Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times of Global...
Kadrja Hodžić, PhD
Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times 
of Global Crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Scientific article
UDC 331.56(497.6)
KEY WORDS: society of labour, society of capital, 
abolition of work, the violation of workers’ rights, so-
cial dialogue, Bosnia and Herzegovina
ABSTRACT - Ideological framework of neo-liberal 
paradigm and a program framework for the conduct 
of economic policies established by Washington Con-
sensus intensified the historical conflict between labour 
and capital. The neoliberal paradigm excludes indu-
strial policy because it proceeds from the neoclassical 
assumption of equality of labour productivity between 
countries, and the economic policy suggests the flexi-
bility of the labour market, the absence of inflation and 
a fixed exchange rate. Such economic policies lead to 
the reduction of the country’s competitiveness at the 
expense of work. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the fol-
lowing disadvantages constitute problems for workers’ 
rights violations in Bosnia, which causes abolition of 
work, namely: the neoliberal form of economic deve-
lopment, opening the problems of dual labour force 
and simultaneous existence of structural and cyclical 
unemployment.  Mitigation of conflict between labo-
ur and capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina is possible 
to lead on two levels: firstly, the more powerful pre-
sence of the state in economic development stimulus 
(leading an active industrial policy and abandonment 
of macroeconomic stability at the expense of high 
unemployment) and, secondly, the opening of the so-
cial dialogue with all relevant participants who are 
interested in social dialogue and social improvement 
of working conditions. 
Znanstveni prispevek
UDK 331.56(497.6)
KLJUČNE BESEDE: delo, družba, kapital, delavci, 
odpuščanje delavcev, kršenje pravic, socialni dialog, 
Bosna in Hercegovina
POVZETEK - Ideološki okvir neoliberalne paradi-
gme in programski okvir za izvajanje gospodarskih 
politik, ki jih predvideva Washingtonski konsenz, je 
še poglobil zgodovinski konflikt med delom in ka-
pitalom.  Neoliberalna paradigma izključuje indu-
strijsko politiko, ker izhaja iz neoklasicistične pred-
postavke o delovni produktivnosti med državami, 
omenjene gospodarske politike pa predlagajo pro-
žnost trga dela, odsotnost inflacije in fiksen devizni 
tečaj. Takšne gospodarske politike vodijo k zmanj-
šanju konkurenčnosti države na račun dela.  V Bosni 
in Hercegovini pa tovrstna politika vodi k težavam v 
zvezi s kršenjem pravic delavcev, katerega sestavni 
del je tudi odpuščanje delavcev, kot so: neoliberal-
na oblika gospodarskega razvoja, pojav problema 
dvojne delovne sile in hkratni obstoj strukturne in 
ciklične nezaposlenosti. Da bi omilili konflikt med 
delom in kapitalom, bi morali uvesti večjo repre-
zentativnost države pri vzpodbujanju gospodarske-
ga razvoja (vodenje aktivne industrijske politike 
in opustitev makroekonomske stabilnosti na račun 
visoke nezaposlenosti) in vzpostaviti socialni dialog 
z vsemi ustreznimi sodelujočimi, ki si prizadevajo 
za socialni dialog in socialno izboljšanje delovnih 
pogojev.
1 Instead of an introduction: neoliberal framework as incentive for  
conflict of labour and capital
For unsuccessful transition countries, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, the alre-
ady expressed problem of the mismatches between supply and demand in the labour 
market has deepened with the consequences of the global recession: together with the 
crisis, the cyclic cause of unemployment becomes simply added to the preceding stru-
ctural unemployment which came out of many years of failure in the implementation 
4 Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede (1, 2017)
of neo-liberal model of economic development, as well as the Dayton disaggregated 
labour market of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
The ruling neo-liberal economic paradigm, through the rules of the Washington 
Consensus, is in the function of strict conservation and stimulation of private mega-
capital and financial oligarchy, based on the principles of deregulation, privatisation, 
liberalisation of prices and liberalisation of the foreign trade (Stojanov, 2013). 
With ethical judgment “the immorality of liberals”, Krugman (2010) recognises 
the ideological background of this doctrine in its orientation on fundamental grounds: 
low and stable prices (orientation to zero inflation) and fixed exchange rates. If we 
take into account the neoclassical treatment of work, expressed through the attitude 
of flexibility of wages and prices, which assumes that the domestic product is always 
at its natural level, and unemployment is always the question of the willing decisions 
of workers not to work, then, in the structure of liberal democracy, we reached basic 
relations of social relations - the conflict between labour and capital. Quantitative 
minimisation of the significance of work shows a constant decrease of the relative 
share of labour in the structure of GDP: in the last 30 years the labour participation 
decreased from 75% to 68%, while the capital increased from 25% to 32% (Mencin-
ger, 2008, p. 2).
Ideological and programmatic imposition of such a form of the Washington Con-
sensus to small and for the transition unprepared countries such as Bosnia and Herze-
govina, as few critics noticed since the transition started, the logical consequence is 
the lack of understanding of the basis of the market economy and the basis for insti-
tutional reforms. This approach, on the one hand, derives from “excessive reliance on 
academic neoclassical models of the economy”, that understands universal liberalisa-
tion and privatisation “as a sign of success” and not as a means of achieving develo-
pment perspectives. And, on the other hand, the reduction of the economic neolibera-
lism on a small number of instruments (macro-economic stability, trade liberalisation 
and price with an open economy and privatisation), which will very quickly create a 
market, which will soon reallocate resources and allocate them to efficient owners. 
Hence, “the fact that privatisation has failed to establish the foundations of a market 
economy are not a coincidence, but a logical consequence of the way in which it was 
conducted” (Stiglitz, 1998).
The end result of this approach, as was pointed critical thought (Stiglitz, 1998; 
Stiglitz, 2003; Kolodko, 1999; Kolodko, 2000; Horvat, 2007), which is also mani-
fested in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is the following: (1) the private mar-
ket, without adequate institutional structure, may give impetus only to the process of 
selling of state assets, (2) if the markets open too quickly to competition, before the 
establishment of strong financial institutions, the existing employment will be further 
deepened, (3) the policies underlying the Washington Consensus may provide only 
short-term stability, but no long-term growth.
In contrast, the attitude of the World Bank on the model of macroeconomic policy 
in Bosnia and Herzegovina speaks of its positive effect on the consolidation of the 
stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because of the established price stability and 
5Kadrja Hodžić, PhD: Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times of Global...
the exchange rate on the strict adherence to a Currency Board regime. In addition, 
one argues that such macroeconomic policies limiting the potential of the country’s 
economy will be solved “by accelerating key structural reforms, including improving 
the business environment and increasing the degree of flexibility of the labour market” 
(World Bank, 2005).
Such ideological framework of neoliberal paradigm and by the Washington Con-
sensus established programming framework for the conduct of economic policy, 
sharpened the historical conflict between labour and capital. 
With such policies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the labour market is more flexible 
with the imperative to reduce wages in order to attract foreign capital. In measuring 
global competitiveness (World Economic Forum, 2012), within the VII pillar of ef-
ficiency of the labour market, according to the indicator of wages and productivity, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina stands at 98th position, which is well below its place at the 
overall scale of competitiveness (according to the Sustainable Competitiveness Index 
- SCI, Bosnia and Herzegovina is on the 88th position out of 144 measured countries). 
The analogy of research in Croatia (Sever and Associates, 2010; Stojanov, 2013) says 
that “the labour is not as expensive as it is commonly argued,” but that labour produ-
ctivity is much lower than in developed EU Member States”. 
The neoliberal paradigm excludes industrial policy as it starts from the neoclassi-
cal assumption of equality in labour productivity between countries, and it suggests, to 
economic policies, dominant flexibility of the labour market, the absence of inflation 
and a fixed exchange rate (see previous paragraph of the World Bank to Bosnia and 
Herzegovina). It is clear that such economic policies lead to impairment of competiti-
veness of the country at the expense of the position of labour and to opening a conflict 
of the society of labour and society of capital.
2 Global recession impinges into subsistance of society of labor
According to the World Bank for South East Europe (World Bank 2015), in 2015, 
Bosnia and Herzegovina can expect modest economic growth of 1.5%. This is a sli-
ght shift from 2012 when zero growth was recorded. The registered unemployment 
rate in Bosnia and Herzegovina reached a record level and it is, according to the 
latest available statistical indicators, 44.4%. In the year of the deepest recession, 
at 2009, when the growth rate dropped to - 2.9%, 41,000 jobs were lost. At the 
beginning of 2013, Bosnia and Herzegovina has recorded the highest number of 
unemployed in its history: 550,574 people, while the number of employees compa-
red on 2011 decreased by 0.3%.
The global recession brings downturn of economic activity, insolvency of the real 
sector, problems financing the current income, slowing growth and development of 
companies, depression of spending of the citizens and aggregate consumption. It fol-
lows further reduction the sales market and falling production, and according to a 
6 Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede (1, 2017)
survey we conducted in 20091, managers do not exclude the possibility of opening the 
list of “missing the companies in a time of crisis”.
However, the recession does not bring the mere reduction of economic growth 
and the expansion of poverty, but also impinge on the existence of “society of labo-
ur”, which was, in the past four decades seriously broached by neoliberalism. In the 
conflict between labour and capital, which was voiced more than a decade ago by 
Latouche as criticism of the triumph of secondary sociality western modernity at the 
cost of visible deletion of each sociability and suppression of other forms of sociabi-
lity (Latouche, 1998, pp. 80-82), neoliberalism is permanently on the side of capital. 
But, while the power of capital over labour and the financial domination over the 
real capital have been pretty blurred by the establishment of liberal democracy, the 
global recession finally crashes neoliberal institutionalised myth of market society in 
which all participants of the market game have benefit, and reveals that the problem 
of social relations is not only economic but and epistemological and anthropological. 
The recession fully discloses “putting the market” on the side of capital, widening 
Gorz’s fear (Gorz, 1997, pp. 16-17) of the collapse of civilization and the implosion 
of the globalised world and financelised economy as possible consequences of mass 
cancellation of work and deterioration of labour substances which cannot serve the 
valorisation of capital. Specified attitudes of Latouche and Gorz’s are given according 
to Mestrovic (2001, pp. 32-33).
Predicting a drastic reduction of the sales market and the reduced volume of bu-
siness, according to the above mention survey, the companies announced further staff 
reductions. In the period of recession, in the structure of qualifications of employees 
for which the need will seize to exist, unskilled workers dominate (it is expected in 
70% of companies). This confirms the thesis that the penetration of economic globa-
lisation, of which negative effects recession dramatically deepens for the unskilled 
workers, and reduces the need for unskilled labour. According to the declaration of the 
majority of managers (90%), workers with higher qualifications will not come under 
redundancy effect, which confirms the second part of the thesis of the positive impact 
of globalisation on employment creation especially for skilled workers based on mo-
dern technology and the economy of knowledge. The demand for highly skilled jobs 
in the modern economy of knowledge will grow, and the demand for unskilled labour 
will decline. Unskilled workers will furthermore drop out from the game, while those 
who can compete on labour market will earn well. With further technological develo-
pment and the creation of knowledge-based economy, the need for unskilled workers 
will become increasingly smaller, and the result will be a growing gap in income. The 
crisis will increase the flexibility of the market, which brings with it increasing inequ-
ality and uncertainty.
1 Survey entitled “The impact of global recession on the (un) employment in the metal sector in Tuzla Canton“ 
for 2009 we have carried out for the needs of the Cantonal Committee of Independent Trade Unions of TK in 
February 2009. No matter how territorial and sectoral limited, crisis paradigmatic metal sector provides a 
valid analogy with the situation and trends in the relationship between labor and capital of BiH as a whole 
(see: Hodzic, 2009).
7Kadrja Hodžić, PhD: Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times of Global...
Hence the first effects of the recession we find in the world of labour. With terti-
arisation of economy, labour is included in the process of increasing to a higher level 
of qualification. This process rejects those members of society who cannot fit in it. 
This is confirmed by the fundamental dynamics of neoliberal exclusion of significant 
segments of the population with primary market. The conclusion of J. Young (Young, 
1999: 20-21) is: neoliberalism not only tried to narrow the boundaries of the state, 
but was allowed to limit civil society. Actuarial cordon sanitarire sharply separates 
the world of losers from the world of winners (according to Mestrovic 2001: 39). The 
index of general social exclusion in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which in 2006 showed 
that 50.32% of the population “in a certain way excluded from society”, while 21.85% 
of the population is “extremely socially excluded” (Papic, 2009, pp. 263), could be 
significantly increased in the years to come!
Almost half of the managers from the mentioned survey do not exclude the possi-
bility that a certain number laid-off workers could be substituted with the recruitment 
of temporary and casual workers. By all odds, according to the survey, 80% of mana-
gers believe that the remaining workers who retain their jobs will have reduced wages, 
while only 20% of managers believe that the crisis will have no effect on the reduction 
of salaries. It is indicative that most managers would be willing to pay even higher 
wages to skilled workers in relation to the payment of wages in 2008. In addition, 
20-30% of managers expected to open up the possibility of hiring new highly skilled 
workers.
In the perception of the impact on easing the crisis, managers expect that country 
start up the salvation of capital. A small number of managers (30% of them) considers 
that the effects of the crisis can be alleviated by own forces, while the majority (70%) 
expect help from the state as exclusive authority to pull the companies out of crisis. In 
the “capital protection”, managers expect from state: (a) tax relief (including the redu-
ction of contributions and taxes, and the write-off of residual taxes and contributions), 
(b) the protection of domestic production (including incentives such as favourable 
loans for the creation of new or preservation of existing jobs, opening credit lines for 
exporters, subsidised interest rates for investment and activation of allowed anti-dum-
ping measures), (c) the opening of public investment projects that would eventually 
raise the demand for outputs of economic sectors, as well as encouraging public-priva-
te partnerships in the investment activities (d) the preparation of development projects 
to be financed from EU funds and international financial institutions.
Absent questions related to the “protection of labour”, since it is only 20% of 
managers who perceived assistance of state through the resolution of social status 
issues of workers, such as tying years of service to workers and problem solving of 
retirement of workers on a credit basis. Way to “protect capital”, by sending the wor-
kers “on hold”, as a particularly pronounced problem in Federation of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, is rough - it happens that employers by unilateral decisions, without 
explanation, send the workers on hold, neglecting the employment contract and its 
obligations, regulated by Article 70 of the Labour Law of Federation of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, which concerns primarily the financial compensation during the cessati-
8 Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede (1, 2017)
on of work. The amount of compensation is determined by the Collective Agreement, 
book of rules and employment contract, but in practice it is usually determined by the 
employer, and employees mainly seek protection of their rights on this issue in court 
(SEE Portal, 2009).
3 Problems of employees – violation of workers’ rights 
Since Charles Fourier, the utopian philosopher, first drew attention to the right 
to work, this term in the 18th, 19th and 20th century was opened as one of the most 
pressing political, social and economic issues resulting from the treatment of funda-
mental human rights and material well-being of individuals. By the end of the 20th 
and the beginning of 21st century, the approach to protecting the right to work was 
further complicated by an economic ideology of neoliberalism, and increased global 
competition, which ended up in the global recession, deteriorated labour conditions 
and standard of workers. For radical critics of neo-liberal economic ideology in the 
transition the conflicts in society have grown tense to such an extent that the question, 
whether to re-actualise “class struggle”, can be asked, which is why “it is necessary 
to revise the thesis about the wear of the idea of class struggle between workers and 
owners of capital” knowing that “the right to the protection of workers’ rights were 
transferred to the rights of private owners of property, which obtained authorisation to 
arbitrarily regulate the rights of labour relations” (Golubović, 2008).
In the “specific specificities” of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Stojanov, 2000, p. 48), 
these disadvantages have a special form which determines us to define something that 
could mark as the framework for violations of workers’ rights in Bosnia and Herzego-
vina, and which constitutes the problems of Bosnian and Herzegovinian abolition of 
work: (1) neoliberal form of economic development, (2) the opening of the problem 
of the dual labour force, including the occurrence of atypical forms of work and (3) 
alarming structural and cyclical unemployment. The right to work and protection of 
workers’ rights are amongst the largest problems in the field of human rights in Bo-
snia and Herzegovina, since their violation does not arise from individual cases of 
non-compliance with workers’ rights, but derives from the system framework and 
ideological neoliberal form by which Bosnia develops. The violation of these rights 
directly prevents economic development and is contrary to the stable democracy and 
the functioning of markets in general.
It should be noted that in Bosnia and Herzegovina one approach is seen, and truly 
can be found in other countries, and is concerned with the problem of dual labour 
force in the workforce. In fact, there are those who work in state and public sector, in 
some large companies - whose rights are protected and covered by collective agree-
ments. Unlike them, there are a large part of the workforce that is completely unpro-
tected, from those who work illegally, those who work in small private enterprises 
where there is no union organisation, to those who work in sectors where the average 
wage is less than the amount needed to cover monthly basic needs – as known as “the 
9Kadrja Hodžić, PhD: Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times of Global...
consumer basket” (manufacturing, construction, trade and catering) and those who 
work in companies in bankruptcy.
Workers’ rights in all these cases are not covered by trade union action, collective 
agreements, and is estimated that their number in Bosnia and Herzegovina reach up 
to 350,000 workers. According to research carried out by the Centre for Investigati-
ve Journalism (CIN), of this number, more than 240,000 people are working on the 
black labour market surviving on low and irregular salaries earned on such way. The 
most frequently violated rights of workers are related to: termination of employment, 
payment of accrued salary that are not paid, and severance pay (SEE Portal). As an 
illustration, it is stated that the provisions on termination of employment due to econo-
mic, technical or organisational reasons, as a result of inability of employee to perform 
work duties from employment (Article 87 of the Labour Law of Federation Bosnia 
and Herzegovina and article 124 of the Labour Law RS) are set “wide and imprecise 
and leave open the possibility of abuse by employers. The legislator did not define 
precisely “what is deemed justified dismissal”, but it was left to the “free assessment 
of the employer”. Besides that, blurs are the second part of “regulations concerning 
the liabilities of employees, and it is again left to the assessment of the employer”, 
so it is “easy to get into a situation that, for example, judgment on health capabilities 
of worker to carry out a job, is left to incompetent employer instead of experts from 
institutions responsible for health care”. In a wider context here, one would include 
the violation of rights in the field of ethnic difference of the workers who find them-
selves on the “wrong territory”, arising from the Dayton constituents, which remains 
a remarkable powerful source of human rights violations in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
(Stojanov, 2000). Ethnic (territorial) fragmentation and common disunity of trade uni-
on organisations, which relativises their convincing position they advocate, reducing 
the chances of social partnership of trade unions, employers and the state, that in 
democratic countries includes formalised and informal forms of cooperation and har-
monisation of conflicting interests of the three sides on the regulation of labour and 
labour market. The general conclusion from the applied form of economic transition, 
from which all described “cases”are derived, reads as: violation of the right to work in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina have a systematic character!
Pattern of transition and post-war reconstruction of “Dayton” Bosnia and Herze-
govina are constantly preoccupied with the problems of building a liberal society (mar-
kets and democracy), but more of his political than economic content which has con-
sequently left in the shadow the economic and social rights or at least positioned them 
in the second row of social objectives in the country. This systematic neglect of these 
rights, which have struck precisely workers’ rights the hardest, derives from at least 
four reasons. The first reason is that the main attention after the democratic changes is 
focused on the protection of civil and political rights while socio-economic rights are 
neglected. That is the first paid tribute to the primary political goal of transition which 
had to be radical incapacitating any thought on the restoration of the previous political 
nomenclature. Secondly, the economic development of the country is entirely based 
on the neo-liberal pattern, based exclusively on macroeconomic especially financial 
10 Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede (1, 2017)
stability, which neglected the real sector that creates the material preconditions for job 
creation and application of the right to work. The first consequence of this quasi achie-
ved macroeconomic stability in the country is alarming unemployment. Such situation 
threatens to breakdown the entire system of social protection to which it is not possi-
ble to answer using the classic measures to protect workers’ rights. Thirdly, political 
tensions and ethno-national divergence lowered the threshold of social sensitivity of 
working classes, substituting them with theses on national endangerment, which are 
above the vulnerability of workers’ rights. And finally, what further complicates the 
protection of these rights are known problems with the justice system and the effici-
ency of judicial protection of workers’ rights. From the many examples in practice we 
testify that litigations are too long and that, prolonging the agony of those in violation 
of these rights, means endangering their basic living existence. This is due to the lack 
of development of legal mechanisms, particularly marked in the case of bankruptcies. 
As a result, today we have: the weak and divided unions, explicit grey labour mar-
ket, then inactive professional organisations that should be involved and insufficient 
pressure on the state to fulfil given rights.
The economic development of Bosnia and Herzegovina is based on a neo-liberal 
form, solely based on macroeconomic, especially financial stability. The reduced mar-
ket transformation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a very narrow number of elements in 
which it is developed will impact above all on macroeconomic stabilisation, where co-
untry enjoys exclusive and only stability of, so-called nominal indicators and they are: 
stability and convertibility of the local currency, fixed exchange rate and low inflation.
Actually, more than in other transition countries, in Bosnia and Herzegovina the 
(neoliberal) pattern of stabilisation is entered as the dominant economic goal in which 
monetary policy was given simultaneously or alternatively two tasks: development 
and stability. Supported by other measures, monetary policy gives some results in 
overcoming the recession and curbing inflation, but experience shows that successful-
ly does not eliminates the second problem: when it overcomes the recession it does not 
bridle inflation and when inflation is restrained, it does not provide sufficient develo-
pment (Perišin and Šokman 1988).
Monetarist fallacy ignores the structural characteristics of the real economy - eco-
nomic growth, current account and unemployment, and the economic success ove-
remphasises the role of low inflation. The latter case is confirmed by the example of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which, every macroeconomic stability is fragile if there 
is no acceleration of the economy, and increase productivity and thus the competiti-
veness of the country. With axiomatic view that macroeconomic stability is a precon-
dition for sustainable economic growth, application of the neoliberal concept is by 
far well contributed to the establishment of a quasi-macroeconomic balance in the 
country, with alarming registered unemployment rate. With the failure of economic 
reforms, the need to develop protection of economic and social rights of workers has 
been completely ignored, and the fragility of protection in terms of the global recessi-
on was created.
11Kadrja Hodžić, PhD: Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times of Global...
4 Conceptual disagreements between bosnian economists as theoretical 
fundation of support to society of labour and/or society of capital
The underlying divisions present in domestic economic opinion in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina today are similar to those which appeared at the beginning of the tran-
sition process in most former socialist countries: there is a dominant group which is 
markedly neoliberal in orientation, with a second group that is critical of the applica-
tion of ready-made neoliberal nostrums, and a third group of observers, preoccupied 
with issues which lie outside the contested areas in current economic thought (Hodžić, 
2015, pp. 32-47).
4.1 The neoliberal group of Bosnian economists
The neoliberal group developed a certain faith in the power of the market as the 
answer to all the country’s developmental problems and so adopted and continues to 
promote, within that framework, the neoliberal option of building a market society in 
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Such opinions are, in fact, an expression or version of the 
neoliberal principles of the Washington Consensus as taken over and introduced into 
the country by representatives of the international community, the real standard bea-
rers of the process of transition, and so of macroeconomic stabilisation and privatisa-
tion. Consequently, for the dominant current, acceptance of liberal doctrine has rather 
been an expression of political and ideological allegiance than one of the authentic 
production of liberal ideas within the country. 
In any case, there has not been enough time for a domestic liberal worldview to 
develop, particularly since liberal ideas have not traditionally a historical foothold 
amongst Bosnian and Herzegovinian economists. During the period of socialism, the-
re was no indigenous development in Bosnia and Herzegovina even of the Yugoslav 
polemics on property-based and non-property-based conceptions of social property, 
the property-based ones of which reflected a certain liberalisation in attitudes towards 
ownership. In fact, it has, for the most part and somewhat indiscriminately, been the 
members of the governing institutions and their economic advisers who have presen-
ted these ideas, both explicitly and implicitly. 
They are regularly the co-authors of studies produced by the World Bank and 
the IMF on the economic problems of or development projections for Bosnia and 
Herzegovina. Moreover, their approach has involved less robust advocacy of radical 
and comprehensive neoliberal prescriptions for transition in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 
than simply reflected the acceptance and adoption of neoliberal nostrums, without any 
serious theoretical discussion and certainly without any grounding in the original ide-
as of the leading advocates of radical and comprehensive neo-liberal prescriptions for 
transition (like Sachs, Lipton, Gros, Steiner or Kennett and their respective packages) 
or in the views of the political creators and standard bearers of the economic policies 
of transition (during the first decade of the implementation of transition, the leaders 
in promoting and actually implementing liberal ideas included V. Klaus in the Czech 
Republic, Balcerowicz in Poland, Gaidar and Chubais in Russia, and P. Aven and M. 
12 Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede (1, 2017)
Laar in Estonia). The promoters of these and similar neoliberal approaches in Bosnia 
and Herzegovina included: Zlatko Hurtić, former chief adviser to the Council of Mi-
nisters of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and professors Hasan Muratović (former Chair of 
the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Jadranko Prlić (another former 
member of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Stijepo Andrijić, 
Slaviša Raković, Meho Bašić, Marko Beroš, Mirko Marković and Novo Plakalović. 
This group presented a neoliberal vision of economic growth, macroeconomic stabi-
lity and liberal democracy based on a general model of an open economy and a shock 
therapy approach to transition in Bosnia and Herzegovina (rapid and thoroughgoing 
privatisation, heavy reliance on small to medium enterprises as the new paradigm for 
economic development, and the fragmentation of large industrial combines, etc.). In 
the first flush of enchantment with private ownership, one of the protagonists of these 
opinions proclaimed that “the character and reach of the current war in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina and Croatia is significantly connected to the absence of private property 
as the dominant form of ownership” (Beroš, 1994, p. 11).
Most of the developmental studies and documents sponsored by the “international 
community” were based on some concept of neoliberal reform and the real degree of 
participation by local economists as co-authors of the studies is quite unclear, that is, 
whether they played a real role in drafting the studies or were simply added as co-a-
uthors on the basis of positions held in various ministries and government agencies, 
particularly as a number of them would later express significantly different positions 
in their own works (examples include professors Mladen Ivanić, Mirsad Kikanović, 
Jusuf Kumalić, and Mesud Sabitović). The contingency of their support for neolibe-
ralism, as expressed in official documents and official statements, was clear, in so 
far as it was often abandoned once these authors were at work in independent, local 
publications. 
From the series of such cases, we may single out the examples of Ivanić’s textbook 
on the Principles of Economics (Ivanić, 2000), which even retains Marxist termino-
logy to a certain degree, of Sabitović’s text in the collection on “The impact of the 
transformation of ownership on unemployment and employment“ (1999, pp. 41-49), 
of A. Milojević, who in later statements to the media (from 2010) and in books  “Fa-
ctory workers and citizens” (2015) called for “a return of the state to the economy”, 
and even of Prlić himself, whom we have already met as one of the foremost advo-
cates of neoliberalism in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who himself admits “that a sim-
plified understanding of the Washington consensus for political propaganda use in 
trivial pseudo-academic constructions does not provide an adequate formulation. This 
is particularly the case, when there is a form of macroeconomic equilibrium (albeit 
with high levels of unemployment).” One of the protagonists of this group has even 
claimed that, during the current period of recession in Bosnia and Herzegovina, “there 
is, for a country like ours, now no alternative to the concept of market economics and 
liberalisation” (Prlić and Marić, 2008, p. 477). 
Amongst local studies driven by this concept, it is worth mentioning the Mid-term 
development strategy for 2004 to 2007 (Sarajevo, 2004), which advocated further 
13Kadrja Hodžić, PhD: Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times of Global...
liberalisation and opening up to foreign markets, and the Private Sector Development 
Plan, developed under the aegis of the International Business Forum Perspektive – 
Tuzla (1999), which included no fewer than 38 tailored measures, including a call for 
bolder penetration by the private sector to communal services, the infrastructural sec-
tor and to health insurance and pensions, along with the restriction of workers’ rights 
in labour law, as well as the withdrawal of any form of lending to companies not in 
private hands. 
4.2 The critics of the neoliberal proposals
The second group of economists took a critical approach to the application of 
off-the-peg neoliberal prescriptions, particularly in an unprepared country like Bosnia 
and Herzegovina. This was an ideologically and intellectually diverse group of critics 
of neoliberal nostrums, including some advocating pro-Keynesian viewpoints (profe-
ssors: Dragoljub Stojanov, Dušan Jakšić, Žarko Papić, Kadrija Hodžić, Fikret Čauše-
vić, Manojlo Babić, Aleksa Milojević, and journalist Eldar Dizdarević), others advo-
cating a form of welfare liberalism (Esad Vilogorac, Boris Tihi, Anto Domazet, Nikola 
Grabovac, Rajko Tomaš, Vjekoslav Domljan, Fahrudin Šebić, Svetlana Cenić, Mirsad 
Kikanović, Damir Miljević and Izudin Kešetović), and a few representing traditiona-
list socialist views (Mićo Carević, Franjo Kožul, Branko Bijelić, Sabrija Pojskić, and 
Dragutin Bošković), while more recently this space of critique of the global neoliberal 
and transition right wing has also been occupied by a group of young new-leftists, led 
by Vuk Bačanović. The first two groups, but particularly the pro Keynesians, advocate 
a gradual approach to transition in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in general, follow a 
similar critical orientation and espouse similar critical views to their global colleagues 
J. Stiglitz, D. Ellerman, D. North and G.W. Kolodko, and others, for whom the lesson 
of the neoliberal project of transition is that it is essentially a banal experiment with 
no proper scientific basis, and indeed to those developed by colleagues of a similar 
orientation in the other countries of South Eastern Europe (including B. Horvat, J. 
Mencinger, S. Zdunić, V. Baletić, O. Kovać, and D. Vojnić). 
The fundamental and consistent critique directed by the pro-Keynesian econo-
mists at the transition package for Bosnia and Herzegovina boils down to a critique of 
the policy of privatisation and macroeconomic stabilisation combined with excessive 
dependency on the concept of small-to-medium enterprises. Their concrete objections 
to the transition package are: firstly, that it reduced macroeconomic stabilisation to a 
rigid monetary policy and “a sound fiscal policy”, an approach which left no room for 
an active economic policy and in which discretionary fiscal policy is entirely disregar-
ded; secondly, that macroeconomic stability is tabled as a goal of transition and not a 
principal precondition, which has contributed to establishing a quasi-macroeconomic 
equilibrium in the country, accompanied by alarming levels of unemployment and a 
balance of payment deficit, a model of reductive macroeconomic stability that has 
been characterised as “nominal, but certainly not true stability” (Stojanov, in a number 
of works between 1997 and 2008) or as “quasi-macroeconomic stability” (Hodžić, 
2006); and thirdly, that privatisation as carried out involved distinct risks for the future 
of Bosnian and Herzegovinian society (Stojanov, 2000; Babić, 2006), both because it 
14 Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede (1, 2017)
was a form of “ethnic privatisation” and because of the long fostered, but unrealistic 
expectation that privatisation would, in and of itself, lead to an increased economic 
efficiency and so, over the long-term, to the increase in employment. We may note 
a distinguished continuity of such critical reviews of neoliberalism (by such autho-
rs as Papić, Čaušević, Stojanov, Domljan, Domazet, Tomaš, Hodžić, and Miljević), 
published under conditions both of growth and of global recession, in three issues of 
the distinguished journal, »Forum Bosnae,” between 2008 and 2011, entitled respecti-
vely: The Economics of Rapid Development (2008), The Crisis of the Bosnian and 
Herzegovinian Economy (2009) and The Economic and Social Future of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina (2011).
The traditionalist socialist critique of the free market and of privatisation has been 
offered by left-wing intellectuals from scholarly neo-Marxist circles. In so far as pri-
vatisation is the key distinguishing element of the transition package, we find a greater 
focus of attention amongst left-wingers on problems of ownership. At play are more or 
less negative and reactionary responses to the results of the project of privatisation and 
transition generally. Most of them find even the phrase transition unacceptable and 
speak more readily of reforms. It can, nonetheless, sometimes be difficult to distingu-
ish them from the Keynesian advocacy of gradualist privatisation: on the one hand, 
they all share practically the same critique of the shock therapy approach to privatisa-
tion, while on the other all agreeing that private ownership cannot be the fundamental 
form of ownership relations. In contrast to the preceding set of opinions, however, the 
necessity of privatisation itself is being questioned here. In most cases, we are in fact 
dealing with advocates of some form of workers’ capitalism, who remain attached 
to the idea of workers’ co-ownership (popular capitalism with worker-shareholders 
as the method of privatisation). This approach had many adherents at the beginning 
of transition throughout the former Yugoslavia, and was represented in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina by a collection published before the war on “The Introduction of Internal 
Shareholding in Social Enterprises and the Reorganisation of these Firms into Share-
holding Companies in Ownership” (1990).  
After the war, a certain number of economists continued to advocate the idea of 
employee shareholding as the most acceptable method of privatisation (Pojskić). In 
their critique of privatisation, they start from an elaboration of the negative aspects of 
privatisation, while for Mićo Carević privatisation it lacks any positive correlation to 
economic and social development certainly does not represent “an economic necessi-
ty”, as it is “an ideologically and politically driven speculative measure”, aimed at 
reducing transition to a “restoration of capitalism” (Carević, 1997, pp. 128-132). He 
even introduces a version of conspiracy theory, with regard to “new forms of ensla-
vement” by the West. Such pointed criticism of the privatisation programme has been 
published under the influence of left-wing critics of globalisation and transition, in 
particular the Moscow Journal, Voprosiekonomiki, which has developed its critical 
tone regarding transition and change “within the context of a discussion of problems 
related to seeking a new paradigm for native economic science”, and taking a stand 
15Kadrja Hodžić, PhD: Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times of Global...
against the “domination of Economics” (e.g. the text by A. Buzgalin and A. Kolganov 
from 1998). 
Such publications include the Belgrade published Ekonomski anali, whose critical 
editorial line regarding “the imposed liberal approach, which is unsuitable for the 
development of former socialist countries” (e.g. texts by M. Eremić, M. Marković, O. 
Kovač, M. Jakšić and others) was set particularly by the former editor, Professor Bog-
dan Ilić, and Šuvar’s  Hrvatska ljevica  which has been filled by such texts, particularly 
by leftist authors like B. Denić, M. Križan, S. Žižek, V. Tkalec and S. Šuvar. More 
recently (after 2010), a “United Front for Socialism and Democracy”, has appeared, 
particularly on web portals (e.g. radiosarajevo.ba), bringing together younger Bosni-
an and Herzegovinian left-wingers, led by Vuk Bačanović, and presenting a radical 
critique of neoliberalism, while looking for new paradigms for socialist economic 
solutions, or, as they say “for transformation of the economic system into a humane 
economy” (2011).
5 Conclusion
The area of labour rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina is unsettled, social dialogue 
undeveloped, social inclusion almost unknown, economic situation in the country is 
critical; to large extent the existing positive legislation and the provisions of social and 
labour policy are not applied. Given the neoliberal perspective, underestimation of 
society of labour is due to last long. Mitigation of conflict between labour and capital 
in Bosnia and Herzegovina is possible to lead on two levels. 
The first implies a stronger presence of the state incentives in economic develo-
pment (overcoming quasi-macroeconomic stability and conducting active industrial 
policy). Secondly, it is necessary to open the general social dialogue in which it is 
necessary to retract all the relevant factors, from trade unions, employers and go-
vernment to NGOs, political parties, who are interested in social dialogue and social 
improvement of working conditions. On the other hand, it seems relevant a thesis of 
Z. Papic (2008, p. 283) of the “economy of accelerated development in the framework 
of concept of human development”, and that concerns a “radical reversal”, first in 
strategies, and then in policies”: current “cost” in the social aspects of development 
could become “investment” – social inclusion would have changed the character of 
the traditional social protection, from help to passive users towards inclusion into the 
labour and social life. 
Conditions of work, education or active labour market policies cannot be the sole 
responsibility of the state, nor entirely left to market forces. The social partners can 
play a key role in defining, explaining and implementing these policies. 
Market and social solidarity are not contradictory, as the maintenance of 
employment is the most important instrument of social cohesion in society. Quali-
ty dialogue between representatives of workers and employers can help Bosnia and 
Herzegovina to get through the economic crisis. However, the absence of strong au-
16 Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede (1, 2017)
tonomous and independent social partners in Bosnia and Herzegovina, reduces the 
potency of the collective negotiations and settlement of labour disputes, making it ne-
cessary to “expand the scope of dialogue through collective agreements”, and “initiate 
consultation and dialogue with social partners on a wide range of issues related to la-
bour and employment, including dialogue on labour laws, employment and labour and 
employment policies” (Employment Strategy Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 
2008, p. 101). In the long-term context, the first and foremost thing in order to protect 
economic and social rights is to change the theoretical and ideological paradigm. The 
current pattern of economic development was based on the reduction of transitional 
package, on privatisation and restrictive monetary and financial policies, where, the 
need for more dynamic economy and job creation is completely ignored or cast aside. 
Solutions for the economic and social future of Bosnia and Herzegovina have to be 
sought in changes in economic dogmas and political settings. 
This change can be expressed as follows: approach to economic growth that is 
based on the economics of production, instead of the applied concept based on the 
economics of demand and free market. Secondly, opening of the positive impact of 
approaching the EU: EU directives which need to be applied, imply permanent control 
of realisation of social and economic rights of workers, which represents the core of 
the European social model, which, inter alia, refers to issues (the candidate countri-
es) such as protection of the right to work, then the relationship of male and female 
workforce, then also, related to the family rights deriving from labour, etc. The rights 
and obligations of labour relations, therefore, must be determined in accordance with 
international standards and the European Convention on Human Rights and Funda-
mental Freedoms. However, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the first assumption is not 
fulfilled, since there is no unified Law on Labour Rights, but the Constitution of Bo-
snia and Herzegovina obliges the entities to implement international regulations and 
standards that refer to social dialogue. 
Dr. Kadrija Hodžić
Konflikt med delom in kapitalom v času 
globalne krize v Bosni in Hercegovini
Ideološki okvir neoliberalne paradigme in programski okvir za izvajanje gospo-
darskih politik, ki jih predvideva Washingtonski konsenz, je še poglobil zgodovinski 
konflikt med delom in kapitalom. Neoliberalna paradigma izključuje industrijsko po-
litiko, ker izhaja iz neoklasicistične predpostavke o izenačenju delovne učinkovitosti 
med državami, omenjene gospodarske politike pa predlagajo prožnost trga dela, od-
sotnost inflacije in fiksen devizni tečaj. Takšne gospodarske politike vodijo k zmanjša-
nju konkurenčnosti države na račun dela. V Bosni in Hercegovini pa tovrstna politika 
vodi h kršenju delavskih pravic, katerega sestavni del je tudi odpuščanje delavcev.
17Kadrja Hodžić, PhD: Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times of Global...
Področje delavskih pravic v Bosni in Hercegovini ni urejeno, ni socialnega dia-
loga, socialna vključenost skoraj ne obstaja in gospodarske razmere v državi so kri-
tične, obstoječa pozitivna zakonodaja in določbe o socialni in delovni politiki pa se 
največkrat ne upoštevajo. Glede na dosedanjo neoliberalno perspektivo, se bo podce-
njevanje tega problema obdržalo še dolgo. 
Glede na kazalnik plač in produktivnosti Bosna in Hercegovina zaseda 98. mesto, 
kar je precej pod njenim mestom na skupni lestvici konkurenčnosti (glede na indeks 
trajnostne konkurenčnosti (Sustainable Competitiveness Index - SCI), kjer je na 88. 
mestu od 144 držav).
Skladno s predvidevanjem drastičnega zmanjšanja prodajnega trga in zmanjša-
njem obsega poslovanja, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v raziskavi z naslovom »Vpliv glo-
balne recesije na (ne)zaposlenost v kovinarskem sektorju v kantonu Tuzla« iz leta 
2009, so podjetja naznanila še nadaljnje odpuščanje zaposlenih.  Glede na strukturo 
kvalifikacij zaposlenih - potrebe po njih se bodo v obdobju recesije zmanjšale - prevla-
dujejo nekvalificirani delavci (predvideva se odpuščanje zaposlenih v 70 % podjetij). 
To potrjuje tezo, da prodor gospodarske globalizacije, katere negativne učinke na 
usodo nekvalificiranih delavcev recesija še poglablja, dramatično zmanjšuje potrebo 
po nekvalificirani delovni sili. V skladu z izjavami večine menedžerjev (90 %), delavci 
z višjimi kvalifikacijami ne bodo zajeti v t. i. efekt odpuščanj, kar potrjuje drugi del 
teze o pozitivnem vplivu globalizacije na delovna mesta predvsem za kvalificirane 
delavce (v skladu z ekonomijo znanja), ki obvladajo tudi sodobno tehnologijo. Pov-
praševanje po visoko kvalificiranih delovnih mestih v sodobnem gospodarstvu znanja 
bo naraščalo in povpraševanje po nekvalificirani delovni sili bo upadalo. Zato prve 
učinke recesije najdemo na področju dela. S terciarizacijo gospodarstva se delovna 
sila aktivno vključuje v proces kvalificiranja na višjo raven. Ta proces zavrača tiste 
člane družbe, ki se ne morejo umestiti pod nobeno kategorijo, kar potrjuje temeljna di-
namika neoliberalnega izključevanja pomembnih segmentov prebivalstva s trga dela. 
Skoraj polovica menedžerjev iz omenjene raziskave ne izključuje možnosti, da bi 
lahko določeno število odpuščenih presežnih delavcev nadomestili z zaposlovanjem 
začasnih in priložnostnih delavcev. Z vidika vpliva na olajšanje krize menedžerji pri-
čakujejo, da bo država tista, ki bo pričela reševati kapital. Majhno število menedžer-
jev (30 %) meni, da je moč ublažiti posledice krize z lastnimi silami, medtem ko večina 
(70 %) pričakuje pomoč od države kot edinega pristojnega organa za reševanje podje-
tij iz krize.  V zvezi z “zaščito kapitala” menedžerji od države pričakujejo: (a) davčne 
olajšave (vključno z zmanjšanjem prispevkov in davkov ter odpisom preostalih davkov 
in prispevkov), (b) zaščito domače proizvodnje (vključno s spodbudami, kot so ugodna 
posojila za ustvarjanje novih ali ohranjanje obstoječih delovnih mest in odpiranje 
kreditnih linij za izvoznike, subvencionirane obrestne mere za naložbe in aktiviranje 
dovoljenih protidampinških ukrepov), (c) odprtje javnih investicijskih projektov, ki bi 
sčasoma lahko dvignili povpraševanje po proizvodih v gospodarskih sektorjih, pa tudi 
spodbujanje javno-zasebnih partnerstev v investicijske aktivnosti in (d) pripravo ra-
zvojnih projektov, ki se financirajo iz sredstev EU in mednarodnih finančnih institucij.
18 Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede (1, 2017)
V Bosni in Hercegovini je le en pristop, ki ga lahko zasledimo tudi v ostalih dr-
žavah, ukvarja pa se z vprašanjem dvojne delovne sile. Dejstvo je, da imamo na eni 
strani tiste, ki delajo v državnem in javnem sektorju ali v nekaterih večjih podjetjih, 
čigar pravice so zaščitene in določene v kolektivnih pogodbah. Na drugi strani pa 
je velik del delovne sile, ki je v celoti nezaščiten: od tistih, ki delajo nezakonito ali v 
manjših podjetjih, kjer ni sindikatov, do tistih, ki delajo v sektorjih, kjer je povprečna 
plača manjša od zneska, ki je potreben za pokritje osnovnih mesečnih potreb, oz. »po-
trošniške košarice« (predelovalne dejavnosti in gradbeništvo, trgovina in gostinstvo) 
in tistih, ki delajo v podjetjih v stečaju.
Pravice delavcev v vseh teh primerih niso krite s strani sindikatov niti s kolektiv-
nimi pogodbami in ocenjeno je, da njihovo število v Bosni in Hercegovini znaša do 
350.000. Splošni zaključek iz omenjene oblike ekonomske tranzicije, od koder izvirajo 
vsi opisani »primeri«, se glasi: kršitve pravic do dela v Bosni in Hercegovini so sis-
tematične!
Vzorec tranzicije in povojne obnove »Daytonske« Bosne in Hercegovine se ne-
nehno ukvarja s težavami pri izgradnji liberalne družbe (trgi in demokracija), ampak 
bolj je njegova politična kot ekonomska vsebina tista, ki je zasenčila ekonomske in 
socialne pravice, oz. jih umestila v drugorazredne socialne cilje v državi. 
Ekonomski razvoj Bosne in Hercegovine temelji na neoliberalni obliki, ki bazira 
izključno na makroekonomski ravni, zlasti na finančni stabilnosti. Okrnjeno tržno pre-
oblikovanje Bosne in Hercegovine se razvija predvsem na makroekonomski stabiliza-
ciji, pri čemer država pridobi največ stabilnosti tako imenovanih nominalnih indika-
torjev. To so: stabilnost in konvertibilnost lokalne valute, fiksen devizni tečaj in nizka 
inflacija. Bistvena razhajanja mnenj, ki so prisotna v domačem ekonomskem okolju 
Bosne in Hercegovine, so danes podobna tistim, ki so se pojavila na začetku tranzicije 
v večini nekdanjih socialističnih držav: obstaja prevladujoča skupina, ki je izrazito 
neoliberalno naravnana, druga skupina, ki je kritična do uporabe predpripravljenih 
neoliberalnih rešitev, in tretja skupina opazovalcev, prezaposlenih z vprašanji, ki so 
zunaj spornih območij v trenutni ekonomski misli (Hodžić, 2015, str. 32-47).
Neoliberalna skupina je razvila neke vrste vero v moč trga kot odgovor na vse 
razvojne probleme države in tako znotraj teh okvirov sprejema ter izvaja promocijo 
neoliberalne opcije izgradnje tržne družbe v Bosni in Hercegovini. Druga skupina 
ekonomistov je kritično pristopila k uporabi standardiziranih neoliberalnih navodil, 
še zlasti v nepripravljeni državi, kot je Bosna in Hercegovina. Ena je bila ideološko in 
intelektualno razgibana skupina kritikov neoliberalnih rešitev, vključno z nekaterimi 
zagovorniki keynesijanskih vidikov, drugi so zagovarjali obliko t. i. welfare liberaliz-
ma, nekaj pa jih je predstavljalo tradicionalne socialistične vidike. 
Temeljna in dosledna kritika tranzicijskega paketa za BiH v režiji keynesijanskih 
ekonomistov je bila osredotočena na kritiko politike privatizacije in makroekonomske 
stabilizacije v kombinaciji s preveliko odvisnostjo od koncepta malih in srednje velikih 
podjetij. Pogoji za delo, izobraževanje ali aktivne politike na trgu dela ne morejo biti 
izključno odgovornost države, niti v celoti prepuščeni tržnim silam. Socialni partnerji 
lahko igrajo ključno vlogo pri določanju, razlagi in izvajanju teh politik. Trg in so-
19Kadrja Hodžić, PhD: Conflict between Labour and Capital in Times of Global...
cialna solidarnost se ne izključujeta, ker je ohranjanje zaposlenosti najpomembnejši 
instrument socialne kohezije v družbi.  Kakovost dialoga med predstavniki delavcev in 
delodajalcev lahko pomaga Bosni in Hercegovini prebroditi gospodarsko krizo.
V dolgoročnem kontekstu je prva in najpomembnejša stvar za zaščito ekonomskih 
in socialnih pravic spreminjanje teoretične in ideološke paradigme. Trenutni vzorec 
gospodarskega razvoja temelji na redukciji tranzicijskega paketa, na lastninjenju in 
restriktivni monetarni in finančni politiki, kjer je bila potreba po bolj dinamičnem 
gospodarstvu in ustvarjanju novih delovnih mest povsem prezrta ali odrinjena. Re-
šitve za gospodarsko in socialno prihodnost Bosne in Hercegovine je treba iskati v 
spremembah ekonomske dogme in političnega okolja. Ta sprememba se lahko izrazi 
kot pristop h gospodarski rasti, ki temelji na ekonomiji proizvodnje, namesto da se še 
naprej uporablja koncept, ki temelji na ekonomiji povpraševanja in prostega trga. Kot 
naslednji ukrep se vzpostavi pozitiven vpliv približevanja EU. EU direktive, ki jih je 
treba uvajati, pomenijo stalni nadzor nad realizacijo ekonomskih in socialnih pravic 
delavcev, kar predstavlja jedro evropskega socialnega modela, ki se med drugim nana-
ša na vprašanja (držav kandidatk), kot so na primer varstvo pravice do dela, razmerje 
med moško in žensko delovno silo, pravice družin, ki izhajajo iz delovnih pravic, itd. 
Pravice in obveznosti na področju dela morajo biti določene v skladu z mednarodnimi 
standardi in Evropsko konvencijo o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin. 
V Bosni in Hercegovini sicer ni mogoče zadostiti prvi predpostavki, saj ni enotnega 
zakona o delavskih pravicah, vendar ustava BiH zavezuje pravne osebe k upoštevanju 
mednarodnih pravil in standardov, ki se nanašajo na socialni dialog. 
REFERENCES
1. Bačanović, V. (2011). Plenum radnih ljudi. Retrieved on 29/10/2013 from the Internet: www.
mojevijesti.ba
2. Bašić, M. (2005). Ekonomija. Sarajevo: Ekonomski fakultet Univerziteta u Sarajevu.
3. Beroš, M. (1994). Kako privatizirati društveno vlasništvo. Sarajevo: Svjetlost.
4. Carević, M. (1997). Vrijeme triježnjenja. Banja Luka: Jugoslovenska ljevica Republike Srpske.  
5. Čaušević, F. (2013). Bosanska ekonomska enigma: O ekonomskoj tranziciji u Bosni i Hercegovini 
1996-2013. Sarajevo: Forum Bosnae.
6. Golubović, Z. (2008). Sudbina radničke klase u današnjoj Srbiji. Apologija kapitalizma ili kritičko 
preispitivanje sukoba u savremenom kapitalizmu. Retrieved on 15/6/2013 from the Internet: http://
www.republika.co.rs/424-425/16.html 
7. Hodžić, K. (2009). Sukob rada i kapitala u uslovima posljedica globalne krize u Bosni i Hercegovini. 
Forum Bosnae, No. 47.
8. Hodžić, K. (2015). A Critique Bosnian political economy. Sarajevo: Forum Bosnae, No. 66
9. Horvat, B. (2007). Dinamički gospodarski razvoj. Zagreb: Dom i svijet i Ekonomski fakultet 
Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.
10. Kolodko, G. Z. (1999). Ten Years of Postsocialist Transition: The Lessons for Policy Reforms. 
Washington: The World Bank Development Research Group.
11. Kolodko, G. Z. (2000). From Recession to Growth in Transition Economies. IMF Working Paper.
12. Krugman, P. (2010). Savjest liberal. Zagreb: Algoritam.
13. Mencinger, J. (2008). The Global Financial Crises and the European Union. Ljubljana: EIPF and 
University of Ljubljana.
20 Revija za ekonomske in poslovne vede (1, 2017)
14. Meštrović, M. (2001). Formalna ekonomija i stvarni povijesni svijet. In: Meštrović, M. (ed.): 
Globalizacija i njene refleksije u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Ekonomski institut.
15. Milojević, A. (2015). Fabrike radnicima i građanima. Bijeljina.
16. Papić, Ž. (2001). Bosna i Balkan. Sarajevo: Forum Bosnae.
17. Papić, Ž. (2008). Socijalno uključivanje i „filozofija razvoja“.  Forum Bosnae, No. 43.
18. Perišin, I. and Šokman, A. (1982). Monetarno-kreditna politika. Zagreb: Informator.
19. Prlić, J. and Marić, Ž. (2008). Međunarodna ekonomija. Mostar: Sveučilište u Mostaru.
20. Radnička prava u BiH. Retrieved on 15/5/2013 from the Internet: www.oneworldsee.org/
jsInode/18024
21. Sabitović, M. (1999). Neki aspekti privatizacije, razvoja i nezapolsenosti. In: Uticaj transformacije 
vlasništva na nezaposlenost i zapošljavanje. Sarajevo: Programski odbor projekta Bosna i 
Hercegovina – mogućnosti i perpektive razvoja. 
22. SEE Portal (2009). Retrieved from the Internet: www.oneworldsee.org/js/node/18024 
23. Serra, N. and Stiglitz, J. (2008). The Washington Consensus Reconsidered: Towards a New Global 
Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Sever, I. et al. (2009). Polazišta nove ekonomske politike u uvjetima recesije. Zagreb: Znanstveno 
društvo ekonomista.
25. Stiglitz, J. (1998). Beyond the Washington Consensus. Transition. Retrieved on 18/5/2013 from 
the Internet: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1998
/06/01/000009265_3980901093245/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
26. Stiglitz, J. (2003). Globalization and Its Discontents. Penguin.
27. Stojanov, D. (2000). BiH od 1995.; Tranzicija i rekonstrukcija privrede u “Politike međunarodne 
podrške zemljama JIE”. Sarajevo: Fond Otvoreno Društvo.
28. Stojanov, D. (2013). Ekonomska kriza i kriza ekonomske znanosti. Rijeka-Zagreb: Ekonomski 
fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci.  
29. Strategija zapošljavanja Federacije BiH (2008). Sarajevo: Program EU za BiH.
30. World Bank (2005) Bosnia and Hercegovina, Country Economic Memorandum, Poverti Reduction 
and Economic Managament Unit Europe and Central Asia Region, May.
31. World Economic Forum (2012). The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013.
Kadrija Hodžić, PhD, Full Professor at the University of Tuzla, Faculty of Economics
E-mail: kadrija.hodzic@gmail.com