decision to conduct the census of population, households and collective apartments in 2002. Montenegro conducted the census in November
2003	which means that there are no data (for the same time period) about the population of state union of Serbia and Montenegro which seriously damages comparability on the state level (Stankovic 2006).
International recommendations (Recommendations for the 2000 Censuses of Population and Housing in the ECE Region) were applied in 2002 census according to which the definition of permanent population was changed. In 1991 census, permanent population term implied, apart from the popula-
tion in the country, also all Yugoslav citizens who stayed or worked (as family members) abroad while in this term in 2002 census included only those people who stayed or worked abroad in a period less than one year. Moreover, foreign citizens who worked or stayed in the Republic of Serbia for one year or longer were recognized as permanent citizens while in 1991 that same category was not included in the category of permanent population. In 1981, 1991 and 2002 censuses, inhabitants of one settlement were considered those who in those places had permanent address no matter whether they, in a critical moment of a registration, were actually in that place or were absent due to any reason (work, school, travel, medical reasons, military service, jail sentence etc.). In 1948, 1953, 1961 and 1971 active citizens who worked outside the place of permanent stay and did not return to that place on a daily basis were considered inhabitants of a place where they worked. When comparing data about the number of inhabitants of certain settlements, it must be taken into account that in 2002 all refugees from former Yugoslav republics were registered as permanent citizens of the Republic of Serbia and that they were considered the citizens of those places where they emigrated to. Nevertheless, refugees from Kosovo and Metohija were not registered as permanent inhabitants on the area of central Serbia and Vojvodina but were identified as temporary present. In order to make comparison of the data easier, number of inhabitants in both 1991 and 2002 censuses was calculated according to »new« and »old« methodology. When calculating information from 2002 census by applying the methodology from 1991 census permanent population included all citizens who worked or stayed abroad (despite the length of stay) and excluded all foreign citizens who worked or stayed in Serbia. However, when calculating information from 1991 census by applying the methodology from 2002 census permanent population included only those citizens that worked or stayed abroad up to one year.
For example, according to methodology from 1991 census, 2,013,889 people lived in Vojvodina on 31st March 1991 and 2,098,779 of them in 2002. According to methodology from 2002 census, which has been the only one accepted since then, 1,970,195 people lived in Vojvodina in 1991 which makes a deficiency of 43,694 or 2.2% compared to former methodology while for 2002 that number is 2,031,992 inhabitants which makes a deficiency of 66,787 or 3.2% of a total population. However, it is not possible to apply the new methodology on 1971 and 1981 censuses, as it is the case with 1991 census. Nevertheless, it is possible to recalculate and estimate data due censuses using some indirect techniques. When comparing data from those periods it must be taken into account that these two censuses overestimate the number of citizens by at least 5,0% because it is exactly that decade between two censuses 1971-1981 when a great number of our citizens temporarily stayed and worked abroad in a period longer than one year.
When the methodology of censuses is taken into consideration it is necessary to follow the examples of modern censuses in the world and to use some new techniques for the data gathering. For example, Statistics Canada and Australian Bureau of Statistics conduct censuses every five years. Great Britain carries out censuses every ten years since 1801 (except 1941), as well as Italy and the United States of America (United States Congress can decide that the censuses can be carried out even often), (Djurdjev 2007). Considering the countries of the European Union, a special emphasis should be placed upon Germany where the last census was carried out in 1987 because of a strong popular resentment since many quite personal questions were asked (Djurdjev 2005). The next German census in 2011. will be a merger of German administrative registers, whereby additional statistical surveys will be carried out. Basically, the census records will be combined from several administrative records containing data about inhabitants, e.g., population register data social insurance data, unemployment data and further personal registers of public service (Neiling and Lenz 2004). Research showed that it can take part in EU census in 2011 and that it will be this census that will show the quality of the register (Helmut et al. 2006).
Changes in the definitions of certain population categories in available data of current statistics also happen quite often. For example, when we observe the information about the number of the employed and unemployed in the labour force survey (which uses definitions and recommendation of Eurostat) it is noticed that those definitions quite differ from publications of National Employment Agency and Provincial Secretariat for Labour, employment and Gender Equality. According to the survey, employed people are all people who in an observed week performed some kind of paid work (paid in money or goods), individual farmers, helping members of a household as well as those people who performed some kind of work which they found and arranged on their own without starting an official employment and to whom this work represented the only livelihood subsistence. Unemployed people are those who in an observed week did not perform any paid work had a job which they were absent from and which they could come back to. However, official and authorized institutions take into consideration only the formal status of
a person. As a result of these differences, in 2008 the employment rate in the Republic of Serbia was 53.7% according to the survey and was 6.3% higher than shown by National Employment Agency (47.4%). The unemployment rate according to National Employment Agency was 15.3% and was 0.9% higher than the unemployment rate in the labour force survey (14.4%). Nevertheless, other empirical research show that differences in some methodological discrepancies are not so big (Petrovic and Radovanovic 1985).
Apart from the discrepancies in some methodological solutions and definitions of certain categories, changes in the definitions of settlements and in a total number of settlements also occurred. Settling or the network of settlements in addition to surface and growth is the most distinctive element of the landscape. But the settlements are also social and economic centers, some kind of hubs in the landscape (Ravbar 2004).
After WWII, administration and statistical practice experience a number of dissimilarities when categorizing settlements and that is why the first post-war census (1948) does not deal with that issue. The two following censuses (1953 and 1961) for their primal typology of settlements use the method by Milos Macura. This model belongs to a group of complex criteria which as its parameters uses the data of demographic statistics, the number of inhabitants in a settlement and share of non-agricultural population (Curcic 1992). Apart from urban and rural settlements, Macura introduces an additional category of mixed settlements all with an aim of avoiding a sudden transition between the first two categories. However, a number of illogicalities and problems appear with the application of this method. For example, the results of 1961 census show that 34 settlements in Vojvodina had a status of a town (7.5% of a total number of settlements) while the next two censuses identify certain illogical conclusions. According to Macura's methodology, the number of towns in Vojvodina in 1971 grew to 47 (10.4% of the settlements) and to even 109 (23.7%) in 1981. That means that in 1981 every fourth settlement had a status of an urban settlement which makes an unreal and impossible situation which as such did not reflect the urbanization rate in this area. The second problem which arose is the problem of administrative borders of different settlements which appeared as a result of different natural and social factors. That is why the terms of formal settlement and administrative settlement were introduced. When the borders of these two areas overlap, statistical data can be used freely and without reservations. However, quite often happens that within the borders of an administrative settlement (which the statistical data refer to) a number of formal settlements are formed (of precisely separated agglomerations). Statistics left this method and since 1981 has used dichotomy division of settlements according to a legal criterion into urban and »other«. According to this criterion, a town or an urban settlement is every settlement that has an urban general plan. The classification of settlements acquired after the application of this criterion shows much greater stability than statistical classification due to the fact that settlements of urban type represent mainly municipal centres with developed tertiary and quarterly features and also tells us that the establishing of urban settlements is not the result of voluntarism but represents a reflex of precise practical needs of one social community (Stankovic 1999).
The settlement network in Vojvodina is the result of specific natural, political, demographic, economic, cultural and social conditions in this area over a long period of time (Dere 1984) and changed under their influence. According to data obtained from censuses, the number of settlements inhabited in 1971 was 451 while that number in 2002 was 467 which is the result of the formation of new settlements. The greatest changes happened in the period between two censuses 1971-1981 when 25 new settlement were formed in 1978 and 11 were dissolved while two settlements were divided into two levels each (Djurdjev 1981). Two more settlements were formed in period 1981-2002, Kosancic and Obornjaca. These changes in the number of settlements have as a consequence a much more difficult analysis of the size structure of settlements in Vojvodina because they influenced the change of a total number of inhabitants in certain settlements. But, for the sake of clarity it should be mentioned that published results in 2002 census offers comparative overview of number of inhabitants according settlements (book 9).
Apart from the changes inside the very settlement network in Vojvodina, time brought redistribution of settlements between Vojvodina and the rest of Serbia. When the borders were changed in 1949 six settlements from the territory of Vojvodina (Ovca, Borca, Bezanija, Besni Fok, Padinska Skela and Glogoljski rit) with 10,482 inhabitants, according to the 1948 census, were affiliated into the territory of Serbia outside the province. Few years later, in 1955, after an additional change in borders, nine settlements from the territory of Vojvodina (Batajnica, Becmen, Boljevci, Dobanovci, Jakovo, Petrovcic, Progar, Surcin and Ugrinovci) with 23,086 inhabitants (according to 1953 census) were affiliated into the territory of Serbia while six settlements (Macvanska Mitrovica, Nocaj, Salas Nocajski, Radenkovic,
< Figure 1: Settlement dissolved in 1978 and settlements formed in the period 1978-2002 in Vojvodina Province.
Ravnje and Zasavica) were detached from its territory with altogether 10,012 inhabitants according to 1953 census (Djurdjev 2001).
Statistical Office of the Province of Vojvodina used to publish bulletins and announcements. The Office published Monthly statistical review, used to follow current economic movements, whereas the most complete data of the current statistics were published from 1974 to 1988 in Statistical yearbook of Vojvodina. The annual contained the information about the population presented on two levels: on the level of whole Vojvodina and on the level of municipalities. Apart from the information about population number and structure it also presented vital statistics about fertility, mortality, marriages and divorce (Statistical yearbook of Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina 1988).
However, the most complex indicators can be reached if a unique population register is formed i.e. when crossing of vital and migration features enables statistic observation of all four components of population demographic development. United Nations define population register a mechanism for the continuous recording of selected information pertaining to each member of the resident population of a country or area. Population registers are often confused with civil registration since both contain data such as births, deaths, marriages and divorces. These events are important for upbringing and updating of the population registers. However, the registers are characterized also by the following:
•	all events recorded by civil registration are referred to one person;
•	all address changes are included and thus there are also data about migration statistics;
•	registers, at any time, provide information about the size and structure of the population.
Population registers have two roles: administrative and statistical. Administration uses registers for identification of people, issuing lists of pupils that are to receive compulsory schooling, establishing the eligibility of individuals for military service, taxation planning, identification of personal position compared to social stability (in a time of crisis, these data can be used for rational food distribution). However, the problem of privacy protection arises and it must be ensured that registers do not disturb the privacy and they serve only the purpose that inhabitants approve.
Statistical role of population registers is more important for scientific researches since statistical frame from registers enables identification of demographic problems, accurate projections and more precise identification of samples for further polls (Verhoef and Van de Kaa 1987).
Normative possibilities for the development of population registers exist also in our country because there are more or less regular censuses, there is an obligation of registering and cancellation of a place of stay and all inhabitants have a unique personal identification number. Nevertheless, the usage of these data differs from region to region and from city to city. The municipality of Novi Sad can be made a good example of registrar development. It started in 1990s but the information gained in those times was rather inaccurate. The quality and reliability of the data gradually became better. Thus, in 2002, the register recorded 322,840 people while there were only 299,294 inhabitants recorded in the census which makes a deficiency of 23,546 or 7.3% of the total number. In 2009 the register recorded 367,887, while the estimate number of the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia was 323,708, and thus the deficiency was 44,179 or as much as 12.0% of a total number of inhabitants. These unexpectedly large differences are the consequence of a number of refugees from other republics of former Yugoslavia and from Kosovo and Metohija because those people were identified and recorded in the register while the census and it's afterward calculations did not take this group into consideration. It can be expected that the next census will be even less behindhand with the register since a large number of refugees will have gained the citizenship of the Republic of Serbia by 2011 when the next census will take place.
Demographic Research Center as part of the Institute of Social Sciences in Belgrade had been until 1999 the only institution in our country that dealt with the research of the population development. That year study group for demography and Institute for demography were found at the Faculty of Geography in Belgrade. In 2007, Center for Spatial Information of Vojvodina was opened at the Faculty of Science in Novi Sad. Its main objective is to gather an expert team that will be able to recognize disadvantageous demographic and socio-economic trends and suggest measures for their alleviation and prevention and also recognize favourable ways to realize potentials of human resources on the area of Vojvodina. In Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, long-term demographic researches are conducted through scientific projects »Demographic transition in Serbia« at the University of Novi Sad and »Settlements and population
in Vojvodina« in Matica Srpska. Regionalization of education system and science in Serbia has been, for already some time, recognized as a necessity and it is rather uncommon that there are no regional institutions for the research of regional demographic problems (except in Zajecar).
3	Conclusion
Generally, Censuses in Serbia was carried pursuant to the international recommendations and during the seventies our census were greeted very well by United Nations Agencies. Modernization and the development of statistics contributed greatly to more reliable study of the population in Vojvodina Province. However, political changes in the last decade of the 20th century made some new problems when the population research in Vojvodina is concerned: postponement of census to 2002, changes of the definition of permanent population, different definitions in available data of current statistics, decreased number of published data of current statistics, absence of the bulletin of current statistics, absence of population register and absence of regional institution for population study.
When analyzing alternatives for some future censuses it is necessary to keep up with contemporary trends and combine registration of a whole and sample registration. The next phase would be introduction of a unique population register both on a level of regions and the republic as a whole which would enable more accurate combining of data from the register with those acquired from sample registration.
Solutions for 2011 census demonstrated that experts from Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia are fully aware this necessities.
4	Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the Ministry of Science and Technological Development for their support in preparing the project Demographic transition in Serbia (Project contract EVB: 146017 D/KOEF =1).
5	References
Bukurov, B. 1976: Odabrani radovi. Matica srpska. Novi Sad.
Djurdjev, S. B. 2007: Stanovništvo i domačinstava Autonomne Pokrajine Vojvodine pocetkom XXI. veka. Republika Srbija. Autonomna Pokrajina Vojvodina. Pokrajinski sekretarijat za demografiju, porodicu i društvenu brigu o deci. Novi Sad. Djurdjev, S. B. 2005: Svetska iskustva u popisu stanovništva. Glasnik geografskog društva Republike srpske. Banja Luka.
Djurdjev, S. B. 2001: Osnovne tehnike u demografiji. Društvo demografa Jugoslavije. Beograd. Djurdjev, S. B. 1981: Razlike u demografskom razvitku vojvodanskih naselja izmedu popisa stanovništva
1971. i 1981. godine. Zbornik Matice Srpske za društvene nauke 71. Novi Sad. Dere, K. 1984: O problemu velicinske strukture vojvodanskih naselja. Zbornik radova Instituta za geografi-ju 14. Novi Sad.
Curcic, S. 1992: Geografija naselja. Prirodno-matematicki fakultet, Institut za geografiju. Novi Sad. Eppmann, H., Kruger, S., Shafer, J. 2006: First German register based census in 2011. Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv 90. Heidelberg.
Neiling, M. Lenz, H. 2004: The German administrative record census - an object identification problem.
Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv 88. Heidelberg. Petrovič, B., Radovanovic, S. 1985: Poljoprivredno stanovništvo teritorije SR Srbije bez teritorija SAP i osvrt na metodološka rešenja pri definisanju ovog kontigenta u popisu stanovništva 1981. Naucni pregled 12-13. Beograd.
Ravbar, M. 1997: Slovene cities and suburbs in transformation. Geografski zbornik 37. Ljubljana. Stankovič, V. 1999: Osvrt na problematiku kategorizacije stanovništva prema tipu naselja u jugosloven-
skoj statistickoj praksi. Stanovništvo 37. Beograd. Republicki zavod za statistiku Republike Srbije. 2008: Anketa o radnoj snazi. Beograd.
Republicki zavod za statistiku Republike Srbije. 2004: Popis stanovništva, domacinstava i stanova u 2002. godi-ni. Uporedni pregled broja stanovnika 1948-2002, 9. Beograd.
Republicki zavod za statistiku Republike Srbije. 2010: Opštine u Srbiji 2009. Beoograd.
Stankovic, V. 2006: Opšte i metodološke informacije o popisu. Stanovništvo i domacinstva Srbije prema popisu 2002. godine. Beograd.
Republicki zavod za statistiku Srbije, Institut društvenih nauka - Centar za demografska istraživanja, Društvo demografa Srbije. Beograd.
AP Vojvodina Socio-ekonomski profil. 2009. Centar za strateško ekonomska istraživanja Izvršnog veca Vojvodine Vojvodina CESS. Novi Sad.
Statisticki godišnjak SAP Vojvodine. 1988. Pokrajinski zavod za statistiku. Novi Sad.
United Nations, 1998: Recommendations for the 2000 Censuses of Population and Housing in the ECE Region. New York.
Verhoef, R., Van de Kaa, D. J. 1987: Population Registers and Population Statistics. Population Index 53. Princeton.
Sodobni problemi pri preučevanju prebivalstva v Vojvodini
DOI: 10.3986/AGS50105 UDK: 911.3:314(497.113) COBISS: 1.01
IZVLEČEK: V prispevku je omenjenih devet problemov, ki otežujejo preučevanje prebivalstva v Vojvodini na začetku enaindvajsetega stoletja, in sicer: preložitev datuma popisa na leto 2002, spremembe definicije stalnega prebivalstva, različne definicije pri razpoložljivih podatkih tekoče statistike, sprememba definicije mesta, sprememba skupnega števila naselij, manjše število razpoložljivih podatkov tekoče statistike, izostanek biltena s tekočo statistiko, izostanek registra prebivalstva in neobstoj regionalne ustanove za preučevanje prebivalstva. Poleg tega podatki v popisih prebivalstva pogosto medsebojno niso primerljivi zaradi manjših sprememb v metodologiji, sprememb meja.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: prebivalstvo, popis prebivalstva, tekoča statistika, register prebivalstva, Vojvodina, Srbija
Uredništvo je prejelo prispevek 3. aprila 2010. NASLOVI:
dr. Branislav S. Djurdjev
Centar za prostorne informacije Vojvodine Prirodno-matematički fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Srbija E-pošta: djurdjev@uns.ac.rs
mag. Daniela Arsenovic
Centar za prostorne informacije Vojvodine Prirodno-matematički fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Srbija E-pošta: daniela.arsenovic@ dgt. uns.ac.rs
dr. Aleksandra Dragin
Departman za geografiju, turizam i hotelijerstvo Prirodno-matematički fakultet, Univerzitet u Novom Sadu Trg Dositeja Obradovica 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Srbija E-pošta: aleksandra.dragin@dgt.uns.ac.rs
Vsebina
1	Uvod
2	Temeljni problemi sodobnega
125
preučevanja prebivalstva 3 Sklep
125 129 129 129
4	Zahvala
5	Literatura
1	Uvod
Prispevek analizira sodobne probleme pri preučevanju prebivalstva v Vojvodini. Popisi prebivalstva imajo v Srbiji in še zlasti v Vojvodini dolgo tradicijo (segajo v obdobje Marije Terezije), vendar je v članku poudarek na popisih iz zadnjih sedemdesetih let. Vojvodina, ki je severna pokrajina Republike Srbije, je del prostrane Panonske nižine in obsega 21.500 km2, kar predstavlja 24,3 % celotnega ozemlja Srbije. Po podatkih zadnjega popisa prebivalstva leta 2002 je v Vojvodini živelo 2.031.992 prebivalcev (to je 27,1 % prebivalstva Republike Srbije, brez Kosova), po ocenah Republiškega zavoda za statistiko pa je leta 2008 Vojvodina imela 1.979.389 prebivalcev (oziroma 26,9 % celotnega prebivalstva republike Srbije, brez Kosova) (Popis stanovništva, domacinstava i stanova 2002. Uporedni prikaz broja stanovnika 1948-2002; Opštine u Srbiji 2009). Vojvodina je razdeljena na 7 okrožij in 45 občin in ima 467 naselij. Ozemlje Vojvodine prečkajo tri plovne reke (Donava, Sava in Tisa), ki ga delijo na tri regije: Banat, Bačko in Srem. Vojvodina leži na križišču glavnih prometnih koridorjev, ki povezujejo vzhod z zahodom. Čez njeno ozemlje tečejo naravne, najkrajše in najbolj smotrne poti, ki povezujejo države zahodne in srednje Evrope z državami južne Evrope ter deželami Srednjega in Daljnega Vzhoda (AP Vojvodina Socio-ekonomski profil 2009).
2	Temeljni problemi sodobnega preučevanja prebivalstva
Pri preučevanju prebivalstva v okviru družbene geografije (od 1939 do 1971) je bil poudarek dan predvsem naseljevanju Vojvodine in posledicam teh naseljevanj, tako za domačine kot za priseljence (Buku-rov 1976). To je bil čas, ko je demografska rast v obeh komponentah zagotavljala razširjeno reprodukcijo prebivalstva in delovno silo ter s tem spodbujala vsesplošen gospodarski razvoj. Danes je situacija obratna, ker je prav demografski razvoj tisti dejavnik, ki omejuje naš napredek. Vse očitneje postaja, da je treba z ukrepi, med katere spada tudi družbeno načrtovanje, vsaj zmanjšati vedno večjo prevlado števila odseljenih nad priseljenimi ter umrlih nad živorojenimi. Da bi bili posegi učinkoviti, pa je potrebno te trende stalno spremljati in preučevati njihove vzroke in posledice. Za to sta nujna tako poznavanje literature o uspešnih primerih take prakse v sodobnem svetu kot tudi obstoj celotnega spektra sodobnih primarnih virov. Proces preučevanja prebivalstva po teh virih je pogosto omejen zaradi:
•	preložitve popisa prebivalstva na leto 2002;
•	spremembe definicije stalnega prebivalstva;
•	različne definicije v razpoložljivih podatkih tekoče statistike;
•	spremembe definicije mesta;
•	spremembe skupnega števila naselij;
•	zmanjšanja števila razpoložljivih objavljenih podatkov tekoče statistike;
•	izostanka biltena s tekočo statistiko;
•	izostanka registra prebivalstva;
•	neobstoja regionalne institucije za preučevanje prebivalstva.
Čeprav je v vseh sedmih povojnih popisih prebivalstvo popisano na osnovi definicije stalnega prebivalstva, je v posameznih popisih prišlo do določenih metodoloških sprememb, zaradi katerih navedeni podatki niso v celoti primerljivi.
Od leta 1961 je uveljavljeno mednarodno priporočilo, da se popisi opravijo vsakih deset let, in to v prvem letu desetletja. Ker pa je v Črni Gori prišlo do nenadnega odloga popisa 2001, je bil preložen v leto 2002. Ker pa je bil popis v Črni Gori odložen tudi leta 2002, je Republiški zavod za statistiko Srbije odločil, da se izvede popis prebivalstva, gospodinjstev in stanovanj v letu 2002, Črna Gora pa je popis izvedla v novembru 2003. Tako danes ni na voljo podatkov (za isto časovno obdobje) o prebivalstvu državne skupnosti Srbije in Črne Gore, s tem pa je tudi njihova primerljivost na ravni republike zelo otežena (Stankovi} 2006).
Pri popisu leta 2002 so bila upoštevana mednarodna priporočila (Recommendations for the 2000 Censuses of Population and Housing in the ECE Region), na osnovi katerih se je spremenila definicija stalnega prebivalstva. Za razliko od popisa leta 1991, pri katerem so bili med stalno prebivalstvo vključeni poleg prebivalstva v sami državi tudi vsi jugoslovanski državljani, ki so kot družinski člani delali ali bivali v tujini, pa so v popisu leta 2002 med stalno prebivalstvo vključene samo tiste osebe, ki so na delu v tujini oziroma bivajo tam manj kot eno leto. Skladno s tem so tuji državljani, ki so delali ali bivali v Republiki Srbiji eno
leto ali dlje, prišteti med stalno prebivalstvo, medtem ko v popisu leta 1991 tuji državljani na delu oziroma bivanju v naši državi niso bili prišteti med stalno prebivalstvo. V popisih prebivalstva v letih 1981, 1991 in 2002 so bile kot prebivalci posameznih naselij upoštevane osebe, ki so bile v teh naseljih stalno nastanjene oziroma so v njih imele stalno bivališče, ne glede na to, ali so bile ob času popisa iz kakršnegakoli razloga (zaradi dela, šolanja, potovanja, zdravljenja, služenja vojaškega roka, prestajanja kazni i.dr.) v tem naselju ali kje drugje. V popisih iz let 1948, 1953, 1961 in 1971 so bile aktivne osebe, ki so bile zaposlene zunaj kraja stalnega bivališča in se niso vsak dan vračale v ta kraj, upoštevane kot prebivalci krajev, v katerih so delale. Ob primerjanju podatkov o številu prebivalstva po posameznih naseljih je treba upoštevati, da so bili begunci iz bivših republik SFRJ pri popisu leta 2002 registrirani kot stalni prebivalci Republike Srbije in vpisani kot prebivalci naselij, kjer so bili nastanjeni. Obratno pa begunci s Kosova in Metohije niso bili registrirani kot stalni prebivalci naselij na področju centralne Srbije in Vojvodine, temveč so bili popisani kot v kraju popisa začasno navzoče osebe. Da bi izboljšali možnost za primerjanje podatkov, je število prebivalstva v popisih 1991 in 2002 izračunano po »novi« in po »stari« metodologiji. Ob prilagoditvi podatkov iz popisa 2002 za metodologijo popisa iz leta 1991 so bile v stalno prebivalstvo vključene vse osebe na delu - bivanju v tujini (neodvisno od dolžine bivanja), tuji državljani na delu - bivanju v Srbiji pa so bili izključeni. Podobno so ob preračunavanju podatkov iz popisa 1991 po metodologiji, uporabljeni v popisu leta 2002, vključili med stalno prebivalstvo samo osebe na delu oziroma bivanju v tujini do enega leta, medtem ko so izključili tiste osebe, ki so bivale tam dlje od enega leta.
Tako je npr. po metodologiji popisa 1991 v Vojvodini tega leta na dan 31. marca živelo 2.013.889 prebivalcev, leta 2002 pa kar 2.098.779; po metodologiji popisa 2002, ki je od tega leta tudi edina veljavna, pa je v Vojvodini leta 1991 živelo 1.970.195 prebivalcev, kar pomeni v primerjavi s predhodno metodologijo primanjkljaj za 43.694 oseb, oziroma 2,2 %, leta 2002 pa samo 2.031.992 prebivalcev, kar pomeni primanjkljaj za kar 66.787 oseb, oziroma 3,2 % celotnega prebivalstva. Za leto 1991 je preračunavanje po novi metodologiji možno, za popise iz let 1971 in 1981 pa ne, je pa mogoče na posreden način, z uporabo raznih indirektnih postopkov preračunati in oceniti podatke obeh popisov. Pri vsakem primerjanju popisnih podatkov pa je treba upoštevati, da je v teh dveh popisih število prebivalcev precenjeno za naj -manj 5 %, ker je prav desetletje med popisoma 1971 in 1981 tisti čas, ko je na začasnem delu, daljšem od enega leta, v tujini bivalo največje število naših državljanov.
Pri metodologiji popisa prebivalstva pa je nujno potrebno spremljati sodobne popise po svetu in uporabiti nove metode za preračunavanje podatkov. Tako npr. Statistika Kanade kot tudi Avstralski statistični urad izvajata popise na pet let, v Veliki Britaniji pa jih izvedejo vsakih deset let, in to vse od leta 1801 naprej (razen leta 1941). Tudi v Italiji se popisi izvajajo na deset let in prav tako v Združenih državah Amerike, kjer Kongres lahko odloči, da se popisi izvajajo tudi bolj pogosto (Djurdjev 2007). V Evropski uniji je treba izpostaviti Nemčijo, kjer je bil zadnji popis prebivalstva izveden leta 1987, in to zaradi odpora javnosti, po mnenju katere je s številnimi vprašanji kratena pravica do zasebnosti. Od takrat Nemčija izvaja popise le na vzorcih prebivalstva. Sčasoma je Nemčija razvila model za registracijo prebivalstva, raziskave pa so pokazale, da lahko sodeluje v popisu prebivalstva EU leta 2011, in da bo prav ta popis pokazal kakovost njenega registra (Helmut, Kruger in Shafer 2006).
V popisih pa niso spremembe zgolj v obsegu prebivalstva, temveč se pogosto kažejo razlike tudi pri definicijah za posamezne kategorije prebivalstva v razpoložljivih podatkih tekoče statistike. Npr. pri podatkih o številu zaposlenih in nezaposlenih oseb v Anketi o delovni sili, pri kateri so upoštevane definicije in priporočila Eurostata, se definicije kategorij močno razlikujejo od tistih v publikacijah Nacionalnih služb za zaposlovanje in Pokrajinskega sekretariata za delo, zaposlovanje in enakopravnost spolov. V anketi veljajo za zaposlene vse osebe, ki so v tednu raziskave opravljale kako plačano delo (plačano v denarju ali naravi), individualni kmetje, njihovi pomočniki - člani gospodinjstva pa tudi osebe, ki so opravljale delo, ki so ga našle same in sklenile zanj pogodbo (ustno ali pisno) brez vzpostavitve delovnega razmerja in katerim je to delo predstavljalo edini vir za preživljanje. Kot nezaposlene so štete vse osebe, ki v tednu raziskave niso opravljale nobenega plačanega dela niti niso imele dela, s katerega so bile odsotne in bi se po izteku odsotnosti nanj lahko vrnile. V nasprotju s tem pa pristojne službe in organi za evidenco na trgu dela upoštevajo samo formalni status osebe. Rezultat teh razlik pa je, da je stopnja zaposlenosti v Republiki Srbiji v letu 2008 po anketi o delovni sili znašala 53,7 % in je bila za 6,3 % večja, kot so jo kazali podatki nacionalnega Urada za zaposlovanje (47,4 %). Po drugi strani pa je stopnja nezaposlenosti po evidenci Urada za zaposlovanje znašala 15,3 %, oziroma je bila za 0,9 % višja od stopnje nezaposlenosti po anketi o de-
lovni sili (14,4 %). Čeprav sta metodologiji različni in podatki niso vedno primerljivi, pa posamezne empirične raziskave kažejo, da te razlike niso vedno tako velike (Petrovič in Radovanovič 1985).
Poleg določenih odstopanj v metodoloških postopkih in definicijah posameznih kategorij prebivalstva je sčasoma prišlo tudi do spremembe definicije naselja, pa tudi do spremembe skupnega števila naselij. Naselja predstavljajo osnovne elemente v prostoru oziroma so vozlišča v prostoru; naselja so družbena in gospodarska središča (Ravbar 2004).
Po 2. svetovni vojni se je v administrativni in statistični praksi pojavilo precej razlik pri kategorizaciji naselja, zato se prvi povojni popis leta 1948 s kategorizacijo naselja ne ukvarja. V naslednjih dveh popisih prebivalstva, t.j. v letih 1953 in 1961, je za osnovno tipologijo naselij uporabljena metoda Miloša Macure. Ta metoda spada v skupino kompleksnih kriterijev, za parametre pa uporablja podatke demografske statistike, število prebivalstva v naseljih in delež nekmečkega prebivalstva (Curčič 1992). Poleg mestnih in vaških naselij je Macura vpeljal še eno kategorijo, in sicer mešana naselja, da bi se s tem izognil hitremu prehodu iz ene kategorije v drugo. Z uporabo te metode pa se pojavi vrsta nelogičnosti in problemov. Ob upoštevanju tega kriterija namreč rezultati popisa iz leta 1961 kažejo, da je v Vojvodini imelo status mesta 34 naselij (7,5 % od skupnega števila vseh naselij). Potem se v naslednjih popisih, leta 1971 in 1981, pojavijo nekatere nelogičnosti. Po metodi Miloša Macure se je leta 1971 v Vojvodini število mest povečalo na 47 (oziroma 10,4 % naselij), leta 1981 pa kar na 109 (23,7 % naselij); tako je vsako četrto naselje dobilo status mesta, kar je nerealna in nemogoča situacija, saj je naraščanje prehitro glede na hitrost urbanizacije na tem območju. Drugi problem, ki se pojavi pri uporabi tega kriterija, je problem administrativnih meja naselij, ki so nastale kot rezultat različnih naravnih in družbenih dejavnikov. Zato sta bila vpeljana termina žpravo naselje' in 'administrativno naselje'. Kadar se meji obeh območij ujemata, se statistične podatke lahko nemoteno uporablja brez pridržkov. Pogosti pa so primeri, ko se je znotraj meja administrativnega naselja, na katerega se nanašajo statistični podatki, formiralo več pravih naselij (jasno ločenih aglomeracij). Statistika je to metodo opustila in od popisa leta 1981 naprej prešla na dihotomno delitev naselij po pravnem kriteriju, na mesta in »drugo«. Po tem kriteriju se lahko proglasi za mesto oziroma naselje z mestnim značajem vsako naselje, za katerega je izdelan generalni urbanistični načrt. Klasifikacija naselij, dobljena po tem kriteriju, kaže občutno večjo zanesljivost od statistične klasifikacije zaradi dejstva, da naselja mestnega tipa predstavljajo pretežno občinska središča z razvitimi terciarnimi in kvartarnimi dejavnostmi, in jasno kaže, da ugotavljanje mestnih naselij ni rezultat voluntarizma, temveč je odraz konkretnih praktičnih potreb neke družbene skupnosti (Stankovič 1999).
V dolgem zgodovinskem razvoju na tem območju se je mreža naselij v Vojvodini razvila tudi pod vplivom specifičnih naravnih, političnih, demografskih, gospodarskih, kulturnih in družbenih razmer (Dere 1984) in se je pod njihovim vplivom sčasoma spreminjala. Po podatkih popisov prebivalstva v času med 1971 in 2002 se je namreč število naselij v Vojvodini povečalo za 16. Leta 1971 je imelo status naseljenega kraja 452 naselij, leta 2002 pa 467, kar je posledica formiranja novih naselij. Največje spremembe so se zgodile v desetletju 1971-1981. V medpopisnem obdobju med tema letoma oziroma prav v letu 1978, je bilo formiranih 25 novih naselij, 11 pa jih je bilo ukinjenih, ob tem, da sta bili dve naselji razdeljeni vsako na dve ravni (Djurdjev 1981). V obdobju 1981-2002 sta bili formirani še dve novi naselji, Kosančič in Obornja-ča. Omenjene spremembe v številu naselij so povzročile težave pri analizi velikostne strukture vojvodinskih naselij, ker so vplivale na spremembo skupnega števila prebivalcev v posameznih naseljih.
Poleg sprememb, ki so se zgodile znotraj mreže naselij v Vojvodini, je sčasoma prišlo tudi do medsebojne prerazporeditve naselij med Vojvodino in preostalim delom Srbije. S spremembo meja leta 1949 je bilo z ozemlja Vojvodine izločenih šest naselij (Ovča, Borča, Bežanija, Besni Fok, Padinska Skela in Glo-goljski rit) s skupno 10.482 prebivalci po podatkih popisa leta 1948, ki so bila priključena ozemlju Srbije brez pokrajin. Čez nekaj let, in sicer leta 1955, je bilo ob ponovni spremembi meja z ozemlja Vojvodine izločenih devet naselij (Batajnica, Bečmen, Boljevci, Dobanovci, Jakovo, Petrovčič, Progar, Surčin in Ugri-novci) s skupno 23.086 prebivalci (po popisu iz leta 1953), ki so bila vključena v sestavo ozemlja Srbije, medtem ko je bilo z njenega ozemlja izločenih šest naselij (Mačvanska Mitrovica, Nočaj, Salaš Nočajski, Radenkovič, Ravnje in Zasavica), ki so imela po popisu leta 1953 skupno 10.012 prebivalcev (Djurdjev 2001).
Pokrajinski zavod za statistiko je prej izdajal številne biltene in objavljal sporočila. Za sprotno spremljanje gibanj v gospodarstvu je Zavod izdajal Mesečni statistični pregled, najpopolnejši podatki tekoče statistike pa so bili objavljani od 1974 do 1988 v Statističnem letopisu Vojvodine (Statistički godišnjak Vojvodine). V letopisu so podatki o prebivalstvu prikazani na dveh ravneh: na ravni celotnega ozemlja Vojvodine in na ravni občin. Poleg informacij iz popisa o številu prebivalstva in prebivalstvenih struktu-
rah so bile dragocene tudi informacije o vitalni statistiki: rodnosti, smrtnosti, porokah, ločitvah (Stati-stički godišnjak SAP Vojvodine 1988).
Seveda se najkompleksnejši podatki dobijo z vzpostavitvijo enotnega registra prebivalstva, ko je s kombinacijo vitalnih in selitvenih značilnosti omogočeno statistično spremljanje vseh štirih komponent demografskega razvoja prebivalstva. Združeni narodi definirajo register prebivalstva kot sistem stalnega spremljanja in povezovanja izbranih podatkov za vsakega stalno naseljenega prebivalca neke države. Registri prebivalstva so pogosto zamenjani z matično knjigo oziroma matičnim registrom, saj tudi ta beleži rojstva, smrti, poroke in ločitve. Ti dogodki so pomembni za vzpostavljanje in posodabljanje registra prebivalstva, vendar je za registre značilno tudi sledeče:
•	vsi dogodki, ki jih beleži matični register, so vezani na posameznika;
•	vključene so vse spremembe naslova, in tako obstajajo tudi podatki o selitveni statistiki;
•	iz registrov se v vsakem trenutku lahko dobijo podatki o velikosti in strukturi prebivalstva.
Vloga registrov prebivalstva je dvojna: administrativna in statistična. Državna uprava uporablja registre za identifikacijo oseb, za izdelavo seznamov šoloobveznih učencev, za izdelavo seznamov vojaških obveznikov, za pripravo davčnih seznamov, za identifikacijo osebnega statusa glede socialne varnosti (kar se lahko npr. v času krize uporabi tudi za racionalno oskrbovanje s hrano). Pri takšni vlogi registrov pa postaja vse resnejši problem varovanje zasebnosti, zato je treba zagotoviti, da registri ne kršijo zasebnosti in so v rabi zgolj za tisti namen, s katerim se strinjajo prebivalci.
Za znanstvena raziskovanja je pomembnejša statistična vloga, ker statistično gradivo iz registra omogoča pravočasno zaznavanje demografskih problemov, sprotne projekcije in natančnejša določanja vzorcev za nadaljnje anketne raziskave (Verhoef in Kaa 1987).
Slika 1: Naselja, ukinjena leta 1978, in naselja, formirana v obdobju 1978-2002. Glej angleški del prispevka.
Normativne možnosti za razvoj registra prebivalstva obstajajo tudi v naši državi, saj bolj ali manj redni popisi že obstajajo, prijava/odjava stalnega bivališča je obvezna, pa tudi enotno matično številko imajo vse osebe, le uporabnost in raba teh podatkov sta po regijah in v velikih mestih različni. Občina Novi Sad je dober primer razvoja registra. Začelo se je že v devetdesetih letih dvajsetega stoletja v JP »Informatika«, vendar so bili podatki iz tega časa pogosto nezanesljivi. Sčasoma pa sta se kakovost in zanesljivost podatkov izboljšali in tako je že leta 2002 v registru zabeleženih 322.840 prebivalcev, v popisu pa le 299.294, kar pomeni 23.546 oziroma 7,3 % manj oseb od skupnega prebivalstva. V letu 2009 je bilo v registru zabeleženih 367.887 oseb, ocene Republiškega zavoda za statistiko pa znašajo 323.708, kar pomeni 44.179 oziroma kar 12,0 % manj oseb od skupnega prebivalstva. Nepričakovano velike razlike so nastale zaradi beguncev iz drugih republik bivše Jugoslavije in notranjih razseljenih oseb s Kosova in Metohije, ker popis in na njegovi osnovi narejene ocene teh oseb niso upoštevali, medtem ko so v registru evidentirane. Lahko pričakujemo, da bo naslednji popis manj zaostajal za registrom, ker bo večina beguncev do takrat že dobila državljanstvo Republike Srbije in bodo leta 2011 tudi popisani.
Center za demografske raziskave pri Inštitutu za družbene znanosti v Beogradu je bil do leta 1999 edina inštitucija v naši državi, namenjena raziskovanju razvoja prebivalstva. Tega leta sta bila ustanovljena Študijska skupina za demografijo in Inštitut za demografijo pri Geografski fakulteti Univerze v Beogradu. Leta 2007 se je na Prirodoslovno-matematični fakulteti v Novem Sadu formiral raziskovalno-razvojni Center za prostorske informacije Vojvodine, z namenom, da se oblikuje skupina strokovnjakov, ki bo ugotavljala neugodne demografske in družbeno-ekonomske trende in predlagala ukrepe za njihovo blažitev in preprečevanje in tudi odkrivala želene smeri pri uresničevanju potenciala človeških virov na območju Vojvodine. V Avtonomni pokrajini Vojvodini se dolgoročna demografska raziskovanja izvajajo v okviru dveh dolgoročnih znanstvenih projektov, »Demografska tranzicija v Srbiji« na Univerzi v Novem Sadu in »Naselja in prebivalstvo Vojvodine« pri Matici srbski. V Srbiji že dolgo razumemo regionalizacijo izobraževanja in znanosti kot nujnost in zato je res čudno, da razen v Zaječarju nimamo regionalnih institucij za preučevanje regionalnih demografskih problemov.
3	Sklep
Popisi prebivalstva v Srbiji so na splošno usklajeni z mednarodnimi priporočili in v sedemdesetih letih dvajsetega stoletja so Združeni narodi ocenili naše popise kot zelo dobre. Modernizacija in razvoj statistike sta pripomogla k znatno bolj zanesljivemu raziskovanju prebivalstva Vojvodine, vendar so politične spremembe v zadnjem desetletju dvajsetega stoletja povzročile pri tem tudi nove probleme: prestavitev datuma popisa na leto 2002, spremembo definicije stalnega prebivalstva, različne definicije v razpoložljivih podatkih tekoče statistike, zmanjšano število razpoložljivih objavljenih podatkov tekoče statistike, izostanek biltena s tekočo statistiko, izostanek registra prebivalstva in neobstoj regionalne institucije za preučevanje prebivalstva.
Ob pretresanju alternativ za prihodnje popise prebivalstva je nujno treba slediti sodobnemu svetu in kombinirati popis v polnem obsegu s popisovanjem vzorcev prebivalstva. Naslednja stopnja je uvajanje enotnega registra prebivalstva na ravni regije in republike, kar bo omogočilo zanesljivejše kombiniranje podatkov iz registra s podatki, dobljenimi s popisovanjem vzorcev.
Sklepi, sprejeti za popis prebivalstva v letu 2011, lepo kažejo, da se strokovnjaki iz Republiškega zavoda za statistiko Republike Srbije popolnoma zavedajo teh potreb.
4	Zahvala
Raziskavo je omogočilo Ministrstvo za znanost in tehnološki razvoj Republike Srbije v okviru projekta »Demografska tranzicija v Srbiji« (projektna pogodba EVB: 146017 D/KOEF =1).
5	Literatura
Glej angleški del prispevka.