de
ve
lo
pm
en
t r
ep
or
t 2
02
2
d
ev
el
op
m
en
t 
re
p
or
t 
20
10
development report 2010

Development report 2022 (Poročilo o razvoju 2022)
Published by: IMAD, Ljubljana, Gregorčičeva 27
Responsible Person: Marijana Bednaš, MSc, Director
Editor: Rotija Kmet Zupančič, MSc
Assistant Editor: Matevž Hribernik, MSc
Authors of the Development Report 2022 are: 
Barbara Bratuž Ferk, MSc, Urška Brodar, Tanja Čelebič, MSc, Lejla Fajić, Tina Golob 
Šušteršič, PhD, Marta Gregorčič, PhD, Marjan Hafner, MSc, Matevž Hribernik, MSc, 
Katarina Ivas, MSc., Laura Južnik Rotar, PhD, Alenka Kajzer, PhD, Rotija Kmet Zupančič, 
MSc, Mojca Koprivnikar Šušteršič, Mateja Kovač, MSc, Valerija Korošec, PhD, Janez Kušar, 
MSc, Urška Lušina, Jože Markič, PhD, Helena Mervic, Tina Nenadič, MSc, Janja Pečar, Mitja 
Perko, Jure Povšnar, Denis Rogan, Urška Sodja, Branka Tavčar, Nataša Todorović Jemec, 
MSc, Ana Vidrih, MSc, Eva Zver, MSc, Peter Wostner, PhD
Editorial board: Marijana Bednaš, MSc, Tanja Čelebič, MSc, Lejla Fajić, Marta Gregorčič, 
PhD, Matevž Hribernik, MSc, Alenka Kajzer, PhD, Rotija Kmet Zupančič, MSc, Mateja 
Kovač, MSc, Janez Kušar, MSc, Peter Wostner, PhD
DTP: Bibijana Cirman Naglič,  Ema Bertina Kopitar
Figures: Bibijana Cirman Naglič
Print:  Collegium Graphicum d.o.o.
Circulation: 135 copies
Ljubljana, September 2022
ISSN 1581-6907 (print)
ISSN 2464-0506 (pdf )
The publication is available free of charge.
© The contents of this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part 
provided that the source is acknowledged.

Table of contents 3Development report 2022
 Key findings and recommendations ...............................................................................9 
Summary of the findings according to the strategic orientations of the 
Slovenian Development Strategy 2030 (SDS 2030) ...............................................12 
Introductory remarks .............................................................................................19
1 A highly productive economy that creates value added for all .......................21
1.1 Economic stability ................................................................................................................23
1.2 A competitive and socially responsible entrepreneurial and research  
sector .........................................................................................................................................36
1.2.1 Competitiveness  ................................................................................................................... 36
1.2.2 Research, innovation and digital capability ................................................................. 43
2 Learning for and through life ........................................................................................51
2.1 Education .................................................................................................................................53
2.1.1 Skills mismatches and lifelong learning ........................................................................ 56
2.1.2 Skills for sustainable and green transformation and a long-lived society ........ 60
2.2 Culture .......................................................................................................................................63
3 An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society ...........................................67
3.1 A healthy and active life ....................................................................................................69
3.2 A decent life for all ...............................................................................................................76
3.3 An inclusive labour market and quality jobs ............................................................91
4 A well-preserved and healthy natural environment ..........................................97
4.1 A low-carbon circular economy ......................................................................................99
4.2 Sustainable management of natural resources ................................................... 110
5 A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency ............. 117
5.1 Efficient governance and high-quality public service ....................................... 119
5.1.1 Performance of the public administration and the provision of public  
services ....................................................................................................................................121
5.1.2 Impact of public institutions on the economic sector ...........................................124
5.2 A trustworthy legal system ........................................................................................... 126
5.3 A safe and globally responsible Slovenia ................................................................ 129
5.3.1 Safety  .......................................................................................................................................130
5.3.2 Global responsibility ...........................................................................................................132
 Appendix:  Indicators of Slovenia’s development
1 A highly productive economy that generates value added for all ....... 135
1.1 Gross domestic product per capita in purchasing power standards ........... 139
1.2 Real GDP growth ............................................................................................................. 140
1.3 General government debt ........................................................................................... 141
1.4 Fiscal balance ................................................................................................................... 142
1.5 Current account of the balance of payments and net international 
investment position ....................................................................................................... 143
1.6 Financial stability ............................................................................................................ 144
1.7 Financial system development .................................................................................. 145
1.8 Regional variation in GDP per capita ....................................................................... 146
1.9 Productivity ....................................................................................................................... 147
1.10 The European Innovation Index ................................................................................ 148
1.11 The Digital Economy and Society Index ................................................................. 149
1.12 Export market share ....................................................................................................... 150
1.13 Unit labour costs ............................................................................................................. 151
1.14 Exports of high-technology products and knowledge-intensive services 152
1.15 Foreign direct investment ............................................................................................ 153
1.16 R&D expenditure and the number of researchers .............................................. 154
1.17 Corporate environmental responsibility ................................................................ 155
Table of
contents
Table of contents4 Development report 2022
2 Learning for and through life .................................................................................157
2.1 Share of the population with tertiary education ................................................. 159
2.2 Enrolment in upper secondary and tertiary education .................................... 160
2.3 Tertiary education graduates ..................................................................................... 161
2.4 Performance in reading, mathematics and science (PISA) .............................. 162
2.5 Education expenditure ................................................................................................. 163
2.6 Participation in lifelong learning ............................................................................... 164
2.7 Attendance at cultural events .................................................................................... 165
2.8 Share of cultural events held abroad ....................................................................... 166
3 An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society ....................................167
3.1 Healthy life years ............................................................................................................. 169
3.2 The Gender Equality Index .........................................................................................  170
3.3 Life expectancy ................................................................................................................ 171
3.4 Unmet needs for healthcare ....................................................................................... 172
3.5 Avoidable mortality ....................................................................................................... 173
3.6 Health expenditure ........................................................................................................ 174
3.7 Expenditure on long-term care.................................................................................. 175
3.8 Overweight and obesity ............................................................................................... 176
3.9 At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate ............................................................. 177
3.10 Inequality of income distribution ............................................................................. 178
3.11 Experience of discrimination ...................................................................................... 179
3.12 Median equivalised disposable income ................................................................. 180
3.13 Life satisfaction ................................................................................................................ 181
3.14 Social protection expenditure.................................................................................... 182
3.15 Housing deprivation rate ............................................................................................. 183
3.16 Material and income deprivation .............................................................................. 184
3.17 Employment rate ............................................................................................................ 185
3.18 In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate ................................................................................... 186
3.19 Unemployment and long-term unemployment rates ...................................... 187
3.20 Temporary and precarious employment................................................................ 188
3.21 Activity rate ....................................................................................................................... 189
3.22 Absence from work due to illness ............................................................................. 190
4 A well-preserved and healthy natural environment ...................................191
4.1 Emission productivity .................................................................................................... 193
4.2 Energy efficiency ............................................................................................................. 194
4.3 Share of renewable energy sources ......................................................................... 195
4.4 Modal split of transport ................................................................................................ 196
4.5 Resource productivity ................................................................................................... 197
4.6 Waste ................................................................................................................................... 198
4.7 Environmental taxes ...................................................................................................... 199
4.8 Ecological footprint ........................................................................................................ 200
4.9 Utilised agricultural area .............................................................................................. 201
4.10 Agricultural intensity ..................................................................................................... 202
4.11 Intensity of tree felling .................................................................................................. 203
4.12 Quality of watercourses ................................................................................................ 204
4.13 Ambient air quality ......................................................................................................... 205
4.14  Functionally derelict areas ........................................................................................... 206
5 A high level of cooperation, competence and governance efficiency  207
5.1  Trust in institutions ........................................................................................................ 209
5.2 Executive capacity .......................................................................................................... 210
5.3 The Rule of Law Index ................................................................................................... 211
5.4 The expected time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases 212
5.5 The Corruption Perception Index .............................................................................. 213
5.6 The Global Peace Index................................................................................................. 214
5.7 Share of households reporting problems with crime, vandalism or violence 
in the local area ................................................................................................................ 215
5.8 Expenditure on official development assistance ................................................ 216
 Bibliography and sources .........................................................................................217
 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................233
Table of contents 5Development report 2022
Table of figures
Figure 1: A faster economic convergence in the past decade was limited by weak 
productivity growth; investment in innovation and digitalisation,  
a key driver of economic transformation, has declined sharply since the 
global financial crisis .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2: In the midst of the post-epidemic economic recovery, businesses are once 
again facing significant shortage of staff; the low share of graduates in 
health and welfare is at odds with the needs of a long-lived society .............. 13
Figure 3: Lack of digital skills among adults and a sharp decline in their participation 
in lifelong learning in the last decade ......................................................................... 13
Figure 4: Disposable income further increased during the epidemic; the at-risk-of-
poverty or social exclusion rate is among the lowest in the EU despite a 
deterioration in 2020 but is relatively high for certain population groups ... 14
Figure 5: Due to the COVID-19 epidemic, life expectancy at birth in Slovenia  
dropped significantly in 2020; unmet needs for healthcare due to financial 
reasons, waiting times or geographical distance were already high at the  
outbreak of the epidemic (2020) ................................................................................... 15
Figure 6: The gap with the EU average in energy, resource and emissions  
productivity remains; the increase in the use of renewable energy in 
2005–2020 was the smallest among all EU Member States ................................ 16
Figure 7: Progress in digital public services in recent years and especially during 
the epidemic; after several years of improvement, managers estimate that 
institutional competitiveness deteriorated in 2021 ............................................... 17
Figure 8: Primary objective and strategic orientations of the Slovenian  
Development Strategy 2030 ........................................................................................... 19
Figure 9: Slow development catching up due to modest productivity growth ............. 23
Figure 10:  The most important growth factor in 2021 was private consumption ........... 24
Figure 11: Expenditure to mitigate the effects of the epidemic decreased in 2021, 
and their structure was changed, with the share of expenditure on public 
services increasing sharply .............................................................................................. 25
Figure 12: Higher fuel prices contribute the most to the growth of consumer prices 
(HICP) in both Slovenia and the EU (2021 and comparison for 2020) .............. 25
Figure 13: The labour market responded to the decline in economic activity during the 
epidemic to a greater extent by reducing hours worked than by reducing 
employment, and its recovery exacerbated the shortage of available labour .26
Figure 14: The non-employment index as a broader measure of the potentially 
employable workforce indicates its historically small size in 2021; gross wage 
bill growth has fluctuated sharply since the onset of the coronavirus crisis .....27
Figure 15: In 2021, public finances improved slightly ................................................................ 28
Figure 16: More than half of the funds under the Recovery and Resilience Plan after 
the epidemic in Slovenia are intended to finance the green and digital 
transition ................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 17: The indebtedness of non-financial corporations in Slovenia remained low  
in 2020 and 2021 ........................................................................................................................32
Figure 18: Favourable indebtedness and liquidity indicators and reduced  
profitability ............................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 19: Increase in the share of companies that are relatively highly exposed  
to the risk of insolvency .................................................................................................... 33
Figure 20: Low productivity of the most problematic over-indebted and zombie 
companies .....................................................................................................................................34
Figure 21: Convergence of productivity (GDP per employee) with the level envisaged 
before the epidemic, high lag behind the average level of productivity in  
the old EU Member States and declining advantage over the average  
of the new EU Member States, 2021 ............................................................................ 36
Figure 22: In 2021, there was a relatively rapid recovery in productivity in most 
activities, but among the most affected were arts, entertainment and 
recreation, and construction ........................................................................................... 37
Figure 23: Increase in the contribution of cross-sectoral reallocation to productivity 
growth, 2020 ......................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 24: Distribution of companies’ productivity in 2019 and 2020 and change 
Table of contents6 Development report 2022
in productivity and employment in 2020 by groups of companies  
according to productivity................................................................................................. 39
Figure 25: Dynamic Olley–Pakes decomposition of productivity growth........................... 39
Figure 26: Stagnation in the number of newly born enterprises and declining share of 
young companies ......................................................................................................................41
Figure 27: Maintaining unit labour costs at an elevated pre-epidemic level and 
the spillover of raw material prices into industrial product prices at 
manufacturing producers ................................................................................................ 42
Figure 28: Multiple years of favourable trends in Slovenia’s export market share  
were interrupted by the epidemic ................................................................................ 43
Figure 29: There was a significant increase in GVC participation (forward linkages)  
but a low share of domestic value added in exports ............................................. 44
Figure 30: Slovenia is increasingly lagging behind according to the European 
Innovation Index, which is largely due to too low investments, both  
public and private ............................................................................................................... 45
Figure 31: According to the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), Slovenia is  
not changing its ranking within the EU but is moving further and further 
away from the SDS target in this area .......................................................................... 46
Figure 32: Low artificial intelligence skills among employees; the sharp decline  
in the participation of the working population in lifelong learning in the 
period 2010–2019 in most activities was followed by an additional  
decline in 2020 due to the epidemic ........................................................................... 47
Figure 33: Decrease in total investments in R&D, ICT and other machinery and 
equipment; the same applies to education expenditure, which is  
low by international standards ...................................................................................... 49
Figure 34: Increase in the share of young people who believe that school or previous 
education has given them the knowledge to set up and run a business 
between 2010 and 2020 and low intercultural communication skills of 
15-year-olds .................................................................................................................................54
Figure 35: PThe shortage of suitable labour (left) and the Beveridge curve – the link 
between labour supply and demand – do not yet point to a permanent 
deterioration ......................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 36: The sharp increase in the share of people with tertiary education employed 
in occupations for which upper secondary education is sufficient since 
2008 and the shift towards a higher share of those enrolled in science and 
technology and a lower share in social sciences ..................................................... 57
Figure 37: Strong decline in adult participation in lifelong learning since 2010  
and low participation of older people in lifelong learning .................................. 58
Figure 38: Public expenditure on education lagging behind the leading countries; 
public expenditure on adult education, expressed as a share of GDP,  
in 2020 approximately at the 2014 level ..................................................................... 60
Figure 39: Average digital skills of the population in Slovenia and low digital skills  
of the unemployed and inactive ................................................................................... 61
Figure 40: Low share of health and welfare graduates (left) and many years of large 
surplus of applications for the study of medicine and nursing in relation  
to the number of places available ................................................................................. 62
Figure 41: Marked reduction in the number of cultural events in 2020 and negative 
trends in public libraries ................................................................................................... 64
Figure 42: Excess mortality was very high in Slovenia in 2020 and 2021 (Slovenia by 
months; the 2020–2021 average in EU Member States) ....................................... 70
Figure 43: Vaccination coverage in Slovenia is lower than the EU average and the  
share of people employed in healthcare and social protection is also very  
low ............................................................................................................................................ 73
Figure 44: Gross disposable income has further increased with the help of  
government measures during the epidemic ............................................................ 77
Figure 45: Material well-being still lags behind the EU average (left); in 2018, the 
households in the lowest two income quintiles spent the largest share of their 
expenditure on housing and households in other quintiles ontransport ..........77
Figure 46: In Slovenia, household financial distress at the end of 2020 resulted in an 
increased drawing on savings; low subjective assessment of household 
Table of contents 7Development report 2022
financial fragility improved during the epidemic, but it remains below the EU 
average ...........................................................................................................................................78
Figure 47: The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion in the EU-SILC 2020 survey  
(based on the income in 2019) according to the new methodology 
and the old methodology ................................................................................................ 79
Figure 48: Despite the increase in 2020, the at-risk-of-poverty and social exclusion  
rates remain among the lowest in the EU; the severe material and  
social deprivation rate and the very low work intensity rate are also in  
the lower half of EU Member States ............................................................................. 81
Figure 49: The gap between GMI and the at-risk-of-poverty threshold has been 
increasing since the last setting of the GMI amount in 2018.  
In 2018–2020, the share of people with limitations aged 16 years and  
older who are at risk of poverty increased ................................................................. 82
Figure 50: Of fuels, Slovenian households consume more wood and less natural gas 
compared to the EU average .......................................................................................... 83
Figure 51: In 2020, the share of households in arrears with the payment of utility  
bills was higher (left) and the share of households that were unable to 
adequately heat their home lower (right) than the EU average ........................ 84
Figure 52: In Slovenia, waiting times are among the longest in the EU and have even 
increased in 2020; during the epidemic, the share of remote consultations 
with doctors was among the highest in the EU ....................................................... 86
Figure 53: In the second half of 2021, the employment rate and activity rate  
exceeded the pre-COVID-19 epidemic level; however, in early 2021,  
they were affected by the change in the methodology ....................................... 91
Figure 54: The largest number of employees participating in the temporary lay-off 
scheme was in the second quarter of 2020; at that time, Slovenia had a 
medium share of people included in the schemes compared to other EU 
Member States ..................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 55: In 2021, the unemployment of vulnerable groups already came close to 
the pre-crisis levels (left), which is also reflected in better employment 
opportunities for these groups ...................................................................................... 93
Figure 56: The adjusted gender pay gap is larger than the unadjusted one; the gap 
is best explained by the educational and occupational structure, but a 
substantial part remains unexplained ......................................................................... 94
Figure 57: In 2018, Slovenia had the highest share of people receiving a salary of  
up to 105% of the minimum wage among the countries with a statutory 
minimum wage .................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 58: In the first year of the COVID-19 epidemic and the resulting lower GDP,  
GHG emissions, energy and material use, and waste generated decreased, 
while favourable hydrological conditions led to an increase in water use .... 99
Figure 59: IGHG emissions, which are at the level of the EU average if calculated in 
terms of per capita in Slovenia, fell to the lowest level in the last two  
decades in 2020, as had been expected ...................................................................100
Figure 60: In the long term, emissions decreased less than the EU average but s 
lightly more in 2020; the lag behind the emission productivity of the  
EU and the three leading Member States has been roughly the same in 
recent years, as has the advantage over the group of new EU Member  
States, though this has declined significantly in the long term .......................100
Figure 61: The share of energy consumption in road transport in final energy 
consumption remains high; Slovenia’s energy productivity has improved 
slightly in relation to the EU average in recent years but has moved away 
from the most successful countries and was approximately at the level  
of new Member States ....................................................................................................102
Figure 62: Slovenia exceeds the EU average in terms of the number of cars per  
capita, but the share of rail passenger transport in total passenger  
transport is right at the tail end of the Member States ........................................ 103
Figure 63: At the end of 2020, there were significantly fewer alternative fuel  
vehicles in Slovenia than the EU average .................................................................104
Figure 64: The lag in resource productivity behind the EU average has remained 
unchanged since 2011 and the circular material use rate lags only  
slightly behind the EU average ....................................................................................105
Figure 65: The increase in the volume of waste, which Slovenia generates about a  
tenth more than the EU average, calculated per unit of GDP and  
excluding mineral waste, was halted due to lower economic activity  
during the COVID-19 epidemic ....................................................................................106
Figure 66: Generation of plastic waste in the world will increase sharply and in  
handling such waste, zero disposal must be achieved in the circular  
economy ...............................................................................................................................107
Figure 67: Current expenditure on environmental protection increases in the long  
term and investment in environmental protection, which has been  
relatively low for several years, increased to normal levels in 2020 ................108
Figure 68: The ecological footprint in Slovenia was higher in 2015–2018 than in Europe 
as a whole and the gap widened (left), while nature’s biocapacity  
in this comparison is lower and largely dependent on forests.........................111
Figure 69: In the EU, the share of protected areas – Natura 2000 is the highest in 
Slovenia ................................................................................................................................111
Figure 70: Sales of NPK fertilisers per unit of agricultural area (UAA) in Slovenia are 
close to the EU average, and the level of self-sufficiency of basic agricultural 
products is low, especially for plant crops ...............................................................112
Figure 71: High production of raw wood products as a result of sanitary felling after 
glaze ice is decreasing, and forests, together with other land use, once  
again contribute significantly to GHG sinks ............................................................113
Figure 72: Water productivity is relatively low in Slovenia .....................................................114
Figure 73: Particulate matter emissions, which decreased significantly since 2010, 
increased in 2019 and 2020 as a result of increased activity in the  
construction sector, while this year, the finest particles further decreased ..115
Figure 74: The improvement in institutional competitiveness was halted during the  
last measurement after several years of improvement .......................................120
Figure 75: Assets managed by the BAMC are progressively, albeit slowly, decreasing ... 124
Figure 76: With the deteriorating economic situation due to the epidemic in 2020,  
the return on equity in state-owned investments declined markedly, with 
more than two-thirds of dividend payments being made up of companies  
in the transport and energy pillars .............................................................................125
Figure 77: The efficiency of courts improved in recent years, as, with the exception  
of 2020, a larger number of major and other cases were resolved; in 
particular, the time required for resolving land registry, enforcement and 
other matters (right) was considerably reduced ...................................................127
Figure 78: In 2020, Slovenia recorded fewer deaths per million inhabitants as a  
result of traffic accidents than the EU average .......................................................133
Table of boxes
Box 1: EU Financial resources .......................................................................................................... 30
Box 2: Financial situation of the corporate sector and its exposure to insolvency 
during the COVID-19 epidemic......................................................................................... 32
Box 3: The impact of employee reallocation between companies on productivity  
in 2020 ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Box 4: EU targets for adult education and training by 2025 and 2030 ............................ 59
Box 5: URanking of Slovenia in the Creative Barometer 2020 ............................................ 65
Box 6: Healthcare system resilience ............................................................................................. 72
Box 7: Nova metodologija spremljanja stopnje tveganja socialne izključenosti v EU ...75
Box 8: The impact of rising energy prices on households in Slovenia ............................. 83
Box 9: The Long-Term Care Act establishes a new social security system ...................... 88
Box 10: Greater awareness of the threat of global warming and the need to act  
as soon as possible ..............................................................................................................101
Table of tables
Table 1: By 2027, significant resources are available from EU resources to support 
recovery from the COVID-19 epidemic and strengthen the resilience of the 
economy, in EUR million ............................................................................................................31
Key findings and recommendations 9Development report 2022
Key findings and recommendations
Slovenia’s economy saw a quick rebound in 2021 with the help of strong government 
measures that kept the material and financial situation of the population relatively 
stable. The measures taken to mitigate the impact of the epidemic made an important 
contribution to the rapid recovery of the economy, which already exceeded pre-crisis 
levels in 2021, as they made it possible to maintain the economic potential during the 
period of strict containment measures. As a result, the government took on a significant 
burden of the epidemic, which was reflected in a high general government deficit and 
an increase in general government debt, especially in 2020. Nevertheless, the epidemic 
had a more severe impact on certain service activities, which also led to an increase in 
regional development disparities after several years of improvement. Thanks to extensive 
government measures to mitigate the impact of the epidemic but partly also due to 
rapid improvement in labour market conditions (especially in 2021), total household 
disposable income continued to rise in 2020 and 2021. At the end of 2021, the number 
of persons in employment was higher than ever before and the number of registered 
unemployed persons was close to the lowest level reached in the second half of 2008. 
According to the first preliminary data, the financial situation of households and the 
rate of severe material and social deprivation improved again in 2021 after deteriorating 
slightly in the first year of the epidemic. The at-risk-of-poverty and social exclusion rate, 
which is still among the lowest in the EU, increased slightly in 2020 but these rates have 
not yet been significantly affected by the epidemic, as both indicators for 2020 are based 
on 2019 income and on a survey that captured only a small part of the impact of the 
epidemic on the living conditions of the population in that year. At the same time, certain 
groups of the population (especially older women, single-person households, people 
with low levels of education and some marginalised groups) have long been at higher 
risk of poverty and deprivation than the EU average. Income inequality, which in 2020 
(based on 2019 income) reached its lowest level since 2009 and is within the SDS target, 
remains low by international standards.
The transition to innovation-driven economic growth with a highly productive 
economy has been slow since the global financial crisis, and the transition to a 
low-carbon circular economy has been insufficient. The gap with the EU average 
in GDP per capita in purchasing power standards, which is an indicator of economic 
development and the material well-being of the population, only approached the 2008 
level in 2021, and Slovenia is still far from the SDS 2030 target. The reason for the slow 
narrowing of the development gap in the last decade is modest productivity growth, 
mainly due to low investment after the global financial crisis. The impact of several years 
of declining investment in intangible capital after the previous (financial) crisis (on R&D, 
ICT and on-the-job training), slowing the transition to innovation-driven growth with 
a highly productive economy, is becoming increasingly evident. Progress is also too 
slow in decoupling economic growth from resource use and emissions. The gap with 
the EU average in energy, emission and resource productivity has not narrowed in the 
long term, and the share of renewable energy sources in Slovenia has increased at the 
slowest pace in the EU since 2005. There have been some recent shifts in addressing the 
challenges of the green transition and the transition to the fourth industrial revolution, 
however. For example, more funds will be allocated for these purposes in the future than 
in the previous medium-term period. This will be supported by the reformed part of 
the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), which can reduce some of the implementation 
deficit in these areas. Nevertheless, the ambitious targets for achieving the twin transition 
suggest that their achievement will need to be further supported by systemic measures 
and resources, which will require finding the right balance with the challenge of fiscal 
consolidation. A growing obstacle to effective economic transformation and productivity 
growth is the growing shortage of appropriate labour arising from demographic change 
and the slow response to demand for new skills.
The COVID-19 epidemic has severely affected the health status of the population 
and has exacerbated the problem of access to healthcare and long-term care. 
The long-standing trend of improving the health status of the population has been 
interrupted by the epidemic. In 2020, life expectancy fell by one year due to the high 
A rapid recovery of the 
economy and stable 
income after the outbreak 
of the epidemic
The pace of transformation 
into a highly productive, 
low-carbon circular 
economy has been too 
slow
Key findings and recommendations10 Development report 2022
mortality rate. The consequences of the epidemic could lead to a decline in the number 
of healthy life years, which according to the latest data for 2019 is below the EU average 
and also below the SDS target. The epidemic has contributed to a further increase in 
mental health problems, and health inequalities are expected to widen further. Problems 
with access to healthcare have also been exacerbated. Healthcare accessibility is good 
in terms of financial coverage of rights, while the healthcare system faces shortages of 
health workers and consequently long waiting times. These have been exacerbated by 
limited access to healthcare during the epidemic, while the use of eHealth services has 
increased significantly. Several short-term measures have been taken to increase the 
resilience of the healthcare system. A special law was passed to ensure investment in 
healthcare until 2031, and significant funds were earmarked for this purpose in the RRP 
for the coming years. In the last two years, the long-standing problem of access to long-
term care (LTC) has dramatically worsened due to poorly developed formal home care 
and lack of facilities and staff in residential care homes. In 2021, a framework law was 
adopted that will give the beneficiaries a wide scope of rights to LTC, but the biggest 
challenge remains the regulation of compulsory LTC insurance. In the long term, in 
addition to a sustainable structure of funding sources, adequate employment planning 
and improvement of working conditions will be crucial to increase the resilience of the 
healthcare system and the accessibility of LTC. 
Development policy measures should focus on accelerating the inclusive transition 
to innovation-driven growth with a highly productive low-carbon circular 
economy for long-term sustainable development and a better quality of life. Such a 
transformation and an acceleration of productivity growth, to be supported primarily by 
domestic and all available EU resources, are necessary in order to increase the prosperity 
of the population towards the central SDS target, i.e. to ensure quality of life for all. Higher 
productivity of the economy is key to increasing household income and maintaining fiscal 
sustainability in the face of growing pressure on general government expenditure in the 
context of demographic and climate change. To avoid the irreversible consequences of 
climate change, the transition to a low-carbon circular economy must also be a priority, 
as it is on a global scale. Taking measures to implement these changes would also help 
to increase the resilience of the economy and society to crises such as the one we are 
currently experiencing amid the tense geopolitical situation due to the war in Ukraine. 
The measures should therefore be aimed primarily at the following:
 – accelerating productivity growth by (a) strengthening education and (re)qualification 
for the skills of the future based on modernised and future-oriented education and 
training systems; (b) significantly increasing investment in smart (especially digital) and 
sustainable transformation, both by the government (especially, but not exclusively, 
with EU funds) and by the business sector; (c) fostering a dynamic business environment 
and strengthening the scientific research, innovation and digital ecosystem on the 
public side and accelerating the adoption of new business models, breakthrough and 
disruptive innovations and customised business processes and organisation, including 
domestic and international networking, on the business side; and (d) accelerating 
change through social dialogue and active management of transformation;
 – accelerating transition to a low-carbon circular economy by (a) significantly 
increasing the production of energy from renewable sources, particularly through 
more efficient siting of new projects, which is becoming increasingly important in view 
of the challenges related to the Ukrainian–Russian military conflict by reducing energy 
dependence; (b) promoting sustainable mobility, especially by upgrading the related 
infrastructure; (c) introducing new low-carbon circular business models, including more 
efficient waste management; and (d) radical systemic shifts based on new knowledge, 
innovations and sustainable investments in clean technologies;
 – strengthening the resilience of the healthcare system and the financial 
sustainability of social protection systems, in particular in view of an ageing 
population, while providing quality services and adequate incomes to vulnerable 
groups by (a) increasing investment in prevention and public health and in the 
resilience of the health system, including by more effectively addressing labour 
shortages in the health and social care sectors; (b) implementing the Long-Term Care 
Deterioration of people’s 
health status and 
accessibility to healthcare 
and increasing investment 
in the resilience of 
healthcare and long-term 
care systems
Recommendations for the 
development policy
Key findings and recommendations 11Development report 2022
Act to increase the capacity of the system, especially home care, and adequately 
regulating the financing of long-term care; (c) reducing the risk of (long-term) poverty 
and eliminating severe social and material deprivation among the most vulnerable 
groups in society; (d) implementing a comprehensive pension reform to ensure the 
fiscal sustainability of the pension system and adequate pensions; (e) ensuring a 
sufficient workforce by creating the conditions for attracting skilled workers (foreign 
and domestic) and actively integrating immigrants in social and civic life; (f ) providing 
quality jobs and facilitating the entry of young people into the labour market; and (g) 
strengthening lifelong learning and adapting workplaces for older people so that they 
can remain active longer and better integrate into society;
 – strengthening the developmental role of the government and its institutions by (a) 
improving the strategic governance of public institutions to ensure that development 
challenges are identified early and addressed in a coordinated and effective manner; 
(b) ensuring a high-quality legal framework and a reduction in government regulation 
to increase the competitiveness of the economy, create a predictable business 
environment and simplify the lives of citizens; and (c) restructuring general government 
revenues and expenditures by strengthening their developmental role, whereby it is 
crucial to strike the right balance between economic growth and sufficient support for 
economic transformation to boost productivity and address the challenges of climate 
change and the sustainability of public finances.
Summary12 Development report 2022
Summary of the findings according to the strategic 
orientations of the Slovenian Development Strategy 2030 
(SDS 2030)
The Slovenian economy recovered quickly in 2021 from a downturn following the 
outbreak of COVID-19. However, overcoming the development gap with the EU 
average remains a challenge, requiring a transition to innovation-driven growth 
with a highly productive, low-carbon circular economy. By maintaining the economic 
potential during the crisis, the measures taken to mitigate the impact of the epidemic 
have made an important contribution to the rapid recovery of the economy, which 
already exceeded pre-crisis levels in 2021. As a result, the government has taken on a 
significant burden of the epidemic, which is reflected in a high general government 
deficit and an increase in general government debt, especially in 2020, although these 
both decreased slightly in 2021. Nevertheless, the epidemic had a more severe impact 
on service activities, which were also more affected by containment measures, and thus 
on more service-oriented regions. Slovenia’s progress in terms of long-term economic 
development has been less favourable. In 2021, the development gap with the EU 
average, measured by GDP per capita in purchasing power standards, was slightly wider 
than in 2008, which means that Slovenia is still far below the SDS 2030 target. The reason 
for the slow narrowing of the development gap lies in low investment after the global 
financial crisis and thus modest productivity growth. Despite the reversal of recent trends, 
the impact of several years of declining investment in intangible capital after the last 
crisis (in R&D, ICT and on-the-job training), slowing down the transition to innovation-
driven growth through the transformation to a highly productive and, especially in 
the case of the business sector, low-carbon circular economy, is becoming increasingly 
evident. In addressing the challenges of the dual transition, there have been some shifts 
in funding earmarked for this purpose, and there is also an incentive in the reform part 
of the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), which can reduce some of the implementation 
deficit of the current development policy. Nevertheless, the ambitious targets for the 
implementation of the dual transition indicate that their achievement will need to be 
further supported by systemic measures and resources in the future, which will require 
finding the right balance with the challenge of fiscal sustainability in the medium term. 
An important medium-term risk to effective economic transformation and productivity 
growth is the growing shortage of suitable labour (given the demographic changes and 
rapid changes in the demand for skills). 
A highly productive 
economy that generates 
value added for all
8%
8%
9%
9%
10%
10%
11%
11%
12%
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f G
D
P
SI EU V4 IL
Investments in R&D, ICT and other machinery and equipment
81 82
83
85
88 89 88 89
91
86 85 84 83 83 83 83 84
86 87
88 89
90
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
EU
 in
d
ex
 =
 1
00
GDP per capita in PPS
Productivity (GDP per employee, PPS)
Employment rate
 Figure 1: A faster economic convergence in the past decade was limited by weak productivity growth (left); investment in 
innovation and digitalisation, a key driver of economic transformation, has declined sharply since the global financial crisis 
(right)
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Note: The figure on the right shows investment in R&D, ICT, and other machinery and equipment combined, expressed 
as a % of GDP, for Slovenia (SI), the EU (computed as a weighted average of GDP, excluding data for Greece, Ireland, Cyprus and Croatia), the V4 (Visegrad Four) and the 
innovation leaders (IL): Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Belgium (since data for Denmark is not available, we assumed that the value for 2019 is the same as for 2018).
Summary 13Development report 2022
In 2020, Slovenia has reached the SDS target in terms of the educational level of 
the population. The quality of young people’s knowledge is also high, but in terms of 
lifelong learning, Slovenia has been moving away from the strategic goal for several years, 
which is extremely unfavourable given the skills mismatch. Due to the long-term high 
participation of young people in education, the share of tertiary education graduates 
in the population has improved and the SDS target was reached in 2020. The quality of 
young people’s knowledge as measured by the 2018 PISA survey is high and, in the case 
of mathematical and scientific literacy, is also in line with the SDS target. At the same 
time, however, current research points to certain gaps in knowledge due to schooling 
from home during the epidemic, especially among vulnerable groups of children. With 
the rapid recovery of the economy after the epidemic and thus the increased demand 
for labour, the labour shortage and skills mismatch again came to the fore. The mismatch 
problem has also been exacerbated by the increased demand for health and social care 
services during the epidemic. Although there have been some changes in the structure 
of graduates to meet the demand in recent years, the shortage of health and long-term 
Lifelong learning
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Be
lg
iu
m
Sw
ed
en
Fi
nl
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
M
al
ta
Sp
ai
n
Po
la
nd
Po
rt
ug
al
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Ire
la
nd  E
U
Fr
an
ce
It
al
y
C
ro
at
ia
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Es
to
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
Ro
m
an
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
A
us
tr
ia
H
un
ga
ry
G
er
m
an
y
C
yp
ru
s
Lu
xe
m
b
ou
rg
V 
%
Welfare
Health
Inter-disciplinary programmes and qualifications
The share of graduates in health and welfare in the total 
number of tertiary education graduates, 2019
involving health and welfare
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
20
15
/I
20
15
/I
I
20
16
/I
20
16
/I
I
20
17
/I
20
17
/I
I
20
18
/I
20
18
/I
I
20
19
/I
20
19
/I
I
20
20
/I
20
20
/I
I
20
21
/I
20
21
/I
I
In
 %
Total Large enterprises
The share of employers who report labour shortage, in %
 Figure 2: In the midst of the post-epidemic economic recovery, businesses are once again facing significant shortage of staff 
(left); the low share of graduates in health and welfare is at odds with the needs of a long-lived society (right)
Sources: ESS (2014), ESS (2015a), ESS (2015b), ESS (2016), ESS (2017a), ESS (2017b), ESS (2018a), ESS (2018b), ESS (2019a), ESS (2019b), ESS (2020a) ESS (2020b), ESS 
(2021b), ESS (2021c) and Eurostat (2022).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
25–34 years 35–44 years 45–54 years 55–64 years
In
 %
2010 2019 2020
Participation of adults (aged 25–64) in lifelong learning
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
G
er
m
an
y
In
no
va
tio
n 
le
ad
er
s
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
A
us
tr
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Es
to
ni
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Sp
ai
n
Fr
an
ce EU
Li
th
ua
ni
a
M
al
ta
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Ire
la
nd
Cr
oa
tia
Po
rt
ug
al
G
re
ec
e
H
un
ga
ry
Cy
pr
us
Po
la
nd
La
tv
ia
Ita
ly
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
%
Share of population (aged 16–74) with at least basic 
digital skills, 2019
Basic digital skills Very good digital skills
 Figure 3: Lack of digital skills among adults (left) and a sharp decline in their participation in lifelong learning in the last 
decade (right)
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: Innovation leaders according to the European Innovation Index: Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Belgium.
Summary14 Development report 2022
care workers and ICT specialists is particularly acute from the perspective of the desired 
transition to a digital, low-carbon circular economy and the growing needs of a long-
lived society. Certain key skills for life and work (e.g. the reading literacy and intercultural 
communication skills of young people and functional literacy and advanced digital skills 
of adults) are also insufficient, and given the rapid changes associated with the planned 
digital and green transformation, we can expect further changes in the demand for skills 
in the future. This will require an effective adjustment of all types of education and an 
increase in investment in education, as this has mostly not increased in the last decade. 
Above all, it will be necessary to establish a responsive and partnership-based system 
for forecasting skills needs in the medium term and to increase adult participation in 
lifelong learning. In contrast to demand, the latter has declined sharply since the global 
financial crisis and has moved away from the SDS 2030 target. Immigrants could also be 
an important source of labour, and therefore more attention should be paid to migration 
and integration policy measures. Furthermore, Slovenia should be made more attractive 
for (domestic and foreign) experts.
Total household disposable income has grown rapidly since 2014, and according 
to the latest available data, the risk of social exclusion and income inequality has 
remained low by international standards, while certain population groups still 
face a relatively high risk of poverty. Growth in household disposable income, typical 
of the period of recovery from the global financial crisis, continued in 2020 and 2021 as 
the government adopted extensive measures to mitigate the impact of the epidemic. 
Growth in 2021 was partly also the result of the rapid improvement in labour market 
conditions. At the end of 2021, the number of persons in employment was higher than 
ever before and the number of registered unemployed persons was close to the lowest 
level reached in the second half of 2008. The material well-being of the population, 
measured by individual consumption and GDP per capita, remains below the EU average, 
given the lower economic development in Slovenia, as does the financial sustainability 
of households, although the subjective perception of household financial sustainability 
improved significantly in 2021, even in the lowest income bracket. According to the 
preliminary EU-SILC survey data, the severe material and social deprivation rate improved 
again in 2021, after deteriorating in 2020. According to the latest EU-SILC 2020 survey 
(based on 2019 income), the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate, which has been 
among the lowest in the EU over the last decade, increased slightly, although the survey 
only covered part of the first wave of the epidemic and therefore does not reflect the 
full impact of the epidemic on living conditions. At the same time, certain groups of the 
population (especially older women, single-person households, people with low levels 
An inclusive, healthy, safe 
and responsible society
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
A
us
tr
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
Po
la
nd
C
yp
ru
s
Sw
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
H
un
ga
ry
M
al
ta
Lu
xe
m
b
ou
rg
Po
rt
ug
al
Be
lg
iu
m
C
ro
at
ia
Ire
la
nd EU
G
er
m
an
y
Es
to
ni
a
Li
th
ua
ni
a
It
al
y
La
tv
ia
Sp
ai
n
G
re
ec
e
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
Ri
sk
 ra
te
, i
n 
%
Social exclusion, 2020
Poverty, 2020
Poverty among the low-educated
Social exclusion (people aged 75 and above)
80
90
100
110
120
130
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Re
al
 in
de
x 
20
08
 =
 1
00
Gross disposable income
Compensation of employees
Social benefits excluding social transfers in kind
Gross operating surplus and mixed income
Taxes on income and property and social security contributions
 Figure 4: Disposable income further increased during the epidemic (left); the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate is 
among the lowest in the EU despite a deterioration in 2020 but is relatively high for certain population groups (right)
Sources: SURS (2022), calculations by IMAD, Eurostat (2022), EU-SILC 2020 data (based on 2019 income). Note: *Data for Italy in the figure on the right is for 2019; data 
for the EU average is Eurostat’s estimate.
Summary 15Development report 2022
of education and some marginalised groups) have long been at higher risk of poverty 
and deprivation than the EU average. Income inequality, which in 2020 (based on 2019 
income) reached its lowest level since 2009 and is within the SDS target, remains low 
by international standards. The exposure of young people to temporary employment is 
still higher than the EU average, mainly due to widespread student employment, which, 
however, is also an important source of livelihood for students. Unfavourable trends since 
2017, due to lower political participation, include the deterioration of the situation of 
women as measured by the Gender Equality Index, which means that Slovenia has moved 
away from the SDS target in this regard.
The long-standing trend of improving the health status of the population was 
interrupted by the epidemic, existing problems related to access to healthcare and 
long-term care were exacerbated, and increasing efforts were made to improve the 
resilience of both systems. Life expectancy, which increased by 1.8 years in 2010–2019, fell 
by one year in 2020 due to the relatively high mortality rate associated with the COVID-19 
epidemic. According to the data for 2019, the number of healthy life years is below the 
EU average and is far from the SDS target, and it may decrease further in the future due 
to the consequences of the epidemic. The epidemic has contributed to a deterioration 
of mental health problems and health inequalities are expected to widen further. The 
efficiency of healthcare in treating treatable diseases has improved over a longer period 
of time and is above the EU average. Mortality that could be avoided by prevention and 
public health measures is higher in Slovenia, mainly due to the high prevalence of an 
unhealthy lifestyles. Access to healthcare in Slovenia is good in terms of financial coverage 
of rights. However, due to the great shortage of general practitioners, certain specialists, 
graduate nurses and nursing staff, along with long waiting times, healthcare has further 
deteriorated during the epidemic. The problems of access to healthcare were somewhat 
alleviated by the increasing use of eHealth services. Several short-term measures were 
taken to increase the resilience of the health system. A special law was passed to ensure 
investment in healthcare until 2031, and significant funds were earmarked within the 
RRP for this purpose in the coming years. The epidemic has also exacerbated the long-
standing problem of long-term care, access to which has been limited for many years 
by poorly developed formal home care and a shortage of staff in residential care homes. 
The framework law adopted at the end of 2021 will provide beneficiaries a wide scope of 
rights to LTC regardless of their income, but the biggest challenge remains the regulation 
of compulsory insurance for LTC. To increase the resilience of health and long-term care, 
adequate employment planning, improving working conditions and ensuring a fiscally 
sustainable structure of funding sources in both systems are also crucial in the long run.
0
4
8
12
16
20
M
al
ta
G
er
m
an
y
Lu
xe
m
b
ou
rg
A
us
tr
ia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Sp
ai
n
C
yp
ru
s
H
un
ga
ry
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
C
ro
at
ia
Sw
ed
en
Po
rt
ug
al EU
D
en
m
ar
k
Li
th
ua
ni
a
It
al
y
Ire
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
La
tv
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
G
re
ec
e
Po
la
nd
Es
to
ni
a
Sh
ar
e 
in
 th
e 
po
pu
la
tio
n 
ag
ed
 1
6+
, i
n 
%
Total population First quintile Fifth quintile
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
Sp
ai
n
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
la
nd
Ro
m
an
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
It
al
y
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Sl
ov
en
ia
Lu
xe
m
b
ou
rg
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
C
ro
at
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Sw
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
A
us
tr
ia
G
re
ec
e
Es
to
ni
a
M
al
ta
G
er
m
an
y
C
yp
ru
s
La
tv
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d
C
ha
ng
e 
in
 y
ea
rs
 Figure 5: Due to the COVID-19 epidemic, life expectancy at birth in Slovenia dropped significantly in 2020 (left); unmet 
needs for healthcare due to financial reasons, waiting times or geographical distance were already high at the outbreak of 
the epidemic (2020, right)
Source: Eurostat (2022).
Summary16 Development report 2022
Slovenia’s natural environment is well preserved on average, but since not enough 
permanent changes have been made in the long term with regard to the desired 
transition to a low-carbon circular economy, the so-called green investments 
will have to be significantly increased in the future. Given the high proportion of 
protected areas, the large forest cover and the moderate agricultural intensity, Slovenia’s 
natural environment is relatively well preserved on average, with the exception of air 
quality due to a relatively high particulate matter concentration. Nevertheless, the high 
ecological footprint, which increased more in Slovenia than elsewhere in Europe during 
the recovery after the previous crisis (2015–2018), indicates that economic activity and 
current lifestyles are exerting too much pressure on nature. The 2020 energy efficiency 
and emissions reduction targets have been met, but the economic downturn and lower 
energy consumption in the crisis years of 2009 and 2020 made a major contribution 
to achieving this target. In the period of economic growth before the outbreak of the 
epidemic, growth in emissions, energy and material productivity, measured as the ratio of 
GDP to resource use and emissions, also accelerated slightly. However, this was not enough 
to significantly narrow the gap with the EU average, which remains at around 10% in all 
three areas. Trends in the use of renewable energy sources were even less favourable, as 
their share in Slovenia has increased the least among EU Member States since 2005, which 
means that the 2020 target in this field was not achieved. In 2020, the share increased, 
but this was due to lower overall energy consumption during the epidemic and therefore 
temporary. The pace at which the dependence of economic growth on resource use has 
been reduced over the last decade will not be sufficient to meet the 2030 SDS target 
and the much more ambitious national and EU climate-neutrality targets. In addition to 
funding from the Recovery and Resilience Plan for this area, which is primarily focused 
on environmental protection, we will have to make the best possible use of all available 
funds for the green transition. However, given the need to accelerate the decarbonisation 
process in line with the ambitious targets, additional systemic action is needed, supported 
by additional funding for sustainable investments in clean technologies, innovation and 
new knowledge.
A well-preserved 
and healthy natural 
environment
10
94
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
M
al
ta
Lu
xe
m
b
ou
rg
C
yp
ru
s
Ire
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Po
la
nd
Sl
ov
ak
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Bu
lg
ar
ia
C
ze
ch
 R
.
D
en
m
ar
k
G
re
ec
e
It
al
y
Sp
ai
n
EU
H
un
ga
ry
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Fr
an
ce
Es
to
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Sw
ed
en
A
us
tr
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
Ro
m
an
ia
La
tv
ia
C
ro
at
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
In
 %
Share of RES consumption in 2005–2020
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
de
x,
 E
U
-2
7=
10
0
Resource productivity
Energy productivity
Emission productivity
EU
 Figure 6: The gap with the EU average in energy, resource and emissions productivity (left) remains; the increase in the use 
of renewable energy in 2005–2020 was the smallest among all EU Member States (right)
Source: Eurostat (2022), calculations by IMAD. Note: Emission productivity for 2020 based on estimates of greenhouse gas emissions for that year.
Summary 17Development report 2022
In recent years, Slovenia has made significant progress towards improving 
government efficiency. The challenge is to continue to improve the efficiency of public 
sector governance, the predictability of the business environment and trust in key 
government institutions and to continue to work on the development of a common EU 
foreign and defence policy in the current difficult geopolitical situation. In recent years, 
Slovenia has made progress in the digital transformation of public services, introduction 
of quality standards in public administration bodies, reduction of administrative barriers 
and improvement of the efficiency of the justice system. Institutional competitiveness 
is still marked by inefficient public sector governance due to poor coordination among 
all stakeholders, a high burden of government regulation, distrust in the rule of law and 
the judiciary, and a relatively high perception of corruption. The epidemic, and before 
that the transition to the fourth industrial revolution, underlined the need for strategic 
management and response of public institutions, which play an important role not only 
in the efficiency of public administration, but also in development at national, regional 
and local levels. The strategic approach will thus only be possible with the participation 
of social partners and stakeholders, which in the long run will enable a stable, predictable 
and credible development policy that will be important for the digital and green 
transformation of the economy and will enhance the country’s capacities. Adequate 
communication with the public and improving the participation with civil society and 
professionals in the adoption, implementation and monitoring of policies also remains a 
challenge. To ensure further development of the country, it is also important to strengthen 
citizens’ and businesses’ trust in institutions, which has declined during the epidemic and 
is among the lowest in the EU. In the last decade, Slovenia has been one of the safest 
and most peaceful countries in the world, which is also in line with the SDS target. The 
current uncertain situation related to the war in Ukraine is having an impact on the sense 
of safety not only in Slovenia, but in the entire European region. Cooperation with key 
partner countries and international organisations, especially the EU, is therefore crucial to 
reduce the potentially severe humanitarian, security and economic consequences. 
A high level of 
cooperation, competence 
and governance efficiency
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Legal and
regulatory
environment
Adaptability of
government
policy
Setting up
businesses
Transparency of
government
policies
Bureaucracy
Bribery and
corruption
Central bank
efficiency
Labour
legislation
Slovenia 2021 Slovenia 2020 Slovenia 2014
EU 2021 EU 2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
The leading
three countries
EU  Slovenia
Es
tim
at
e
Digital public services
2021 2020 2016
 Figure 7: Progress in digital public services in recent years and especially during the epidemic (left); after several years of 
improvement, managers estimate that institutional competitiveness deteriorated in 2021 (right)
Sources: EC (2022a), IMD (2021). Note: The assessment of digital public services (figure on the left) is based on the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) calculated 
by the European Commission. The scores for each year are based on the previous year’s data. The score ranges from 0 to 100. For the IMD’s assessment of institutional 
competitiveness (figure on the right), a higher score is better. For the detailed indicators, the maximum score is 10. All indicators are based on surveys among managers. 
The survey takes place at the beginning of the second quarter of the year in which the results are published.

Introductory remarks 19Development report 2022
The Development Report is a document monitoring the implementation of the 
Slovenian Development Strategy. The basic structure of the report (the main chapters) 
follows the five strategic orientations that the SDS identified as crucial for achieving 
its primary goal, which is to ensure a high quality of life for all: (a) a highly productive 
economy that generates value added for all, (b) lifelong learning, (c) an inclusive, 
healthy, safe and responsible society, (d) a well-preserved natural environment, and (e) 
a high level of cooperation, competence and governance efficiency. The SDS also set 12 
development goals in interconnected and interdependent areas identified as essential for 
the implementation of the strategic orientations. The report tracks the implementation 
of each development goal (sub-chapters of the report) within the strategic orientation 
with which it is most strongly linked, although each individual goal can contribute to the 
realisation of several strategic orientations (Figure 8). When the report was prepared, data 
for most indicators were available for 2020 and for some also for 2021, which means that 
this report analyses or at least hints at the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on Slovenia’s 
development and the well-being of the population.
The appendix to the report presents indicators for monitoring the implementation 
of the SDS in more detail. The 30 performance indicators for which the SDS set target 
values for 2030 are complemented by indicators that provide a detailed overview of 
progress in individual areas. The indicators represent the main analytical basis of the 
report, which is complemented by an overview of other data, studies and research 
reports, particularly in those areas where no appropriate indicators for comparisons 
between countries or over time are available (for example because of the specificity of 
content). The report uses data sources released by the beginning of April 2022. Due to the 
UK’s withdrawal from the EU in 2020, we have moved to the average of 27 countries since 
the Development Report 2021 (i.e. last year’s report) when comparing developments in 
Slovenia and the EU. As the EU average is also used in some numerical SDS targets, the 
value of individual targets has changed slightly. The abbreviation EU-13 still refers to the 
average of new Member States that joined the EU after 2003; EU-14 refers to the average 
of countries that were already in the EU before 2004 (the so-called old Member States) 
and EU-22 to the average of those that are also members of the OECD (this comparison 
is used in the case of OECD data sources, which do not generally include all EU Member 
States).
Introductory 
remarks
 Figure 8: Primary objective and strategic orientations of the Slovenian 
Development Strategy 2030
Source: SVRK (2017).

A highly productive 
economy that creates value 
added for all
After falling with the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, the Slovenian 
economy recovered rapidly in 2021 and exceeded the pre-crisis level. 
This was significantly influenced by the good financial position of the 
business sector before the outbreak and extensive measures to the 
benefit of the economy and the population to mitigate the effects of the 
epidemic. These prevented the decline of economic potential, including 
the maintenance of a high level of employment during the crisis, which 
then rose to a historically high level in 2021. As a result, the State has 
taken on a significant burden of the epidemic, which was reflected in a 
high general government deficit and an increase in general government 
debt, especially in 2020. Nevertheless, the service sectors that were 
most affected by the containment measures were hit hard by the 
epidemic, as were the more service-oriented regions, which led to a 
resurgence of development disparities between regions after several 
years. Along with rapid economic growth and price and supply shocks 
from the international environment, inflation also began to increase in 
2021, which accelerated further with the aggravation of the geopolitical 
situation in the first months of 2022.
Slovenia’s economic progress over a longer period of time has been 
less satisfactory. The development gap behind the EU average, 
measured by gross domestic product per capita in purchasing power 
parity, only started to narrow in 2016 and was still slightly larger in 
2021 than in 2008. Slow decline in the development gap over the past 
decade was mainly due to low investment after the global financial 
crisis and the consequent modest growth in productivity. The impact 
of several years of declining investment in intangible forms of capital 
has become increasingly apparent since the previous crisis (in research 
and development, ICT, and employee training), which has slowed 
the transition to innovation-driven growth characterised by high 
productivity and, particularly in the case of the business sector, also 
1
the low-carbon circular economy. Accelerating productivity growth 
is essential for achieving higher incomes in the long term, and with a 
successful green transition, these would also be achieved in a more 
sustainable way. All this would also contribute to increasing the 
economy’s resilience to shocks in international markets (disruptions 
in global value chains, rising commodity prices, etc.), which have 
intensified sharply with the Russian–Ukrainian military conflict. Recently, 
there have been some positive developments in productivity-enhancing 
investments; an opportunity for this lies in extensive funding of the EU’s 
Recovery and Resilience Fund intended for investments and reforms in 
greener, digital and resilient economies. Addressing these development 
challenges will require further fiscal consolidation to set the priorities for 
public spending, which will be increasingly affected by the demographic 
changes, due to which adjustments to social protection systems towards 
greater sustainability and stability of funding will be required. However, 
demographic change, together with rapid changes in the knowledge 
and skills required, also poses a significant risk to effective economic 
transformation and productivity growth due to the growing shortage of 
adequate labour.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 23Development report 2022
 Economic stability (Development Goal 5): 
The content of the goal is to ensure economic stability, which is a key precondition for reducing the development 
gap behind more developed countries and increasing the quality of life for all. The basis of economic stability is 
a well-performing economy which maintains key macroeconomic balances. The achievement and preservation 
thereof require appropriate economic policy action throughout the economic cycle, long-term sustainability of 
public finances, a stable and competitive financial sector, and balanced regional development. With regard to 
economic stability, SDS 2030 highlights competitiveness and innovation along with sustainable and inclusive 
aspects of economic development. These are dealt with in depth in other SDS development goals, namely goals 6 
(competitiveness and innovation), 3 and 7 (inclusive development), and 8 and 9 (sustainable development).
 SDS 2030 performance indicators for Development Goal 5:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
GDP per capita (at PPS), index EU-27 = 100 90 (2021) 100 (2021) 100
General government debt, as a % GDP 74.7 (2021) 88.1 (2021) 60
are reducing the supply of the working age population 
(20 to 64 years), closing the development gap in the 
future will depend crucially on increasing productivity, 
which should therefore be much faster than in the past 
decade (see Section 1.2.1).1 The relatively favourable 
overall financial situation in companies after the first 
year of the COVID-19 crisis (Box 2) and large financial 
resources under the EU Recovery and Resilience Fund 
1 Despite the fact that the employment rate in Slovenia is relatively high 
by international standards, which is a consequence of the relatively 
high employment rate (compared to the EU average) of women, 
Slovenia still has the potential to increase this component of GDP per 
capita, especially in older age groups (especially the 60–64 age group).
In 2021, Slovenia was only approaching the relative 
level of economic development from the 2008 peak, 
and the slow development catch-up is the result 
of modest productivity growth. Gross domestic 
product per capita (at purchasing power standards) as 
a measure of economic development in 2021 stood at 
90% of the EU average and was still 1 p.p. lower than at 
the beginning of the global financial crisis in 2008. The 
decline compared to the EU average during the crisis 
(2008–2012) was followed by several years of stagnation, 
while the catching-up process resumed only in 2016. 
This was stimulated mainly by a rapid increase in the 
employment rate while the contribution of productivity 
growth was modest. Due to demographic changes that 
1.1 Economic stability 
 Figure 9: Slow development catching up due to modest productivity growth
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. GDP per capita and productivity (GDP per employee) are expressed in purchasing power standards, i.e. 
adjusted for purchasing power. The shaded field shows the range between the EU Member States with the lowest and highest values of the indicator, 
excluding Luxembourg and Ireland. According to the European Innovation Index, the innovation leaders are: SE, FI, DK, BE. CEE-4: CZ, HU, PL, SK.
81
91 90
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
EU
-2
7 
= 
10
0
GDP per capita
SI
Innovation leaders
CEE-4
77
84 84
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
EU
-2
7 
= 
10
0
Productivity
SI
Innovation leaders
CEE-4
108 107104
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
EU
-2
7 
= 
10
0
Employment rate
SI
Innovation leaders
CEE-4
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all24 Development report 2022
(Box 1) represent a much better starting point for 
investment in key areas and thus productivity growth 
than after the global financial crisis of the previous 
decade. However, their efficient use for modernisation 
and restructuring into a highly productive economy will 
be crucial, in particular by accelerating the digital and 
green transition, which are the cornerstones of future 
growth and competitiveness (see Section 1.2.2).
After six years of solid growth, economic activity fell 
sharply in 2020 due to the COVID-19 epidemic; with a 
strong rebound in 2021, it has already exceeded pre-
crisis levels. Besides measures for the stabilisation of the 
economy2 after the global financial crisis, the rebound of 
GDP growth in 2014 was driven mainly by increasing 
exports resulting from the recovery of demand in 
trading partners and by the improved competitiveness 
of Slovenian exporters. Favourable domestic and 
international economic conditions also stimulated the 
strengthening of domestic consumption, which became 
an important factor in economic growth in the period 
2014–2019. Robust growth in private consumption up 
to and including 2019 was associated with increased 
employment, stronger salary growth and favourable 
bank loans. Investment growth strengthened, especially 
in the period 2017–2018. In 2019, economic growth 
began to slow, primarily due to lower growth in foreign 
demand and increased uncertainty in the international 
environment, which was reflected in a slowdown in 
exports investment growth. In 2020, due to the epidemic 
and related severe restrictions to curb the spread of 
infections, all components of GDP fell on the expenditure 
side, with the exception of government consumption, 
while on the production side, the decline was particularly 
pronounced in tourism-related and contact-intensive 
services. In 2021, strong rebound in overall economic 
activity followed. Trade in goods and related activities, 
construction and investment exceeded their pre-crisis 
level as early as the end of 2020 or the beginning of 
2021. Among investments, those in equipment and 
machinery grew faster, while those in construction grew 
more slowly. Due to problems in supply chains, the 
growth of manufacturing began to slow in the second 
half of 2021, while trade in goods grew sharply again 
in the last quarter after a decline in the third quarter. In 
2021, the pre-crisis level was also exceeded by private 
consumption, which was the main driver of GDP growth 
in that year. Amid the easing of containment measures, 
it was stimulated mainly by growth in disposable income 
and the gradual use of high savings (Indicator 1.2). Last 
year, the lifting of containment measures also led to a 
recovery in trade in services, which by the end of the 
year had largely exceeded pre-epidemic levels, with the 
exception of trade in travel.
2 Economic policy measures were essential for stabilising the economy, 
particularly the rehabilitation of the banking system and gradual 
fulfilment of fiscal commitments, which improved the financing 
conditions for the state and the economy. 
In 2020, economic activity in Slovenia fell less than the 
EU average, and the rebound in 2021 was stronger, 
which was also made possible by extensive measures 
to limit the negative effects of the COVID-19 crisis on 
the population and the economy. The COVID-19 crisis 
is very different from the global financial crisis that began 
in 2008,3 not only in terms of the shock it caused, but also 
in terms of the economy’s preparedness for the crisis and 
policy responses to it. The depth of the decline due to the 
epidemic and the speed of recovery were influenced by 
several factors, among which the relatively good financial 
condition of the Slovenian economy before the crisis 
and extensive stimulating economic policy measures,4 
which prevented a deeper decline in economic activity 
and employment in 2020, were key.5 Anti-coronavirus 
measures also had a significant impact in 2021, as they 
supported in particular some service activities that 
could not operate normally due to epidemic-related 
restrictions. While companies that resumed operations 
without restrictions recovered quickly. Due to the scale of 
the crisis, fiscal assistance measures were taken at the EU 
level. Already in the early months of the epidemic, a fiscal 
package was adopted to mitigate the effects of the crisis 
in the short term.6 The EU’s substantial support in the form 
3 The recession after the financial crisis could also be described as the 
result of demand shocks stemming from a major deleveraging effort 
by households, governments, banks and businesses. The pandemic 
is affecting the economy both through demand and supply shocks 
striking at the same time (Codogno and van den Noord, 2020).
4 In particular, fiscal aid measures aimed at stabilising the labour market 
situation and helping the businesses with liquidity problems and are 
described in more detail in the Autumn Forecast of Economic Trends 
(IMAD, 2021b).
5 According to IMAD estimates, in the absence of measures, the drop 
in economic activity is expected to be higher by at least 4 p.p. (IMAD, 
2021b).
6 EUR 240 billion in precautionary loans from the European Stability 
Mechanism (ESM) is intended to support Member States in 
responding to the pandemic crisis, EUR 25 billion in guarantees from 
3.73.23.53.0
4.43.8
5.77.0
3.5
-7.5
1.30.9
-2.6
-1.0
2.82.2
3.2
4.84.4
3.3
-4.2
8.1
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Y
ea
r-
o
n
-y
ea
r 
ch
an
g
e,
 in
 %
C
o
n
tr
ib
u
ti
o
n
 t
o
 c
h
an
g
e,
 in
 p
.p
.
Imports of goods and services
Change in inventories and valuables
Gross fixed capital formation
Government consumption
Private consumption
Exports of goods and services
Real GDP growth (right axis)
 Figure 10: The most important growth factor in 2021 was 
private consumption
Source: SURS (2022).
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 25Development report 2022
of an extraordinary recovery instrument called the “Next 
Generation of the EU”, agreed in July 2020, is intended 
in particular to address the development challenges of 
digitalisation and green transformation through the 
promotion of investment activity, which in Slovenia after 
the financial crisis significantly strengthened only in the 
period 2017–2019, but remaining low compared to the 
EU average (in recent years, the ratio of total investment 
to GDP in Slovenia has been 2 p.p. lower than in the EU). 
The current account surplus decreased significantly 
(to EUR 1.7 billion or 3.3% of GDP) in 2021 due to 
stronger domestic demand and deteriorating terms 
of trade. At the outbreak of the global financial crisis 
in 2009, the current account deficit narrowed sharply, 
and in 2012 it turned into a surplus, which was the 
highest ever in 2020 (EUR 3.5 billion or 7.4% of GDP). The 
improvement in the current account balance between 
the two crises was related to extensive deleveraging of 
banks and companies abroad, favourable international 
conditions and an increase in exporters’ competitiveness, 
along with moderate import growth due to relatively 
low domestic consumption. Positive terms of trade also 
contributed to the formation of the surplus. In terms of 
the savings and investment gap, the high surplus in that 
period reflected extensive savings of the private sector 
(households and non-financial corporations). In 2021, 
the current account surplus declined significantly, which 
was, given the lower commodity surplus, almost entirely 
the European Investment Bank’s Pan-European Guarantee Fund (EIB), 
which provides for the mobilisation of an additional EUR 200 billion 
of appropriations for corporate loans (mainly to small and medium-
sized enterprises), and EUR 100 billion in loans on favourable terms 
from the Pan-European Short-Term Work Scheme (SURE) to prevent 
redundancies.
due to the strengthening of household spending and 
investment, as real growth in imports was higher than 
that in exports. In addition to high growth in import 
prices, deteriorating terms of trade also contributed 
to the decline in trade surpluses, amounting to EUR 
640 million. From the point of view of the savings and 
investment gap, the decrease in the current account 
surplus was mainly due to a decrease in net household 
savings and an increase in net investments of non-
financial corporations, as well as to a lower current 
account deficit.
After the growth of consumer prices in Slovenia 
and the EU remained low after the outbreak of 
the financial crisis, it intensified considerably in 
2021 and continued to grow in 2022. Over the past 
decade, consumer prices have risen by an average of 
just over 1% on an annual basis, with year-on-year 
growth reaching around 5% at the end of last year, 
the highest since 2007. The most important reasons 
for the increase and broader base price growth in 
2021 were significantly higher fuel prices,7 economic 
recovery after the outbreak of the epidemic and the 
impact of supply chain problems. In addition to the 
prices of fuel, which contributed the most to inflation, 
the contribution of non-energy industrial goods prices 
also increased significantly. In the period 2011–2020, 
this fell on average by around 0.5% each year, while 
last year price growth averaged around 4.5%. With 
bottlenecks in supply chains and pressures from higher 
commodity prices, the supply of some semi-durable 
and durable products did not follow the increased 
demand and consumption of households. Higher prices 
7 In Slovenia, fuels contributed 2.4 p.p. to inflation and in the euro area 
2.5 p.p.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2020 2021
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f G
D
P
Other (aid to agriculture, ICT
infrastructure, investments in
research, co-financing of fire
brigades, etc.)
Support to businesses (fixed costs,
support to meeting industry,
cultural activities, compensation to
operators, etc.)
Maintain consumption and social
situation (tourism vouchers,
solidarity bonuses)
Functioning of public services
(allowances, expenditure on
containment measures, provision
of funds for Health Insurance
Institute of Slovenia, etc.)
Labour market (temporary layoff,
short-time work, minimum wage
subsidy, holiday allowance)
 Figure 11: Expenditure to mitigate the effects of the 
epidemic decreased in 2021, and their structure was 
changed, with the share of expenditure on public services 
increasing sharply
Source: IMAD assessment based on MF (2021).
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
M
al
ta
P
or
tu
ga
l
F
in
la
nd
D
en
m
ar
k
F
ra
nc
e
A
us
tr
ia
Ita
ly
G
re
ec
e
S
w
ed
en
C
yp
ru
s
E
ur
o 
ar
ea
S
lo
va
ki
a
S
lo
ve
ni
a
C
ro
at
ia
E
U
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
G
er
m
an
y
Ir
el
an
d
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
B
el
gi
um
B
ul
ga
ria
S
pa
in
R
om
an
ia
H
un
ga
ry
La
tv
ia
P
ol
an
d
Li
th
ua
ni
a
E
st
on
ia
Y
-o
-y
 g
ro
w
th
, i
n
 %
C
o
n
tr
ib
u
ti
o
n
 in
 p
.p
.
Food Energy Non-energy industrial
Services Other HICP 2020 (right axis)
HICP 2021 (right axis)
 Figure 12: Higher fuel prices contribute the most to the 
growth of consumer prices (HICP) in both Slovenia and 
the EU (2021 and comparison for 2020)
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Note: In addition to different 
growth in individual countries, contributions also differ due to different 
weights.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all26 Development report 2022
After the interruption of many years of favourable 
trends in the labour market in early 2020, 
employment, supported by intervention measures 
and the recovery of economic activity, rose to a 
historically high level in 2021 and unemployment fell 
sharply, with some activities already experiencing 
labour shortages. Since mid-March 2020, containment 
measures have drastically worsened the labour market 
situation, but the rapid adoption of intervention 
legislation to retain jobs and mitigate the effects of 
the epidemic has allowed the fall in employment to be 
much smaller than the fall in GDP; adjustment in the 
labour market had a greater impact on the number of 
hours worked (Figure 13 left).9 With the relaunch of most 
activities, the labour market situation began to improve 
in the second half of 2020. Employment continued to 
accelerate in 2021 and varied across activities since 
containment measures had an uneven impact across 
sectors.10 With a rapid increase in labour demand, labour 
market participation has returned to pre-crisis levels. The 
rapid recovery in labour demand, low unemployment 
and lower net migration inflow, which was also linked to 
restrictions on mobility and travel during the epidemic, 
have significantly increased the shortage of adequate 
labour in some activities over the past year, given current 
demographic trends (Figure 13 right), which is already 
having a negative impact on the production volume of 
some companies. The record low volume of potentially 
9 This is also indicated by a comparison of the movement of the 
actual surveyed unemployment rate and its prediction, which 
derives from Okun’s law, i.e. the long-term link between GDP and the 
unemployment rate. See also IMAD (2021c).
10 Last year, total employment increased by 1.4% year-on-year, with the 
private sector recovering significantly in construction, manufacturing, 
trade, and professional, scientific and technical activities, while in the 
public sector it increased mainly in healthcare.
of fuel, input materials and raw materials and a poor 
harvest affected food prices, and both processed and 
unprocessed food became more expensive. The overall 
growth in service prices was still subdued last year 
(1.5%).8 Accommodation and food service activities and 
holiday-related services contributed the most to the rise 
in service prices last year, which we believe is due both 
to higher demand (including the redeeming of tourist 
vouchers) and to labour shortages in this segment 
of services. In our opinion, the impact of the labour 
market situation on overall inflation was still modest, 
but the risk of increasing wage pressures due to labour 
shortages in several industries increased, which along 
with higher corporate costs and higher demand (as a 
result of higher incomes) could spill over into higher 
final price growth, especially in services. In 2021, the 
HICP price growth in Slovenia was similar to the EU 
average, with only slightly larger differences in the 
composition of inflation. In Slovenia, the contribution of 
growth in the prices of non-energy industrial goods was 
above average, while the rise of prices of services was 
about half lower than the EU average. At the beginning 
of 2022, price growth intensified and was broad-based. 
The war in Ukraine has led to great uncertainties in the 
market for fuel, non-energy commodities and food and 
additional problems in supply chains, which maintains 
high pressures on further price growth. 
8 The growth of services was also affected by a one-off event, but the 
growth of service prices would have been subdued even without this, 
at 2%. In 2021, in December, one of the insurance companies returned 
part of the savings (due to lower expenses for health services than 
planned due to the COVID-19 epidemic) to policyholders in the form 
of a lower premium for supplementary health insurance. 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
20
11
 Q
1
20
11
 Q
3
20
12
 Q
1
20
12
 Q
3
20
13
 Q
1
20
13
 Q
3
20
14
 Q
1
20
14
 Q
3
20
15
 Q
1
20
15
 Q
3
20
16
 Q
1
20
16
 Q
3
20
17
 Q
1
20
17
 Q
3
20
18
 Q
1
20
18
 Q
3
20
19
 Q
1
20
19
 Q
3
20
20
 Q
1
20
20
 Q
3
20
21
 Q
1
Va
ca
nc
y 
ra
te
(%
)
Manufacturing
Construction
Trade
Transportation
Accommodation and food service activities
Creative, arts and entertainment activities
Other
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
20
19
 Q
1
20
19
 Q
2
20
19
Q
3
20
19
 Q
4
20
20
 Q
1
20
20
 Q
2
20
20
 Q
3
20
20
 Q
4
20
21
 Q
1
20
21
 Q
2
20
21
 Q
3
20
21
 Q
4
Y-
o-
y 
gr
ow
th
, i
n 
%
GDP
Employment in terms of the number of employees
Employment in terms of the number of hours worked
 Figure 13: The labour market responded to the decline in economic activity during the epidemic to a greater extent by 
reducing hours worked than by reducing employment (left), and its recovery exacerbated the shortage of available labour 
(right)
Source: SURS (2022b).
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 27Development report 2022
on average over the year. The low growth was also 
influenced by some other factors related to the closure 
of activities, work from home (less travel expenses), 
loss of employment, lower volume of other forms of 
work (student and other contract work) and lower 
volume of holiday allowances. Wage growth in public 
service activities was mainly marked by the payment 
of allowances.14 In 2021, wage growth was higher, in 
the public sector mainly due to the large volume of 
payments of allowances at the beginning of the year and 
in the private sector, in addition to the higher minimum 
wage (by 8.9%), mainly due to the dynamic of employees 
included in individual intervention measures returning 
back to employment. Wage growth in the private 
sector has also been affected by the gradual increase 
in pressures due to growing labour shortages, which an 
increasing share of companies are facing.
amount paid to the debit (from the funds) of the employer and not 
the part co-financed by the State. Due to the posting of employees 
on temporary layoff, the number of wage earners and their wage 
bill decreased significantly, as they were not recorded in the wage 
statistics. This has affected the large fluctuation of the statistically 
reported average gross wage during the period of validity of the 
intervention measures but at the same time did not directly reflect 
the movement of employees’ incomes. In 2020, the deployment of a 
significant part of employees on temporary layoff and the application 
of the measure of partial subsidy of full-time work had the effect of 
reducing the wages paid by the employer and even more of reducing 
the number of employees receiving wages, which, together with the 
allowances paid for work in crisis situations, led to a significant increase 
in the average gross wage (5.8%). In 2021, the growth of the average 
gross wage (6.1%), in addition to the higher minimum wage, growing 
pressures due to labour shortages and bonuses in the first half of the 
year, was mainly due to the return of employees to employment and 
thus to inclusion in wage statistics.
14 The temporary introduction of the allowance for hazards and special 
burdens and the allowance for work in high-risk environment (under 
collective agreement) in the public sector and the payment of the 
allowance for work during an epidemic in the private sector.
employable labour force is also indicated by the non-
employment index, which is a broader indicator of 
labour slack than unemployment alone (Figure 14 left).11
The development of gross wages12 over the last two 
years has been strongly influenced by intervention 
measures to retain jobs and the payment of bonuses 
related to the declaration of the epidemic. Wage 
growth had been rising steadily in the years before the 
epidemic and was still high year-on-year in early 2020 
due to a rise in the minimum wage, a general labour 
shortage and agreements with public sector unions 
in 2018 (Figure 14 right). Since the second quarter 
of 2020, its movement in private sector activities has 
been strongly influenced by job-retention measures, as 
employees participating in the temporary layoff or part-
time work measures were entitled to only partial wage 
compensation, which, together with the large number 
of referrals to these measures, significantly reduced 
wage growth according to national accounts statistics13 
11 The non-employment index is a broader measure of labour slack than 
the unemployment rate, as it also covers certain other categories 
of inactive persons and accounts for differences in each group’s 
likelihood of transitioning into employment. The advantages of the 
non-employment index as a measurement of labour slack are the 
following: (i) unlike the unemployment rate, it correctly assumes that 
the potential additional labour force includes some other categories 
of working-age people besides the unemployed (students, retired 
people, discouraged job-seekers and other inactive persons) and (ii) 
it accounts for differences in these groups’ likelihood of transitioning 
into employment. The non-employment index is thus a weighted (by 
probability of employment) sum of these groups. For more detailed 
description of the methodology, see IMAD (2019c).
12 According to the national accounts statistics.
13 Another common indicator of wage developments is wages according 
to wage statistics (the "Salaries of employees in legal entities" survey). 
The development of wages according to wage statistics has also been 
strongly influenced by intervention measures to retain jobs in the 
last two years and especially in connection with the methodology for 
calculating wages. This stipulates that companies report the number 
of recipients of salaries and the amount of paid salaries only in the 
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
20
11
 Q
1
20
12
 Q
1
20
13
 Q
1
20
14
 Q
1
20
15
 Q
1
20
16
 Q
1
20
17
 Q
1
20
18
 Q
1
20
19
 Q
1
20
20
 Q
1
20
21
 Q
1
Y-
o-
y 
gr
ow
th
, i
n 
%
Total
Private sector activities
Public service activities
0
5
10
15
20
25
20
01
 Q
1
20
02
 Q
1
20
03
 Q
1
20
04
 Q
1
20
05
 Q
1
20
06
 Q
1
20
07
 Q
1
20
08
 Q
1
20
09
 Q
1
20
10
 Q
1
20
11
 Q
1
20
12
 Q
1
20
13
 Q
1
20
14
 Q
1
20
15
 Q
1
20
16
 Q
1
20
17
 Q
1
20
18
 Q
1
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f w
or
ki
ng
-a
ge
 p
op
ul
at
io
n
Non-employment index Unemployment
Long-term 
Long-term 
level
 Figure 14: The non-employment index as a broader measure of the potentially employable workforce indicates its 
historically small size in 2021 (left); gross wage bill growth has fluctuated sharply since the onset of the coronavirus crisis 
(right)
Source: SURS (2022b); calculations by IMAD.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all28 Development report 2022
increase in wages during the epidemic already partially 
become permanent, which also stems from pressures 
due to lack of staff in these activities.16 In contrast to the 
reduction in expenditure to mitigate the effects of the 
epidemic, the growth of other expenditure intensified in 
2021. This was partly due to stronger investment growth 
as part of a broader European response to support the 
recovery, but also to remaining expenditure which is 
partly of a permanent nature and will have an impact 
on the general government position in the medium 
term (FC, 2022b). The estimated expansionary nature 
of fiscal policy in 2021 in Slovenia (excluding epidemic 
mitigation measures) and in most euro area countries is 
also indicated by the EC’s fiscal policy stance indicator,17 
with the fiscal impulse in Slovenia being assessed as 
stronger. The fact that countries maintain supportive 
fiscal policies in 2021 for the recovery of the economy 
was based on the EC’s recommendations.
The focus on the COVID-19 crisis, which required 
a rapid response, and the multiannual validity of 
the escape clause have pushed medium-term fiscal 
policy planning into the background, and in these 
circumstances some laws have been passed that 
permanently increase spending and reduce the 
government revenue. Fiscal planning determined by 
the Public Finance Act, which envisages a link with the 
no agreement has been reached with the unions yet.
16 At the end of 2021, an agreement was reached to increase the salaries 
of employees in health and social work (permanently). Changed ratios 
between wages of individual professions in the public sector in the 
future may lead to higher wages in other parts of the public sector as 
well.
17 In assessing the draft budget plans for 2022, the EC used a comparison 
of current expenditure growth (instead of changing the structural 
balance according to the economic cycle situation) from national 
sources to assess fiscal policy stance (which does not include 
temporary expenditure to mitigate the effects of the epidemic) from 
national sources in terms of potential economic growth in the medium 
term (EC, 2021e).
Fiscal policy remained expansionary in 2021, which 
resulted from the strengthening of investments 
and also other current expenditures with a lasting 
structural impact on the fiscal situation, and, with 
the rapid economic recovery, the fiscal position 
improved slightly. A favourable public finance position, 
which in 2017–2019 was reflected in equilibrated 
balance or surplus and in 2015–2019 in reducing the 
public debt to GDP ratio, in exceptional economic 
circumstances due to the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020 
turned into a sharp deterioration in the balance sheets of 
the general government sector. In 2021, with a marked 
economic recovery and a reduction in expenditure to 
mitigate the effects of the epidemic, the deficit and 
public debt decreased slightly (from 7.8% to 5.2% of 
GDP and from 79.8% to 74.7% of GDP respectively; see 
Indicators 1.3 and 1.4). According to IMAD estimates, 
expenditure to mitigate the effects of the epidemic has 
fallen from 5.2% of GDP in 2020 to 4.5% of GDP (Figure 
15). Prior horizontal support, available to a wide range 
of businesses, has become targeted on only some of 
the service activities most affected by the epidemic 
(tourism, accommodation and food service activities, 
the meetings industry, and arts and recreation). Among 
the measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic, the 
share of expenditure on public services increased in 2021, 
which, due to the long period of the declared epidemic, 
resulted mainly from increased payments of allowances 
for work in high-risk environments.15 A temporary 
15 In individual anti-coronavirus laws, 13 different supplements were 
introduced, in connection with work in high-risk environment or 
with patients with COVID-19, and the largest amount of payments 
was related to allowances under the Collective Agreement for the 
Public Sector. According to the Fiscal Council, the method of payment 
of allowances, with insufficient clarity of criteria that would link the 
amount of allowance to the actual exposure of different employees 
to risk situations, allowed too much arbitrariness in their payment, 
indicating systemic weaknesses (FC, 2021b). The government has 
drafted a proposal according to which allowances would be paid in 
three amounts instead of a percentage of the basic salary, about which 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f G
D
P 
General government debt
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f G
D
P 
General government balance
 Figure 15: In 2021, public finances improved slightly
Source: SURS (2022b).
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 29Development report 2022
with the mentioned expenditure increases, will affect 
the process of fiscal consolidation in the next period, for 
which adoption at the EU level has not yet been agreed 
upon.
An agreement on the approach that will guide 
fiscal consolidation in the euro area countries and 
Slovenia in the coming years is expected in 2022. In 
October 2021, the EC resumed the debate on economic 
governance in the EU, which includes a debate on existing 
fiscal rules (EC, 2021f). The validity of the general escape 
clause for euro area countries in 2022 was confirmed on 
the basis of the EC spring 2021 forecast, and the decision 
was not changed, although the recovery of economies 
strengthened above expectations during the year – 
many countries, including Slovenia, reached the level of 
economic activity from the end of 2019, which was an 
important factor in assessing the continued application 
of the clause, as soon as in 2021.21 Given the differences in 
the economic situation of countries and differences in the 
debt situation (for countries with low or medium debt and 
for countries with high debt), the EC has differentiated 
the recommendations on fiscal policy for 2022, which in 
most euro area countries this year remains expansive. A 
similarly differentiated approach was proposed by the 
EC for 2023. For medium-indebted countries, including 
Slovenia, it proposes priority support for investments that 
support the green and digital transition and a transition 
to a more neutral fiscal policy in terms of other, current 
expenditures, but these orientations are changing given 
the uncertainty arising from the war in Ukraine and may 
change further22 (EC, 2021y). In 2022, a proposal for EC 
guidelines on possible changes in the EU’s economic 
governance and fiscal framework is also expected, 
with the aim of reaching a broad consensus for 2023. 
The biggest challenge in consolidating public finances 
in the coming years is to find a balance between the 
pace of consolidation needed to narrow the timeframe 
for low interest rates in the coming years and ensuring 
that public resources make a sufficient contribution 
to meeting the challenges of climate transition, where 
measures cannot be delayed (see Section 4), and the 
transition to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Taking 
into account the current situation and wider challenges 
requires a different path of consolidation than the current 
focus on the narrower role of fiscal policy and the effects 
of demographic change.
21 In September 2021, the Fiscal Council also re-assessed the validity of 
the reasons for the existence of exceptional circumstances in 2022 
and assessed that the conditions were met due to the existence 
of an unusual event that cannot be influenced and has significant 
consequences for the financial situation of the general government 
sector, while the second legal condition under the Fiscal Rule Act 
(serious economic downturn) would no longer be met according to 
forecasts for 2022 (FC, 2021a). 
22 In early March 2022, the EC published fiscal policy guidance for 2023 
which Member States should take into account when preparing 
stability and convergence programmes. However, due to the high 
uncertainty posed by the situation in Ukraine and the impact on the 
economy, the EC will reassess the possibility of deactivation of the 
general escape clause as of 2023 and adjust its guidance if necessary, 
based on its spring forecast (May 2022).
strategic document (Slovenian Development Strategy 
2030)18 has not been implemented in 2020–2022. 
Medium-term planning and the placement of adopted 
measures in the medium-term fiscal framework, which 
usually requires the setting of spending priorities due 
to limited public resources, has been pushed into the 
background over several years. The medium-term 
fiscal framework presented each year in the Stability 
Programme was prepared in the spring of 2021 in 
accordance with EC guidelines for the first time since 
the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic. With policy 
proposals supporting its numerical targets set in the 
Ordinance on the framework for the preparation of the 
general government budget for the 2022–2024 period, 
the document focused mainly on the first years and 
less on the medium term, due to the unknown way of 
achieving medium-term balance after 2023, resulting 
from the expected revision of economic governance 
in the EU. Since the spring of 2021, some legislative 
bases have been adopted, i.e. agreements which, due 
to the increase in expenditure, will have a significant 
fiscal impact on the general government position in 
the coming years,19 as only some of them (especially 
investments in healthcare) are envisaged to receive 
EU funding (Box 1). In many cases, these are important 
substantive changes in the regulation of individual areas 
that also respond to long-term unresolved challenges, 
but for which no new sources of public funding are 
envisaged. At the same time, lower tax burdens were 
imposed in the field of resources in 2021–2022 (lower 
excise duties on fuel and motor vehicles and reduction 
of personal income tax in 2022),20 which, in conjunction 
18 Slovenian Development Strategy 2030 represents one of the key 
strategic bases in the preparation of programming documents for 
drawing on cohesion policy funds for the period 2021–2027.
19 Adoption of the Long-Term Care Act (the Ministry of Health estimates 
additional funds from the state budget in 2025 at EUR 463 million), the 
Research and Innovation Act (the Act envisages an increase in state 
funding to 1% of GDP), the Act on the Provision of Financial Resources 
for investments in Slovenian healthcare in the years from 2021 to 2031 
(provided by law in the amount of EUR 2.1 billion), the agreement on 
raising salaries in the police (with the Act Amending the Police Work 
and Organisation Act, estimated at EUR 16 million in the draft law), 
and the Agreement on urgent measures in the field of salaries in health 
and social work and continuing negotiations (estimated by the Health 
Insurance Institute of Slovenia at EUR 100 million). At the same time, 
the Strategic Plan of the Common Agricultural Policy 2023–2027, 
adopted in December 2021 and submitted to the EC, envisages that 
Slovenia will add additional funds to the mandatory minimum share 
for the rural development programme from national funds (EUR 310 
million). At the beginning of 2022, there was also an extraordinary 
adjustment of pensions (estimated by the Pension and Disability 
Insurance Institute of Slovenia at EUR 145 million) and an amendment 
to the Health Care and Health Insurance Act when paying sickness 
benefits at the expense of the employer (estimated by the Health 
Insurance Institute of Slovenia at EUR 93 million).
20 The decrees determining the amount of excise duties on fuel and 
electricity reduced excise duties for the period from 1 February to 
30 April 2022 (the financial effect was estimated at EUR 28 million), 
the Motor Vehicle Tax Act abolished the additional motor vehicle 
tax in 2021 and changed the tax assessment scale (the proposed 
act estimated the financial impact at EUR 29 million), and the Act 
Amending the Personal Income Tax Act was adopted (in the proposed 
act, the financial impact in 2022 was estimated at EUR 247 million; due 
to further increases in the general tax relief until 2025, however, this 
effect will increase by 2025).
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all30 Development report 2022
 Box 1: EU Financial resources
Extensive EU funding under the Cohesion and Common Agricultural Policies and the Recovery and 
Resilience Facility to support recovery and prepare the economy for future challenges is available this year 
and in the years to come. In addition to the expiry of the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), in 
which EUR 797 million remained unpaid at the end of February 2022, approximately EUR 10 billion is available in 
the period 2021–2027, of which EUR 705 million is refundable funds. An overview of the available resources from 
EU funds shows that they will be significant but will not be sufficient to achieve all strategic objectives, so they will 
need to be combined with other public and private sources and prioritised within the strategic planning system.
EU funding intended primarily for the green transition, promoting competitiveness, digitalisation and 
strengthening resilience; in the breakdown of their spending, countries had to keep to a minimum for each 
area. Most of the funding goes to the green transition goal. Efforts to make the green transition are also strengthened 
by the principle of no significant harm to the environment, which is subject to an assessment of all reforms and 
investments under the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP) and the MFF 2021–2027. Within the RRP, 42.45% of funds 
have been allocated to Slovenia for the green transition (minimum required 40%); these are mainly intended for 
projects to reduce flood risk, clean municipal water, drinking water supply, increase railway infrastructure capacity 
and increase energy efficiency buildings. The largest part of the funds for the green transition is also provided 
from the MFF of Cohesion Policy 2021–2027. Although these are significant funds, the estimates from the National 
Energy and Climate Plan, which assesses the funds needed to achieve the goals of this plan by 2030 at EUR 28 
billion (from public and private sources), show that the planned EU funds will not be enough and that the structure 
of the use of these funds, which is not optimal from the point of view of achieving climate goals, will be crucial for a 
successful green transition.1 Countries had to allocate at least 20% of funds to digital transformation within the RRP, 
and Slovenia only slightly exceeded this share with 21.5%. An international comparison of RRPs shows that Slovenia 
will spend about 0.7% of GDP less on digitalisation than Central and Eastern European countries overall. According 
to the shares currently planned for this purpose from the MFF 2021–2027, Slovenia will allocate 1.2 p.p. of GDP less 
to digitalisation and smart transformation together with the RRP than other Central and Eastern European countries 
(IMAD, 2022). Low investment towards smart transformation will be particularly reflected in the second half of the 
financial perspective, when the available funds will already be allocated and fiscal rules will make it very difficult for 
supplementing from the integrated budget. In the field of health and social care, funds for investments are provided 
mainly from the RRP and React-EU, mainly for energy rehabilitation of buildings and new capacities or regulation of 
existing capacities in nursing hospitals and for deinstitutionalisation of long-term care.
The financial resources of the Recovery and Resilience Plan are also accompanied by commitments and 
timelines for the adoption of numerous reform proposals, which represent an opportunity to reduce the 
implementation deficit in the area of necessary structural adjustments in Slovenia. The reform proposals 
include the preparation of various strategies, starting points for the renewal of the regulation of certain areas 
and draft reform laws and their implementing regulations, and they concern all areas in which investments are 
also made. According to the RRP timetable, the preparation of these documents is focused on the first years of 
the plan, and the year 2022 stands out in terms of the intensity of preparations. In the field of healthcare and 
social security, the RRP includes the preparation of key legislation in healthcare, pensions and long-term care,2 
where demographic trends and their known strong impacts on the long-term sustainability of public finances 
require action. In previous years, Slovenia has received a number of specific recommendations from the EC in 
these areas. According to the RRP’s commitments, the digital transformation should be supported by the Digital 
Transformation Strategy for Companies, the Digital Public Services Strategy 2021–2030, the amendment to the 
Companies Act, the Broadband Network Plan until 2025, etc. Among the key documents in support of the Green 
Transition are the Resolution on Slovenia’s Long-Term Climate Strategy until 2050 (adopted in 2021), the revision 
of the Environmental Protection Act (adopted in 2022), the Renewable Energy Promotion Act, the Flood Risk 
Reduction Plan, the Decree on handling of packaging and packaging waste, etc. It is envisaged that a green budget 
will be prepared, allowing for the first comprehensive review of state budget revenues/expenditures that support 
the climate goals from the strategic documents, taking into account the selected taxonomy. Time commitments 
and the link between the adoption of reforms and the disbursement of EU funds represent an opportunity to make 
the necessary structural adjustments, where implementation has been delayed in the past; however, in addition 
to the actual adoption of many documents, their qualitative aspect will also be important, which will be a major 
administrative and political challenge in the coming years, in addition to the investments.
1 Wuppertal Institute (2021).
2 The Long-Term Health Care Act was adopted in December 2021; in 2022 implementing documents are to be adopted (see Box 6 in Section 3).
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 31Development report 2022
95.0% of GDP in 2021, i.e. slightly more than 30% of the 
EU average. In 2021, banks generated a profit that was 
17% higher than in 2020 and, unlike in the previous year, 
was also fuelled by the reduction of impairments. With 
modest lending activity, which began to strengthen 
only in the middle of last year, and low interest rates, 
net interest income continued to decline and was 2.2% 
lower last year than in 2020. The share of non-performing 
loans also continued to decline gradually towards the 
EU average. Capital adequacy was still relatively high 
but fell slightly below the EU average after the merger 
The financial system remained stable in 2020 and 
2021, the capital market is the least developed 
compared to the EU average, and there is also a 
significant lag in the banking segment. The smallest 
development gap remains in the insurance sector, where 
an above-average share of non-life insurance stands out 
(relative to GDP and also in the structure of insurance), 
while the share of life insurance premiums lags behind 
many comparable EU Member States. The balance sheet 
total of banks, which are by far the most important 
segment of the financial system in Slovenia, reached 
 Table 1: By 2027, significant resources are available from EU resources to support recovery from the COVID-19 
epidemic and strengthen the resilience of the economy, in EUR million
The Recovery and 
Resilience Plan
React EU
Multiannual Financial 
framework*
 2021–2027
Common 
agricult. 
policy
Total
TOTAL
Grants Refund.   Content Grants Content Grants Grants Refund.
Green transition 552 513 Support to SMEs and youth employment   20 PO2, PO3 1.326 1,898    513 2,411
Digital 
transformation 317
Digitisation and digital 
transformation of SMEs 30 PO1 (digital) 66 413 413
Smart, sustainable 
and inclusive 
growth
664 73 ICT for educational institutions 14
PO1 (no 
digital) 702 1,380    73 1,453
Healthcare and 
social security 245 119
Strengthening the 
resilience of the health and 
social protection systems, 
support for the poorest
172 PO4, FEAD 684 1,101    119 1,220
Tourism and culture 42 PO5, PO6 (JTF) 334 1,855 2,231 2,231
PO7 110 110 110
Total EU 1,777 705 278 3,222 1,855 7,133    705 7,838
Total SI 36 1,216 705 1,957 1,957
TOTAL 1,777 705 314 4,438 2,560 9,090    705 9,795
Source: adopted from SVRK (2021b) and adjustments by IMAD based on changes by the end of March 2022. Note: *In the context of the Multiannual 
Financial Framework 2021–2027, the policy objectives (PO) are: PO1 (A more competitive and smarter Europe by promoting innovative and smart economic 
transformation and regional ICT connectivity); PO2 (A greener, low-carbon transitioning towards a net zero carbon economy and resilient Europe by promoting 
clean and fair energy transition, green and blue investment, the circular economy, climate change mitigation and adaptation, risk prevention and management, 
and sustainable urban mobility); PO3 (A more connected Europe by enhancing mobility); PO4 (A more social and inclusive Europe implementing the European 
Pillar of Social Rights); PO5 (A Europe closer to citizens by fostering the sustainable and integrated development of all types of territories and local initiatives), 
FEAD (Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived), Specific objective of the JTF or PO6 (Just Transition Fund), PO7 (Technical Assistance). Due to rounding, the 
totals do not always match.
 Figure 16: More than half of the funds under the Recovery and Resilience Plan after the epidemic in Slovenia are 
intended to finance the green and digital transition
Source: SVRK (2021a).
Green transition
Digital transition
Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
Healthcare and social assistance
Structure of the planned use of RRP funds
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all32 Development report 2022
of two banks. The consolidation of the banking system 
continued.23 The biggest development gap is in the 
capital market, which has remained small and illiquid 
since the last financial crisis and does not provide an 
adequate basis for strengthening longer-term old-age 
savings. 
The financial structure of non-financial corporations 
remains solid. In the period before the outbreak of the 
global financial crisis, the increase in sources of financing 
in non-financial corporations was mainly based on 
23 One of the foreign-owned banks announced the takeover of the 
second largest bank in Slovenia, which was privatised in 2015 after a 
successful rehabilitation.
 Box 2: Financial situation of the corporate sector and its exposure to insolvency during the COVID-19 
epidemic1
In the year of the outbreak of the epidemic (2020), the indebtedness and liquidity indicators of the corporate 
sector mostly improved with the help of government measures, while the profitability of the corporate sector 
declined sharply. The indebtedness of the corporate sector has decreased significantly since the global financial 
crisis and was low before the outbreak, but in 2020 it decreased even more (Figure 18). According to the majority 
of indicators, the ability of companies to repay their debts has also improved further and reached the best values 
throughout the observed period (since 2006).2 In 2020, under the influence of extensive measures to mitigate the 
effects of the epidemic, the liquidity indicators of the corporate sector also improved and reached the most favourable 
values throughout the observed period. At the same time, profitability indicators have deteriorated as a result of the 
crisis. However, even within a favourable overall picture, the financial situation in certain segments of the economy has 
deteriorated significantly, especially in service activities, which were closed for at least some time in line with measures 
to prevent the spread of the virus (IMAD, 2022). In 2020, for the first time since 2009 (when it peaked), the overall over-
indebtedness of the corporate sector also increased slightly,3 but it remained close to its lowest level. The concentration 
of the net financial debt of over-indebted companies also increased compared to 2019.4 
1 See also Section 3.2 (IMAD, 2022).
2 The indicators for total debt and bank debt in liabilities (which can be compared with the situation before 2006) reached the most favourable 
values throughout the period observed (since 2002, Figure 18). However, interest coverage (i.e. EBITDA/interest expense) deteriorated in 2020 as a 
result of significant reduction in EBITDA.
3 Over-indebtedness is calculated as the sum of net financial debts (i.e. financial debt excluding cash), exceeding EBITDA by a factor of five (if FL≥5) or 
as the sum of the overall net financial debt (if EBITDA<0). EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation) is free cash-flow 
from operating activities (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation). FL – financial leverage (i.e. net financial debt/EBITDA).
4 Ten of the most indebted companies had about 29% and 50 had almost 46% of the net financial debt of all over-indebted companies.
corporate borrowing, but after the rehabilitation of the 
banking system and the deleveraging of the economy, 
the importance of capital gradually increased. In the 
first three quarters of 2021, capital also contributed the 
most to the growth of financing sources of non-financial 
corporations, increasing due to transactions (inflows 
from domestic and foreign investors) and even more to 
value changes amid favourable developments in capital 
markets. The share of capital in the financial structure 
at the end of the third quarter of 2021 represented 
about 55% of corporate financial liabilities, which is only 
 Figure 17: The indebtedness of non-financial corporations in Slovenia remained low in 2020 and 2021
Sources: BoS (2022b), ECB (2022). Note: Indebtedness is measured as the debt-to-equity ratio.
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
q3
 2
02
1
D
eb
t/
eq
ui
ty
, i
n 
%
Slovenia EMU
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 33Development report 2022
The deterioration of the financial situation in the part of the economy most affected by the coronavirus 
crisis has led to an increase in the share of companies with the highest exposure to insolvency risk, which 
in 2020 was lower in most indicators compared to the period of the global financial crisis. These are the 
most problematic over-indebted companies (they have net financial debt and negative EBITDA) and zombie 
companies (which have had negative EBITDA for at least three years in a row).5 According to our estimates, 21% of 
companies in 2020 were such (18.7% in the period 2008–2019), which generated 1.7% (1.6%) of the value added 
of all companies. They had 7.8% (6.7%) of total capital in their balance sheets and employed 6.4% of all employees 
(6.9%).6, 7 Their share in the total number of companies was higher than in the global financial crisis (2008–2013), 
but both the contribution of these companies to value added and the shares of capital and employees was lower, 
especially the share of employees (Figure 19). During the first year of the epidemic, these companies received 8.8% 
of subsidies8 (which is a 4.9 p.p. higher share than in the year before the epidemic). Their productivity in the whole 
observed period (2008–2020) was three-quarters lower than the level of the entire corporate sector (Figure 20), 
while relative indebtedness was much higher than in the rest of the corporate sector.9 Their bank debt accounted 
5 A company can also be classified in both groups of companies at the same time.
6 In 2020, they employed a fifth more workers than in 2019 and more than in the period of economic growth (2014–2019; 5% of all employees), 
though significantly less than during the global financial crisis (2008–2013; 8.8% of all employees).
7 In 2020, there were 10.3% of companies with the highest risk of insolvency (so-called zombie companies) (9.5% in the period 2008–2013). They 
employed 1.4% (2% in the period 2008–2013) of all employees, had 5% (4.5%) of capital and generated 0.1% (0.1%) of corporate value added.
8 Subsidies – subsidies, grants, annual leave payments, compensations and other revenues related to business effects (AOP 124).
9 The exceptions were relative indicators related to bank debt in 2019 and 2020.
 Figure 18: Favourable indebtedness and liquidity indicators and reduced profitability
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
Pr
of
ita
bi
lit
y 
in
di
ca
to
r, 
in
 %
Li
qu
id
ity
 in
di
ca
to
rs
, i
n 
%
Current ratio
Cash ratio
Return on assets (ROA), right axis
Return on equity (ROE), right axis
53.4
12.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
 %
In
 E
U
R 
bn
Total debt / liabilities, right axis
Bank debt / liabilities, right axis
Total debt
Bank debt
Source: AJPES (n.d.); calculations by IMAD.
 Figure 19: Increase in the share of companies that are relatively highly exposed to the risk of insolvency
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
Sh
ar
e 
in
 a
ll 
co
m
pa
ni
es
, i
n 
%
Zombie companies
Companies Employees
Capital Value added*
0
5
10
15
20
25
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
Sh
ar
e 
in
 a
ll 
co
m
pa
ni
es
, i
n 
%
Companies Employees
Capital Value added
The most problematic over-indebted and zombie companies
Source: AJPES (n.d.); calculations by IMAD. Notes: Employees – average number of employees based on working hours (AOP 188); Value added*: gross 
operating yield (AOP 126) – costs of goods, materials and services (AOP 128) – other operating expenses (AOP 148), slightly negative in 2016 and 2019; the 
most problematic over-indebted companies have net financial debt and negative EBITDA; zombie status is when a company has had negative EBITDA for at 
least three years in a row, so the data available is only from 2008 onwards. 
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all34 Development report 2022
the accelerated withdrawal of measures in the event of 
higher inflation could affect financially more vulnerable 
companies with greater risk of risk spillovers.
After a long period of stability, the COVID-19 epidemic 
in 2020 had the effect of increasing regional disparities, 
especially in the Zahodna Slovenija regions. Due to the 
structure of the economy, the epidemic affected the 
Obalno-kraška region the most, where with a 10% real 
drop in GDP the share of accommodation and food 
service activities and tourism fell the most (by 3.5 p.p. to 
35.6%). The Gorenjska region followed with a 9.1% real 
drop in GDP. In the Osrednjeslovenska region, drop in 
GDP was 50% lower than the Slovenian average (by 2%), 
while the regions of Vzhodna Slovenija also saw a smaller 
decline in economic activity than the Slovenian average. 
For 2021, only data on labour market developments are 
available, showing a recovery in all regions. All regions 
recorded higher employment (Indicator 3.17), which 
has already exceeded the 2019 levels, especially in the 
Vzhodna Slovenija regions, an increase in the number of 
for 6.9% (12.5% in the period 2008–2019) of the total bank debt of all companies.10 The share of companies that 
are relatively highly exposed to the risk of insolvency is the highest in the group of micro, small and medium-sized 
enterprises, in terms of activities in holding and leasing companies and in the most affected market services, and 
regionally in the Obalno-kraška, Osrednjeslovenska and Goriška regions.
The production resources of companies that are relatively highly exposed to the risk of insolvency would 
not necessarily be permanently lost in the event of proper restructuring of over-indebted companies, 
also taking into account the general labour shortage. Measures should place even greater emphasis on the 
cessation of funding and thus the preservation of zombie companies (i.e. unhealthy cores of the economy), whose 
existence prevents the optimal allocation of production resources to more productive companies and, as a result, 
hampers both productivity and economic growth. They need to focus on healthy cores of the economy that are not 
over-indebted in the long run and are able to survive in the long run, especially on development-oriented niche 
parts of the economy with high growth potential. 
10 The share of bank debt increased by 1.3 p.p. in 2020 but was 10% in the entire period of economic expansion (2014–2019), while during the 
global financial crisis (2008–2013) it had been more than twice as high (15.1%).
 Figure 20: Low productivity of the most problematic over-indebted and zombie companies
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
de
x,
 2
00
8=
10
0
The most problematic over-indebted and zombie companies
Other companies
Corporate sector
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
La
bo
ur
 p
ro
du
ct
iv
ity
, i
n 
EU
R 
th
ou
sa
nd
/e
m
pl
oy
ee
Zombie companies
The most problematic over-indebted and zombie companies
Other companies
Corporate sector
Source: AJPES (n.d.); calculations by IMAD. Note: for the sake of clarity, the figure on the right does not show the productivity growth of zombie companies, 
as their growth is too volatile.
slightly less than the EMU average.24 The indebtedness 
of companies,25 which reached historical highs during 
the global financial crisis, more than halved after the 
rehabilitation of the banking system and the economy 
and even after the outbreak of the epidemic reached 
levels below the EMU average. Solid business results 
and epidemic relief schemes have allowed companies 
to make extensive use of their own resources to finance 
production and investment. The volume of corporate 
deposits in the banking system increased by 12.1% in 
2021 alone and reached EUR 9 billion, while compared 
to 2019 it was about a third higher. Prolonged epidemics, 
high uncertainty about future economic developments 
due to the aggravation of the situation in Ukraine and 
24 In addition to debt and equity, liabilities also include other liabilities, 
among which liabilities to suppliers are relatively important in Slovenia 
(compared to the EU).
25 Measured as a debt-to-equity ratio based on data from financial 
accounts. Box 2 shows the indicators on the basis of data from the 
AJPES database of individual data for companies (balance sheets 
and income statements), where the latest available data for 2020 are 
available. 
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 35Development report 2022
Advantage should be taken of the opportunity to 
use remote work to a greater extent, because it can 
have positive effects not only on the development of 
the regions, but also on slowing down depopulation 
of rural areas. The epidemic-driven increased use of 
remote work when the nature of work and good access 
to high-speed broadband networks30 allow this could 
have a number of positive effects in the regions (OECD, 
2021n). It would reduce daily commuting, negative 
effects of transport on the environment, the need to 
build transport infrastructure and the construction of 
housing in areas of job concentration and thus maintain 
the population of rural areas. Not only is the population in 
Slovenia uneven and dispersed,31 but the less accessible 
rural areas, especially the border regions, are being 
depopulated.32 Remote work could slow these negative 
trends in combination with other comprehensive 
measures designed to promote more coherent regional 
and rural development, especially in relation to the 
opportunities offered by digitalisation, and perhaps 
even reverse them in the face of the opportunities 
offered by digitalisation and new technologies. The 
OECD (2021c) estimates that the medium-term or the 
long-term perspective of regional development after 
the COVID-19 pandemic can go in different directions.33 
The existing scattered settlement model in Slovenia 
can be a potential advantage if the appropriate policy 
response strengthens the international attractiveness 
of non-central regions and exploits their development 
potentials. Reversal of trends in doing so is possible 
at least in some rural areas, but this requires strategic 
reflection on the desired and achievable spatial 
development34 by focusing efforts on areas with a 
longer-term perspective.
30 Poorer accessibility in some areas indicates the need to invest in digital 
transformation (see also IMAD, 2022b).
31  This settlement pattern is the result of natural conditions, historical 
development, targeted promotion of a polycentric urban system and 
the fact that people place a high value on living close to nature. The 
most densely populated areas are the Ljubljana and Celje basins, the 
Šaleška valley, the Drava, Murska and Krška plains, the Vipava valley, 
and the littoral zone. Areas of low settlement are the Upper Soča, Idrija, 
Cerklje and Škofja Loka hills, Brkini, Haloze, the high Dinaric plateaus, 
and the border areas of Kozjansko and Goričko (Nared et al., 2019).
32 Between 2008 and 2018, the depopulation areas covered about 57% 
of Slovenian territory (Nared et al., 2019).
33 The following scenarios have been identified: (i) continuation of 
current development based on large cities with greater use of the 
hybrid working model, (ii) increased suburbanisation, (iii) rise of 
medium-sized towns and (iv) migration from urban to rural areas.
34 Efforts to date to reverse this trend, which have mainly improved 
infrastructure and to a lesser extent employment and economic 
structure, have yielded only modest results.
jobs,26 with an above-average increase in the Savinjska, 
Osrednjeslovenska, Pomurska and Zasavska regions, 
and a fall in the registered unemployment rate, which 
was highest in the Pomurska, Koroška, Savinjska and 
Primorsko-notranjska regions.
Measures related to the COVID-19 epidemic provide an 
opportunity to accelerate the structural restructuring 
of regions, which is essential for more balanced 
regional development. The efficient use of recovery and 
resilience funds, cohesion funds and coal restructuring 
funds27 can accelerate processes in the areas of digital 
transformation, the introduction of new business models 
and green transition in the regions. In Vzhodna Slovenija, 
the regions are less competitive (ESPON, 2020b) and have 
a low knowledge capital but are included by the ESPON 
applied research project (ESPON, 2020a) among the 
regions with the possibility of shifting to the robotisation 
of traditional production and creative innovation, which 
in terms of digital transformation and modernisation is 
key to harmonious regional development (IMAD, 2020a). 
The analysis of productivity of fast-growing companies 
(IMAD, 2022) for the period 2014–2019 also showed 
that there are fast-growing companies in all statistical 
regions, with the Primorsko-notranjska region having 
the largest share of such companies of all companies 
in the region, followed by the Osrednjeslovenska, 
Jugovzhodna Slovenija and Obalno-kraška regions. 
Positive shifts in the restructuring of regions can 
also be stimulated by investments in new activities,28 
shortening of supply chains, logistical reorganisations 
and digitalisation of companies, taking into account 
the sustainable transformation to a low-carbon circular 
economy. This contributes to the greater attractiveness 
of rural areas and affects the balance between urban and 
rural areas, especially if a territorial approach29 is used to 
promote development in functional areas of regions in 
accordance with the draft new spatial strategy of the 
Republic of Slovenia (MOP, 2020a), the new territorial 
agenda 2030 (TA, 2020) and OECD recommendations 
(OECD, 2020f ).
26 Measured by the number of persons in employment by region of 
employment.
27 From the Just Transition Fund.
28 In the field of digital technology, activities that support remote work, 
health and other services, boutique, safe and sustainable tourism in 
connection with self-sufficient agriculture, etc.
29 The territorial approach promotes a comprehensive local and regional 
approach to problem solving. It is a long-term strategy aimed at 
eliminating the underutilisation of local potentials and reducing 
social exclusion in specific areas through external interventions and 
multilevel governance (Barca, 2009). 
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all36 Development report 2022
to the level of average annual growth, which it had had 
in the period before the financial crisis (3.0% in 2000–
2008); even in the period of high economic activity 
between 2014 and 2019 it reached only 1.4% on average 
per year. In 2020, the outbreak of the epidemic and the 
related containment measures significantly reduced 
1.2.1 Competitiveness
Productivity rose above pre-crisis levels after a 
sharp decline in the first year of the epidemic, but 
it still lags far behind the EU average after a decade 
of modest growth. Productivity growth gradually 
recovered after the global financial crisis (starting in 
2008), but due to modest investments, it did not return 
1.2 A competitive and socially responsible entrepreneurial and 
research sector
 A competitive and socially responsible entrepreneurial and research sector (Development Goal 6):
The aim is to raise competitiveness by creating products and services with high value added and to strengthen the 
social responsibility of businesses and research organisations. The creation of high value added will be supported 
by innovation, basic and applied research, promotion of creativity, and the exploitation of digital opportunities 
and every opportunity afforded by the fourth industrial revolution. Other factors listed in SDS 2030 as relevant 
in efforts to increase value added include internationalisation of businesses and research institutions and the 
provision of a supportive and predictable environment for business and investments, accommodating the needs 
of small enterprises. Achievement of the goal will also be contingent on suitable human resources, which the SDS 
deals with in Development Goal 2.
 SDS 2030 performance indicators for Development Goal 6:
Latest data 
Target value for 2030 
Slovenia Povprečje EU
Labour productivity, index EU=100 84 (2021) 100 (2021) 95
European innovation index,
index EU 2014 = 100 100.5 (2021) 112.5 (2021)
>125, i.e. ranking among innovation 
leaders
Digital Economy and Society Index, 
ranking among EU Member States 13
th (overall in 2021) 
8th–16th (across five components) -
ranking in top third of EU Member 
States according to all five main 
components of the index
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
G
D
P 
pe
r e
m
pl
oy
ee
 (i
n 
PP
S)
, E
U
-2
7=
10
0
Slovenia EU-13 EU-14
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Pr
od
uc
tiv
ity
 (G
D
P/
em
pl
oy
ee
, 2
00
5=
10
0)
Slovenia
EU-27
Slovenia (Autumn forecast 2019)
 Figure 21: Convergence of productivity (GDP per employee) with the level envisaged before the epidemic (left), high lag 
behind the average level of productivity in the old EU Member States and declining advantage over the average of the new 
EU Member States (right), 2021
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Note: The comparison of productivity with the level predicted before the outbreak of the epidemic takes into account 
the forecast of productivity growth for the period 2020–2022, prepared by IMAD in autumn 2019 (IMAD, 2019b). EU-13 (EU-14) represents the countries that joined 
the EU in 2004 or later (before 2004).
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 37Development report 2022
In most sectors, pre-crisis productivity levels were 
surpassed in 2021, but so-called high-contact 
services, which were hit hardest by the epidemic, 
and construction are still lagging behind. Productivity 
growth was lower in most activities in the decade after 
the global financial crisis than in the previous period, but 
it accelerated during economic expansion (2014–2019), 
especially in manufacturing and traditional market 
services. However, among the activities of the business 
sector, it remained relatively low in the construction 
sector, where the long-term growth potential decreased 
sharply during the global financial crisis, and in ICT 
services, which, unlike other activities, lagged far behind 
the EU average. The COVID-19 crisis mainly affected 
contact-intensive service activities, where restrictions 
on business due to the epidemic were greatest. A 
comparison of productivity on average in 2021 with the 
pre-crisis 2019 level thus shows the largest decline in 
arts, entertainment and recreation, and accommodation 
and food service activities. In those activities that were 
relatively less affected by the crisis and/or were able to 
adapt more quickly to changed business conditions, 
the pre-crisis productivity level was already exceeded, 
with the exception of construction. This was especially 
the case in financial services (K), manufacturing (C) and 
trade (G), but also to some extent in information and 
communication activities, which have also been given 
opportunities for faster development by the crisis due 
to the increased use of digital technologies and services. 
In all of them, growth has also been higher than the EU 
average since the beginning of the crisis. 
Opportunities to accelerate productivity growth, 
but also numerous risks, require an appropriate 
and rapid economic policy response to support 
the fastest possible transition to innovation-
driven growth through restructuring into a highly 
productive, low-carbon and circular economy. 
value added, but with the measures aimed at retaining 
jobs the volume of employees did not follow this trend 
with the same intensity. This led to a sharp statistical 
decline in productivity in 2020, as measured by gross 
domestic product per employee, and to a significant 
discrepancy between productivity so measured and the 
productivity indicator per hour worked, which did not 
decrease in 2020. In 2021, the recovery was followed by 
a strong increase in value added per employee, which 
was already 2.7% higher on average than in the pre-crisis 
year 2019 (the EU average is 0.7% lower than the pre-
crisis level, and 0.4 higher among innovation leaders).35 
We attribute the relatively rapid rebound of productivity 
to the good financial situation of companies before the 
epidemic and extensive measures to support companies 
during the coronavirus crisis (see also Section 1.1), thus 
maintaining high production potential for renewed 
investment and activity growth. Nevertheless, the level 
of productivity of the Slovenian economy remained 
relatively low by international standards. With modest 
growth in the period between the two crises, the 
gap with the EU’s average productivity level has not 
narrowed significantly. In 2021, productivity measured 
per employee and in purchasing power standards 
(PPS) reached 84.0% of the EU36 average (84.3% at the 
2008 peak). Labour productivity in PPS in Slovenia is 
higher than in most other Central and Eastern European 
countries, but in the past decade they have closed their 
gap much faster on average.
35 However, it lags behind the level projected for 2021 before the 
outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic. The comparison of productivity 
with the level predicted before the outbreak of the epidemic takes into 
account the forecast of productivity growth for the period 2020–2022 
prepared by IMAD in autumn 2019 (IMAD, 2019b).
36 Productivity measured per hour worked and in PPS was 83.2% of the 
EU average.
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
A
B-
E F
G
-I J K L
M
-N
O
-Q R-
U
TO
TA
LC
ha
ng
e 
20
21
 (Q
1-
Q
3)
 / 
20
19
 (Q
1-
Q
3)
, i
n 
%
Productivity change (VA/employee) relative to 
pre-epidemic level
Slovenia EU
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
A
B-
E F
G
-I J K L
M
-N
O
-Q R-
U
TO
TA
L
C
ha
ng
e 
20
21
 (Q
1-
Q
3)
 / 
20
19
 (Q
1-
Q
3)
, i
n 
%
Productivity change (VA/hour worked) relative to 
pre-epidemic level
Slovenia EU
 Figure 22: In 2021, there was a relatively rapid recovery in productivity in most activities, but among the most affected were 
arts, entertainment and recreation, and construction
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all38 Development report 2022
development challenges under conditions of necessary 
further fiscal consolidation, priorities need to be set for 
public spending, which will be increasingly affected by 
demographic change and require adjustments to social 
protection systems with a view to greater sustainability 
and stability of funding.
Improving allocation efficiency, which increased at 
least temporarily in the first year of the epidemic, is 
important for transforming the economy and raising 
productivity. In addition to improving the efficiency of 
individual companies, productivity is also significantly 
affected by the reallocation of production resources 
(labour and capital) from less to more productive 
companies and sectors, which usually accelerates in 
crises due to tighter business conditions (Lopez-Garcia 
and Szorfi, 2021). The COVID-19 crisis has had a diverse 
impact on sectors; most affected were service activities, 
which are contact-intensive (e.g. accommodation 
and food service activities, arts, entertainment and 
recreation). Meanwhile manufacturing and knowledge-
based services, which on average achieve higher 
productivity, were less affected. The impact of cross-
sectoral reallocation on productivity growth was 
therefore positive in 2020 and much greater than in 
previous years (Figure 23).37 However, this impact is 
likely to be more short-term and will diminish with the 
normalisation of the situation (Lopez-Garcia and Szorfi, 
2021). In addition, the contribution of the shift from less 
to more productive companies within sectors increased 
significantly in 2020; it was higher than in the global 
financial crisis and also when compared to the last 15 
years (Box 3). This was due to the high contribution of 
37 The positive contribution of cross-sectoral reallocation is higher in 
the case of productivity measured per hour worked, since the labour 
market adapted to the changed activity to a greater extent with 
a changed number of working hours than a changed number of 
employees (Figure 23). 
Current productivity growth means, above all, a return 
to the levels forecast before the epidemic. In order to 
reduce the development gap, it is necessary to accelerate 
productivity growth beyond what has been achieved in 
the past decade. This could be encouraged by a more 
investment-friendly environment after the epidemic 
than in the post-economic crisis, when the investment 
recovery was slow, accompanied by a very gradual 
economic recovery, long-term corporate deleveraging 
and high interest rates. All this resulted in an extremely 
modest contribution of capital deepening to the trend 
productivity growth (IMAD, 2019d). In 2020, amid 
extensive government measures to maintain corporate 
liquidity, the financial situation of the corporate sector 
did not deteriorate on average and remained at the 
favourable levels achieved before the outbreak (Box 
2). At the same time, the changed situation due to the 
epidemic could speed up digitalisation processes and 
the introduction of new business models. Furthermore, 
companies are additionally encouraged to invest in 
digital transformation due to the reduced supply of 
labour as a result of demographic changes. Recently, 
there has been a reversal of negative investment 
trends with an impact on innovation and digitalisation 
(see Section 1.2.2). An opportunity to further increase 
investment and productivity also lies in the vast financial 
resources of the EU Recovery and Resilience Fund 
intended for investments and reforms in greener, digital 
and resilient economies (Box 1). However, the intertwined 
processes of digital and green transformation, which 
are the cornerstones of future growth, can be greatly 
slowed by the growing lack of relevant knowledge and 
skills (see Section 2.1). In addition, the current situation 
in connection with the Russian–Ukrainian military 
conflict brings additional constraints to productivity 
growth, mainly due to interruptions and disruptions 
in global value chains and further increased costs of 
raw materials (especially fuel). In order to meet these 
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
 p
.p
.
Decomposition of productivity growth per employee
Within sectoral growth – more exposed act.
Within sectoral growth – less exposed act.
Structural effect
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
 p
.p
.
Within sectoral growth – more exposed act.
Within sectoral growth – less exposed act.
Structural effect
Decomposition of productivity growth per hour worked
 Figure 23: Increase in the contribution of cross-sectoral reallocation to productivity growth, 2020
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Note: The contribution of cross-sectoral reallocation was higher in 2020 in terms of productivity per hour worked, as in 
that year the labour market adapted to the changed conditions more through working hours than by adjusting the number of employees. In accordance with the ECB 
(Lopez-Garcia and Szorfi, 2021), the more exposed activities also included those in G–I and R–T.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 39Development report 2022
 Box 3: The impact of employee reallocation between companies on productivity in 2020
In the first year of the epidemic, differences in productivity between firms widened, with the less productive 
firms suffering greater productivity losses. The change in the productivity distribution shows that the average 
(unweighted) productivity of companies in 2020 decreased, mainly due to a decrease in the average or below-
average enterprises in terms of productivity (Figure 24), while the productivity of highly productive enterprises did 
not decrease or decreased significantly less. At the same time, more productive companies maintained employment, 
while the number of employees in companies in the bottom half according to productivity level, fell significantly 
on average. The increase in the share of employees in companies with a higher level and/or productivity growth 
indicates an increased contribution of reallocation to aggregate productivity growth. In the macro data, a shift of the 
labour force to more productive sectors was detected in the context of the increased contribution of cross-sectoral 
reallocation (see Section 1.2.1). This was partly related to the very nature of the COVID-19 crisis, which (also due to 
activity restrictions) has mostly affected contact- and labour-intensive sectors, which have on average lower value 
added per employee. Below, we try to assess the impact of intra-sectoral reallocation of work between companies.
 Figure 24: Distribution of companies’ productivity in 2019 and 2020 (left) and change in productivity and 
employment in 2020 by groups of companies according to productivity (right)
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
1st quartile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile 4th quartile
Ch
an
ge
 2
02
0/
20
19
, i
n 
%
Productivity Employees
Source: AJPES (n.d.); calculations by IMAD. Note: Companies with at least one employee and positive value added are included. Productivity is defined as 
real value added (excluding subsidies) per employee (in full-time equivalents). The dashed line in the figure on the left represents the average (unweighted) 
productivity of companies in 2019 and 2020. The figure on the right shows the change in real productivity and the number of employees separately for the 
quarter of the least (<25%) or the most (<75%) productive companies, and those that fall between 25% and 50% and between 50% and 75% of companies by 
productivity. Changes in the simple (unweighted) average of these groups are shown.
 Figure 25: Dynamic Olley–Pakes decomposition of productivity growth
Source: AJPES (n.d.); calculations by IMAD. 
Notes: Companies with at least one employee and positive value added are included. Non-financial market services include G–N activities.
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
Co
nt
rib
ut
io
n 
to
 p
ro
du
ct
iv
ity
 g
ro
w
th
, in
 p
.p
.
Manufacturing
Co–variance Survivors
Entrants Exitors
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
Co
nt
rib
ut
io
n 
to
 p
ro
du
ct
iv
ity
 g
ro
w
th
, in
 p
.p
.
Construction
Co–variance Survivors
Entrants Exitors
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20C
on
tr
ib
ut
io
n 
to
 p
ro
du
ct
iv
ity
 g
ro
w
th
, i
n 
p.
p.
Non-financial market services
Co–variance Survivors
Entrants Exitors
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all40 Development report 2022
The impact of reallocation between firms within sectors was analysed using the Melitz–Polanec productivity 
growth decomposition. Differences in productivity between companies within same sectors are significant, even if 
they are narrowly defined. Shift of employees from one company to another of the same sector, as well as the entry 
and exit of companies, thus have a major impact on sectoral productivity developments. To analyse the impact of 
reallocation between companies in the same industry, we relied on the dynamic Olley–Pakes decomposition of 
productivity growth (Melitz and Polanec, 2015). This change in productivity is explained through the contributions of (i) 
changes in the average unweighted productivity of survivors, (ii) changes in covariance between productivity and the 
share of employees among survivors of the same industry, (iii) the exit of companies, and (iv) the entry of companies: 
(i) The high decline in the average productivity of companies in almost all sectors indicates the strong 
and widespread impact of the epidemic in the first year. Compared to 2019, the average productivity 
of survivors decreased in almost all sectors. For most services, the decline was the largest since 2003, 
including the 2009 crisis year. Among market services, accommodation and food service activities (SKD 
I) and administrative and support service activities (N) stand out in particular, including organisation of 
travel (N79), accommodation (I55), and food and beverage service activities (I56). In only a few activities 
at the level of NACE Rev. 2 departments did companies manage to increase productivity on average in 
2020, among them in the manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products (C21) and to a lesser extent in 
telecommunications (J61).
(ii) The contribution of employee reallocation from less to more productive companies within the sector 
has increased. The contribution of covariance, i.e. increasing the share of employees in companies with 
higher growth or the level of productivity at the expense of a decrease in the share in lower productive 
enterprises of the same sector, increased in the vast majority of activities both compared to the previous year 
and compared to the long-term average. In most of the activities, the effect of covariance was also higher 
than in the crisis year of 2009, while the overall lower contribution from non-financial market services (G–N) 
was mainly due to negative effects of individual sectors within transportation (H), professional, scientific and 
technical activities (M), and administrative and support service activities (N), more precisely travel agencies 
(N79), activities of head offices, management consultancy activities (M70), other professional, scientific and 
technical activities (M74), warehousing (H52), and postal and courier activities (H53). 
(iii) The small exit effect, i.e. the cleansing effect, is partly due to intervention measures. The exit of 
unsuccessful companies is a natural process that enables the release and reallocation of production 
resources from unsuccessful (unproductive) to more successful (productive) companies. In times of crisis 
and in the years that follow, it usually increases. In 2020, however, the cleansing effect was small in most 
activities, compared both to the previous global financial crisis and to favourable business years. Compared 
to 2019, it increased slightly only in transportation (H) and accommodation and food service activities (I). 
In part, the low cleansing effect can be attributed to the moratorium on credit obligations and the limited 
operation of the courts, especially in the initial period of the COVID-19 epidemic, and the consequent 
lower number of bankruptcy proceedings. Larger subsidies (including measures to mitigate the effects of 
the epidemic) also contributed to the lower cleansing effect. In particular, the appropriateness of subsidies 
for zombie companies, i.e. those that had been unsuccessful for at least two years before the outbreak, is 
questionable (IMAD, 2022). 
(iv) In line with the low creation of companies, the modest contribution of entrants continued. In the 
early stages, start-ups tend to have lower productivity, and their market entry has therefore, on average, 
a negative contribution on overall productivity. However, due to their rapid growth and new (even 
disruptive) ideas and business models, these companies, or at least some of them, can be an important 
lever for productivity growth in the medium and long term. Given the low dynamics of the formation of 
new companies, which further declined in 2020 (see Section 1.2.1), the (negative) contribution of entries 
was also modest. Compared to the previous year, it increased slightly in absolute terms in construction (F), 
especially in specialised construction activities (F43), while in accommodation and food service activities 
(I) and transportation (H) it was the lowest so far.
The total contribution of reallocation of production resources, which includes reallocation between survivors 
as well as entries and exits, was relatively high in the first year of the epidemic. In times of crisis, an increase in 
reallocation is to be expected, but due to extensive intervention measures, the impact of reallocation on productivity 
during the coronavirus crisis was somewhat questionable. The above analysis does not try to assess the extent to 
which the measures have inhibited (or, less likely, encouraged) reallocation or the impact they have had on the 
productivity of firms on average. Yet, we find that the impact of reallocation on overall productivity growth in 2020 
was not low and was comparable or even slightly higher than in 2009, despite the lower cleansing effect. However, 
the relatively high contribution of reallocation could not compensate for the massive drop in productivity at the 
enterprise level caused by the shock of the COVID-19 outbreak, especially in the initial period. 
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 41Development report 2022
Slovenia ranked only 15th among the 26 EU Member 
States with available data (Eurostat, 2022). In 2020, the 
number of new enterprises39 decreased more markedly, 
due to a significant decline in service activities, which 
were more affected by the epidemic. The more modest 
entrepreneurial dynamics of the last decade is also 
reflected in the share of young companies (up to five years 
old), which initially stagnated after the start of the global 
financial crisis but has been declining since 2012, initially 
only in services but since 2015 also in manufacturing. 
The trend of early-stage entrepreneurial activity 
indicator, which measures the share of the population 
entering entrepreneurial activity, had been somewhat 
more favourable until the outbreak of the epidemic.40 
It increased during the 2014–2019 economic upswing, 
declining temporarily with the onset of the epidemic in 
2020, with its associated increased uncertainty, and then 
increased in 2021 to a level close to the annual average in 
the pre-epidemic period.41 Nevertheless, in international 
comparison, the measured early-stage entrepreneurial 
activity in Slovenia is low.42 All this points to the need 
to accelerate the creation of new companies, especially 
those based on innovative ideas and which would 
contribute to faster and environmentally sustainable 
productivity growth. However, traditional measures to 
promote entrepreneurial dynamism are not enough43 
39 We comment the change in 2020 on the basis of data for commercial 
companies.
40 Early-stage entrepreneurial activity includes individuals aged 18–64 
who have started setting-up new businesses or are engaging in 
new business activities, including self-employment. It also includes 
individuals who are owners/managers of new businesses that operate 
less than 42 months.  
41 The GEM survey is usually conducted in the first half of the year.
42 In 2021, the early-stage entrepreneurial activity in Slovenia reached 
6.7% of the population aged 18–64, while the average of the 18 EU 
Member States included in the survey was 8.4%. Slovenia ranked 13th 
among these countries.
43 Such as reducing administrative barriers and barriers to entry for new 
reallocation of resources among existing companies, 
while the number of company exits decreased 
significantly in this year. This was related both to large-
scale government measures to maintain corporate 
liquidity and jobs and to the reduced functioning of 
the courts during the epidemic. Since the share of the 
most problematic over-indebted companies, i.e. zombie 
companies, also increased slightly in 2020, we can expect 
more exits of companies after the withdrawal of all 
measures. When below-averagely productive companies 
leave the market, and these financially most exposed 
companies are such (IMAD, 2022), this is a desirable 
process towards increasing the overall productivity of 
the economy. Thus effective insolvency legislation and 
employee retraining programmes can contribute to 
making such restructuring more effective by minimising 
the loss of human capital and other consequences of 
possible longer-term unemployment.
  
For the efficient reallocation of resources and thus 
the transformation of the economy towards the 
creation of more value added, the creation of new 
companies is also important; however, business 
dynamism has been at a relatively low level in the 
last decade and decreased even further with the 
outbreak of the epidemic in 2020. The creation of 
new companies is important as it allows less productive 
companies to be replaced by those with greater 
potential for growth. The birth rate of enterprises38 in 
Slovenia decreased after the global financial crisis, and in 
the last years before the outbreak of the epidemic, which 
were economically favourable, it mostly remained at the 
level already achieved. According to this rate, in 2019, 
38 The rate of creation of new enterprises (or entry or birth rate of 
enterprises) is the ratio between the number of newly born enterprises 
in a given year and the number of active enterprises in that year 
expressed as a percentage.
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Sh
ar
e 
of
 c
om
pa
ni
es
, i
n 
%
Young companies** (0–5 years)
Business sector
Manufacturing (C)
Non-financial market services (G–N, R–T)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
Number of newly born enterprises*
Business sector
Market services (G–N)
Manufacturing
 Figure 26: Stagnation in the number of newly born enterprises and declining share of young companies
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD based on AJPES (n.d.). Notes: The business sector, by Eurostat definition, includes the activities of industry (B–E), 
construction (F) and services (G–N) excluding holding companies. *Data include limited liability companies, sole proprietors and some other less frequent legal forms 
of companies. **These are data on companies and sole proprietors on the basis of the business register.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all42 Development report 2022
momentum, the situation of labour shortages and high 
inflation, along with the associated pressures on wage 
growth, could lead to a resurgence of unit labour costs 
growth, which we witnessed before the epidemic, 
and thus to a more pronounced deterioration of the 
competitive position. Other cost pressures, however, 
have already begun to increase during the epidemic 
due to rising world prices of energy and non-energy 
commodities. The real effective exchange rate deflated 
by producer prices reached the highest levels in the 
last decade in 2020 and 2021. Among manufacturing 
producers, the increase in the prices of industrial 
products in the production of metals and metal 
products and in the furniture and paper industries is 
particularly pronounced. Such developments also point 
to the need for more efficient use of raw materials and 
the introduction of circular management models (see 
Section 4.1) in order to limit the impact of rising raw 
material prices on the competitive position of companies.
The epidemic interrupted many years of favourable 
trends in the export market share of goods in 
2020 and 2021, while in services where export 
competitiveness did not improve significantly over 
a long period of time, a slight increase was achieved 
in 2020. The export market share of goods, which 
represents the ratio between Slovenian merchandise 
exports and import demand for goods from abroad, has 
been increasing since 2012 after falling sharply during the 
global financial crisis. Before the epidemic, it returned to 
its 2007 peak and was about a tenth higher than 15 years 
because measures to retain jobs and incomes vary between countries 
in both scope and focus, and therefore a comparison of ULC statistics 
and consequently real effective ULC rates (REER ulc), in particular for 
2020, is severely limited and does not reflect a change in the cost-
competitive position of exporters. 
– in particular what is needed are policies to promote 
innovation (including the innovation ecosystem) and 
strengthen human capital (OECD, 2020b; IMAD, 2022), to 
which not enough attention has been paid in Slovenia so 
far (see Sections 1.2.2 and 2.1).
After the rise in unit labour costs before the 
outbreak of the epidemic, these have not increased 
further due to significant government support 
(especially in 2020) and the rebound in productivity 
(2021); however, in the case of a slowdown in 
productivity growth, the competitive position could 
deteriorate significantly in the face of growing wage 
pressures. Unit labour costs as a basic indicator of cost 
competitiveness stabilised at favourable levels after the 
global financial crisis, which enabled competitiveness 
to be maintained, but already in 2018, and even more 
so in 2019, they began to rise again. With the epidemic 
and a sharp drop in value added per employee (and a 
simultaneous rise in wages), they recorded a statistically 
sharp increase. However, in 2020 in particular, a relatively 
large part of the compensation of employees was 
financed from the budget, which relieved the burden 
on companies. Budget expenditures under government 
measures affecting compensation of employees 
remained high in 2021 but were more focused on the 
public sector and less on the business, market-oriented 
part of the economy. Due to the strong (and at least 
partly temporary) rebound in productivity, unit labour 
costs did not increase, but they remained at a relatively 
high pre-epidemic level, while in major trading partners 
and the EU average they fluctuated below pre-outbreak 
levels (Indicator 1.13).44 If productivity growth loses 
businesses, ensuring favourable access to financial resources, and 
effective bankruptcy legislation.
44 Assessing the cost competitiveness during the epidemic is difficult, 
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
05
=1
00
Producer price index, manufacturing activities
AT DE EA FR IT SI
95
100
105
110
115
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
05
 =
 1
00
Slovenia Slovenia – adapted EU
Real unit labour costs in business sector
 Figure 27: Maintaining unit labour costs at an elevated pre-epidemic level and the spillover of raw material prices into 
industrial product prices at manufacturing producers
Sources: SURS (2022b), MF(2022b), ESS (2022), FURS (2021), Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Notes: Anti-coronavirus package measures that burden the state 
budget and not employers within the framework of funds for employees are excluded from the adjusted RULC. Real unit labour costs (RULC) show the ratio of 
compensation (of employees) per employee and productivity. EA – euro area.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 43Development report 2022
ago. Developments in the EU market, to which Slovenia 
exports the most goods, were even more favourable. 
Here, the market share in 2020 was about a fifth higher 
than the 2007 peak and about three-tenths higher than 
in 2005. The cessation of high growth in 2020 and the 
decline in market share in 2021 were mainly due to the 
markedly asymmetric impact of the COVID-19 pandemic 
on export markets, as demand for some important 
groups of products for Slovenia’s exports fell sharply; in 
particular, the impact of the decline in international trade 
in road vehicles was significant (for details, see Indicator 
1.12). In 2021, especially in the second half of the year, 
export competitiveness is likely to have been adversely 
affected by the above-mentioned cost pressures. The 
export market share of services on the global market, 
which began to increase only in 2016 after the global 
financial crisis, was only slightly higher in 2020 than 15 
years before. It was dominated by exports of travel and 
transport services, with a smaller share of predominantly 
knowledge-based services, such as various ICT services, 
financial and other more knowledge-based services, for 
which global demand was growing rapidly (IMAD, 2022), 
which in the long run limits the growth of Slovenian 
service exports and export market share. Such export 
specialisation in services, in particular a large share of 
export travel, proved to be particularly unfavourable, 
especially in 2020, when demand for them fell sharply 
due to the pandemic.45 Furthermore, given the expected 
relatively slower recovery of this segment of trade in 
services, the negative effect of the export structure is 
likely to be strong in the future as well.
The internationalisation of the Slovenian economy, 
as measured by export/import flows, foreign direct 
investment and participation in global value chains, 
45 The effect of the specialisation of service exports (mainly due to the 
high share of exports in travel) in 2020 reduced the growth of the 
export market share of services by about 8 p.p.
has increased significantly since the past global 
financial crisis, and the share of domestic value added 
in exports is low despite some progress. As a small 
open economy, Slovenia ranks among the EU Member 
States with a high degree of participation in international 
trade flows and global value chains. The share of exports 
and imports in relation to GDP increased sharply in 
the period 2010–2019 (by 23 p.p. to 79.6% of GDP) and 
returned to a high pre-crisis level in 2021 after a fall at the 
outbreak of the epidemic. Participation in global value 
chains has also increased significantly since the global 
financial crisis, especially in the case of forward linkages, 
which measures the share of domestic value added in 
foreign exports compared to total (gross) exports. In 
2018, for which the latest data are available, it was also 
much higher than in 2005, but it has been declining since 
2015, falling below the EU average and that of the Central 
and Eastern European Countries (CEEC). After 2013, 
internationalisation through foreign direct investment 
(FDI) also intensified, mainly due to the growth of inward 
FDI, which, despite progress on an international scale, is 
still relatively low (see Indicator 1.14). However, given 
high participation in international trade, the share of 
domestic value added in gross exports is much lower than 
the average of EU Member States and countries that rank 
among the innovation leaders according to the European 
Innovation Index (EII) (Indicator 1.10). In the long run, 
Slovenia has made some progress in this area. The share 
of value added in exports was, on average, slightly higher 
than in the last economic cycle (2014–2018) compared 
to the 2005–2008 economic cycle.46 In this comparison, it 
increased even more in the innovation leaders, while on 
average it decreased slightly in the EU as a whole and in 
the group of Central and Eastern European countries.
46 The share of domestic value added in exports is characterised by a 
rather cyclical trend, so we compare the multi-year average of the 
two economic periods. A more detailed movement of the indicator by 
years is shown in Figure 29 (right).  
80
90
100
110
120
130
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
05
=1
00
Slovenia’s export market share on the world services market
80
90
100
110
120
130
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
**
20
05
=1
00
Slovenia’s export market share on the world goods market*
 Figure 28: Multiple years of favourable trends in Slovenia’s export market share were interrupted by the epidemic**
Sources: SURS (2022b), UN Comtrade (2022), WTO (2022); calculations by IMAD. Notes: *Market share excluding the export of pharmaceutical products to Switzerland, 
which is an approximation of the greatly increased export of previously imported pharmaceutical products (re-export), whose impact on GDP is negligible and is not 
included in the national accounts export data. **Estimate based on data for the first three quarters of 2021.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all44 Development report 2022
The relative decline is mainly due to significantly 
too low innovation-related investments by both the 
Government and the business sector, while progress 
in sales impacts may indicate a gradual increase in 
the efficiency of the research and innovation system. 
Within the component of the innovation index50 finance 
and support, expenditure on venture capital stands out 
in particular, where Slovenia ranks last in the EU, and it 
also lags far behind in expenditure on R&D in the public 
sector. According to the EII for 2021, at 17th place, it 
achieves only 62% of the intensity of these supports 
compared to the EU average, while the innovation 
leaders exceed the average by 40 p.p. Since 2017, it has 
also lagged sharply behind the overall indicator of firm 
investments, where it also lagged behind the average 
of Central European countries according to the last EII. 
The reason for this is not so much lower investments 
in R&D, but the marked lag in innovation investments 
that are not related to research and development,51 
which is also reflected in the lag in the introduction of 
process innovation for SMEs. In the areas of linkages and 
human resources for innovation, Slovenia still maintains 
a comparative advantage over the EU, but is gradually 
losing it due to faster progress of other countries. On the 
other hand, the business sector, at least in accordance 
with the indicators used, shows above-average results, 
both in terms of the situation and trends, in the use of 
ICT technologies.52 In the areas of intellectual assets, 
are among the innovation leaders, and these are countries whose EII 
exceeds 125% of the EU average.
50 For an overview of all components, see Indicator 1.10.
51 This refers to expenditure such as purchase of fixed assets (machinery 
and equipment, software and buildings), intellectual property rights, 
and external knowledge or training on innovation activities for 
employees.
52 The EII related to the use of ICT technologies component is based 
on two indicators: the share of companies that train employees to 
acquire ICT skills and the employment of ICT professionals. The DESI 
1.2.2 Research, innovation and digital  
 capability
Innovation and digitalisation
In the field of innovation, Slovenia is moving away 
from strategic goals and is increasingly lagging 
behind both the EU and innovation leaders, while 
reducing its advantage over other Central European 
countries. Slovenia has made significant progress in 
terms of the level of the European Innovation Index47 
for 2021, but this has only returned it to the level it had 
already reached in 2017.48 Despite the absolute return, 
it fell behind other countries, as before 2018 it ranked 
11th in the group of strong innovators; in the last three 
years it fell among moderate innovators and in 2021 
ranked 15th in the EU. In terms of the value of EII, in the 
period 2014–2021, it saw an increase in its lag behind 
the EU average from two to eleven index points and a 
lag behind the innovation leaders from 37 to 44 index 
points. Furthermore, it saw a reduction in its advantage 
over other Central European countries in the same 
period from 30 to 21 index points in 2021; and moved 
additional 8 index points away from the SDS target to 
be among the innovation leaders49 (see Indicator 1.10 ).
47 The improvement in the value of EII was mainly due to the increase in 
innovation activity, measured by the survey on community innovation 
in the period 2016–2018.
48 When interpreting the results of the EII index over time, it should be 
taken into account that the data for calculating the index in a given 
year usually refer to the two-year period before. To illustrate: The EII 
index for 2017, for example, uses data from the European Innovation 
Survey for the period 2014–2016, which should be taken into account 
in particular when defining the success of economic policy measures. 
Economic policy in the period 2013–2015 influenced the results of the 
European Innovation Survey for 2014–2016, which was the basis for 
the calculation of the EII index for 2017.
49 According to the EII 2021, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Belgium 
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
In
 %
Share of value added in exports
CEEC EU-27 Slovenia Innovation leaders
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
In
 %
Rate of GVC participation (forward linkages)
CEEC EU-27 Slovenia Innovation leaders
 Figure 29: There was a significant increase in GVC participation (forward linkages) but a low share of domestic value added 
in exports
Source: OECD (2022d); calculations by IMAD. Note: The degree of GVV participation continues to measure the share of domestic value added in foreign exports 
compared to gross exports. According to the European Innovation Index 2021 (EII), the innovation leaders are Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Belgium. CEEC countries 
are Central and Eastern European countries: Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 45Development report 2022
attractiveness of the research system, environmental 
sustainability and sales impacts, Slovenia is still achieving 
below-average results, but with faster progress than the 
EU average.
According to the regional European innovation 
index, both Slovenian cohesion regions are among 
the moderate innovators, with slightly greater 
progress having been achieved in the period 2014–
2021 in Zahodna Slovenija. At the regional level, 
the effectiveness of research and innovation systems 
is measured by the composite Regional European 
Innovation Index (REII).53 According to this indicator, 
Vzhodna Slovenija rose to 79.8% of the EU average in 
2021 (74.1% in 2020) but remained far behind the 2014–
2018 peak (around 88% of the EU average). In Zahodna 
Slovenija, the value of the indicator also increased in 2021 
(to 98.1% of the EU average) but was again significantly 
below the highest value from 2014–2018 (107% of 
the EU average). Between 2014 and 2021, Zahodna 
Slovenija improved the efficiency of its research and 
innovation system more, but both regions lagged far 
behind internationally, as Zahodna Slovenija fell by 14 
and the Vzhodna Slovenija by 18 places among 210 EU 
regions. If we disregard the concentration of knowledge 
institutions in Zahodna Slovenija, which provide 
significant support to the creation and publication of 
excellent scientific publications, two indicators can 
Index and the Digital Intensity Index of companies, using a wider 
range of indicators, confirm that the situation when it comes to the 
use of ICT technologies is above average compared to the EU, but 
that companies are facing negative trends or losing their comparative 
advantages (see continuation of the section).
53 Due to lower availability of data at regional levels, it represents 
a narrower set of 21 indicators, while 32 were included in the EII in 
the last measurement (for 2021). For more, see Indicator 1.10 and EC 
(2021n).
be highlighted as a relative advantage in both regions 
compared to the EU average: product innovators and 
employees with tertiary education in knowledge-based 
activities. In Vzhodna Slovenija, the number of PCT54 
patent applications also stands out due to the presence 
of the pharmaceutical industry, while Zahodna Slovenija 
has a great share of employed ICT experts. 
Slovenia is also increasingly moving away from its 
strategic SDS targets in the field of digitalisation 
of the economy and society. In the field of economy 
and society digitalisation (measured by the Digital 
Economy and Society Index (DESI; see Indicator 1.11) 
in the EU, Slovenia’s ranking has stagnated between 
13th and 14th place over the last six years and is even 
losing its advantage over the EU average (IMAD, 
2022). This also widens the gap with the SDS target, 
according to which the DESI value target is to rank at 
least among the top nine countries in the EU (Figure 
31). By individual dimensions, it achieves above-average 
results in the areas of connectivity and integration of 
digital technologies, where it has been around 8th place 
in the last six years, but with a noticeable reduction in 
advantages compared to the EU average (IMAD, 2022). 
In the field of human capital, Slovenia ranks 13th and is 
slightly above the EU average, but with similar dynamics 
as the EU. In the field of digital public services, the index 
score has reached the EU average in 2021 thanks to 
progress in the use of e-government services.
54 The PCT patent application refers to an international patent 
application valid in more than 150 signatories. Its purpose is not to 
grant a patent directly, but to file a patent application and conduct an 
international inquiry, which informs the applicant of the possibilities 
for obtaining a patent (for more, see http://www.uil-sipo.si/uploads/
media/uil_informacija_PCT.pdf).
Human 
resources
Research 
systems
Digit.
Finance and 
support
Firm 
investments
ICT
Innovators
Linkages
Intellectual 
assets
Empl. 
impacts
Sales impacts
Environment
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
EI
I c
om
po
ne
nt
s,
 E
U
=1
00
, 2
02
1
Relative change Sl compared to the EU, 2014–2021
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Eu
ro
pe
an
 In
no
va
tio
n 
In
de
x
SI EU CEE-4 Innovation leaders
 Figure 30: Slovenia is increasingly lagging behind according to the European Innovation Index, which is largely due to too 
low investments, both public and private
Source: EC (2021o); calculations by IMAD. Note: in the right figure, the ordinate shows the value of the EII in relation to the EU (100), and the abscissa shows the change 
in the EII in 2014–2021 in Slovenia in relation to the EU, expressed in the index. An index value exceeding 100 means that the increase in the index in an individual 
component of the EII in Slovenia was greater than that of the EU average or that the change in the index was smaller in Slovenia when it was less than 100. The 
framework identifies those components where Slovenia is in line with the EU in terms of both level and growth.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all46 Development report 2022
entirely from the significantly higher share of SMEs with 
a very low digital index score.
Human Resources
In 2020, the number of researchers decreased after 
several years of growth and lags far behind the 
innovation leaders, which is unfavourable in terms of 
the research and development potential. The growth 
in the number of researchers in 2016–2019 was mainly 
due to the business sector (especially manufacturing). 
In the public sector,57 their number increased in 2018 
and 2019, but this did not compensate for the previous 
multi-year decline. In 2020, the number of researchers 
decreased again (by 2.4%), both in the public (by 2.7%) 
and the business sector (by 2.5%),58 in contrast both with 
the EU average and with that of the innovation leaders, 
where it has increased even more.59 Their number per 
1,000 working population was higher than the EU average 
(by 9.3%) but 32.2% lower than among the innovation 
leaders, which indicates that the development of 
scientific staff requires more attention. Most researchers 
(60.7% in 2020, the same as in 2019) were employed in 
the business sector, and their share in 2020 was higher 
than the EU average and slightly lower than among the 
innovation leaders. Over the past decade, the share of 
women researchers had not increased and remained 
one of the lowest in the EU in 2020,60 the low share in the 
business sector standing out. In 2018 and 2019, the share 
of researchers under the age of 35 increased slightly, 
but from the point of view of integration between the 
higher education and business sectors, their share in the 
higher education sector has been unfavourably reduced 
(Eurostat, 2022; SURS, 2022b), as younger researchers in 
this sector are significantly more open to working with 
the business sector and actively seeking opportunities to 
commercialise research (Bučar and Verdesoto González, 
2017). Regarding the internationalisation of research and 
development, we note that the share of foreign doctoral 
students lags behind the innovation leaders (by 10.8 p.p.), 
though not behind the average of the 22 EU Member 
States that are members of the OECD (OECD, 2021b);61 it 
increased in the academic year 2020/2021 (SURS, 2022b). 
The share of researchers from abroad (with foreign 
citizenship), who enrich human capital in research and 
development, was 4.1% in 2018 and 2019, which was an 
increase compared to 2017 (by 0.6 p.p.) (SURS, 2022b). 
57 The public sector includes the higher education sector and the 
government sector.
58 In addition to the public and business sectors, researchers are also 
active in the private non-profit sector, where their numbers are small 
despite the increase in 2020 (82).
59 The number of researchers in the innovation leaders increased by 4.3% 
in 2020 and by 2.1% on average in the EU (Eurostat, 2022).
60 In 2020, 32.0% of researchers were women (SURS, 2022b), and in 2019 
Slovenia ranked 16th among the 24 EU Member States for which data 
are available (Eurostat, 2022).
61 In 2019 (latest available data), the shares of foreign doctoral students 
were 19.0% for Slovenia, 18.9% for the 22 EU Member States that are 
members of the OECD and 29.8% for the innovation leaders (OECD, 
2021b). In the 2020/2021 academic year, it was 20.8% in Slovenia 
(SURS, 2022b).
In terms of both innovation activity and digitalisation, 
there is a marked gap between large companies on the 
one hand and small and medium-sized enterprises 
on the other. In the period 2016–2018, 86% of large 
companies were innovation-active, which is enough for 
8th place in the EU and even exceeds the share in the 
innovation leaders by 3 p.p. and the share in the Visegrad 
Group by as much as 24 p.p. The corresponding shares 
among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are 
noticeably lower (59% and 44%), which is enough for 
17th and 16th place in the EU respectively. This is still 
16 or 17 p.p. more than the average of the Visegrad 
countries but as much as 14 p.p. below the average of 
the innovation leaders. The situation is similar with the 
digital intensity index, according to which the share 
of digitally advanced55 large companies is 77%, which 
is the fourth highest share in the EU and is only 7 p.p. 
lower than the average of the innovation leaders, the 
difference being entirely due to the lower share of 
large companies with a very high digital index score.56 
Among the medium-sized companies, 40% are digitally 
advanced and among the small only 20%, which is only 
slightly above the EU average and suffices for 11th and 
12th place respectively. Particularly marked is the gap 
in relation to the innovation leaders, with the medium-
sized companies 22 p.p. behind and the small 16 p.p. 
behind. However, the difference in both cases stems 
55 Digitally advanced companies are those that, according to the digital 
intensity index, are in the group of advanced or very advanced 
companies.
56 As data for Poland by company size are not available, comparison of 
digital intensity for the Visegrad Group is not possible.
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
D
ES
I
SD
S 
ta
rg
et
*
H
u
m
an
 c
ap
it
al
C
o
n
n
ec
ti
vi
ty
In
te
g
ra
ti
o
n
 o
f
d
ig
it
al
 t
ec
h
n
o
lo
g
ie
s
D
ig
it
al
 p
u
b
lic
se
rv
ic
es
R
an
k 
in
 t
h
e 
EU
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
 Figure 31: According to the Digital Economy and Society 
Index (DESI), Slovenia is not changing its ranking within 
the EU but is moving further and further away from the 
SDS target in this area
Source: EC (2022a); calculations by IMAD. Note: *The »SDS target« shows 
Slovenia’s lag behind the ninth ranked EU Member State, which is the SDS 
target, expressed in index points in relation to the EU (100). Note: The place in 
the EU is expressed by a negative value so that improvement in the ranking is 
also reflected graphically.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 47Development report 2022
in the total number of tertiary education graduates 
were more favourable – in 2019 it was higher than the 
EU average (Slovenia: 27.5%, EU: 26.5%) (Eurostat, 2022), 
but their number decreased in 2019 and 2020, mainly 
due to demographic trends (smaller generations) (SURS, 
2022b) and does not fully meet the demand for such 
workforce (ESS, 2021a). With the increase in the number 
of students enrolled in science and technology for the 
2018/2019 academic year (SURS, 2022b), it is estimated 
that their number could increase in the coming years, 
but this has not yet ensured that their offer in the labour 
market in the future will be sufficient.
Digital skills are too low for the accelerated digital 
transformation of the economy, especially when it 
comes to advanced skills. The share of the population 
aged 16–74 with at least basic digital skills (basic and 
advanced together), which is a prerequisite for successful 
digital transformation of the economy, was 55% in 
2019 and close to the EU average (56%) (see Section 
2.1), but there is a strong lag behind the innovation 
leaders (70%). The difference does not stem from basic 
but entirely from advanced digital skills, and the same 
pattern can be seen in the qualifications of employees.63 
In addition, in the light of the digital transformation, 
there is a growing shortage of ICT professionals, and 
63 The share of the population (16–74 years) with advanced digital skills 
was 31% in Slovenia in 2019, the same as the EU average but much 
lower than in the innovation leaders (45%), while the corresponding 
share among employees in Slovenia was 37%, against 51% in the 
innovation leaders (Eurostat, 2022).
Not enough attention is paid to the development of 
(future) human resources for innovation. According 
to the EII for 2021, Slovenia’s development of human 
resources in 2020 fell sharply from an otherwise strong 
starting point, so in the last two years it has been around 
the EU average in this regard. The lag is related to a 
decrease in adult participation in lifelong learning and 
a decrease in the number of new doctors of science and 
technology (per 1,000 population aged 25–34)62 (EC, 
2021o). This was the same in 2019 as the EU average but 
from 2017 lower than in the innovation leaders (Eurostat, 
2022) and in 2020 decreased further. The total number 
of new doctors of science also decreased (see Indicator 
2.3), which is unfavourable from the point of view of the 
development of human resources for innovation and 
the strengthening of the country’s innovation potential. 
The number of researchers participating in the Young 
Researchers measure increased in 2020 but has not yet 
reached the 2011 peak (ARRS, 2021), and expressed 
per 1,000 working population was the lowest in the 
last ten years (ARRS, 2021; SURS, 2022b). The measure 
“Young Researchers in the Economy”, which has enabled 
companies to strengthen their innovation capacity and 
access to basic research, which is the basis for industrial 
research, has not been implemented for several years. 
Trends in the share of science and technology graduates 
62 Slovenia’s deterioration is related to unfavourable trends in the number 
of new doctors of science, according to SURS data (see Indicator 2.3), 
and to the fact that until 2016 Eurostat also added masters of science 
to new doctors of science, while since 2017 the data includes only new 
doctors of science (Eurostat, 2022).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
P K J Q S M R O A
To
ta
l D C G E N H F I
In
 %
Participation of persons in employment in lifelong 
learning, Slovenia
2020 2019 2010
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
G
er
m
an
y
Fr
an
ce
G
re
ec
e
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
g
e
Sp
ai
n
N
et
he
rl
an
d
s
Po
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
Ir
el
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
Sw
ed
en
Fi
nl
an
d
It
al
y
H
un
ga
ry
Po
rt
ug
al
A
us
tr
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Es
to
n
ia
Sl
ov
ak
Sl
ov
en
ia
Lu
xe
m
b
ou
rg
La
tv
ia
Ra
tio
: b
et
w
ee
n 
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
ge
 a
nd
 
th
e 
va
lu
e 
fo
r s
el
ec
te
d
 c
ou
nt
ry
Artificial intelligence skills among employees, average 
for 2015–2020
 Figure 32: Low artificial intelligence skills1 among employees (left); the sharp decline in the participation of the working 
population in lifelong learning in the period 2010–2019 in most activities was followed by an additional decline2 in 2020 
due to the epidemic (right)
Sources: OECD (2021g) (figure left) and Eurostat (2022). Notes: 1The figure on the left shows the prevalence of artificial intelligence skills in employees, as reported by 
LinkedIn members in the period 2015–2020. The country-specific values are calculated on the basis of the OECD average of 1. For example, a value of 1.5 means that 
employees in the given country are 1.5 times more likely to report artificial intelligence skills than OECD average employees. The lowest value is 0, the highest is not 
specified. 2P – Education, K – Financial and insurance activities, J – Information and communication, Q – Human health and social work activities, S – Other service 
activities, M – Professional, scientific and technical activities, R – Arts, entertainment and recreation activities, O – Public administration and defence, compulsory 
social security, A – Agriculture, forestry and fishing, D – Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply, C – Manufacturing, G – Wholesale and retail trade, repair 
of motor vehicles and motorcycles, E – Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities, N – Administrative and support service activities, H – 
Transportation and storage, F – Construction, I – Catering. No data available for A – Agriculture, forestry and fishing for 2019.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all48 Development report 2022
companies’ business decisions and encourage them 
to develop (more) sustainable products and services. 
According to Eurobarometer (2021c), more people in 
Slovenia are taking action against climate change than 
the EU average, as shown by Eurobarometer (2020a) 
data,66 but there is still much potential in this regard. At 
the same time, sustainable transformation also means 
an opportunity for companies to take a proactive 
approach and generate changes in consumer behaviour 
patterns, thus contributing not only to improving 
their competitive position but also to addressing 
environmental and climate issues. 
Innovation and digitalisation-related 
investment
In terms of investments, which, besides human 
resources, have the most important impact 
on innovation, digitalisation and robotisation 
and therefore the strongest contribution to the 
transformation into a highly productive economy, 
Slovenia has moved from a leading to an average 
investor. The analysis of total investments in R&D and 
ICT and other machinery and equipment shows that 
between 2000 and 2008 Slovenia invested the fifth 
highest share within the EU for these purposes, with 
only a 0.2 p.p. of GDP lag behind the group of innovation 
leaders. In this period, it exceeded the EU average in 
terms of the volume of these investments by 1.7 p.p. 
of GDP and the Visegrad Group (V4) by 1.1 p.p. of GDP. 
After the outbreak of the global financial crisis in the 
period 2009–2013, it still maintained a high seventh 
place, but its advantage over the EU and V4 countries 
was roughly halved, while Slovenia was already one p.p. 
of GDP behind the innovation leaders (Figure 33). Such 
investments decreased the most in the process of fiscal 
consolidation, particularly in the period 2014–2016. By 
2019, their share in terms of GDP had increased, but such 
investments were also accelerated by other countries. 
As a result, in the average of the period 2014–2019 
Slovenia fell to the EU average in terms of investing in 
these three groups of investments, while the Visegrad 
countries had already overtaken it on average by 0.2 
p.p. of GDP and the innovation leaders by as much as 1.5 
p.p. of GDP. Expenditure on R&D investment increased 
over the three years to 2020, but in terms of share of 
GDP, it still lagged behind both the 2013 peak and the 
EU average and that of the innovation leaders (2020: 
by 0.2 p.p. and 1.2 p.p. respectively). The adoption of 
the Research and Innovation Activity Act in November 
2021 and the Resolution on Slovenia’s Research and 
Innovation Strategy 2030 in March this year raises 
positive expectations when it comes to public funding 
of R&D (which is expected to rise to 1.25% of GDP by 
66 According to the Special Eurobarometer (2020a), 36% of the population 
in Slovenia (more than the EU average of 31%) avoid buying products 
with a lot of packaging, 22% (likewise in the EU) buy products labelled 
with environmentally friendly labels, while 19% (20% in the EU) have 
changed their diet to include more sustainable foods.
small businesses, in particular, have difficulty recruiting 
them (Eurostat, 2022). This is related to the insufficient 
number of ICT graduates.64 Their share in the total 
number of graduates increased and in 2019 was slightly 
higher than the EU average but lower than in the 
innovation leaders, who rank ahead of Slovenia in the 
digital economy and society index (Eurostat, 2022). With 
the increase in the number of students enrolled in ICT 
studies from the 2017/2018 academic year, their number 
could increase in the future, but this will probably not be 
sufficient to fill the gap in the supply of such workforce 
without a further increase in the number of enrolment 
places. At the same time, attention must be paid to the 
development of knowledge and skills in the field of 
artificial intelligence, where Slovenia is one of the worst 
performers among EU Member States (OECD, 2021g). 
In order to meet the challenges of the digital economy, 
which is set to change in the coming years (IMAD, 2022), 
it is also essential to promote and enable education and 
(re)training of employees, especially given the multi-year 
unfavourable trends in workers’ participation in lifelong 
learning, which was further reduced due to the reduced 
implementation of educational programmes during 
the 2020 epidemic (Figure 32). Although the trend in 
the share of companies providing ICT training is not 
negative, there are major differences between large and 
other companies. For example, the share is even higher 
among large companies, which rank third in the EU, than 
in innovation leaders, while medium-sized enterprises in 
particular lag far behind: at 41%, they are above the EU 
average, but 15 p.p. behind innovation leaders.
Developing new knowledge and skills for sustainable 
economic transformation is a precondition for raising 
competitiveness and creating new jobs. For a more 
intensive green transformation of the economy, it is 
necessary to strengthen the green skills65 of employees 
needed for greening the existing and creating new green 
jobs. The sustainable transformation of the business 
sector not only affects the composition of jobs, but 
at the same time increases the need for (re)training of 
employees whose jobs and professions are threatened 
by transformation. It is therefore necessary to reverse 
the markedly unfavourable trends in the participation 
of the employed and the unemployed people in lifelong 
learning and to increase investment in it, including in 
the field of green skills (see Section 2.1). In particular, it 
is essential to strengthen the development of new high-
tech skills for employees, which will enable the transition 
to a digital low-carbon circular economy (Section 
4.1). Furthermore, the role of the population in the 
sustainable transformation of the business sector should 
not be neglected, as, through their attitudes towards the 
environment and climate change and their behaviour 
as well as their consumer habits, they can influence 
64 The data on ICT graduates have been available since 2012 (Eurostat, 
2022).
65 Green skills are those skills needed to adapt products, services 
and processes to climate change and the related environmental 
requirements and regulations (OECD and CEDEFOP, 2014).  
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all 49Development report 2022
year later also systemic regular financing of doctoral 
studies.70 In investments in the development of R&D 
staff, a positive shift was achieved in the direction of 
increasing government expenditure on the young 
researchers programme, which was increasing in 2017–
2020 (amounting to EUR 24.7 million by the end of that 
period) but was 21.9% less in 2020 than the highest 
value (achieved in 2010). As in previous years, more than 
60% of them were allocated to science and technology, 
and in areas with more than 10% only to biotechnology 
(ARRS, 2021). Public and private investment in lifelong 
learning, which according to the EII is one of the areas 
of human resource development in innovation, is low.71
The share of budget appropriation on R&D for 
environmental purposes began to increase 
significantly after 2014 and is also high by 
international comparisons, while the share for 
energy purposes is lower and the increase here was 
also slower. Unlike the EU and innovation leaders, 
Slovenia spends most of its expenditure on R&D for 
environmental and energy purposes on environmental 
research. In the period 2008–2020, environmental 
R&D investments were on average almost two-fifths 
higher than energy R&D investments. The share spent 
on the environment in total budget appropriations 
since 2010 has been above the EU average and that 
70 According to ZViS-K (2016), third-level studies at public higher 
education institutions are co-financed from the state budget (ZViS-K, 
2016).
71 Public expenditure is low (OECD, 2019c), as is corporate expenditure 
(EIB, 2020; OECD, 2019h). Employers’ expenditure on training per 
employee was about half lower in 2020 than in 2009 (SURS, 2022b).
2030), while at the same time the plans for the use of EU 
funds, due to the priority orientation towards traditional 
infrastructure, show that Slovenia is still lagging behind 
in investing in smart transformation (IMAD, 2022).
Investments in human resource development for 
the transition to innovation-driven growth are too 
low for a more intensive innovation breakthrough. 
Expenditure (public and private)67 on pre-tertiary 
education,68 (which is important for the development 
of future human resources and represents a long-
term factor in the knowledge and innovation-based 
economy), has been declining since 2012 but increased 
to 4.1% of GDP in 2020. According to the latest 
international data, in 2018 it lagged behind the EU-22 
average (4.1% of GDP; SI at that time: 3.8% of GDP) and 
especially behind the innovation leaders (4.6% of GDP) 
(Figure 33 right). Expenditure (public and private) on 
tertiary education increased in 2019 and 2020 (to 1.25% 
of GDP in 2020) after several years of stagnation but was 
still 0.10 p.p. below the 2011 peak. In 2018, according 
to the latest international data, it was one of the lowest 
among the EU Member States that are members of the 
OECD (EU-22). In the 2016/2017 academic year, state 
co-financing was reintroduced (MIZŠ, 2021b),69 and a 
67  Account has been taken of expenditure for educational institutions in 
tertiary education, which does not include transfers to schoolchildren 
or households.
68 Pre-tertiary education includes the second age group of pre-school 
education, basic education and upper secondary education.
69 As the scheme for co-financing doctoral studies from the Structural 
Funds for the 2011/2012 generation ended, students who enrolled 
in the 2012/2013 academic year no longer had co-financed doctoral 
studies (MIZŠ, 2021b).
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f G
D
P
Pre-tertiary ed., Sl Tertiary ed., Sl
Pre-tertiary ed., IL Tertiary ed., IL
Pre-tertiary ed., EU Tertiary ed., EU
Public and private expenditure on educational institutions, 
8%
8%
9%
9%
10%
10%
11%
11%
12%
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f G
D
P
SI EU V4 IL
Investments in R&D, ICT and other machinery and 
 Figure 33: Decrease in total investments in R&D, ICT and other machinery and equipment (left); the same applies to 
education expenditure, which is low by international standards (figure right)
Sources: Eurostat (2022) (recalculation by IMAD), OECD (2008), OECD (2009), OECD (2010), OECD (2011), OECD (2012), OECD (2013a), OECD (2014), OECD (2015a), 
OECD (2016a), OECD (2017a), OECD (2018b), OECD (2019a), OECD (2020c) and OECD (2021b). Note: The figure on the left shows total investments in R&D, ICT and 
other machinery and equipment, expressed as a % of GDP, for Slovenia (SI), the EU (calculated weighted average with GDP, excluding data for Greece, Ireland, Cyprus 
and Croatia), the V4 (Visegrad Four) and innovation leaders (IL); for Denmark, due to missing data for 2019, the same value is assumed as for 2018. The figure on the 
right takes into account expenditures for educational institutions, which do not include transfers to schoolchildren or households. Pre-tertiary education includes the 
second age group of pre-school education, basic education and upper secondary education. The data for the innovation leaders include data for Belgium, Finland and 
Sweden. The EU average includes Member States that are also members of the OECD.
A highly productive economy that creates value added for all50 Development report 2022
of the innovation leaders.72 The share spent on energy 
began to increase after 2015 and lags behind the EU 
average, exceeding the average of innovation leaders 
since 2016.73 The combined share of both areas in R&D 
budget appropriations thus increased from 4.6% to 
10.2% between 2008 and 2020, while it decreased in the 
EU and the innovation leaders (EU: from 7.1% to 6.9%; 
innovation leaders: from 6.2% to 4.8%), but with smaller 
total investments in R&D, this does not necessarily mean 
that Slovenia allocates a higher percentage of GDP for 
this purpose. In the future, investment in both areas is 
expected to increase further, given the growing green 
transition activities (see Section 4). Slovenia has been 
continuously improving its efficiency in the European 
Eco-Innovation Index74 since 2017, and in 2021 it ranked 
12th in the EU (2017: 18th), also ahead of Belgium, which 
is one of the innovation leaders. Among five areas, it 
ranked above the EU average in eco-innovation inputs 
due to the very good results of the above-mentioned 
total budget investments for environmental and energy 
purposes (third among EU Member States), while in 
other areas it lagged behind the EU average, most 
notably in terms of socio-economic outcomes, where it 
ranked 15th, due to the low share of exports of products 
from eco-industries. This may indicate a lack of efficiency 
of relatively high investments to achieve higher value 
added and competitiveness of the economy.
72 The latest data are for 2020: Slovenia 6.3% of budget appropriations 
for R&D, EU 2.3%, innovation leaders 1.6%.
73 The latest data are for 2020: Slovenia 3.9% of budget appropriations 
for R&D, EU 4.6%, innovation leaders 3.2%.
74 The Eco-Innovation Index consists of 16 indicators in five areas: (i) 
inputs for eco-innovation, (ii) eco-innovation activities, (iii) eco-
innovation outputs, (iv) resource efficiency outcomes and (v) socio-
economic outcomes (EC, 2021x).
Learning for and 
through life
In Slovenia, the long-term high participation of young people in upper 
secondary and tertiary education leads to a gradual improvement in 
adult education attainment, which is reflected in an increase in the 
share of adults with tertiary education, but in the labour market there 
is a mismatch between supply and demand for educational profiles. 
The achievements of young people in mathematics and science 
literacy are also very high. In 2020 and 2021, the COVID-19 epidemic 
intervened in the implementation of education, which encouraged the 
use of ICT in education and the development of new approaches, but 
distance education increased inequalities among children and gaps in 
their knowledge. However, there is a major mismatch between supply 
and demand in adult knowledge and skills, which, together with the 
increasing overall labour shortage due to demographic change, limits 
the availability of adequate human resources for the development 
of society and the economy. In the structure of tertiary education 
graduates, there has been a positive shift in the long run towards a 
higher share of science and technology graduates and of health and 
social work graduates, but their offer is still insufficient. Immigrants 
are an important source of labour, so migration and integration policy 
measures require increased attention. Greater care should also be taken 
to encourage the return of emigrated experts and increase Slovenia’s 
attractiveness for the employment of domestic experts, which would 
reduce their migration abroad. A further source of labour force are 
vulnerable groups (young people, the elderly and other vulnerable 
groups) who are less integrated into the labour market, so it is necessary 
to strengthen measures in the field of education and other measures 
to increase their employment. In the medium term, providing young 
people and adults with skills for the digital and green transformation 
of the economy and meeting the challenges of a long-lived society is 
becoming an increasing challenge, requiring consideration not only of 
current but also, and above all, of future needs. For this, establishment 
of a partnership approach in the medium-term forecasting of 
knowledge and skills needs seems to be crucial. It is also essential 
2
to reverse the long-standing negative trends in adult participation 
in lifelong learning, i.e. by increasing investment, promoting lifelong 
learning and making it accessible. 
In the field of culture, before the COVID-19 epidemic, the supply of 
cultural content was good, the trends in attending cultural events were 
mostly favourable and amateur culture was expanding. For many years, 
there have been mostly unfavourable trends in the field of publishing 
and public libraries, digitalisation in the field of culture has been too 
slow, and the development of language resources and technologies 
that contribute to the development and preservation of the Slovenian 
language has lagged behind. In 2020, the COVID-19 epidemic had a 
negative impact on the accessibility of cultural content, and the gap 
was only partially filled by the web. Containment measures have had 
a negative impact on the situation of the cultural and creative sectors, 
especially the non-institutional part. There were fewer opportunities 
for international cooperation in culture and thus for its promotion 
abroad. In order to develop culture and strengthen its role in social 
and economic development, the conditions for its operation should be 
improved, particularly in areas where shortcomings have existed for 
many years (e.g. publishing and the development of language resources 
and technologies) and in areas most affected by the epidemic.
Learning for and through life 53Development report 2022
The educational structure of the adult population 
is gradually improving with the long-term high 
participation of young people in upper secondary 
and tertiary education. The participation rate of 
children in basic education has been above the EU 
average for many years, as has the participation rate of 
young people in upper secondary and tertiary education, 
which in 2019 remained one of the highest among EU 
Member States.75 As a result, the share of young people 
(20–24 years) with at least upper secondary education is 
increasing and in 2020 was well above the EU average.76 
With the transition of younger, better educated persons 
to older age groups (demographic effect), the share of 
adults (25–64 years) with at least this level of education 
has been increasing for many years.77 The share of adults 
with tertiary education is also growing; it has been above 
the EU average for several years and was higher than 
the SDS target for the first time in 2020 (35%), though 
it remained lower than in more economically developed 
countries (Indicator 2.1). However, its share in the private 
sector lags far behind the public sector, which is not 
encouraging in terms of increasing the competitiveness 
of the economy. The improvement in the educational 
75 In 2019, the participation of children (6–14 years) in basic education 
in Slovenia was 97.5% (EU: 93.1%), the participation of young people 
(15–19 years) in upper secondary education 79.3% (EU: 60.5%) and 
the participation of young people (20–24 years) in tertiary education 
44.5% (EU: 33.4%) (Eurostat, 2022).
76 In 2020, the share of young people (20–24 years) with at least upper 
secondary education totalled 92.8% (EU: 84.3%) (Eurostat, 2022). 
77 In 2020, the share of adults with at least upper secondary education 
totalled 90.2% (EU: 79.0%) (Eurostat, 2022). 
structure is also reflected in the declining share of 
low-educated people, who on average have poorer 
employment opportunities and are more at risk of social 
exclusion. However, in the 45–64 age group, this share is 
still not insignificant (it was 13.5% in 2020). 
However, with relatively high overall participation 
in formal education, more vulnerable groups, such 
as children and young people with lower socio-
economic status, immigrants, Roma, and children 
and young people with special needs, face greater 
difficulties in participating in education. Students 
with lower socio-economic status perform worse in basic 
school than their peers and are more likely to enrol in 
lower and upper secondary vocational education (Cankar, 
2020). Despite various measures for participation in 
education,78 students with special needs face obstacles 
(Vršnik Perše et al., 2016), the consequences of which 
are reflected in their learning achievements.79 Immigrant 
students are also facing difficulties in participating in 
education; the consequences of this are seen in poorer 
learning achievements than those of non-immigrants 
(according to the PISA 2018 survey; see Indicator 2.4) 
and in the much higher proportion of young people (18–
24 years) with low education not involved in education 
78 See the Placement of Children with Special Needs Act (ZUOPP-1, 
2011). 
79 In regular basic schools, where children with special needs are also 
included, in the 2019/2020 academic year 3.3% (1.1% in the 2020/2021 
academic year) of students with special needs repeated the school 
year (SURS, 2022b). 
2.1 Education
 Knowledge and skills for a high quality of life and work (Development Goal 2):
The aim is to promote high-quality and accessible learning for and through life in order to improve the 
competitiveness of the economy and the prosperity of society. The goal will be realised through the promotion 
of learning for and through life across the entire population, with incentives for those with lower educational 
attainment and other marginalised groups to participate in education, with improvement of the functional 
literacy of young people and adults, by making sure education is efficient and of a high quality, by linking the 
education system to the economy, and by developing skills to improve employability. The realisation of this goal 
is essential for an active and healthy life, which the SDS addresses in Development Goal 1, for an inclusive labour 
market and quality jobs, which are addressed in Development Goal 7, for a decent life for all, which is addressed 
in Development Goal 3, for the competitiveness and digital transformation of the economy, which is addressed in 
Development Goal 6, and for sustainable development, which is addressed in Development Goals 8 and 9.
 SDS 2030 performance indicators for Development Goal 2:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
Participation in lifelong learning, in % 8.4 (2020) 9.2 (2020) 19
Share of population with tertiary education, in % 35.9 (2020) 32.8 (2020) 35
PISA results, ranking among EU Member States Mathematical literacy: 5th 
Scientific literacy: 4th 
Reading literacy: 9th
(2018)
Ranked in the top quarter of 
EU Member States
Learning for and through life54 Development report 2022
shortcomings in working with gifted students (Breznik 
et al., 2021; Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia, 
2021e). In 2020 and 2021, the COVID-19 epidemic 
strongly affected the implementation of education. 
Individual research has highlighted the negative effects of 
temporary distance learning on learning goals (Kerneža, 
2021; Koštomaj, 2021; Educational Research Institute, 
2020). Results of the national examinations, which is not 
an evaluation of distance learning, but only an integral 
part of it (Vogrinc, 2021), showed miscellaneous results82 
(RIC, 2019 and 2021). However, the correlation between 
students’ achievements in national knowledge testing 
and socio-economic status remained similarly high as 
before distance learning (Rakinić et al., 2021).
In the education of children and young people 
and adults, there is a need for greater emphasis 
on the development of key competences. The key 
competences are those that all individuals need for 
personal fulfilment and development, employability, 
social inclusion, successful life in peaceful societies, a 
sustainable and healthy lifestyle, and active citizenship.83 
82 In 2021, 6th and 9th grade students scored worse in mathematics than 
in 2019, better in English and better in Slovenian in 6th grade, and 
about the same as in 2019 in 9th grade. In 2018, the Council of the 
European Union adopted a recommendation on key competences.
83 In 2018, the Council of the European Union adopted a Recommendation 
on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning, which sets out eight 
key competences: literary competence; mathematical competence 
and competence in science, technology and engineering; digital 
competence; multilingual competence; personal, social and learning 
to learn competence; citizenship competence; entrepreneurship 
competence; and cultural awareness and expression competence 
(Council of the EU, 2018).
and training.80 The inclusion of immigrant children in 
kindergartens, which contributes to the improvement 
of their Slovenian language skills and preparation for 
basic school entry, is increasing but in the 2020/2021 
academic year still remained lower than the inclusion 
of non-immigrant children (SURS, 2022b). The Roma 
face difficulties in participating in education, especially 
due to their poor knowledge of the Slovenian language 
(IMAD, 2021a). 
Indicators of the quality of young people’s 
knowledge were good in international comparison 
in 2018, while individual research points to gaps in 
the knowledge of children and young people due to 
distance learning. The quality of pre-school education, 
which is important for the good preparation of children 
for basic school, is good by international comparison; 
the ratio between the number of children and the 
number of educators and assistant educators was also 
more favourable in 2019 than the EU average (Eurostat, 
2022). According to the PISA 2018 survey,81 the results 
in reading, mathematics and science literacy of 15-year-
olds, which are an indirect indicator of the quality 
of education, were above average by international 
comparison. The SDS target (by 2030), which is to be 
ranked in the top quarter of EU Member States, was 
achieved in mathematics and science literacy but not 
in reading literacy. However, some analyses point to 
80 The share of young people (18–24) with low education who are not 
involved in education and training, which is an indicator of the Action 
Plan of the European Pillar of Social Rights, was 8.7% in 2020 (EU: 
(26.6%) and 3.8% for non-immigrants (EU: 8.8%) (Eurostat, 2022).
81 In Slovenia, 15-year-olds generally attend upper secondary schools. 
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Po
rt
ug
al
M
al
ta
Fr
an
ce
Sp
ai
n
Ir
el
an
d
Ro
m
an
ia
G
er
m
an
y
It
al
y
O
EC
D
 a
ve
ra
g
e
Li
th
ua
ni
a
C
ro
at
ia
A
us
tr
ia
G
re
ec
e
Po
la
nd
Es
to
n
ia
H
un
ga
ry
C
yp
ru
s
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
La
tv
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
In
d
ex
Self-assessment of intercultural communication skills
in 15-year-olds, PISA 2018
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
A
bs
ol
ut
el
y 
do
no
t a
gr
ee
/d
o
no
t a
gr
ee
N
ei
th
er
 a
gr
ee
ne
ith
er
di
sa
gr
ee
A
gr
ee
/f
ul
ly
ag
re
e
D
on
't 
kn
ow
In
 %
2010 2020
Proportion of young people (15–29 years) who believe that 
school or previous education has given them knowledge 
that enables them to establish and manage a company
 Figure 34: Increase in the share of young people who believe that school or previous education has given them the 
knowledge to set up and run a business between 2010 and 2020 (left) and low intercultural communication skills of 15-year-
olds1 (right)
Sources: Lavrič et al. (2021) (left); OECD (2020d) (right).
Note: 1The index of the intercultural communication skills of 15-year-olds consists of indicators that measure attention in observing the responses of interlocutors, 
frequency of checking the correctness of comprehension, attention in listening to the interlocutor, attention in choosing words, explaining their ideas with concrete 
examples, and attention in explaining things (with gestures, re-interpretation, writing, etc.) when communication problems arise. Fifteen-year-olds assessed their 
intercultural communication skills according to a hypothetical scenario that presupposes that they are speaking in their mother tongue with people whose mother 
tongue is different from theirs. Index values range from -1 (worst) to 1 (best). The average of OECD countries is 0; the value of the index for Slovenia is -0.19.
Learning for and through life 55Development report 2022
which will be even more important in the future (OECD, 
2019g), while the implementation of distance education 
during the epidemic in 2020 and 2021 has reduced 
opportunities for their development (Rupnik Vec et al., 
2020). In adults, there are also shortcomings in social 
intelligence (OECD, 2021k).
The temporary implementation of distance 
education in 2020 and 2021 stimulated the 
development of new approaches in the education 
of children and young people and the use of ICT in 
education, while during the epidemic, differences in 
access to education increased, and the changed way 
of education also had other negative consequences 
for children and adolescents. In 2020 and 2021, as a 
result of COVID-19 containment measures, basic and 
upper secondary education was provided remotely most 
of the time, facilitated by a number of activities (Court 
of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia, 2020). Schools also 
showed a high degree of innovation (Ekipa Učitelj sem! 
Učiteljica sem!, 2021). Distance education has further 
encouraged the use of ICT in education, but problems 
have arisen due to the lack of coverage of some areas 
with fixed broadband infrastructure (IMAD, 2021c) and 
inequalities in the education conditions of children and 
young people at home have come to the fore.90 Children 
and young people were deprived of important school 
functions (e.g. socialisation, psychological and emotional 
support, and (healthy) nutrition) (Jeriček Klanšček et al., 
2021); they had more mental problems and decreased 
motor skills (see Section 3.1). Pupils and students from 
vulnerable groups, who generally have poorer learning 
conditions at home and are less able to count on the 
help of their parents, have found themselves in greater 
distress than their peers (Advocate of the Principle of 
Equality, 2021a). The epidemic has also affected children 
attending kindergarten, in particular the social and 
emotional development of some children due to the 
partial closure of kindergartens (Jager et al., 2021).
During the epidemic, higher education students 
also faced obstacles in their education, although 
higher education institutions made a number of 
adjustments to the study process during this period. 
During the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020 and 2021, 
study was temporarily conducted online. The survey 
performed by the National Institute of Public Health on 
the experience of the epidemic among higher education 
students in February and early March 2021 showed that 
a good quarter of students assessed the experience of 
distance learning as successful, but students also point 
out many related problems91 (Gabrovec et al., 2021). In 
90 According to the Health Behaviour in School Aged Children (HBSC) 
survey, conducted online in October 2020 on a sample of 9th-graders 
and upper secondary school seniors, about a tenth of young people 
did not have access to a computer, tablet or phone to work for school 
or had it rarely, while about 15% of them did not have their own space 
to learn (Jeriček Klanšček et al., 2021).
91 For example lack of motivation to perform study obligations, low 
quality of ICT equipment and internet connection, and inadequacy of 
the premises in which they study.
In Slovenia, there are shortcomings in the development 
of the reading literacy of children84 and young people (see 
Indicator 2.4). Pupils’ achievements in foreign languages 
are relatively good by international standards, but many 
pupils do not reach the appropriate level of knowledge.85 
The functional literacy of adults is low in international 
comparison;86 there are also shortcomings in the 
development of adult digital skills (see Section 2.1.2). 
According to the International Civic Education Survey 
2016, students in Slovenia ranked in the middle of the 
13 EU Member States that participated87 in the survey in 
terms of achievements in the field of civic knowledge.88 
Progress has been made in the development of young 
people’s entrepreneurial skills over a longer period of 
time; according to the Youth 2020 survey, the share 
of young people (15–29 years) who believe that the 
school has given them appropriate knowledge to start 
a business increased between 2010 and 2020 (Figure 34 
left). It is also encouraging that adults are increasingly 
confident in their entrepreneurial skills (GEM, 2021). 
Basic and upper secondary schools and cultural 
institutions carry out a number of activities to develop 
children’s creativity in the context of cultural and artistic 
education (see Section 2.2). However, shortcomings are 
present in the development of intercultural skills, which 
are a necessary condition for intercultural dialogue 
and important for living and working in multicultural 
societies. Fifteen-year-olds’ self-assessments in the PISA 
2018 survey showed that they were less interested in 
learning about other cultures89 and lacked intercultural 
communication skills (Figure 34 right). Increased 
immigration increases the need to develop adult 
intercultural skills and promote intercultural dialogue. 
Attention is also paid to the development of the 
emotional and social skills of children and young people, 
84 According to the International Reading Literacy Survey PIRLS 2016, 
Slovenia ranked 13th (4th grade students) among the 22 EU Member 
States that participated (Educational Research Institute, 2016).
85 According to the European Survey on Language Competence 
(ESLC 2011), 9th grade basic school students show above-average 
achievement in English and German in listening comprehension and 
written communication and average in reading comprehension. The 
drawback is that a large proportion (41%) of students do not reach 
the required level of proficiency in reading comprehension in English 
(Educational Research Institute, 2012).
86 According to the International Adult Skills Survey PIAAC, 400,000 
adults have low literacy and numeracy skills (i.e. below the threshold 
of functional literacy) (OECD, 2017c). Literacy and numeracy skills are 
lower than the average of the 19 EU Member States that are members 
of the OECD (OECD, 2016c).  
87 At the IEA ICCS 2016 International Survey on Civic Education, the civic 
knowledge of 8th grade basic school students was assessed through 
questions about society and its systems, civic principles and civic 
identity (Klemenčič et al., 2019).
88 13 EU Member States participated in the survey, among which 
Slovenia ranked 6th in terms of student achievement in the field 
of civic knowledge, after Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Finland and 
Belgium (Flanders) (Klemenčič et al., 2019). 
89 The PISA 2018 survey measured the interest of fifteen-year-olds in 
learning about other cultures using an index that measures interest 
in the lives of people in other countries, religions around the world, 
the views of people from other cultures and in inquiring about the 
customs of other cultures. The index has values from -1 (minimum 
interest) to 1 (maximum interest). The average of OECD countries is 0. 
The value of the index for Slovenia is -0.1 (OECD, 2020d).
Learning for and through life56 Development report 2022
this case, too, students from families with lower social 
status found themselves in a more difficult position. The 
obstacles posed to students by the challenge of studying 
from home also made it difficult to fulfil their study 
obligations (ŠOS, 2021). Students who were unable to 
complete their study obligations regularly and on time 
due to the epidemic were entitled to an extension of their 
student status in the 2020/2021 academic year (ZIUZEOP, 
2020), which was reflected in a reduction in the number 
of graduates (SURS, 2022b) and their smaller supply on 
the labour market. In the 2021/2022 academic year, the 
study process was no longer conducted remotely and 
there were problems in fulfilling study obligations due 
to referrals to quarantine (ŠOS, 2022).
2.1.1 Skills mismatches and lifelong 
learning
Skills mismatches, together with growing general 
labour shortages due to demographic change, reduce 
the availability of adequate human resources for the 
development of society and the economy. Before the 
COVID-19 epidemic, more and more companies faced 
difficulties in finding suitable staff. This is associated 
with a general labour shortage caused by demographic 
change, high labour demand during economic growth, 
lack of interest in certain professions among young 
people and low reputation of some professions (Indicator 
2.4). In 2020, due to the epidemic and the decline in 
economic activity, significantly fewer companies had 
such problems, but as the economy recovered, their 
share began to increase, and in the second half of 2021 
there were more than half such companies or three-
quarters of large companies among them (Figure 35 
left) (ESS, 2021c). For many years, there has been a 
lack of profiles with upper secondary vocational and 
professional education for work in the business sector.92 
In 2022, according to the Professional Barometer, there 
is a shortage of staff for many professions in the fields 
of health, ICT, construction, transport, accommodation 
and food service and education and a surplus of staff 
was detected in graduates of arts and humanities, some 
social studies and upper secondary educated workers 
(e.g. secretaries) (ESS, 2021a). From the point of view of 
tackling the challenges of a long-lived society and also 
in the light of the COVID-19 epidemic, the shortage 
of staff in healthcare and long-term care is becoming 
increasingly acute; with the accelerating digitalisation 
of the economy, there is also a severe shortage of ICT 
professionals (see Section 2.1.3). At the same time, 
during the epidemic, the opportunities for education 
and training of persons participating in job retention 
measures93 were underused, and the implementation 
of AEP programmes was curtailed (see Section 3.3) 
(MDDSZ, 2021a). 
At the macro level, structural imbalances in the 
labour market are measured by the Beveridge curve 
showing their increase in 2014–2019. This curve shows 
the relationship between the unemployment rate and 
the vacancy rate; its position and shifts over time may 
indicate an increase or decrease in matches between 
92 According to the Employment Forecast (ESS, 2021c), there is the 
greatest shortage of bricklayers and related workers, heavy truck 
and lorry drivers, welders and flamecutters, manufacturing labourers, 
waiters and bartenders, sales workers, cooks, building and related 
electricians, and metal working machine tool setters and operators. 
93 According to the emergency legislation (PKP), in the second half 
of 2020, jobseekers included in the short-time work measure and 
jobseekers who were sent on temporary layoff could be included in 
AEP programmes but only eight people joined informal education and 
training programmes (MDDSZ, 2021a). The reason for the low number 
of participants could be attributed to the expectations of employees 
that they would only be temporarily laid off or work part-time.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Jo
b 
va
ca
nc
y 
ra
te
, s
ea
so
na
lly
 a
dj
us
te
d
Beveridge curve
2001-2007 2008-2013
2014-2019 2020-2021
2021 Q4
Survey-based unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted in %
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
20
15
/I
20
15
/I
I
20
16
/I
20
16
/I
I
20
17
/I
20
17
/I
I
20
18
/I
20
18
/I
I
20
19
/I
20
19
/I
I
20
20
/I
20
20
/I
I
20
21
/I
20
21
/I
I
In
 %
Proportion of employers facing shortage
of staff for employment, in %
Total Large companies
 Figure 35: The shortage of suitable labour (left) and the Beveridge curve – the link between labour supply and demand – do 
not yet point to a permanent deterioration (right)
Sources: ESS (2014), ESS (2015a), ESS (2015b), ESS (2016), ESS (2017a), ESS (2017b), ESS (2018a), ESS (2018b), ESS (2019a), ESS (2019b), ESS (2020a), ESS (2020b), ESS 
(2021b) and ESS (2021c) (figure left) and SURS (2021c) (figure right).
Learning for and through life 57Development report 2022
and partnership-based system for forecasting medium-
term skills needs which includes educational institutions, 
trade unions, employers and other stakeholders is crucial. 
Slovenia has in fact only very recently been included 
in the monitoring of needs for occupations with the 
Employment Forecast (ESS, 2021c) and the Professional 
Barometer (ESS, 2021a). In addition, some weaknesses 
need to be overcome, such as the lack of cooperation 
between different stakeholders at national, regional 
and local levels in human resource development (SIAE, 
2021). Given the rapidly changing needs for knowledge 
and skills (IMAD, 2022), lifelong career orientation 
and motivation of adults for (re)training must be 
strengthened, while the development of systems for the 
evaluation of non-formal and informal learning requires 
greater attention (SIAE, 2021). 
Young people who are not in education, employment 
or training (NEET) are over-represented in some socio-
economic groups and represent a potential source of 
labour. In Slovenia, the share of NEET decreased from 
2015 to 2019, which is attributed to favourable economic 
trends, general labour shortages and government 
measures for youth employment. In 2020, it increased 
due to the deteriorating labour market situation caused 
by the COVID-19 epidemic, but with high participation of 
young people in upper secondary and tertiary education, 
it remained one of the lowest among EU Member 
States95 (Eurostat, 2022). In some groups, nevertheless, 
it is high. Thus young people moving from school to 
the labour market are often unable to find immediate 
employment, especially due to mismatches between 
their education and the needs of employers and to their 
95 The share of NEETs (15–29 years), which is the leading indicator of the 
Action Plan of the European Pillar of Social Rights (EC, 2021c), was 9.2% 
in Slovenia in 2020 (EU: 13.7%) (Eurostat, 2022).
labour supply and demand.94 As can be seen from Figure 
35 (right), labour market imbalances were much higher 
in the period after 2014 than in the period 2001–2013, 
which could be related to the long-term impact of high 
unemployment during the global financial crisis and 
related exits to inactivity, stagnation, or a decline in the 
skills of long-term jobseekers. However, the increase in 
disparities during this period may also be due to changes 
in the structure of industries and thus the demand 
for certain occupational profiles. In the period of the 
COVID-19 epidemic, especially in 2020, the curve does 
not indicate an increase in disparities, but its counter-
clockwise movement is associated with a decline in 
economic activity and thus lower labour demand, and 
in 2021 with again strengthening demand and thus a 
higher vacancy rate.
In addition to addressing current skills, it is essential 
to focus on future skills needs. These will soon be 
significantly different from the current ones due to 
technological developments and digital and green 
transformation (IMAD, 2022). These trends affect the 
changing professional structure of employees and the 
need for knowledge and skills in existing jobs, which 
increases the need for education and (re)training of 
employees. It is essential to establish a responsive 
system of adult education and training that is based on 
consideration of future needs when planning education 
and (re)training. In order to have a comprehensive 
picture of these needs, the establishment of a responsive 
94 The curve shows the relationship between excess labour supply 
(survey unemployment rate) and excess labour demand (vacancy rate). 
Shifting the curve left and down over time may indicate an increase in 
the match between labour supply and demand, while a shift up and to 
the right may indicate a decrease in the match and greater structural 
disparities when higher labour supply is also present alongside higher 
labour demand.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
N
at
ur
al
 s
ci
en
ce
s 
an
d
en
gi
ne
er
in
g
So
c.
 s
ci
en
ce
s,
 jo
ur
na
lis
m
 a
nd
in
fo
rm
at
io
n,
 a
nd
 b
us
in
es
s 
an
d
ad
m
in
is
tr
at
io
n 
an
d 
la
w
H
ea
lth
 a
nd
 w
el
fa
re
Ed
uc
at
io
n
A
rt
s 
an
d 
hu
m
an
iti
es
Se
rv
ic
es
A
gr
ic
ul
tu
re
, f
or
es
tr
y,
 fi
sh
er
ie
s
an
d 
ve
te
rin
ar
y
Sh
ar
e 
in
 %
Structure of students enrolled in tertiary education, 
by fields
2012/2013 2020/2021
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
D
en
m
ar
k
Cr
oa
tia
Po
rt
ug
al
H
un
ga
ry
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sw
ed
en
Sl
ov
en
ia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Fi
nl
an
d
Ro
m
an
ia
M
al
ta
La
tv
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Po
la
nd
Ita
ly
Be
lg
iu
m
Fr
an
ce EU
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Li
th
ua
ni
a
A
us
tr
ia
Ire
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
Cy
pr
us
Sp
ai
n
In
 %
2020 2019 2008
Share of persons in employment with tertiary education employed 
in occupations for which upper secondary education is sufficient
 Figure 36: The sharp increase in the share of people with tertiary education employed in occupations for which upper 
secondary education is sufficient since 2008 (left) and the shift towards a higher share of those enrolled in science and 
technology and a lower share in social sciences (right)
Sources: Eurostat (2022) and SURS (2022b).
Learning for and through life58 Development report 2022
Regulation Act, which stipulates the learning of the 
Slovene language at the basic level for the unemployed 
(ZUTD-E, 2019). In addition, there are shortcomings in 
ensuring adequate working and living conditions for 
immigrants. Immigrants to Slovenia are particularly low- 
and upper secondary-educated and usually in lower-
paid jobs, which, as the Asylum Working Group and 
Counselling Office for Workers (2021) point out, are often 
subject to inadequate working and living conditions. 
This may reduce their motivation to stay in Slovenia 
longer and increase the supply of labour in the long run; 
as a result, more attention should be paid to integration 
policies. In addition, the reception of immigrants by the 
majority population requires attention, as according 
to SJM 2018/1 more than 60% of respondents are in 
favour of restricting immigration of people from other 
countries, with 25.1% in favour of restricting immigration 
even of people from abroad with skills and professions 
that Slovenia lacks (Toš, 2021). The supply of workforce 
on the labour market can also be enriched by talent from 
abroad, but the attractiveness for talent in Slovenia is 
lower than in most economically developed EU Member 
States96 (IMD, 2020). Another potential source of labour 
are foreign students, whose share in 2019 was lower 
than the international average.97 Despite the epidemic, 
it increased in the 2020/2021 academic year, but the 
restrictions on conducting studies in English and, from 
the 2021/2022 academic year, the tightening of the 
conditions for proving sufficient means of subsistence 
make it difficult to recruit foreign students.98 
96 Slovenia is ranked 16th among 26 EU Member States in terms of 
attractiveness for talent in 2020 (IMD, 2020).
97 The share of foreign students in the academic year 2020/2021 was 
9.2%; in 2019 (the latest international data) it was 6.7%, while the 
average of the 22 EU Member States that are members of the OECD 
was 7.5% (OECD, 2021b).
98 Conditions for students’ stay in Slovenia have been tightened by the 
Act Amending the Aliens Act (ZTuj-2F) (2021).
lack of relevant work experience (MDDSZ, 2021c), so in 
the age groups 20–24 and 25–29, the share of NEETs 
increases markedly (and is higher for women than men). 
The share of NEETs (15–29 years) is also high among 
immigrants (Eurostat, 2022), Roma and young people 
with health problems (OECD, 2021f). Young people who 
are neither in education, employment or training are at 
risk of social exclusion, so it is necessary to strengthen 
the measures to integrate them into education and 
the labour market. Actively tackling this issue is also 
important in view of incompatibilities in the labour 
market and labour shortages. The Ministry of Labour, 
Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ, 
2021c) emphasises the need to design educational 
and employment programmes tailored to the needs 
of groups of young people within AEP programmes 
to which Slovenia allocates relatively few funds (see 
Section 3.3) (OECD, 2021f), motivating for re-education, 
strengthening lifelong career guidance, gaining relevant 
work experience during studies and strengthening 
measures for NEET young people who are not registered 
as unemployed at the Employment Service of Slovenia. 
In the absence of suitable workforce, it is increasingly 
important to attract staff from abroad and integrate 
them into society. With demographic changes, 
favourable economic trends and the growing needs of 
employers for labour, along with incompatibilities in 
the supply of staff, immigrants represent an additional 
potential source of labour with appropriate knowledge 
and education. Upon arrival in another country, the 
knowledge of the official language of that country 
is important for an immigrant to be employed and 
integrated into society, but in Slovenia the Slovene 
language course is relatively short and payable for 
some groups of immigrants. The successful integration 
of immigrants into the labour market requires the 
consistent implementation of the Labour Market 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
25–34 years 35–44 years 45–54 years 55–64 years
In
 %
2010 2019 2020
Participation of adults (aged 25–64) in lifelong learning
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Sw
ed
en
Fi
nl
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Es
to
ni
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Fr
an
ce
A
us
tr
ia
Ire
la
nd
Sp
ai
n
M
al
ta
Po
rt
ug
al
 E
U
Sl
ov
en
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Be
lg
iu
m
Ita
ly
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
H
un
ga
ry
Cy
pr
us
G
re
ec
e
Po
la
nd
Cr
oa
tia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
In
 %
2020 2019 2010
Participation of adults (aged 25–64) in lifelong learning
 Figure 37: Strong decline in adult participation in lifelong learning* since 2010 and low participation of older people in 
lifelong learning (right)
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: *The indicator is calculated according to the currently applicable methodology of the Labour Force Survey.
Learning for and through life 59Development report 2022
immigrants in lifelong learning also has a negative impact 
on their integration into society. In 2020, adult education 
was strongly influenced by the implementation of 
COVID-19 containment measures. There was less adult 
education, especially non-formal education, than 
planned, though formal education was mostly provided 
(Možina, 2022). In this regard, particularly vulnerable 
groups of adults lacked ICT equipment and adequate 
digital skills, while workers in occupations that were 
most under pressure during the epidemic lacked time.. 
However, some adults saw distance education as an 
advantage, as it eliminates some of the disadvantages 
of traditional education (distance, time constraints, 
etc.). The advantages of distance learning should 
continue to be used and thus promoted in the future, 
while at the same time educational didactics should be 
further developed and adults should be supported in 
overcoming barriers to participation.
Strengthening investments in education for children, 
young people and adults is essential for developing 
the skills needed to face the challenges and 
opportunities of green and digital transformation, 
a long-lived society and other development trends. 
Public expenditure on formal education, which is mainly 
intended for the education of children and young people, 
The long-term decline in the participation of adults 
in lifelong learning is extremely negative in terms of 
their integration into society, their employability and 
their ability to cope with development challenges. 
Their participation has been largely declining since 
the 2010 peak and further declined in 2020 due to 
COVID-19 containment measures (Figure 37 left), 
thus further moving away from the 2030 SDS target 
(Indicator 2.6). Participation has decreased among the 
working population and the unemployed, which makes 
it more difficult for them to cope with rapid changes in 
the workplace (including in the light of the green and 
digital transition); for the unemployed, this reduces 
their employment opportunities, which also has an 
unfavourable impact on labour market disparities, given 
the overall labour shortage. The decline in participation 
over the last ten years was highest in the younger age 
groups, where the ongoing updating and acquisition 
of additional skills would be particularly important, as 
their expected period of employment is the longest. For 
many years, participation in lifelong learning has been 
low among people with low levels of education, which 
can lead to greater difficulties in adapting to changes in 
the labour market, and among older people, which limits 
their ability to maintain and prolong work and a healthy 
and active life (see Section 3.1). Low participation of 
 Box 4: EU targets for adult education and training by 2025 and 2030
The Skills Agenda and the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan 2030, adopted at the EU level in 2020, 
oblige Member States to increase adult participation in education and training. The purpose of the European 
Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience is to promote digital (see Section 1.2.2) 
and green (see Section 4.2) transition by developing the relevant skills of young people and adults, to ensure the 
recovery of society and the economy after the COVID-19 epidemic, and to ensure social fairness. One of the targets 
set is an annual participation of at least 50% of adults in education or training at the EU level by 2025. The source 
of data for calculating the indicator will be Labour Force Survey, and the methodology for calculating the indicator 
will be aligned with the Adult Education Survey (EC, 2020h), which is quite different from the methodology for 
calculating the SDS target on participation in lifelong learning. 
The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan lays down that by 2030 at least 60% of all adults in the 
EU should participate in education and training every year (EC, 2021c). In addition, EU Member States will 
have to set their own national targets for adult participation in education, which for Slovenia is at least at 60%.1 
This means that in Slovenia it will be necessary to increase the expenditure for adult education and the culture 
of lifelong learning, to develop new education and training programmes for life and work in a changing society, 
and to improve the accessibility of education for all social groups, with a special focus on less represented ones 
(IMAD, 2021a). In 2022, the National Assembly adopted a Resolution on the National Programme of Adult Education 
in the Republic of Slovenia 2022–2030 (ReNPIO 2022–2030) (MIZŠ, 2022b), which envisages the development 
of educational programmes for adults and the promotion of participation in them, the development of new 
approaches in adult education, the strengthening of partnership development between various stakeholders in 
the development of educational programmes, the development of lifelong career orientation, and many other 
activities. The implementation of these activities is expected to contribute to the pursuit of the Resolution’s targets: 
(a) to increase adult participation in lifelong learning, (b) to increase the level of basic skills and improve the general 
education of adults, (c) to increase the educational level of adults, (d) to increase the population competence for 
successful responding to the needs of the labour market, (e) to strengthen research and development in the field of 
adult education, and (f ) to improve and strengthen activities in the field of adult education. The implementation of 
the resolution is also expected to contribute to the realisation of the European Pillar of Social Rights.
1 According to the methodology of the Adult Education Survey, which is different from that of the Labour Force Survey, on which the target of SDS 
2030 on participation in lifelong learning is based.
Learning for and through life60 Development report 2022
of the PISA 2018 survey (OECD, 2020d) warn of gaps in 
knowledge of the climate issue, which is closely linked to 
environmental issues and sustainable development and 
knowledge of the impact of economic development on 
the environment in fifteen-year-olds. It is encouraging 
that the Integrating Climate Topics into the Broad 
Process of Education Development programme is 
being implemented, and numerous activities are being 
carried out at the pre-school, basic school and upper 
secondary school levels and in adult education (MIZŠ, 
2021a). Adults can also take part in education for 
sustainable development activities implemented by the 
SIAE (SIAE, n.d.) and folk high schools (ZLUS, 2021) and 
activities within the Week of Education for Sustainable 
Development, (ZISS, 2021) the European Mobility 
Week (MI, 2021) and the Eco Fund (2020). Nevertheless, 
adults express the need for additional training (ZLUS, 
2021). These findings are affirmed by Eurobarometer 
data (2020a) showing that less than a quarter of 
respondents in Slovenia (similar to the EU average) 
believe that more training and information should be 
provided on environmental topics (energy saving, waste 
management, etc.). In the light of increasing fuel prices 
and energy poverty and confrontation with climate 
change, it is increasingly important to develop energy 
literacy for all population groups. At the same time, it 
is essential for the sustainable transformation of the 
economy to strengthen the green skills of employees 
(Section 1.2.2).
Improvement of digital skills is indispensable for 
faster digital transformation of society and economy. 
According to data for 2019, the proportion of young 
people (16–19) with at least basic (basic and advanced) 
digital skills was 92% and higher than on average in the 
EU (82%), while for 16–74 year olds this proportion was 
55% and close to the EU average (56%), but far behind 
mostly decreased in 2010–2020, and in 2018, according 
to the latest international data, was lagging behind the 
EU-22 average (Indicator 2.5) and much more behind 
the leading countries (Figure 38 left). Public expenditure 
on adult education has increased nominally after a 
considerable fall in recent years.99 Expressed as a share of 
GDP, it reached 2014 levels in 2020 (Figure 38 right) and 
is too low given the many needs for skills for the green 
and digital transformation and to meet the challenges 
of a long-lived society and other development trends. 
In Slovenia many activities aimed at developing the 
education of children and young people are (co)
financed by EU funds, and the dependence of the adult 
education on these funds is even greater. In the coming 
years, funds from the Recovery and Resilience Facility 
and the European Cohesion Policy (SVRK, 2021a) will be 
available to develop skills of children, young people and 
adults relevant for green and digital transformation and 
meeting other development challenges. The Partnership 
Agreement between Slovenia and the European 
Commission for the 2021–2027 period also provides that 
development gaps are addressed through education 
and training (SVRK, 2021c).
2.1.2 Skills for sustainable and green 
transformation and a long-lived 
society
Further enhancement of education relating to 
sustainable development is essential for faster 
sustainable transformation. In Slovenia, contents 
related to sustainable development are present in 
basic and upper secondary education, and the results 
99 The inter-annual variation in public expenditure is influenced by the 
availability of ESS funds that are part of public expenditure on adult 
education. 
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
A
s 
a 
sh
ar
e 
of
 G
D
P,
 in
 %
In
 E
U
R 
m
Public expenditure on adult education
In euros As a share of GDP
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sw
ed
en
Be
lg
iu
m
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d
Fr
an
ce
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
A
us
tr
ia
O
EC
D
EU
-2
2
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
la
nd
G
er
m
an
y
Po
rt
ug
al
La
tv
ia
Ita
ly
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Es
to
ni
a
H
un
ga
ry
Sp
ai
n
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
G
re
ec
e
Ire
la
nd
In
 %
Second age group of preschool level of education
Basic and upper secondary education
Tertiary education
Public expenditure on education, expressed as a share of GDP
 Figure 38: Public expenditure on education lagging behind the leading countries (left); public expenditure on adult 
education,1 expressed as a share of GDP, in 2020 approximately at the 2014 level (right)
Sources: OECD (2021b) and SIAE (2021). Note: 1Shown realised funds of ministries (MIZŠ, MDSZ, MAFF, MZ, MK, MNZ, MOP, MJU, MP, MzI) for adult education under the 
annual adult education programmes.
Learning for and through life 61Development report 2022
least basic digital skills by 2030 (EC, 2020l). In Slovenia, 
given the great needs of the entrepreneurial sector, the 
development of digital skills and skills of employees (see 
Section 1.2.2) is too slow. At the same time, with the 
increasing problems of companies in the employment 
of ICT professionals and the increasing needs of the 
economy for effective digital transformation, it is 
essential to increase enrolment in ICT studies in tertiary 
education. In addition, the presence of ICT content 
in the education of children and youth should be 
strengthened, as Slovenia, unlike some other EU Member 
States, has no compulsory subject of computer science 
in basic schools (EC/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019a), nor is it 
compulsory in upper-secondary vocational schools (EC, 
2020b). Remote training during the COVID-19 epidemic 
has prompted the use of ICT in education and increased 
the need for it and has promoted additional investments 
for this purpose.103
 
Slovenia is also facing a considerable lack of 
workforce to cope with the challenges of a long-lived 
society, especially in the field of health and long-term 
care. The needs for some vocational profiles with upper 
secondary and tertiary education in the field health 
and long-term care are increasing due to the ageing of 
the population and additionally due to the COVID-19 
epidemic, and there is a shortage of appropriately 
trained personnel. Among high school profiles, there is a 
lack of staff with qualifications for health and social care 
(ESS, 2021a). This is associated with demanding working 
conditions and low pay for nursing and healthcare 
103 In 2021, the Government Office for Development and European 
Cohesion Policy approved European funds for the "REACT-EU – 
ICT" programme for the purchase of modern information and 
communication technology for educational institutions of EUR 16.2 
million, of which the European Regional Development Fund will 
contribute EUR 13.6 million (SVRK, 2021d).
the innovation leaders, the difference being mainly due 
to the lag in advanced digital skills (Figure 39 left). There 
are virtually no differences between women and men 
in the level of digital skills, but the low digital skills of 
the elderly, the low-educated,100 individuals with low 
income, immigrants, and the unemployed and inactive 
stand out (Figure 39 right) (Eurostat, 2022); as a result, the 
digitalisation that has accelerated after the outbreak of 
the COVID-19 epidemic will be an increasing difficulty for 
them in integrating into society and the labour market. 
The share of employees with at least basic digital skills, 
especially advanced ones, lags behind the innovation 
leaders, which is slowing the digital transformation 
of the economy and the lag behind these countries in 
terms of digitalisation (Section 1.2.2).101 In the future, the 
implementation of subsidised educational programmes 
intended to improve these skills is to contribute to 
improving the digital skills of residents,102 whereby it 
is essential to ensure the appropriate quality of such 
training. This would contribute to the achievement of 
the goal of the European Skills Agenda for sustainable 
competitiveness, social fairness and resilience (EC, 
2020h), which foresees, in terms of digital skills, that at 
least 70% of the population aged 16–74 should have 
at least basic digital skills by 2025, and the European 
Pillar of Social Rights target, according to which at least 
80% of the population aged 16–74 should attain at 
100 In Slovenia in 2019, 33% of the population aged 55–64 had at least 
basic digital skills (EU: 40%; innovation leaders: 59%), as did 16% of 
population aged 65–74 (EU: 24%; innovation leaders: 40%), 32% 
of population with low education (EU: 32%; innovation leaders: 
52%), 47% of population with upper secondary education (EU: 
54%; innovation leaders: 67 %), and 90% of population with tertiary 
education (EU: 84%; innovation leaders: 88%) (Eurostat, 2022). 
101 In 2019, the proportion of employees with at least basic digital skills 
was 67% in Slovenia (innovation leaders: 78%; EU: 69%), while 37% 
had well-developed digital skills (innovation leaders: 51%; EU: 40%) 
(Eurostat, 2022).
102 See The Digital Inclusion Act adopted in 2022 (ZSDV, 2022).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A
tt
en
d
in
g
 s
ch
oo
l, 
SI
A
tt
en
d
in
g
 s
ch
oo
l, 
IL
A
tt
en
d
in
g
 s
ch
oo
l, 
EU
Em
p
lo
ye
d
, S
I
Em
p
lo
ye
d
, I
L
Em
p
lo
ye
d
, E
U
U
ne
m
p
lo
ye
d
, S
I
U
ne
m
p
lo
ye
d
, I
L
U
ne
m
p
lo
ye
d
, E
U
In
ac
ti
ve
, S
I
In
ac
ti
ve
, I
L
In
ac
ti
ve
, E
U
In
 %
Share of individuals with at least basic computer 
skills, 2019
Basic digital skills Very good digital skills
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
N
et
he
rl
an
d
s
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
G
er
m
an
y
In
no
va
ti
on
 le
ad
er
s
Lu
xe
m
b
ou
rg
A
us
tr
ia
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Es
to
n
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Sp
ai
n
Fr
an
ce EU
Li
th
ua
ni
a
M
al
ta
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Ir
el
an
d
C
ro
at
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
G
re
ec
e
H
un
ga
ry
C
yp
ru
s
Po
la
nd
La
tv
ia
It
al
y
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
 %
Share of individuals aged 16–74 with at least basic 
digital skills, 2019
Basic digital skills Very good digital skills
 Figure 39: Average digital skills of the population in Slovenia (left) and low digital skills of the unemployed and inactive 
(right)
Source: Eurostat (2022). Notes: 1The figure to the right shows residents regardless of age. 2SI – Slovenia, IL –innovation leaders according to the European Innovation 
Index 2021 (Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden).
Learning for and through life62 Development report 2022
of family physicians, allowances were introduced in the 
amount of 20% of the hourly rate of the basic salary 
of a specialist in choosing a specialisation in family 
medicine (ZNUPZ, 2021). In the same year, by easing the 
conditions regarding the knowledge of the Slovenian 
language (ZZdrS-I, 2022), a step was made in the 
direction of easier employment of doctors from abroad. 
In addition to ensuring access to healthcare (see Section 
3.2), it is also important to develop health literacy, which 
is crucial for the empowerment and active participation 
of individuals in caring for their own health. In Slovenia, 
the National Institute of Public Health is implementing 
the project Raising Health Literacy in Slovenia (ZaPiS) 
(NIJZ, 2022c). 
staff in long-term care and healthcare (see Section 3.1), 
which discourages employment in these professions in 
the face of a general labour shortage. The reduction in 
the number of staff with upper secondary education in 
health and welfare in recent years has also contributed 
to the shortage of staff, which is related to smaller 
generations of young people (demographic changes) 
as well as to their lower interest in these professions.104 
The number of adults enrolled in such training has 
also been declining in recent years, so people should 
be more encouraged to enrol in these programmes 
and such education made more affordable. Immigrant 
women who are not employed also represent a potential 
source of labour in these occupations, so it is necessary 
to adjust the measures for their greater work activity. In 
healthcare, there is a shortage of tertiary educated staff 
– the number of health graduates has even decreased 
in recent years, and their share, along with the share of 
health and welfare graduates, therefore remained one of 
the lowest in the EU in 2019 (Figure 40 left). Therefore, 
given the otherwise great interest of young people 
in the study of medicine and nursing, it is necessary 
to increase the number of enrolment places in higher 
education (Figure 40 left). Encouragement of doctors 
to specialise in areas where the shortage is most acute 
(such as family medicine) also requires more attention, 
as the Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia (2021b) 
points out.105 In 2021, in order to increase the number 
104 The share of young people enrolled in health and welfare in the 
academic year 2020/2021 was the lowest in the period 2015/2016–
2020/2021 (SURS, 2022b).
105 The Ministry of Health and the Medical Chamber of Slovenia did not 
make sufficient effort to determine the actual needs for doctors, nor 
to determine the reasons for their possible lack (Court of Audit of the 
Republic of Slovenia, 2021b).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
N
um
be
r
Enrolment places and applications of candidates, 
medicine and nursing, full-time study
Integrated master programme in (general) medicine, enrolment places
Integrated master programme in (general) medicine, applications
Professional higher education in nursing, enrolment places
Professional higher education in nursing, applications
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Be
lg
iu
m
Sw
ed
en
Fi
nl
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
M
al
ta
Sp
ai
n
Po
la
nd
Po
rt
ug
al
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Ire
la
nd  E
U
Fr
an
ce
Ita
ly
Cr
oa
tia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Es
to
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
Ro
m
an
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
A
us
tr
ia
H
un
ga
ry
G
er
m
an
y
Cy
pr
us
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
In
 %
Welfare
Health
Inter-disciplinary programmes and qualifications involving
Share of health and welfare graduates in the total number of 
tertiary education graduates, 2019
health and welfare
 Figure 40: Low share of health and welfare graduates (left) and many years of large surplus of applications for the study of 
medicine and nursing* in relation to the number of places available (right)
Sources: Eurostat (2022) (figure to the left) and MIZŠ (2022a) (figure to the right). Note: *The figure on the right shows the number of enrolment places and applications 
of candidates for full-time study of medicine at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Ljubljana and general medicine at the Faculty of Medicine of the University 
of Maribor and the number of enrolment places and applications of candidates for full-time study of nursing at the Faculty of Health of the University of Ljubljana, 
Faculty of Health Sciences of the University of Maribor, Faculty of Health Sciences (Izola), Faculty of Health Sciences (Nova Gorica) of the University of Primorska, Faculty 
of Health Sciences Novo Mesto and Faculty of Health Angela Boškin. Displayed data apply to the first application deadline.
Learning for and through life 63Development report 2022
encourages residents to actively engage in cultural 
activity and develop their creativity and connecting 
between generations. Containment measures in 2020 
had an impact on the sharp decline in attendance at 
cultural events and the average number of visits per 
capita, which deviated significantly from the SDS 2030 
target (Indicator 2.7). The COVID-19 epidemic in 2020 
and 2021 highlighted the importance of digitalising 
cultural heritage, where greater steps would be needed 
(Europeana, 2022). These are also needed in the field 
of cultural heritage conservation, where strengthening 
public funds for this purpose could have beneficial 
effects.109 The inclusion of selected Plečnik works in 
Ljubljana on the UNESCO World Cultural and Natural 
Heritage List in 2021 is also important for its preservation 
and recognition (MK, 2021b). It is also important to 
enable and promote the development of non-majority 
cultures, which is important for their development and 
preservation and the promotion of cultural diversity. 
Various cultural activities of Roma (Government Office 
for National Minorities, 2021) and minority members 
(MK, 2022; Government Office for National Minorities, 
2019) are carried out in Slovenia to this end. 
Young people’s interest in culture has increased 
over the years; the epidemic has curtailed cultural 
and artistic education in cultural institutions and 
promoted cultural and artistic education online. 
Engaging and actively participating in cultural and 
artistic activities offers young people the opportunity 
to enjoy and develop their personal, social and cultural 
109 See the Act Providing Funds for Certain Urgent Cultural Programmes in 
the Republic of Slovenia (ZZSDNPK, 2019). 
Prior to the COVID-19 epidemic, the offer of cultural 
content was favourable, but in 2020 the epidemic 
had a markedly negative impact on their accessibility 
and attendance, and the resulting gap was partially 
filled by digitalisation. The offer of cultural events was 
relatively good before the epidemic and attendance 
was mostly increasing, but in 2020 it decreased 
significantly due to restrictions on the operation 
of cultural institutions and the gathering of people 
outdoors. Cultural institutions have severely curtailed 
their activities (Figure 41 left), which has been reflected 
in a sharp decline in attendance at cultural events and 
exhibitions (Indicator 2.7). In part, the gap in the supply 
of cultural content has been bridged by the web,106 but 
this cannot replace the live experience. On the positive 
side, in terms of the accessibility of culture, cultural 
institutions have organised a number of free events 
(SURS, 2022b). In 2021, in order to encourage cultural 
visits and support creators and organisers in culture, the 
possibility of using so-called tourist vouchers for culture 
was added.107 Despite the epidemic, some important 
activities were carried out in the field of culture.108 
Following previous mostly favourable trends, the 
epidemic in 2020 also curtailed amateur activity, which 
106 Cultural institutions with stage activity held 3,974 e-events and 
museums and galleries organized 185 e-exhibitions, which had 
650,605 visits (SURS, 2022b). 
107 For more details, see Decree on the method of redeeming vouchers 
for the improving of economic situation in the field of tourism, sports 
and culture consumption, reimbursement of funds through the 
information system of the Financial Administration of the Republic of 
Slovenia and keeping and managing voucher records (2021). 
108 E.g. opening of the renovated Cukrarna in 2021 (Cukrarna, 2021), many 
activities in the field of film were carried out by Kinoteka (2022) and in 
the field of theatre the Slovenian Theatre Institute (SLOGI, 2021). 
2.2 Culture 
 Culture and language as main factors of national identity (Development Goal 4):
The purpose of the goal is to preserve and develop the national culture and Slovenian language as factors of national 
identity, the country’s visibility, and social and economic progress. The achievement of the goal will be supported by 
the promotion of participation in culture, development and preservation of culture and cultural heritage, protection 
of cultural diversity, connection with Slovenians abroad, strengthening of cooperation between businesses and 
culture, and promotion of creativity and creative industries. In addition, the SDS 2030 refers to digitalisation as 
an important factor for the preservation and development of the Slovenian language and access to culture and 
international cultural collaboration as a means to increase the country’s visibility. Cultural participation contributes 
to the development of functional literacy, which is addressed in Development Goal 2, and to achieving a healthy and 
active lifestyle, which is addressed in Development Goal 1.
 Performance indicators for Development Goal 4:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
Attendance at cultural events, number per capita 2.0 (2020) N/A 8
Share of cultural events held abroad, in % 2.6 (2020) N/A 3.5
Open source language resources and tools, number 254 (2021) N/A 153
Learning for and through life64 Development report 2022
Youth Books Fair in Bologna in 2024 (JAK, 2021a) and the 
Frankfurt International Book Fair in 2023 (JAK, 2021b), 
in which Slovenia will participate as a guest of honour. 
Trends in the number of public library memberships 
and visits to public libraries, which play an important 
role in promoting literacy and book accessibility, and 
in meeting informational, educational and other needs 
of the population in local communities, were mostly 
unfavourable before the epidemic. In 2020, containment 
measures further reduced library membership and 
attendance, as well as the circulation of library materials 
(Figure 41 right). From the point of view of availability of 
books at the local level, it is encouraging that in 2020 the 
number of places with bibliobus stops increased (NUK, 
2022b). 
In the field of developing language resources 
and technologies,111 activities are carried out that 
contribute to the preservation and development of 
the Slovenian language. The Resolution on the National 
Programme for Language Policy 2014–2018 provided for 
a number of measures in this area, but these were not 
fully implemented in line with the goals (ReNPJP21–25, 
2021). In 2021, some projects were completed, while 
others were launched or continued (CJVT, 2022). The 
number of open available language resources and 
tools in the national CLARIN repository has increased, 
111 Language resources are a collective name for language manuals 
(dictionaries, grammar and spelling books, etc.) and linguistic 
collections (corpora and linguistic databases) that speakers use on a 
daily basis for independent and effective communication. Language 
technologies are a collective name for various computer tools and 
applications that use existing language (meta) data for solving users’ 
practical dilemmas related to language (speech recognition and 
synthesis systems, machine translation, machine-assisted translation, 
spelling and grammar checkers, automatic question answering 
systems, text mining, etc.) or for computer analysis of natural 
languages for the production of, in particular, digital language guides 
and other resources (MK, 2017). 
skills and creativity (see Section 2.1). According to the 
Youth 2020 survey (Lavrič et al., 2021) the shares of 
young people (15–29) interested in culture and of those 
engaged in culture and the arts increased between 2010 
and 2020.110 However, the share of young people who 
went to the cinema, theatre or a concert has decreased, 
which we associate with COVID-19 containment 
measures. Their attendance of this type of content online, 
however, was high. Cultural and artistic education plays 
an important role in promoting the interest of children 
and young people in culture and the arts. Cultural 
institutions conducted a range of educational activities 
for children and young people before the epidemic, 
but due to the epidemic in 2020, these activities were 
severely curtailed, resulting in fewer visits (SURS, 2022b); 
again, the gap was partly filled by the web. In 2020, the 
Children’s Programme (MDDSZ, 2020) was adopted, 
which includes a number of activities in the field of 
cultural and artistic education for children and the 
promotion of their creativity.
Trends in publishing and public libraries have been 
largely unfavourable for many years. In the field 
of publishing, the numbers of published book titles 
and the average circulation have mostly decreased 
since 2010, as has the number of publishers and the 
number of people in employment in publishing. In 
2020, the temporary physical closure of bookstores due 
to the epidemic and greater customer caution had an 
additional negative impact on publishing activity (NUK, 
2021 and 2022a) and reduced book sales revenue, which 
was the lowest in ten years (SURS, 2022b). In the coming 
years, publishing could be positively influenced by the 
promotion of Slovenian books at the Children’s and 
110 Active participation in cultural activities includes reading, music, 
dance, theatre, the fine arts, and written expression in the form of 
diaries, poems and letters.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Share of the
people that have a
library
membership (in %)
Number of visits
per capita
Number of
borrowed items
per member
Number of
borrowed items
per capita
Sh
ar
e 
(in
 %
)o
r n
u
m
b
er
2010 2019 2020
Membership, attendance and borrowing from public 
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Fi
lm
 a
nd
 v
id
eo
 s
cr
ee
ni
ng
s
D
ra
m
at
ic
 a
nd
 o
th
er
th
ea
tre
 w
or
ks M
us
ic
O
th
er
P
up
pe
t t
he
at
re
Fi
ne
 a
rt 
ex
hi
bi
tio
ns
 a
nd
ot
he
r v
is
ua
l a
rt 
ev
en
ts
Le
ct
ur
es
, r
ou
nd
 ta
bl
es
,
pa
ne
l d
is
cu
ss
io
ns
 in
 c
ul
tu
re
Li
te
ra
ry
 e
ve
ni
ng
s 
an
d
po
et
ry
 e
ve
ni
ng
s
C
on
te
m
po
ra
ry
 d
an
ce
In
te
rm
ed
ia
 a
rt 
ev
en
ts
Fo
lk
lo
re
 a
ct
iv
iti
es
E
xp
er
im
en
ta
l t
he
at
re
M
us
eu
m
 a
nd
 o
th
er
ex
hi
bi
tio
ns B
al
le
t
N
um
be
r
Number of events in institutions with stage activity
2020 2019 2016
 Figure 41: Marked reduction in the number of cultural events in 2020 (left) and negative trends in public libraries (right)
Sources: SURS (2022b) and NUK (2022b). Note: Stage activity on the stages of cultural centres, theatres and music institutions is included. Almost 98% of institutions 
with stage activity reduced their activity in 2020 (SURS, 2022b).
Learning for and through life 65Development report 2022
positive effects, as innovative practices in culture and 
creativity not only consolidate innovation capacity 
in the cultural and creative industries sector, but also 
spill over into new approaches, practices, services and 
products across the economy (CCIS, 2021). Compared 
internationally, Slovenia is also perceived as a stimulating 
environment for developing creativity (Box 5). In recent 
years, the Centre for Creativity has carried out numerous 
activities aimed at promoting the creative cultural 
industries, and its work continues in 2022 (MK, 2021a). 
The integration of science, art, technology and the 
economy is also promoted by the research art platforms 
KONS and RUK and as the Certificate Cultural Company 
project (Asociacija, 2021). Research on the impact of the 
COVID-19 epidemic on the lives and work of cultural 
and creative workers has shown that their workload and 
income have declined, leading to a deterioration in their 
economic and social situation. The epidemic did not 
affect all activities equally,113 but rather affected the non-
institutional part of culture, which on average is more 
subject to non-standard forms of employment. From the 
point of view of the further development of the cultural 
and creative sector, the adoption of the Resolution 
on the 2022–2029 National Programme for Culture is 
encouraging (ReNPK22–29, 2022), after culture had been 
without its national programme for several years.114
113 In 2021, the economic situation deteriorated the most for artists in 
the fields of music, photography, cultural and creative tourism, the 
performing arts, and fashion/textile design. On the other hand, the 
situation for artists has improved in some areas. Thus more than 30% 
of graphic designers, architects, media workers and programmers 
report that their economic situation has improved in 2021.
114 The National Programme for Culture 2014–2017 expired in 2017. 
reaching 254 at the end of 2021 (CLARIN, 2021) (the SDS 
2030 target was 153). In the future, the preservation 
and development of the Slovenian language will be 
positively influenced by the implementation of the 
Resolution on the National Programme for Language 
Policy 2021–2025 (ReNPJP21–25, 2021), adopted in 2021, 
the basic aim of which is to ensure a quality language 
life for all. In order to ensure the rights of persons with 
hearing impairments at all levels of society, especially 
in the field of sign language development, education 
and employment, the incorporation of the right to free 
use and development of Slovene sign language into 
the Constitution in 2021 is of great importance (UZ62a, 
2021). 
In 2020 and 2021, the epidemic also hampered 
the functioning of the cultural and creative sector, 
which could weaken its potential and role in social 
and economic development. The cultural and creative 
sector plays an important role in ensuring the quality 
of life of the population and in local development, 
revitalisation of rural and urban areas, tourism, and 
economic development. It creates new jobs, income and 
value added. The latter was demonstrated for Slovenia 
in a study by Murovec et al. (2020). The contribution of 
cultural activity, expressed as a share of value added 
in gross domestic product (GDP), was 1.1% in 2014–
2019 and 1.0% of GDP in 2020112 (SURS, 2021e). The 
link between culture and the economy also has many 
112 In calculating the contribution of culture to GDP, so-called pure 
cultural activities without indirect effects on other activities were 
considered (SURS, 2021e).
 Box 5: Ranking of Slovenia in the Creative Barometer 2020
In international comparison, Slovenia is perceived as a stimulating environment for the development of 
creativity. In 2020, the Zavod Big and the Centre for Creativity (2021) produced for the first time their so-called 
Creative Barometer 2020, which is a way of measuring the creativity of countries. Creativity is understood as a 
mental ability of an individual to create something new and original, which is recognised by the community as 
valuable regardless of its economic potential. The Creative Barometer measures the creativity of countries with 
the help of qualitative and quantitative indicators of creativity, mostly with data for 2019. Qualitative indicators 
are international awards in the fields of architecture, interior design, product design and fashion.1 Quantitative 
indicators2 are complementary indicators of creativity that do not contribute to the final classification of countries 
but provide a deeper insight into the position of the cultural and creative sector of a particular country. The Creative 
Barometer 2020 covered 19 countries in South Eastern Europe.3 Slovenia ranked in a strong fifth place after Italy, 
Austria, Turkey and the Czech Republic in terms of the share of international awards received by creators in the field 
of architecture, interior design, product design and fashion in 2019. Quantitative indicators also show that Slovenia 
offers a stimulating environment for the development of creativity. The country has the second largest share of 
artists who have participated in the Artists Abroad programme. Of the 19 participating countries, it was chosen 
eighth most often by the artists who took part in the Artists Abroad programme. Slovenia also ranked eighth in 
terms of the number of companies in the cultural sector and the share of self-employed artists.
1 For more details on the awards included in the Creative Barometer, see Zavod Big and Centre for Creativity (2021).
2 Quantitative indicators included in the Creative Barometer are population, GDP per capita, share of population (15–64) with tertiary education, 
mobility of artists, number of artists, writers, journalists and linguists, share of self-employed artists, writers, journalists and linguists, and number 
of companies in the cultural sector.
3 These countries are: Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Montenegro, Greece, Croatia, Italy, Kosovo, 
Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Republic of North Macedonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia and Turkey.
Learning for and through life66 Development report 2022
Total expenditure on culture declined in real terms 
in 2020, while the number of people in employment 
in culture increased again in 2021 after declining in 
2020. After increasing in real terms from 2017 to 2019, 
government spending on culture fell in 2020. Within 
culture, expenditure on radio, television and publishing 
services declined, while expenditure on cultural services 
increased.116 Despite the real and nominal decline, with 
a further decline in GDP, government expenditure on 
culture, expressed as a share of GDP, increased slightly 
in 2020 and amounted to 1.0% thereof 117 (SURS, 2022b). 
This was one of the lowest levels in the last ten years, but 
still higher than the EU average (0.7% of GDP) (Eurostat, 
2022).118 Private consumption on culture declined 
significantly in 2020 due to COVID-19 containment 
measures, after rising in 2018 and 2019. The containment 
measures in 2020 also had the effect of reducing the 
number of people employed in culture after several years 
of increase. In 2021, however, their number increased 
again;119 in the field of culture, however, it declined in the 
visual arts and again in publishing (SURS, 2022b).
116 According to the purpose, among the main expenditure groups, 
compensation of employees, which accounts for half of all expenditure 
in the structure of cultural expenditure, and gross investment also 
increased in 2020, while intermediate consumption and subsidies, 
which account for a relatively small share in the structure of 
expenditure, decreased.
117 Expenditure on culture consists of expenditure on cultural services 
and expenditure on radio, television and publishing. Expenditure on 
cultural services amounted to 0.7% of GDP in 2020, while expenditure 
on radio, television and publishing amounted to 0.3% of GDP.
118 In 2020, the population of Slovenia spent an average of EUR 177 on 
culture (2019: EUR 218) (SURS, 2021e).
119 In 2021, there were 2,858 employed persons in culture, and their 
number was 1.9% higher than in 2019 (SURS, 2022b).
Due to the COVID-19 epidemic, there were fewer 
opportunities for international cultural activities in 
2020 and 2021. International cooperation in the field 
of culture and its promotion abroad contribute to the 
international recognition of culture and Slovenia as a 
country abroad and play an important role in diplomacy 
and international relations. In recent years, numerous 
activities have been carried out to increase the promotion 
of culture abroad, and Slovenian artists participated in 
numerous international cultural events abroad (MZZ, 
2020) in 2020 too, though the volume of such activities 
had decreased (MZZ, 2021b).115 The number of hosts of 
cultural events abroad also declined, and the share of 
cultural events held abroad in 2020 decreased, moving 
away from the SDS 2030 target (Indicator 2.8), while 
some planned international events were postponed 
(IMAD, 2021c). In 2021, artists from Slovenia participated 
in some major international cultural events abroad 
(Expo 2020 and Venice Biennale of Architecture). 
Cultural events organised by Slovenia in the framework 
of the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the EU 
also contributed to the promotion of Slovenian culture 
(UKOM, 2021). Activities continued in the framework of 
the preparation of the European Capital of Culture 2025 
event, which will be hosted by Nova Gorica and Gorizia 
(GO! 2025, 2022) and which are important for cultural and 
social cooperation on the border, tourism development, 
and the quality of life of the border population. In 2021, 
some activities important for the Slovenian minorities in 
Italy and Austria were also carried out, but there are also 
certain shortcomings in the exercising of their minority 
rights (Janežič, 2021; Kavčič, 2021; Vidau, 2021).
115 From the joint fund, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry 
of Culture, in cooperation with the diplomatic and consular missions 
of the Republic of Slovenia abroad, supported 91 cultural and artistic 
projects, of which, however, only slightly more than 60 were carried 
out due to the pandemic.
An inclusive, healthy, safe 
and responsible society
Due to the high number of deaths during the epidemic, life expectancy 
at birth in 2020 has fallen by one year. The impact of the epidemic on the 
health status of the population is most worrying in some areas that have 
already faced considerable challenges in recent years: the mental health 
of all generations, especially children, health inequalities and an increase 
in non-communicable chronic diseases. Difficulties due to limited access 
to health services during the epidemic were somewhat mitigated by the 
use of e-health services, which has increased significantly in the last two 
years. In 2021, several measures were adopted to improve the situation 
at the primary level and the Long-Term Care Act was finally adopted 
after 12 years of preparation. Interim and mid-term measures to improve 
the resilience of healthcare and long-term care systems were also 
adopted and supported with increases in the expenditure from the state 
budget. In the long term, it will be essential to ensure sufficient staff and 
sustainable financing for both systems. The health risk factors related to 
environmental pollution are improving. The opportunities for an active 
and healthy life are good in Slovenia. However, in the last two years the 
lifestyle of adults has deteriorated and the motor fitness of children has 
decreased. The accessibility of leisure time activities was also limited. 
During the epidemic, life satisfaction has decreased slightly, while 
interpersonal trust has increased. The Gender Equality Index has fallen 
slightly since 2017 (mainly due to low political participation of women) 
and discrimination has increased. 
In the last two years, the measures taken to mitigate the impact of 
the epidemic facilitated a rise in the total disposable income of the 
population and mitigated the impact of the crisis in the labour market. 
Slovenia is thus among the countries with the lowest employment 
reduction in this period, which contributed to further increases in 
personnel expenditures (the wage bill) and disposable income. In 2020, 
income inequalities in Slovenia (based on 2019 income) remained 
among the lowest in the EU and within the SDS target, while the 
improvement in the material well-being and financial sustainability of 
households continues to pose a challenge, particularly for people in the 
3
lowest income bracket, who often also face severe housing deprivation. 
According to the EU-SILC 2020 survey (based on 2019 income), the risks 
of poverty and social exclusion and severe material and social deprivation 
have increased slightly, but Slovenia nevertheless maintained a position 
better than the EU average. These risks have increased for those social 
groups that have been facing various forms of deprivation for years 
(pensioners, in particular older women and low-educated older people, 
the unemployed, single-person households, persons with various forms 
of limitations, and other vulnerable or marginalised groups) and would 
need targeted measures. During the epidemic, young people and people 
with insecure jobs were exposed to greater labour market uncertainty, 
but in 2021 the status of the most affected groups in the labour market 
already improved. Due to the fast growth of the minimum wage in 
recent years, Slovenia has one of the highest minimum-to-average wage 
ratio among EU Member States. This is reflected in small differences in 
wages and in the great concentration of workers with a salary near the 
minimum wage, which can be unstimulating for certain groups and 
could cause problems in the adequate remuneration of certain low-
educated staff.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 69Development report 2022
Due to the epidemic, the long-term trend of 
population health gain was halted. In 2010–2019, the 
key indicators of health status of the population were 
improving, which was related to advances in medicine 
and improving quality in healthcare, along with a range 
of other factors, such as income growth, raising education 
levels and the population being better informed. In this 
period, the life expectancy at birth increased by 1.8 years, 
while in 2020 it fell by 1 year (EU: 0.7 years), mostly due 
to the high mortality rate caused by COVID-19120 (see 
Indicator 3.3). In 2020, Slovenia had the highest number 
of deaths in the age group of 65 years and older and 
the second highest number of deaths (after Belgium) 
among people aged 85 and older, which was due to a 
very high mortality rate among the residents of care 
homes (OECD, 2021i). In 2020 and 2021, 2,823 people 
per million died with COVID-19 in Slovenia,121 which 
is more than in the majority of EU Member States. The 
excess mortality, which includes deaths caused directly 
by COVID-19 and all other deaths, in 2020 was also 
among the highest in the EU (Eurostat, 2022), while the 
total of both years was among the highest ten (ECDC, 
2022a) (Figure 42). Experts estimate (NIJZ, 2021) that 
lower accessibility of healthcare services122 (see Section 
120 In 2020, COVID-19 was the primary cause of death (13%), surpassing 
stroke, ischemic heart disease and lung cancer.
121 In 2020, 3,130 people died with COVID-19 in Slovenia and in 2021 a 
further 3,093, with almost equal numbers of women and men. Of all 
deaths, 43.6% were in the age group of over 85 years and 92.3% in the 
age group of over 65 years (NIJZ, 2022a).
122 The results of the SI-PANDA 2020/21 survey, conducted from the end 
of 2020 to 15 March 2021, show that contact with doctors decreased 
considerably, with 31–35% respondents refraining from visiting the 
3.1 A healthy and active life
3.2) during the epidemic will result in the worsening of 
chronic non-communicable diseases and mental health 
among the population. It is very likely that the healthy 
life expectancy, in which Slovenia lags behind the EU 
average (Indicator 3.1), will also go down.
Over the past decade, Slovenia has made significant 
progress in reducing treatable mortality, but less 
in reducing preventable mortality that can be 
avoided through effective public health and primary 
prevention interventions. In 2018 (most recent data 
available), 23 fewer people died in Slovenia due to 
causes that could have been avoided with timely and 
efficient healthcare (including screening programmes 
and treatment) than in 2011 and 15 fewer than the EU 
average. This indicator shows that healthcare is relatively 
effective with regard to treatment, especially in view of 
the relatively lower investment in healthcare than in the 
countries achieving comparable results (Indicator 3.6). 
Despite improvements, Slovenia still lags behind the 
EU average in the mortality preventable by enhanced 
primary prevention and public health measures. This is 
mostly related to the prevalence of unhealthy lifestyle, 
which is also the reason for the heavy burden of chronic 
diseases (circulatory diseases, diabetes and cancer123). 
doctor for problems unrelated to COVID-19. Of those with chronic 
diseases, 30–41% avoided seing a doctor, while this proportion was 
47–63% among those with depressive disorders.
123 According to the estimates of international institutions, Slovenia 
ranked 8th in the EU in terms of cancer prevalence and 7th in terms 
of mortality rate in 2020 (these estimates are based on data from 
the ECIS (European Cancer Information System) and were made in 
collaboration with the Joint Research Centre, the European Network 
 A healthy and active life (Development Goal 1):
The goal is to ensure a quality life for all generations by promoting a healthy and active life. Achieving this goal will 
require raising awareness of the importance of a healthy lifestyle and mental health, preventing risky behaviour, 
strengthening prevention, reducing health risks from environmental pollution and climate change, and promoting 
sustainable consumption, intergenerational cohesion and gender equality. With demographic change, it will be 
an even greater challenge to maintain sustainable social protection systems that ensure adequate pensions and 
a high level of access to healthcare and long-term care and contribute to reducing health inequalities. In order to 
achieve this goal, it is also important to create conditions for a decent life of all generations, which is addressed by 
Development Goal 3.
 Performance indicators for Development Goal 1:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
Healthy life years at birth, number of years
Men: 60.8 years;
77.3% of life expectancy
(2019)
Men: 64.2 years
81.8% of life expectancy 
(2019)
Men: 64.5
(80% of life expectancy)
Women: 61.2 years;
72.4% of life expectancy
(2019)
Women: 65.1 years 
77.5% of life expectancy
(2019)
Women: 64.5
(75% of life expectancy)
Gender Equality Index, index 67.7 (0–100)
(2020)
67.9 (0–100)
(2020) > 78
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society70 Development report 2022
years to the expansion of health promotion centres, 
referential clinics, and counselling and screening 
services at the primary healthcare level. Further progress 
will also require the introduction of integrated long-term 
care and an increase in employers’ investment in health 
(see Section 3.2).
According to various indicators, health inequalities 
decreased between 2007 and 2019 but have since 
then increased again as a result of the COVID-19 
epidemic. Between 2007 and 2019, the health gap in 
relation to education narrowed in some indicators (e.g. 
life expectancy at the age of 20, premature mortality, 
men’s self-perceived health, smoking prevalence 
and suicide mortality) and widened in others (e.g. 
lung cancer mortality and depressive disorders) or 
remained unchanged (NIJZ, 2021). The COVID-19 
epidemic increased health inequalities again, because 
it most affected the people in socially less privileged 
environments, those with lower income and lower 
education, and various other vulnerable groups. The 
main reasons for this were poor living conditions, poor 
basic health, lower response to testing and vaccination, 
and various obstacles to healthcare accessibility (OECD, 
2021i). The use of remote healthcare services, which has 
contributed significantly to a safer access to healthcare 
and general accessibility during the epidemic (see 
Section 3.2 and Box 9), presented an additional obstacle 
to these population groups. The users of eHealth and 
mHealth services125 are two to three times more likely to 
125 eHealth covers the provision of remote healthcare services and 
the introduction of e-referrals, e-medical records and digital 
communication in healthcare. Mobile health or mHealth is the 
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
n
la
n
d
G
er
m
an
y
Ir
el
an
d
A
u
st
ri
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Lu
xe
m
b
o…
Fr
an
ce
La
tv
ia
Es
to
n
ia
Po
rt
u
g
al
Li
th
u
an
ia
G
re
ec
e
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
Sp
ai
n
C
yp
ru
s
C
ro
at
ia
H
u
n
g
ar
y
It
al
y
M
al
ta
Sl
o
ve
n
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Sl
o
va
ki
a
Po
la
n
d
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
 %
In
 %
Excess mortality (in %, left axis)
COVID-19 deaths as a share in excess mortality (in %, right axis)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d
G
er
m
an
y
Ire
la
nd
A
us
tr
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Fr
an
ce
La
tv
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Li
th
ua
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sp
ai
n
Cy
pr
us
Cr
oa
tia
H
un
ga
ry
Ita
ly
M
al
ta
Sl
ov
en
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Po
la
nd
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
 %
In
 %
Excess mortality (in %, left axis)
COVID-19 deaths as a share in excess mortality (in %, right axis)
 Figure 42: Excess mortality1 was very high in Slovenia in 2020 and 2021 (left – Slovenia by months;2 right – the 2020–2021 
average in EU Member States3)
Sources: SURS (2022b), Eurostat (2022), ECDC (2022a); calculations by IMAD. Notes: 1Excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 is the ratio between the number of deaths due 
to all causes of death in 2020 or 2021 and the average for the 2015–2019 period. 2Figure left – values calculated from weekly data, as gathered by Eurostat and ECDC; 
population data by ECDC. Reported COVID-19 deaths depend on the ability of countries to capture and monitor all infections. Here they are presented together with 
the excess deaths, as significant differences occur in certain countries, which could result from the fact that the number of excess deaths was considerably lower due 
to the lockdown of the country (e.g. fewer traffic and work-related accidents) or greater due to inaccessible healthcare services. 3Figure right – the horizontal line 
represents the point where the number of COVID-19 deaths would equal excess mortality (100%).
Lung cancer and alcohol-related diseases predominate 
(OECD/EOHSP, 2021a). The rate of preventable alcohol-
related deaths is almost twice as high as the EU average 
and Slovenia is also near the top among EU Member 
States in adult obesity (see Indicator 3.8).124 In 2018, 
Slovenia was also above the EU average in the number of 
15-year-olds who occasionally overindulged in alcohol, 
and there was an increase in the number of 15-year-
olds who had used marijuana at least once in the last 
30 days or who were overweight (OECD and EU, 2020). 
Health risk factors related to environmental pollution 
in Slovenia are improving, but air pollution, which 
poses the greatest risk to health (respiratory diseases, 
lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases) in developed 
countries, is significantly above the OECD average and 
exceeds the limit to which it is acceptable according 
to WHO guidelines (see Indicator 4.13 and Section 4.2) 
(OECD, 2017b). Several studies have shown that chronic 
diseases are an important risk factor for a severe course 
of COVID-19 (OECD/EU, 2021i), so additional measures to 
reduce the risky behaviour of the population, especially 
with regard to obesity and smoking, are increasingly at 
the forefront of health policy recommendations (Chu et 
al., 2020; Hoong et al., 2021; Hopkinson et al.; 2021). Due 
to the increasing number of cases of chronic diseases, 
Slovenia has been paying special attention for several 
of Cancer Registries and the International Agency for Research on 
Cancer).
124 A study (OECD, 2019k) demonstrates very serious economic 
consequences of obesity. If the trends remain the same, they would 
amount to 3.1% of GDP on average in Slovenia (EU-23: 3.3%) in 2020–
2050. The estimate takes into account the direct costs of the healthcare 
system, the reduction in life expectancy and the indirect costs due to 
the impact on the labour market. 
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 71Development report 2022
opened in 2021 (ZNUPZ, 2021). Remote schooling has 
significantly increased the mental distress of children 
and adolescents. In January 2021, paediatricians drew 
attention to the more than 30% increase in cases 
at paediatric psychiatric wards, and a similarly high 
increase was recorded in other institutions providing 
psychological help to children and adolescents. Young 
people are suffering from more anxiety disorders, panic 
attacks, obsessive compulsive disorders, eating disorders 
and behavioural problems.129 Data for Belgium, France 
and the USA show that in 2020, the incidence of anxiety 
and depressive disorders among young people was 30–
80% greater than in the population as a whole (OECD, 
2021i). Pursuant to the Resolution on the National Mental 
Health Programme 2018–2028, the action plan for 2022 
and 2023 was adopted in March 2022; this transfers the 
core of mental health services to the primary healthcare 
level (Government of the RS, 2022a). 
According to the Gender Equality Index (GEI), the 
position of women in Slovenia has worsened in the 
last three years, mainly because of the lower political 
participation of women. Until 2017, Slovenia had 
progressed faster than the majority of EU Member States 
in terms of the GEI. However, the trend has reversed 
since then and in 2021 Slovenia fell behind the EU 
average. Slovenia is the only EU Member State where the 
GEI score was lower in 2021 than the year before and the 
only country where the trend had decreased for the third 
year in a row (see Indicator 3.2). This was mainly due to 
the worsening situation with regard to the dimension of 
power (lower share of female deputies and women in 
management boards and public media organisations) 
and the dimension of work as a result of gender 
segregation by sectors and occupations.130 The COVID-19 
epidemic placed an additional disproportionate burden 
on women and increased the existing inequalities (EIGE, 
2021b; EC, 2021a, 2021q; EP, 2021a; Eurofound, 2021c).
In 2018, the satisfaction with work-life balance 
was slightly above the EU average and during the 
COVID-19 epidemic balancing work and life was less 
difficult for people in Slovenia than for an average 
EU citizen.131 A good work-life balance has a positive 
effect on the health and satisfaction of employees 
(Humer et al., 2016; Barbara Kresal and Kresal Šoltes, 
2016). In 2018, more people were satisfied with their 
work-life balance in Slovenia than the EU average 
(Slovenia: 81%, EU: 78%) and men were more satisfied 
than women (Eurobarometer, 2018a). In addition to the 
length of working time, the organisation of working 
time (regularity and predictability and atypical working 
hours) and working environment also have a significant 
impact on the work-life balance. High-intensity work and 
related stress can have a negative effect on private life, 
129 For more details, see the Human Rights Ombudsman (2021). 
130 The data on power dimension are for 2020, while the data on work 
dimension are for 2019 (EIGE, 2021b).
131 The study was conducted in April 2020, July 2020 and March 2021 
(Eurofound, 2020b).
have better education and higher incomes than socially 
and economically disadvantaged people, even though 
on average the health of the latter is poorer (EC, 2021b; 
OECD, 2019a). Since October 2019, a project has been 
carried out to improve the health literacy of vulnerable 
groups and facilitate patients’ navigation of the 
healthcare system, which will serve as a basis for drafting 
the national strategy for health literacy (MZ, 2022d).
The COVID-19 epidemic is exacerbating mental 
health problems and the mental distress of children 
and adolescents has also increased significantly. The 
prevalence of mental health problems has increased in 
Slovenia and other developed countries over the last 
decade (OECD and EU, 2018; IMAD, 2019e). In 2019, 
5.7% of the population (EU: 6.5%) sought help from a 
psychiatrist, psychologist or psychotherapist; Slovenia 
deviated from the EU average especially in terms of 
the high share of women (NIJZ, 2020).126 The suicide 
rate, which has fallen considerably in the last decade,127 
was still noticeably higher than the EU average in 
2019 (Slovenia: 19; EU: 11 per 100,000 population) 
and markedly high among men. In 2020, the number 
of suicides further decreased slightly, i.e. to 17.5 per 
100,000 population (NIJZ, 2022b). The COVID-19 
epidemic led to further deterioration in the mental 
health of the population, in particular due to an increase 
in the incidence of depression, anxiety, addiction, 
burnout, fear, feelings of anger, domestic violence, 
child abuse and suicide (WHO, 2020). The prevalence of 
anxiety and depressive disorders in EU Member States 
increased by 24% in 2020 (Santomauro et al., 2021). 
In addition, one-third of patients who had recovered 
from a severe case of COVID-19 have problems with 
concentration and cognitive abilities, and the disease 
also increases the risk of anxiety, sleep disorders and 
dementia (NIJZ, 2021; Taquet et al., 2021). In Slovenia, 
community health centres and various other institutions 
established a network for psychological support, which 
is accessible to all by telephone. However, for quite some 
time there has been a severe shortage of psychiatrists 
and clinical psychologists to help people with major 
problems (NIJZ, 2020).128 Therefore, an additional 30 
posts for specialisation in clinical psychology were 
component of eHealth that includes the use of all mobile devices 
and applications intended for health and well-being for informative 
public health purposes or for the remote treatment and monitoring of 
patients (EC, 2021h).
126 According to the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS).
127 In recent decades, the suicide rate has decreased by more than 30% 
in Slovenia; it has also decreased in other EU Member States (NIJZ, 
2019a).
128 According to the EHIS, only 2.1% of respondents visited a psychologist, 
psychotherapist or psychiatrist in 2014 (EU: 5.5%); the highest 
proportions of those who visited such specialists were in Germany 
(9.4%) and Denmark (10.4%). There are 15 psychiatrists per 100,000 
population in Slovenia, which is nearly half the figure for Germany 
(27.5) and less than the EU the average (17.5). In 2015, Slovenia’s public 
sector employed 15 psychologists per 100,000 population, whereas 
this number ranges between 100 and 150 in the Western European 
EU Member States (it is generally below 50 in the Eastern European 
countries) (Eurostat, 2022). 
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society72 Development report 2022
 Box 6: Healthcare system resilience
The epidemic pointed out the importance of the resilience of healthcare systems and the long-term benefits 
of investments in healthcare. The resilience of a healthcare system is defined as the ability to respond to and 
manage shocks (OECD/EOHSP, 2021b). Many measures have been adopted over a relatively short period to manage 
the COVID-19 epidemic and support the functioning of the healthcare system. However, better preparedness for 
urgent health situations requires long-term planning of labour and increased investments in the healthcare system. 
Furthermore, megatrends such as population ageing and technological progress add to the needs of healthcare 
and social protection. New technologies, digitalisation and artificial intelligence will lead to a demand for new 
knowledge but will not significantly reduce the demand for services in these sectors. After the epidemic, the higher 
levels of public healthcare expenditure will have to be maintained and the long-term sustainable financing of 
healthcare and long-term care (LTC) will have to be ensured. The countries where healthcare systems are mainly 
financed from the contributions of the active population and are thus more vulnerable with regard to fluctuations 
in salaries and employment rate should also consider a more sustainable structure of healthcare financing resources 
in the long term (IMAD, 2019a).
Slovenia entered the epidemic with underfinanced and understaffed healthcare and long-term care systems. 
In 2019, Slovenia achieved 89% of the EU average1 and a mere 68% of the average of the old EU Member States 
(EU-14), which are considered more developed, in terms of total health expenditure per capita (see Indicator 3.6). It 
lagged further behind in LTC, which can significantly contribute to the reduction in the need for healthcare services: 
public expenditure per capita only reached 62% of the EU average and 37% of the EU-14 average (see Indicator 3.7). 
The consequences of the lack of financial resources are reflected in understaffing, long waiting times and unmet 
healthcare (see Indicator 3.4) and long-term care needs (IMAD, 2021a). The greatest healthcare problem is a shortage 
of doctors at the primary level and of registered nurses at all healthcare levels; in hospitals, the shortage is especially 
severe in the most challenging wards and intensive care units, despite the increased recruitment.2 In residential 
care homes, staffing standards have been too low for many years, as the proportion of people that need the most 
demanding care keeps increasing. There are not enough nurses trained to work with older and frail patients and 
there is a severe shortage of nursing staff. The shortage of staff is reflected in the international comparison of the 
volume of employment in healthcare and social protection,3 which is significantly lower than in the majority of EU 
and OECD members (OECD, 2021i, p. 202).
Several temporary measures were introduced to manage the staffing situation during the epidemic, but 
to improve the resilience of the healthcare system in the long term, staffing in healthcare needs to be 
planned appropriately and working conditions need to be improved. The main temporary measures were 
staff reassignments, salary supplements, remote care, temporary mobilisation of retired staff and voluntary work. 
Like in other countries, the epidemic revealed the need for long-term solutions to the shortage of healthcare staff. 
The proposals include preparing the model projections of labour in healthcare with regard to both volume and 
structure; additionally training healthcare staff for work with new digital technologies; training staff for work with 
older multimorbid patients;4 and improving conditions for work and introducing incentives to attract more young 
people into the profession (OECD/EOHSP, 2021b). 
A very important short-term measure to improve the resilience of the healthcare system is vaccination against 
COVID-19. The vaccination successfully prevents the more severe course of the disease and reduces mortality (OECD, 
2022a). Countries with a greater share of vaccinated population had a smaller share of patients hospitalised due to 
COVID-19 in the fourth and fifth waves, which helped maintain the accessibility and functioning of the healthcare 
system for other patients and resulted in fewer COVID-19 patients dying. By the middle of March 2022, only 68% of 
Slovenia’s population was vaccinated with two doses, which is considerably below the EU average (ECDC, 2022b).
In 2021, a great part of the state budget contribution for healthcare financing was again allocated to 
covering the costs related to the epidemic. Pursuant to the emergency legislation, the Ministry of Health 
1 The source of this data is Eurostat. However, the arithmetic average of EU Member States was taken into account and not the weighted average 
which is published by Eurostat. The weighted average primarily reflects the data of large countries (Germany, France). 
2 In 2019, the total number of employed nurses and healthcare assistants was 21,464, which is 28% more than in 2010. The number of employees 
in nursing care per 1,000 population (10.3) was also the highest in the last 20 years, exceeding the OECD (8.8) and EU (8.4) averages. However, 
Slovenia still considerably lags behind in the number of registered nurses (OECD, 2021i; OECD/EOHSP, 2021b).
3 This is the volume of employment in the activity category P according to national calculations. This is a wider category of employed nurses, 
as it includes all other employees in this sector: administrative support staff, clinical assistants, social carers, social workers, physiotherapists, 
occupational therapists and others. 
4 Patients having two or more chronic diseases simultaneously.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 73Development report 2022
paid healthcare providers EUR 306.9 million in crisis salary supplements, mostly due to the need for increased 
workload for many healthcare workers. This is another reason to ensure better staff preparedness for any future 
crises and systemically regulate the stable financing of the healthcare system.5 Furthermore, indirectly through 
the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia (HIIS), another EUR 211.4 million was paid from the state budget to 
healthcare providers to cover various costs related to preventing the spread of the epidemic.6 The expenditure of 
the  HIIS related to COVID-19, which amounted to EUR 293 million,7 was also partly covered with a transfer from 
the state budget (EUR 179.1 million). The  HIIS concluded the year with a surplus of EUR 120 million. In addition 
to the budget transfer, the favourable result was also due to a higher revenue from contributions, which in turn 
were due to favourable trends in the labour market and higher growth of salaries in the public sector as a result 
of the supplements paid during the epidemic.8
In the next few years, funds to improve the resilience of the healthcare system are planned within the Recovery 
and Resilience Plan (RRP), as are extensive national resources for investment under a special act. The funds 
planned in the RRP until 2026 amount to EUR 225 million, of which EUR 110 million is intended for investments in 
infrastructure for treating communicable diseases and for the strengthening of the primary healthcare level, and 
EUR 83 million for digitalisation. Measures concerning the healthcare system, including the amendments to the 
framework Health Care and Health Insurance Act, are also envisaged in the part of the RRP on reforms. Healthcare 
measures will be complemented with investments in the LTC system (EUR 79 million from the social component of 
the RRP) and the implementation of the Long-Term Care Act (see Box 9). In October 2021, the Slovenian Government 
also adopted the Act on Provision of Funds for Investments in Slovenian Healthcare in the Years 2021 to 2031, which 
provides for more than EUR 2 billion of budget funds.9 The aim is to establish the most important operational 
capacities to increase the resilience of the system at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels and to increase the 
number of places available in science and education institutions. The funds will be allocated to public healthcare 
institutions, educational institutions for healthcare professions, and nursing hospitals and homes within the LTC 
system (ZZSISZ, 2021).
5 This includes the supplements under Article 55 of the Act Determining Temporary Measures to Mitigate and Remedy the Consequences of 
COVID-19 (ZZUOOP); supplements for working with COVID-19 patients (Article 56 of the ZZUOOP and Article 33 of the Act Determining Intervention 
Measures to Assist in Mitigating the Consequences of the Second Wave of COVID-19 Epidemic (ZIUPOPDVE)); supplements under Article 87 of 
the ZIUPOPDVE (salary group J in healthcare); supplements for students (Article 88 of the ZIUPOPDVE); supplements for directors (Article 125 of 
the ZIUPOPDVE); supplements for community works and contractors (Article 86 of the ZIUPOPDVE); and supplements under Article 123 of the 
ZIUPOPDVE – Collective Agreement for Public Sector (ZIUPOPDVE, 2020; ZZUOOP, 2020).
6 For the costs of testing and vaccination against COVID-19, distribution of medicinal products, vaccination against flu, telemedicine of COVID-19 
patients, and reimbursement of various compensations for sick leave.
7 Of this, EUR 179.9 million for healthcare services and EUR 113.1 million for compensations for isolation.
8 For more information, see HIIS (2022), Section 5.1.2. The effects of the measures to mitigate the consequences of the epidemic on the operation of 
the HIIS.
9 Each year from 2021 to 2031, a specified amount is to be ensured, from the minimum of EUR 127 million in 2021 to the maximum of EUR 253 million 
in 2026, after which the amount will be reduced gradually until 2031. The total in all years would amount to EUR 2,093 million.  
17
.5
16
.6
15
.7
15
.3
13
.8
13
.4
13
.2
11
.7
10
.5
10
.5
10
.0
8.
4
7.
8
7.
5
7.
2
6.
8
6.
7
6.
4
6.
2
6.
0
5.
8 5.
7
5.
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Fr
an
ce
G
er
m
an
y
Be
lg
iu
m
Ire
la
nd
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
A
us
tr
ia
O
EC
D
38
Po
rt
ug
al
Ita
ly
Sp
ai
n
Li
th
ua
ni
a
H
un
ga
ry
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
en
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Po
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
Sl
ov
ak
ia
La
tv
ia
In
%
2000 2019
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ir
el
an
d
Fr
an
ce
Po
rt
u
g
al
M
al
ta
Ic
el
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
N
o
rw
ay
G
er
m
an
y
Be
lg
iu
m
Fi
n
la
n
d
Sw
ed
en
C
yp
ru
s
It
al
y
Sp
ai
n
Lu
xe
m
b
ou
rg
A
u
st
ri
a
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
G
re
ec
e
Li
th
u
an
ia
La
tv
ia
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Es
to
n
ia
H
u
n
g
ar
y
Sl
o
ve
n
ia
Po
la
n
d
C
ro
at
ia
Sl
o
va
ki
a
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
 %
 Figure 43: Vaccination coverage in Slovenia is lower than the EU average (left) and the share of people employed in 
healthcare and social protection is also very low (right)
Sources: ECDC (2022b) and OECD (2021).
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society74 Development report 2022
The digital transformation of the Slovenian healthcare system started before the epidemic. According to 
plans, it should continue at an accelerated pace in the coming years. Within the eHealth project, which was 
carried out in 2008–2015, electronic prescriptions, electronic ordering (electronic referrals and online appointment 
scheduling) and several other digital solutions were introduced, which enabled the introduction of remote access 
to healthcare services at the outbreak of the epidemic (see also Section 3.2). The main goals of further healthcare 
digitalisation until 2026 are the following: introducing comprehensive electronic health records for patients, 
digitalising the prescription of medicinal products and introducing new digital services, including remote treatment 
(telemedicine); ensuring the integration and faster exchange of information at all healthcare levels and the use of 
ICT to communicate with patients; introducing a safer dispensing of medicinal products by using robots in hospitals; 
monitoring healthcare based on effects; establishing a platform for the management of key healthcare staff; and 
introducing speech technologies for hands-free work of healthcare workers (MZ, 2022a; Government of the RS, 
2022b).
least active were people with low income and older 
people (Eurobarometer, 2018d). In the first wave of the 
epidemic, physical activity among young men (aged 
18–24) declined markedly, which can be attributed to 
the temporary closure of sports and recreation centres 
and the prohibition of group sports activities. The 
epidemic did not have a great impact on the physical 
activity of older people (aged 55–74) of either sex (Vinko 
and Pribaković Brinovec, 2021).135 In the second wave, 
the impact on lifestyle was generally more negative 
than positive.136 Remote education for children (see 
Section 2.1) and containment measures have had a 
very adverse impact on children’s physical and motor 
development. Following a decade of improvement, the 
motor fitness of children deteriorated considerably in 
2020, and obesity in children increased greatly. These 
negative trends continued in the spring of 2021 (Faculty 
of Sport, 2021; Starc et al., 2020) (see Indicator 3.8). As 
the motor fitness and aerobic endurance of children are 
closely related to health and academic performance, 
negative effects will also be reflected in the children’s 
development (see Section 2.1). The participation of the 
population in cultural activities that contribute to an 
active lifestyle was higher than the EU average in 2017 
(Eurobarometer, 2018b), but the epidemic severely 
reduced the opportunities for such participation, 
as well as for social inclusion, social activity and 
intergenerational integration. The accessibility of other 
activities promoting intergenerational cooperation 
carried out by intergenerational centres, the Third Age 
University and others has also been reduced, although 
many activities have moved online. 
In Slovenia, volunteers do more hours of volunteer 
work than in the majority of EU Member States. 
Volunteering does not only help other people but also 
135 The 2020 health-related lifestyle behaviour study included 17,500 
people aged 18–74 years. The study was conducted from 11 May to 
the end of July 2020 (Vinko and Pribaković Brinovec, 2021).
136 In November 2021, 35.7% of respondents reported that they spent 
more time in front of a TV, computer or other electronic device in 
the previous two weeks than before the pandemic; 14.5% reported 
a positive impact of the epidemic on their physical activity, but 
substantially more (32%) reported that the impact was negative (Grom 
et al., 2021).
while the support of superiors and co-workers facilitates 
the balancing of work and private life (Eurofound, 
2018c).132 Although women in Slovenia do almost the 
same amount of paid work per week as men, they spend 
significantly more hours on caring responsibilities and 
unpaid housework than men. During the epidemic, 
mothers were faced with more problems in dividing their 
time between work and family than men (Eurofound, 
2020b and 2021e).133 Fathers do not make full use of 
their right to paternity leave,134 and the share of fathers 
who take parental leave is low (between 5% and 7%). 
The right to part-time work due to parenthood is mostly 
exercised by mothers. The epidemic accelerated the 
transition to remote work, which generally facilitates 
the balancing of work and family life. However, it can 
also lead to excessive workload, longer working hours 
and difficulties in disconnecting from work, which 
has a negative impact on the health and well-being of 
workers and their private life (EESC, 2021; EP, 2021d). For 
this reason, the European Parliament resolution on the 
right to disconnect from digital tools, including ICT, for 
work purposes was adopted in January 2021 (see also 
Section 3.3). 
Possibilities for an active and healthy life are very 
good in Slovenia. However, due to the epidemic, 
the lifestyle of adults has worsened and the motor 
fitness of children has also decreased significantly 
in the past two years. In 2013–2017, the share of 
population engaged in sports reduced (to approximately 
50%), although it was still above the EU average. The 
132 According to the European Social Survey for 2020, 68% of respondents 
believed that their line manager supports the employees in balancing 
their work and personal commitments (one quarter stated that they 
support them in full). On the other hand, 26% of respondents reported 
that employees are expected to respond to work communications 
outside working hours several times per week, and 17% that they are 
expected to work overtime several times per week (CJMMK, 2022).
133 In 2020, the employment rate of mothers (in the 20–49 age group 
with children younger than six years) was again among the highest 
in the EU (the only country with a greater rate was Portugal). It was 
slightly lower (80.4%) than in 2017–2019 and was for the first time 
in the last ten years lower than that of women without children. The 
employment rate of fathers remained the same as in the previous two 
years (Eurostat, 2022).
134 The majority of fathers (around 80%) only choose to take the first 15 
days of paternity leave.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 75Development report 2022
has a positive impact on the volunteers themselves. 
Many examples of good practice show that experience 
in volunteering fosters a positive self-image in children, 
channels their energy to good deeds and strengthens 
their social sensitivity; in volunteering, people also gain 
new knowledge and remain active and socially included 
even if they lose their jobs or retire, which has a positive 
impact on their mental and physical health (Jamšek 
et al., 2015). Slovenia’s share of the population who 
regularly performed unpaid volunteer work in 2016 (the 
latest available data) exceeded the EU average and had 
increased compared to 2012.137 The volume of voluntary 
work was also relatively high during the epidemic 
compared to other EU Member States (Eurofound, 
2020b).138 Due to the containment measures, many 
group activities were not possible or were limited 
(intergenerational workshops and other activities for 
older people, activities in youth centres, camps for 
children and adolescents, etc.). However, new forms 
of volunteer work emerged (assistance with remote 
schooling, assistance in residential care homes, transport 
of healthcare workers without their own transport, 
childcare during the closure of kindergartens, etc.) (MJU, 
2021d). In 2020, the most volunteer work in Slovenia was 
carried out in the field of social activities (almost 59% of 
all volunteer hours), followed by education and culture 
and arts (Slovene Philanthropy, 2021).
137 In Slovenia, 34% of respondents (EU: 32%) performed unpaid volunteer 
work, 12% of them on a regular basis (EU: 10%) (Eurofound, 2016).
138 According to the data gathered in the second round of the survey 
conducted in July 2020, in the last month before the survey, volunteers 
in Slovenia did an average of two hours of volunteer work per week 
(EU: 1.4 hours); only volunteers in Cyprus did more hours (2.7 hours). 
The data from March 2021 showed that the number of hours has fallen 
slightly in the majority of EU Member States (SI: 1.4 hours; EU: 1 hour) 
and only in Cyprus (1.5 hours) and Croatia (1.8 hours) did volunteers do 
more hours than volunteers in Slovenia.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society76 Development report 2022
2016.141 Due to continuing epidemic and restrictions in 
business operation, the measures to retain jobs were 
partly extended to 2021. They were also supplemented 
by some additional measures to assist the population.142 
Labour market conditions had been improving during 
2021, which had a positive impact on the growth in 
compensation of employees.143 With the 0.9% growth 
in social benefits and a relatively high growth in mixed 
income,144 the gross disposable income increased in 
2021 by 3.1% in real terms (nominally by 7.7%). The 
growth in disposable income affected the growth in 
median equivalised disposable income, which reduced 
the lag behind the EU average145 (Indicator 3.12). 
141 For the more detailed content of past measures, see IMAD (2021c).
142 A one-off crisis supplement for the most vulnerable groups – payment 
of supplements to pensioners, students, farmers and families and 
supplement for employees whose monthly salary is less than twice 
the minimum wage, who received a supplement of EUR 200 with the 
December salary (ZDUOP, 2021; ZIUPOPDVE, 2020). New vouchers 
were also introduced, which can be redeemed in the more affected 
activities in tourism, accommodation and food service, sport and 
culture sectors (ZIUPGT, 2021) and whose validity has been extended 
to the end of June 2022 (Decision to the ZIUPGT, 2021); the already 
extended tourism vouchers of 2020 were further extended to the end 
of June 2022 (ZDUPŠOP, 2021).
143 In 2021, the number of people in employment fell by 12.6%, while the 
average gross wage increased by 6.1%.
144 This was also due to the intervention measures concerning gross 
mixed income: the payments of a monthly basic income to the self-
employed, a partial compensation for income lost due to quarantine 
or force majeure, the partial reimbursement of uncovered fixed costs, 
and the reimbursement of costs related to rapid tests. Assistance to 
more affected activities was also introduced in the form of an aid for 
financing holiday allowance and partial reimbursement of certain costs 
(costs of organising events and meetings, costs of producing films and 
audiovisual works, and costs of the operation of cableway installations).
145 With regard to the median equivalised disposable income in PPS, in 
Following accelerated growth in 2016–2019, the 
gross disposable household income139 further 
increased during the COVID-19 epidemic, which 
was initially mostly due to the government 
measures to mitigate the consequences of the 
epidemic and in 2021 also to the improved labour 
market conditions. Due to the global financial crisis, 
compensation of employees, which accounts for the 
largest part of income, decreased markedly in 2009–
2013 and, in addition to the decline in social benefits 
since 2012, had a significant impact on the decline in 
gross disposable income (see Figure 44). Since 2014, 
due to the revival of economic activity accompanied by 
growth in employment and wages, disposable income 
was increasing again and in 2016 it exceeded the 2008 
level for the first time. The high growth, in particular in 
compensation of employees in 2016–2019, slowed in 
2020 as a result of the economic consequences of the 
COVID-19 pandemic. The consequent deterioration 
in the labour market conditions was mitigated by the 
intervention measures to retain jobs, which prevented 
the reduction in compensation of employees despite the 
marked decline in economic activity (see also Section 1). 
Decline in the gross disposable income140 was also 
prevented by various anti-coronavirus measures; social 
benefits paid were higher by one-tenth in real terms 
and reached the highest share in the structure since 
139 Gross disposable household income comprises gross household 
income from employment, social benefits in cash, operating surplus, 
and mixed income and property, less contributions and taxes.
140 In 2020, Slovenia had the fourth highest growth in gross disposable 
income in the EU: it has increased in 12 Member States and decreased 
in 12 Member States; data for the remaining three is not yet available.
3.2 A decent life for all
 A decent life for all (Development Goal 3):
A decent life for all generations is based on creating the conditions in which all people will be able to realise their 
potential with dignity, equality and responsibility through activities in various areas. The main SDS guidelines to 
achieve this goal are aimed at (i) providing an appropriate level of income for a decent life and maintaining low 
income and wealth inequality; (ii) creating sustainable systems of social protection and child protection and security; 
(iii) ensuring a good quality of the living environment; (iv) strengthening cooperation, solidarity and volunteerism; 
and (v) eliminating all forms of discrimination. A decent life is linked to an inclusive and healthy society, which is 
described in Development Goal 1.
 2030 SDS performance indicators for Development Goal 3:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate, in % 14.3 (2020) 21.9 (2020) < 16*
Income distribution inequality, quintile ratio (S80/S20) 3.3 (2020) 5.2 (2020) < 3.5
Experience of discrimination, in % 9 (2019) 16 (2020) < 10
Note: *The table shows the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate determined according to the new methodology (see Box 7), while the target was set in 
accordance with the old methodology, which will no longer be used as of 2022. In accordance with the European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan, since May 2021 
the European Commission has been harmonising, together with governments and line ministries, the new national at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate targets 
for 2030, which are expected to be adopted in June 2022
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 77Development report 2022
of AIC per capita in PPS, Slovenia has been ranking 
around 18th place among EU Member States for some 
time now. In 2020, it was 18% behind the EU average, 
similar to Poland and Malta. In terms of GDP, it was 10% 
behind the EU average in 2021, which is the lowest since 
of the country in question, is divided by the purchasing power parity 
of the country, the result neutralises the differences in the price levels 
and expresses the actual AIC in the total price level. The AIC per capita 
in PPS is thus adjusted for price differences and is expressed as the 
ratio to the EU average (EU = 100). The indicator GDP per capita in PPS 
is a measure of the economic development of a country. The position 
of countries with regard to this indicator is similar to that regarding the 
AIC per capita in PPS, although the differences between countries are 
significantly greater (Čakarević and Stanojević, 2021; Stanojević and 
Čakarević, 2021).
The material well-being of the population has been 
gradually improving, although it is still below the 
EU average; with growth in material well-being, 
the household expenditure structure is changing: 
expenditure on food and other basic necessities 
is decreasing, while expenditure on services is 
increasing. The material well-being of the population 
is measured by actual individual consumption (AIC) per 
capita in PPS and by GDP per capita in PPS.146 In terms 
2020 Slovenia lagged behind Austria, which has the highest median 
after Luxembourg, by 27%, which is 7.5 p.p. less than in 2017. 
146 The AIC per capita in PPS is a measure of the material well-being of 
households. It comprises goods and services that individuals actually 
consume. When the AIC per capita, expressed in the national currency 
-34.2 -37.7 -38.7
-38.3 -39.1
26.5 25.3 23.7 22.1 23.5
3.0 1.8 2.5 3.2 3.4
27.0 28.3 27.2 28.6 28.0
77.6 82.2 85.5 84.4 84.1
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2009 2019 2020 2021
St
ru
ct
ur
e 
in
 %
Compensation of employees
Social benefits excluding social transfers in kind
Property income and other current transfers
Gross operating surplus and mixed income
Income and property taxes and social security contributions
80
90
100
110
120
130
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Re
al
 in
de
x,
 2
00
8=
10
0
Gross disposable income
Compensation of employees
Social benefits other than social transfers in kind
Gross operating surplus and mixed income
Income and property taxes and social security contributions
 Figure 44: Gross disposable income has further increased with the help of government measures during the epidemic
Source: SURS (2022); calculations by IMAD.
12.8
10.7
24.7
23.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
Food and soft
drinks
Housing, water,
electricity, gas
and other fuels
Transport* Services**
In
 %
 o
f c
on
su
m
pt
io
n 
ex
pe
nd
itu
re
TOTAL 1st quintile 2nd quintile
3rd quintile 4th quintile 5th quintile
0
100
200
300
0
50
100
150
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
G
er
m
an
y
D
en
m
ar
k
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
A
us
tr
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
Ita
ly
Cy
pr
us
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ire
la
nd
Sp
ai
n
Po
rt
ug
al
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Po
la
nd
Sl
ov
en
ia
M
al
ta
Ro
m
an
ia
Es
to
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
Sl
ov
ak
ia
La
tv
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Cr
oa
tia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
EU
=1
00
, i
n 
%
EU
=1
00
, i
n 
%
AIC per capita in PPS, 2020
GDP per capita in PPS, 2021 (right axis)
 Figure 45: Material well-being still lags behind the EU average (left); in 2018, the households in the lowest two income 
quintiles spent the largest share of their expenditure on housing and households in other quintiles on transport (right)
Sources: Eurostat (2022), SURS (2022b); calculations by IMAD. Notes: The expenditure for basic necessities includes the monetary value of own production; however, it 
does not include the expenditure that is not part of consumption expenditures (expenditure related to the purchase or renovation of a flat or house and various other 
expenditures). *Transport includes the purchase of vehicles, products and services for personal vehicles and transport services. **Services include communications, 
recreation and culture, education, and restaurants and hotels, with the categories also including particular goods (e.g. the communications category includes the 
purchase of devices etc.).
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society78 Development report 2022
European Commission (2021l) ranked Slovenia among 
the six Member States where the financial distress of 
the lower income quantile of households was reduced 
considerably between the third quarter of 2020 and 
2021 (by 4.6 p.p.; the most in Belgium, by 26.4 p.p., 
and the Netherlands, by 10.0 p.p.), while in Hungary it 
deteriorated significantly (by 14.4 p.p.) (Indicator 3.16). 
The subjective assessment of financial sustainability of 
households, which in Slovenia has been lagging behind 
the majority of other EU Member States and the EU 
average for years (see Figure 46 right), improved more 
than on average in the EU during the epidemic. The 
first preliminary data for EU-SILC 2021 show that the 
assessment of the financial situation of households that 
find it hard or very hard to make ends meet improved 
considerably (by 7 p.p. compared to 2020); the situation 
also improved in the households in mild financial 
distress (by 6 p.p. compared to 2020) (Inglič et al., 2022). 
In 2020, 48% of households found it easy or very easy to 
make ends meet, while in 2021 there were 61% of such 
households (Inglič et al., 2022).
Income inequality is one of the lowest in the EU 
and, according to the criteria of wealth inequality, 
Slovenia ranks around the middle of the EU Member 
States that are also members of the OECD. The ratio 
between the lowest and the highest income quintile 
was 3.3 in 2020147 (Eurostat, 2022), which is the lowest 
since 2009, among the lowest in the EU148 and within the 
2030 SDS target (below 3.5; Indicator 3.10). Low income 
inequality in Slovenia, which is ensured by the system of 
147 The EU-SILC 2020 survey was based on 2019 income, so the results 
do not reflect the impact of the epidemic on income inequality in 
Slovenia.
148 In 2020, only Slovakia had a lower ratio between the lowest and the 
highest income quintiles (3.0) (Eurostat, 2022). 
2008, and ranked just behind the Czech Republic and 
ahead of Cyprus and Lithuania (Figure 45 left). Due to 
the epidemic, the material well-being has deteriorated 
sharply in some Member States (most notably in Spain). 
Only in a few Member States has it improved noticeably 
(the most in Luxembourg, Ireland and Denmark). 
Slovenia is one of the countries where progress has 
been relatively small but constant and stable. With the 
gradual improvement of material well-being, household 
expenditure structure is also changing: in 2012–2018, the 
share of expenditure on food and other basic necessities 
decreased, while the share spent on services increased. 
Until 2012, households in the first two quintiles spent 
the largest share of expenditure on food, and since 2018 
(the most recent data) on housing (Figure 45 right), while 
the households in the remaining three quintiles spent 
the largest share of their expenditure on transport and 
certain services. In 2018, households in the fifth quintile 
spent 3.6 times more on basic necessities than those in 
the first quintile.
In 2016–2019, households in Slovenia borrowed more 
than the EU average. At the onset of the epidemic 
in 2020, mostly drawing on savings increased; 
according to various indicators, the financial 
situation of households improved noticeably in 2021. 
Before the epidemic, fewer households were in financial 
distress (running into debt or drawing on savings) than 
in the previous decade, and those that were in financial 
distress were predominantly from the lower two income 
quartiles. As a result of the epidemic, financial distress 
of households became more acute at the end of 2020 
and the beginning of 2021, and households mostly 
responded by drawing on their savings (see Figure 46 
left). By the beginning of 2022, the financial distress of 
households returned to the levels of the end of 2019. The 
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
Ita
ly
M
al
ta
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Ire
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
A
us
tr
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sp
ai
n EU
Fr
an
ce
G
er
m
an
y
Po
rt
ug
al
Fi
nl
an
d
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Cy
pr
us
Li
th
ua
ni
a
H
un
ga
ry
Po
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
Ro
m
an
ia
La
tv
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
 %
2020 Apr/May 2020 Jun/Jul 2021 Feb/Mar
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Ja
n 
12
Ju
l 1
2
Ja
n 
13
Ju
l 1
3
Ja
n 
14
Ju
l 1
4
Ja
n 
15
Ju
l 1
5
Ja
n 
16
Ju
l 1
6
Ja
n 
17
Ju
l 1
7
Ja
n 
18
Ju
l 1
8
Ja
n 
19
Ju
l 1
9
Ja
n 
20
Ju
l 2
0
Ja
n 
21
Ju
l 2
1
Ja
n 
22
In
 %
, 1
2-
m
on
th
 m
ov
in
g 
av
er
ag
e
Drawing on savings, SLO
Running into debt, SLO
Running into debt, EU
Household financial distress (drawing
on savings + running into debt), EU
 Figure 46: In Slovenia, household financial distress1 at the end of 2020 resulted in an increased drawing on savings (left); 
low subjective assessment of household financial fragility2 improved during the epidemic, but it remains below the EU 
average (right)
Sources: EC (2021l), SURS (2022a), monthly consumer opinion survey, Eurofound (2020b, 2020a and 2021a). Notes: 1The share of households running into debt or 
having to draw on savings. 2The share of respondents whose households would be able to maintain the same standard of living less than three months or were without 
savings.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 79Development report 2022
 Box 7: A new methodology for monitoring the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate in the EU
In 2021, Eurostat and the European Commission started to use a new methodology for calculating social 
exclusion. As of 2022, the new methodology, which Eurostat and the national statistical offices of the EU Member 
States have been using in the field within the EU-SILC survey since 2015, with results published in 2021, will also be 
used in Slovenia’s Development Report. The new methodology is not comparable to the old one, which included 
the data for 2005–2020 and has been used for our reports to date. Of the three indicators comprising the at-risk-of-
poverty or social exclusion rate, only the at-risk-of-poverty rate remains unchanged with data available since 2005; 
the remaining two indicators were changed and are available from 2015. In 2021, the targets of the European Pillar 
of Social Rights Action Plan were also set based on the new methodology. The targets envisage reducing the at-risk-
of-poverty or social exclusion by at least 15 million people (of which at least 5 million should be children) by 2030 
(see IMAD, 2021a). The national targets are planned to be harmonised by June 2022.
The material and social deprivation rate and the severe material and social deprivation rate are measured 
by 13 deprivation items. In addition to the change in its name, i.e. social deprivation was added to the material 
deprivation, 13 deprivation elements are measured for this indicator according to the new methodology. Seven new 
Sources: SURS (2022), EU-SILC 2020 survey (based on the 2019 income). Note: The EU-SILC 2020 survey is not fully comparable with previous surveys, as part of 
it was carried out before the epidemic (in the first two months of 2020) and it was completed later than usual; see Inglič et al. (2021). All EU Member States were 
dealing with similar problems. On methodological obstacles of EU-SILC, see IMAD (2021a) and Guio et al. (2021).
 Figure 47: The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion in the EU-SILC 2020 survey (based on the income in 2019) 
according to the new methodology (left) and the old methodology (right)
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society80 Development report 2022
items1 have been added to the first six items,2 which had been measured under the old definition, while three old 
items were abandoned.3 According to the new definition, the calculation of material and social deprivation now 
includes persons who are deprived in at least 5 of the 13 items, and the calculation of severe material and social 
deprivation includes persons who are deprived in at least 7 of the 13 items. 
According to the new definition, very low work intensity is measured for the population under 64 years of 
age and the indicator is also calculated differently. According to the new methodology, the calculation takes 
into account the age group 0–64 years (previously 0–59 years) and does not include certain groups that are not 
active in the labour market: (a) households only including students (current activity status) aged 18–24 years; (b) 
households only including persons over 64 years; (c) pensioners (current activity status) or persons receiving a 
pension (old-age or disability), and (d) inactive persons (current activity status) aged 60–64 years living in a 
household where pensions constitute the main income source.
1 The new items are capacity to (7) replace worn-out or damaged furniture, (8) replace worn-out clothes with new ones, (9) have two pairs of 
properly fitting shoes for different weather, (10) get together with friends/relatives for a drink/meal at least once a month, (11) have regular 
payable leisure activities, (12) spend a small amount of money each week on oneself, and (13) have an internet connection at home. 
2 The six deprivation items used under both the old and the new definitions are capacity to (1) face unexpected financial expenses, (2) afford paying 
for one week’s annual holiday away from home, (3) afford adequate meals, (4) pay loans and mortgages and arrears thereon, (5) keep the home 
adequately warm, and (6) afford a washing machine.
3 These items were: (7) have a colour TV, (8) have a telephone (mobile phone), and (9) have a car.
progressive personal income tax and, to some extent, 
also by social transfers, has also been shown by the Gini 
coefficient for many years. In 2020, this coefficient was 
0.235, which is the second lowest value in the EU, with 
only Slovakia having a lower value. Wealth inequality149 is 
higher than income inequality in most countries, as the 
share of wealth held by higher income classes is much 
higher than the share of their income. Data for 2017 (the 
latest year available) showed that, in OECD countries, the 
wealthiest 10% of households owned about half of the 
wealth in the country, which is twice as much as is the 
case for disposable income. In Slovenia, the wealthiest 
10% owned 44% of wealth and 19.9% of income (OECD, 
2022; Eurostat, 2022).
The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion150 increased 
slightly in 2020, although the EU-SILC 2020 results 
do not yet reflect the impact of the epidemic on 
living conditions. In 2015–2019, the at-risk-of-poverty 
or social exclusion gradually decreased and was low by 
international comparison. According to the latest EU-
SILC 2020 survey, which was based on the 2019 income 
and only covered part of the first epidemic wave,151 
149 Wealth inequality is measured by the ratio of the average net wealth to 
the median net wealth or by the share of wealth owned by those at the 
top of the distribution (the wealthiest 10%, 5% or 1%) (OECD, 2018d).
150 The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate comprises the risk-
of-poverty rate (the share of persons living in households with the 
equivalised disposable income of less than 60% of the national 
median equivalised income), the severe material and social exclusion 
rate (Indicator 3.16 and Box 7), and the share of persons living in 
households with very low work intensity (less than 20% of the 
household’s total work potential, see Box 7). Persons falling in several 
categories are counted only once in the total number.
151 The data for 2020 are not completely comparable to those of previous 
years and only a part of the data captures the impact of the first wave 
of the epidemic, as part of the EU-SILC 2020 survey was conducted 
before the first wave (January–March), while the second part was 
concluded later than usual (May–September). For more detail, see 
Inglič et al. (2021).
295,000 persons were at the risk of social exclusion 
(Figure 48 left). The at-risk-of-poverty rate and the severe 
material and social deprivation rate increased (by 0.4 p.p. 
each), while the low work intensity rate decreased (by 
0.4 p.p.) and remains the lowest in the EU for the fourth 
year in a row, though above the EU average for those 
close to retirement (aged 60–64 years). The at-risk of 
social exclusion has increased for all age groups but 
remained the lowest in the EU for children and young 
people and the second lowest (after the Czech Republic) 
for adults. In recent years, however, people aged 65 and 
over, and especially women aged 75 and over, have been 
more exposed to this risk than the EU average (30.4%; 
EU: 24.9%), and more so than at any time in the last five 
years (Indicator 3.9 and Figure 48, left). The material 
situation of pensioners compared to employed people 
also remains worse than the EU average, which reduces 
their possibilities for social inclusion (see IMAD, 2021). 
For several years, the risk of social exclusion of low-
educated people, housing tenants and other vulnerable 
groups has been near the EU average (see IMAD, 2021a). 
In 2017–2020, the at-risk-of-poverty rate152 was 
among the lowest in the EU. However, it was high 
for certain vulnerable groups and markedly above 
the EU average for older people and single-person 
households, in particular women living alone. 
According to the EU-SILC 2020 survey, which was based 
on the 2019 income, the at-risk-of-poverty rate had 
increased slightly (to 12.4%; EU: 17.1%) and 254,000 
persons lived below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold.153 
152 The share of persons living in a household with an equivalised 
disposable income below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (i.e. 60% of 
the national median equivalised income).
153 The majority of them were pensioners (19.5% of all pensioners), 
followed by persons in employment (5%), minors (10.5%) and the 
unemployed (43.4%). The unclassified and inactive persons were the 
fewest (19.6%).
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 81Development report 2022
from its funds it would apply as preventive and which as 
curative measures to reduce poverty.
After years of decrease, the material and social 
deprivation rate156 remained constant in 2019 and 
2020. The severe material and social deprivation rate 
rose slightly in 2020, while the first preliminary data 
for 2021 indicate a significant decrease. In 2015–2019 
in Slovenia, both rates decreased more than average 
in the EU (Indicator 3.16). In the first half of 2020, the 
favourable trend was interrupted in the majority of EU 
Member States. However, the data only partly reflect 
the impact of the first epidemic wave.157 In Slovenia, 
the material and social deprivation rate remained at the 
same level as in 2019; it remained high but still below 
the EU average for people aged 65 years and older. The 
severe material and social deprivation rate increased 
(to 62,000 persons) but remained 2.6 times lower than 
the EU average (Figure 48 right). It has been among 
the lowest in the EU for children and young people for 
several years and in the middle for people older than 60 
years, although still below the EU average. The share of 
severely materially and socially deprived single-parent 
households and families with one dependent child 
increased but remained considerably below the EU 
average. In 2020, the number of households receiving 
material and/or cash assistance from charitable 
organisations increased slightly. In the beginning of 
2021, the number of beneficiaries of social assistance 
156 The material and social deprivation rate has been measured in at least 
five and the severe material and social deprivation in at least seven of 
the thirteen deprivation items presented in Indicator 3.16 Box 7.
157 The EU-SILC 2020 survey is not fully comparable with previous surveys, 
as part of it was carried out before the epidemic and it was completed 
later than usual (Inglič et al., 2021). All EU Member States were 
dealing with similar problems, so Eurostat and SURS warn of the poor 
comparability of data to previous years, as well as between countries. 
People aged 60 years or older, in particular women, were 
more at risk of poverty than the EU average. With regard 
to the type of households, single-person households 
were more at risk of poverty than the EU average. The 
risk was by far greater for women than men living alone, 
but both indicators were well above the EU average. With 
regard to children at risk of poverty, Slovenia has ranked 
among the countries with the lowest rates for several 
years – in 2020, only Hungary and Denmark ranked 
better. Compared to the EU, multi-person households, 
households with children and households with adults 
are less exposed to the at-risk-of-poverty than the EU 
average. The Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia 
(2021d), the Human Rights Ombudsman (2021), IRSSV 
(2021) and 19 non-governmental organisations (EAPN, 
2021) draw attention to the unsuccessful treatment 
of the most threatened and vulnerable groups, whose 
poverty and distress are intensifying. In addition to 
some groups at greater risk of poverty that have been 
indicated by statistical data for several years,154 poverty 
is also increasing among certain precarious workers 
(those working under contracts for copyright work, job 
contracts and other contracts), persons with limitations 
(Figure 49 right) and other persons not adequately 
covered by EU-SILC surveys, which is also pointed out 
in IMAD (2021a).155 The Court of Audit of the Republic 
of Slovenia (2021d) established that in strategic 
documents and regulations poverty is not defined in an 
unambiguous way and that the ministry had not taken 
a clear position on which measures or rights financed 
154 Mostly older women, in particular widows and persons with low 
pensions. Vulnerable groups also include low-educated people, 
housing tenants and children (of low-educated parents, with foreign 
citizenship and from single-parent families); see IMAD (2021a).
155 Persons with addiction problems, in institutional care, with disabilities, 
homeless, without a bank account, digitally illiterate, without 
citizenship, erased, etc.; for more detail, see (IMAD, 2021a).
2.
6
6.
8
3.
9
8.
2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Fi
nl
an
d
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sw
ed
en
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Es
to
ni
a
Po
la
nd
Sl
ov
en
ia
A
us
tr
ia
Cy
pr
us
D
en
m
ar
k
Cr
oa
tia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
G
er
m
an
y
M
al
ta
Po
rt
ug
al
Ita
ly
Ire
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
Be
lg
iu
m EU
La
tv
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Sp
ai
n
H
un
ga
ry
G
re
ec
e
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
In
 %
Severe material and social deprivation rate
Very low work intensity rate
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
A
us
tr
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
Po
la
nd
Cy
pr
us
Sw
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
H
un
ga
ry
M
al
ta
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Po
rt
ug
al
Be
lg
iu
m
Cr
oa
tia
Ire
la
nd EU
G
er
m
an
y
Es
to
ni
a
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ita
ly
La
tv
ia
Sp
ai
n
G
re
ec
e
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
Ri
sk
 ra
te
, i
n 
%
Social exclusion, 2020 Poverty, 2020
Poverty of low-educated people Social exclusion (75 years and older)
 Figure 48: Despite the increase in 2020, the at-risk-of-poverty and social exclusion rates remain among the lowest in the 
EU (left); the severe material and social deprivation rate and the very low work intensity rate are also in the lower half of EU 
Member States (right)*
Sources: Eurostat, EU-SILC 2020 data (based on 2019 income). Note: *Figures for Italy on both graphs are for 2019; the EU average is as estimated by Eurostat.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society82 Development report 2022
who are more at risk of long-term poverty than the EU 
average are people aged 65 years or over (in particular 
widows and female recipients of low pensions), single-
person households and low-educated people. In the 
middle of 2021, 60% of pensioners received old-age 
pension of up to EUR 800 and one-tenth of up to EUR 500. 
In both groups there were 58% of women (ZPIZ, 2021),161 
which is a result of a short period of pensionable service 
in particular in older women. 
The reduction of long-term at-risk-of-poverty could 
also be facilitated by a more appropriate regulation 
of the guaranteed minimum income (GMI). The risk of 
long-term poverty is affected by low intragenerational 
and intergenerational mobility162 and low GMI,163 which 
is set substantially below the minimum cost of living164 
and is adjusted every six years in accordance with law 
the at-risk-of-poverty threshold in the current year and at least two out 
of three preceding years.
161 At the end of January 2022, pensions were adjusted in different 
percentages for different groups of pensioners, which had a favourable 
impact on pension distribution; see e.g. ZPIZ (2022). Pensions were 
adjusted by 3.5% for people retired by the end of 2010, 1.7% for people 
retired in 2011 and 1% for people retired from 2012 on (ZPIZ-2L, 2022).
162 Intragenerational mobility is the ability of a person to move between 
socioeconomic classes within their lifetime. Intergenerational mobility 
is the ability of a family to move on the socioeconomic ladder in one 
or several generations (Eurofound, 2021g; IMF, 2020; OECD, 2018a). In 
2020, Slovenia ranked 13th of 82 countries in the global social mobility 
index. Its best rank was for low income inequality (4th place) and its 
worst for the high share of low-educated unemployed people (55th 
place) (IMF, 2020).
163 Until 31 March 2022, GMI was EUR 402.18 per month; on 1 April 2022 it 
increased to EUR 421.89 per month.
164 In 2020, GMI only reached 35% of median equalised disposable 
income (EDI) in the case of single non-working persons and 48% of 
median EDI in the case of families with two dependent children and 
two non-working adults, meaning that single persons in particular 
were very far from the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (60% of median 
EDI) (OECD, 2022c).
benefit in cash158 also increased, but since the beginning 
of 2022 it has fallen to the pre-crisis levels (MDDSZ, 
2021d). Preliminary EU-SILC 2021 data show that the 
severe material and social deprivation rate decreased 
considerably in 2021 (from 2.6% in 2020 to 1.6% in 2021) 
(Inglič et al., 2022).
Social protection expenditure159 is lower than the 
EU average, but it has more impact on the reduction 
of the at-risk-of-poverty; nevertheless, in particular 
older women, single-person households and low-
educated people are still at risk of long-term poverty. 
In 2008–2019, social protection expenditure in the 
share of GDP was lower by 4.9 p.p. on average than in 
the EU, while in PPS per capita it only reached 67.2% 
of average EU expenditure in 2019. The major part of 
social protection expenditure in Slovenia and in the EU 
is intended for old age and illness and for healthcare 
(Indicator 3.14). Expenditure for old age has been 
increasing in recent years due to pension adjustment 
and partial amendments to the Pension Act, which 
can in no way replace the necessary comprehensive 
pension reform that would ensure decent pensions for 
all and maintain the sustainability of public pension 
expenditure. Social transfers play an important role in 
the reduction of poverty in Slovenia, as without them the 
risk-of-poverty rate would be almost twice higher. The 
share of the population that cannot escape from poverty 
despite social transfers remains relatively high: in 2020, 
124,000 persons lived in long-term poverty.160 People 
158 The number of beneficiaries was greatest in April 2021 (111,123), but by 
1 January 2022 it has fallen considerably (to 86,712) (MDDSZ, 2021d).
159 According to the ESSPROS methodology, expenditure covers the 
following categories: illness/healthcare, disability, old age, death of 
the breadwinner, family/children, unemployment, accommodation, 
and other forms of social exclusion. Also see IMAD (2021a).
160 The risk-of-long-term-poverty rate shows the share of persons below 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Sl
ov
ak
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d
Fr
an
ce
A
us
tr
ia
G
re
ec
e
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Cz
ec
h 
R.
H
un
ga
ry
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Po
rt
ug
al
Ita
ly EU
Be
lg
iu
m
Sl
ov
en
ia
Cy
pr
us
Ire
la
nd
Po
la
nd
G
er
m
an
y
Sp
ai
n
Sw
ed
en
M
al
ta
Ro
m
an
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
iaPe
rs
on
s 
w
ith
 li
m
ita
tio
ns
 a
t r
is
k 
of
 p
ov
er
ty
, i
n 
%
2020 2018
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Ja
n 
07
Ja
n 
08
Ja
n 
09
Ja
n 
10
Ja
n 
11
Ja
n 
12
Ja
n 
13
Ja
n 
14
Ja
n 
15
Ja
n 
16
Ja
n 
17
Ja
n 
18
Ja
n 
19
Ja
n 
20
Ja
n 
21
Ja
n 
22
In
 E
U
R 
(n
et
 a
m
ou
nt
)
At-risk-of-poverty threshold Min. cost of living GMI
 Figure 49: The gap between GMI and the at-risk-of-poverty threshold has been increasing since the last setting of the GMI 
amount in 2018 (left). In 2018–2020, the share of people with limitations* aged 16 years and older who are at risk of poverty 
increased (right)
Sources: SURS (2022b), calculations by IMAD; Eurostat (2022); EU-SILC 2020 (based on income in 2019). Note: *Eurostat (Global Activity Limitation Instrument – GALI) 
defines persons with limitations based on self-reported long-term limitations in daily activities due to health problems. Right: The figure for Italy is for 2019. The EU 
average is Eurostat’s estimate.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 83Development report 2022
 Box 8: The impact of rising energy prices on households in Slovenia
The rise in energy prices in international markets in 2021 had a great impact on the rise in the price of 
energy and consequently other necessities in Slovenia, which even accelerated in 2022 due to the Russian–
Ukrainian military conflict. Due to a large increase in energy prices in the global market, energy prices in the 
CPIs increased by almost one-fifth in 2021. They contributed 2 p.p. to the 4.9% inflation rate, which is the most in 
the last 20 years. The rise is primarily due to the prices of petroleum products, whose fluctuation in international 
markets is most quickly transferred to the final prices. On the year-on-year basis, the prices of motor fuels, which are 
mostly intended for transport, were higher by almost one-third, while the rise in heating gas oil price was slightly 
lower (13.7%), which was also due to the reintroduction of regulation. The prices of heat energy increased markedly, 
i.e. by 70%. In autumn 2021, the other energy prices, which according to our assessment follow price trends in 
international market to a lesser extent due to longer-term contracts, also started to rise. In 2021, gas prices were 
higher by more than one-tenth, but electricity prices only by 1%. In addition to the announced increase in the prices 
of some distributers, network charges have already increased in 2022 (Tariff rates, 2021), which will further increase 
the electricity prices. Higher energy prices indirectly affect other prices, for example food prices increased by 4% 
last year. The rise in energy prices in international markets accelerated in the first quarter of this year, primarily due 
to the Russian–Ukrainian military conflict. The prices of Brent oil thus increased by approximately 35% in the first 
quarter, and the prices of gas on the Dutch gas exchange by almost 80%. This contributed to the rise in consumer 
prices, which increased considerably but would have been even higher without the temporary measures to mitigate 
the effects of high fuel prices. 
The fast rise in energy prices has a great impact on the poorest households, which allot a high share of their 
expenditure to energy. However, in view of exposure to rising energy prices in the global market, the structure 
of energy consumption in Slovenia is more favourable than in the EU generally. In 2018, households in Slovenia 
spent on average 5.3% of their expenditure (EU: 4.2%) on energy1 (not including transport2). In 2012–2018 this share 
decreased in Slovenia and the EU; it increased again in 2020 (to 5.8% and 4.3% respectively), which was mostly due 
to the relatively great fall in total expenditure while energy expenditure remained the same. In Slovenia, the poorest 
households or the households in the first income decile, spend a considerably higher share of their expenditure 
on energy (13.4%) than the EU average (8.3%) (EC, 2020b). At the same time, the average Slovenian household 
(and this also applies to the poorest ones) is less exposed to rising prices in the global market with regard to the 
structure of fuel consumption, as it uses more wood,3 which is mostly a domestic resource and is thus less affected 
by (substitution) effects of the rise in the price of other fuels. The average (and the poorest) household in the EU 
uses more natural gas.4 
 
1 Electricity, gas and other fuels within the item "housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels".
2 The rise in motor fuel prices in Slovenia could affect primarily the households in the third quintile, as the data for 2018 show that in the structure 
of their expenditures these households spent the most on transport, and households dependent on daily commutes by car. 
3 In 2021, the prices of solid fuels (wood pellets and briquettes) increased by 1.4%. 
4 In addition to wood, the poorest households in Slovenia also consume slightly more liquid fuels, but less natural gas and thermal energy. Electricity 
represents the highest share everywhere.
32
10
17
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
Lu
xe
m
b
o
u
rg
It
al
y
H
u
n
g
ar
y
Sl
o
va
ki
a
B
el
g
iu
m
G
er
m
an
y
R
o
m
an
ia EU
Fr
an
ce
C
ze
ch
 R
.
Sp
ai
n
C
ro
at
ia
A
u
st
ri
a
Ir
el
an
d
P
o
la
n
d
D
en
m
ar
k
Li
th
u
an
ia
G
re
ec
e
Sl
o
ve
n
ia
La
tv
ia
P
o
rt
u
g
al
Es
to
n
ia
B
u
lg
ar
ia
Fi
n
la
n
d
Sw
ed
en
C
yp
ru
s
M
al
ta
Sh
ar
es
 o
f u
se
 o
f n
at
u
ra
l g
as
 a
n
d
 w
o
o
d
 in
 
th
e 
to
ta
l f
u
el
 c
o
n
su
m
p
ti
o
n
 o
f 
h
o
u
se
h
o
ld
s,
 in
 2
0
2
0
, i
n
 %
Natural gas Wood
 Figure 50: Of fuels, Slovenian households consume more wood and less natural gas compared to the EU average
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society84 Development report 2022
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
A
us
tr
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
Cz
ec
h 
R.
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Es
to
ni
a
Sw
ed
en
Sl
ov
en
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
Po
la
nd
Ire
la
nd
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Be
lg
iu
m
H
un
ga
ry
Cr
oa
tia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
La
tv
ia
Fr
an
ce
M
al
ta EU
G
er
m
an
y
Ro
m
an
ia
Sp
ai
n
Ita
ly
G
re
ec
e
Po
rt
ug
al
Cy
pr
us
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
 %
All households that cannot adequately heat
their home
Households below at-risk-of-poverty threshold
that cannot adequately heat their home
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sw
ed
en
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
A
us
tr
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Po
rt
ug
al
Be
lg
iu
m
D
en
m
ar
k
Ita
ly
Po
la
nd
Es
to
ni
a
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Fr
an
ce EU
Li
th
ua
ni
a
M
al
ta
Fi
nl
an
d
La
tv
ia
Ire
la
nd
Cy
pr
us
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sp
ai
n
H
un
ga
ry
Cr
oa
tia
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
G
re
ec
e
In
 %
All households with arrears on utility bills
Households below at-risk-of-poverty threshold
that cannot adequately heat their home
 Figure 51: In 2020, the share of households in arrears with the payment of utility bills was higher (left) and the share of 
households that were unable to adequately heat their home lower (right) than the EU average
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: The figure for Italy is for 2019; the figure for the EU is the Eurostat estimate and the figure for Latvia is a preliminary figure.
In households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold, the rise in energy prices could exacerbate the problems 
with keeping their homes sufficiently warm and being late in paying utility bills. When they lack the financial means 
to survive, low-income households are often in arrears with utility bills. In 2020, almost one-tenth of all households were 
in arrears (9.4%; EU: 6.2) or 17.4% of the households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (EU: 14.6%).5 The share has 
been higher in Slovenia for a number of years but has been falling faster than in the EU as a whole. The most vulnerable 
are single-parent households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold with dependent children. In 2020, 39% of them 
were late with their payments (EU: 18.2%). The rise in energy prices can also affect housing heating. In 2020, the share of 
households that were unable to keep their homes adequately warm was 2.8% (EU: 8.2%), which is a long-term average in 
Slovenia. The share was much greater in the households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (9.8%) but still below the 
EU average (20%). The most vulnerable were single-person households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (12.5%; 
EU: 19%), with no substantial differences with regard to age. In 2020, the share increased slightly compared to the 
preceding year, but compared to 2010 it decreased more than the EU average. In 2020, as many as 30% of households 
below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold lived in dwellings that had problems with a leaking roof, damp walls, foundations 
or floors, or rotted window frames or floors (Indicator 3.15), which also contributed to higher energy costs. 
Slovenia adopted measures to mitigate the consequences of high energy prices for households. Since the first 
half of November 2021, the regulation of heating gas oil prices has applied;6 according to our estimate, this has 
reduced the price of one litre of fuel oil by approximately 10 cents. At the end of 2021, the 10th anti-coronavirus 
package (ZDUPŠOP, 2021) was adopted; this provided temporary measures to improve the financial situation of the 
most vulnerable groups, which somewhat mitigated the initial pressure on the increase in household expenses. The 
Act Determining Emergency Measures to Mitigate the Consequences of High Energy Commodity Prices (ZUOPVCE, 
2022) provided the most targeted regulation of this problem. It defines temporary measures concerning energy, 
social protection and the rights to public funds and determined the financial assistance to be granted under certain 
conditions to the most vulnerable households and to a certain extent to all households. The Act Determining the 
Measures to Mitigate the Consequences of Rising Energy Prices in the Economy and Agriculture (ZUOPDCE, 2022) 
includes measures regarding the business and agriculture sectors. In March, the Government froze retail and 
wholesale prices of NMB 95 petrol and diesel until and including 30 April 2022 (Decree on setting prices..., 2022; 
Decree amending the Decree..., 2022). Some municipalities also responded to rising energy prices with their own 
mitigation measures. These measures apply for a short term and cannot permanently mitigate the consequences of 
high energy prices if they remain high over a long period of time or get even higher. In the long term, Slovenia will be 
able to reduce the impact of the global market if it increases its self-sufficiency in energy, which would be based on 
renewable energy sources (see Section 4) and would include local energy concepts and energy saving.
5 Data related to the following question in EU-SILC: "In the past 12 months, has the household been in arrears, i.e. has been unable to pay the utility 
bills (heating, electricity, gas, water, etc.) of the main dwelling on time due to financial difficulties?" (Eurostat, 2021a).
6 Following the deregulation in 2016, the margins for heating gas oil have increased from 6 cents per litre to approximately 15 cents per litre according 
to the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology. In 2021, before they were regulated again, the average retail prices of 
fuel oil in Slovenia were almost one-tenth higher than the EU average. 
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 85Development report 2022
with low income and young people, who only leave their 
parents’ household at the average age of 27.5 years (EU: 
26.4 years) (Eurostat, 2022). In addition to building new 
housing, supply could be increased by renovating and 
activating unoccupied housing, which accounted for 
one-fifth of the total housing stock or 172,200 dwellings 
in 2018.169 More than one half of unoccupied housing 
units were either old (built before 1945) or lacking a 
basic infrastructure element (toilet, bathroom, heating, 
electricity or water supply), and roughly 10% were 
holiday homes (Miklič, 2019). An unutilised source of 
housing supply and higher housing mobility is under-
occupied housing.170 In 2020, one-third of the population 
lived in such housing, which is close to the EU average.
The accessibility of education to children and young 
people has been good by international comparison 
for many years, but the epidemic caused it to decline. 
Due to a greater promotion of enrolment of children 
over a long period, the participation of children in 
preschool education and care has increased and is high 
compared to the EU average (Eurostat, 2022). In 2020, it 
fell in children under three years, while it remained at the 
same level for older children171 (Eurostat, 2022). Despite 
the favourable past trends, the number of available 
kindergarten places is still insufficient in some regions, 
particularly for younger children (EC/EACEA/Eurydice, 
2019b). In 2020 and 2021, the accessibility of preschool 
education and care was temporarily reduced due to the 
COVID-19 containment measures. The participation of 
children in basic and upper secondary education has been 
above the EU average for many years (Eurostat, 2022). 
However, some groups of children and young people 
face various barriers to their inclusion (e.g. due to the lack 
of knowledge in Slovenian – see Section 2.1). Remote 
education during certain periods of the epidemic had a 
markedly negative impact on some groups of children 
and young people (see Section 2.1). The accessibility 
of tertiary education is ensured by tuition-free study 
in the first and second cycles and a favourable ratio 
between the number of available places and the number 
of applications in higher education programmes. 
Nevertheless, young people from families with a poorer 
socioeconomic status, who on average achieve poorer 
academic results than their peers (Indicator 2.4), more 
rarely chose to go to university (OECD, 2019j), and those 
who go to university often face financial problems (IMAD, 
2021a). Participation of adults in education has fallen in 
the last decade172 and even further declined during the 
169 This is a statistic and probably the upper limit, since it is possible 
that some dwellings are actually occupied but their residents are not 
registered for various reasons. 
170 An under-occupied dwelling is too large for the needs of the household 
members living in it (with regard to the number of bedrooms).
171 In 2021, the EU adopted the action plan for the European Pillar of 
Social Rights (see IMAD, 2021b), which considers as indicators the 
participation of children under three years in preschool education and 
care and the participation of children aged three years and older in 
preschool education and care (EC, 2020l).
172 In order to improve the accessibility of adult education, with vulnerable 
groups considered as a priority, this type of education is (co)financed 
from public funds, and various support activities (e.g. provision of 
(Figure 49). In 2005–2018, GMI lagged considerably 
behind the minimum cost of living and the at-risk-of-
poverty threshold. The gap was narrowed by the mid-
2018 increase, but will widen again significantly by the 
time the new GMI is set, which is planned for 2023. The 
GMI guarantees the minimum means of subsistence to 
all those who, for various reasons, are unable to support 
themselves, and its amount is important because it serves 
as the basis for calculating the amount and entitlement 
to certain social benefits.165 The GMI is thus only partially 
effective as a macroeconomic stabiliser in times of crises 
and uncertainties (see IMAD, 2021a, pp. 162–174). In 
addition to the complex and outdated legislation, poorly 
functioning information system, and the shortage and 
poor qualifications of staff at social work centres, it has 
a number of other shortcomings (amount, procedures 
for setting its amount, scope, application and relation to 
labour market activation measures).
Severe housing deprivation and the housing cost 
overburdening are mostly present in economically 
weaker households. Low affordability of housing 
also contributes to poorer quality of life. In terms of 
housing, decent life is affected by housing deprivation, 
housing cost overburden and housing affordability. In 
Slovenia, severe housing deprivation (3.1%; EU: 4.2%) 
is related primarily to the share of the population living 
in poor housing conditions (Indicator 3.15). The quality 
of occupied housing has been gradually improving, 
but energy and functional and in some cases seismic 
renovations still need to be carried out (UIRS, 2021). 
The housing overcrowding rate166 is not high in Slovenia 
(10.9% in 2020) and is still falling. It is highest in housing 
rented at market price (38.1%) and in households below 
the at-risk-of-poverty threshold (18.1%). It is also higher 
in urban areas (15.8%). The housing cost overburden rate is 
relatively low in Slovenia due to the high share of owner-
occupied housing.167 However, it is above the EU average 
in households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold 
(see Indicator 3.15). In the current economic situation, 
the rise in housing costs, in particular in economically 
weaker households, is mostly due to the rising costs of 
fuels (Box 8). Housing affordability is poor in Slovenia due 
to the low supply of public rental housing and housing 
on the market (in 2018, the share of rented housing 
was only 7.7%) (SURS, 2022b)168 and the resulting high 
housing prices. Housing is less affordable to households 
165 These include income support, social assistance in cash, extraordinary 
social assistance benefit in cash, bereavement payment, funeral 
payment, subsidised rent, state scholarship, reduced payment for 
kindergarten, subsidised meals in basic and upper secondary schools, 
exemption from the payment of social assistance services, contribution 
to the payment of home care assistant, the right to coverage of the 
difference between the full value of health services, and the right to 
the payment of the contribution for compulsory health insurance.
166 The housing overcrowding rate is defined as the percentage of persons 
living in dwellings with an insufficient number of rooms with regard to 
the number, gender and age of household members (Intihar, 2020).
167 In 2020, 74.6% of the population owned their dwelling (EU: 69.7%) 
(Eurostat, 2022).
168 The actual share of rental housing is certainly higher than official 
statistics due to unregistered renting.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society86 Development report 2022
EOHSP, 2021a). Despite the good financial accessibility of 
healthcare, the actual accessibility has been worsening 
for several years, particularly due to the shortage of 
healthcare staff at the primary and secondary levels. The 
shortage of staff is reflected in high unfulfilled needs for 
healthcare services (Indicator 3.4). At the primary level, 
the situation became serious in 2018 due to the lowering 
of standards regarding the number of people registered 
with a chosen doctor and doctors retiring or leaving 
the public healthcare network. Despite the guaranteed 
financial resources for the expansion of programmes in 
recent years,175 service providers have only partly been 
able to carry them out, due to the lack of suitable staff. 
Several measures were adopted in 2021 to improve the 
situation at the primary level.176 In recent years, better 
accessibility for vulnerable groups has been ensured by 
health promotion centres (see IMAD, 2021a), which treat 
chronic patients and thus promote a multi-disciplinary 
approach to care and reduce the workload of doctors. 
A problem at the secondary level is overly long waiting 
times, in particular for some elective (non-urgent) 
surgical procedures. In 2019, the share of patients who 
had been waiting for some surgical procedures for more 
than three months was the second highest among the 
eight countries for which comparable data are available. 
In 2020, this share even increased (Figure 52 left).177
175 A special government project for rewarding teams at clinics with 
more registered patients at the primary level (exceeding the weighted 
capitation of 1,895), extending the network of family medicine 
clinics to 64.6 teams, introducing healthcare administrators in family 
medicine teams, and facilitating faster employment of doctors from 
abroad (MZ, 2022c).
176 Salary supplements for specialty trainees for family medicine and 
more posts for specialisation, the expansion of competences of nurses, 
a three-month internship in family or emergency medicine, additional 
scholarships for medical and nursing students, increased enrolment 
in medicine and stomatology programmes, and easing language 
conditions for employing foreign doctors (MZ, 2022c).
177 Kuhar et al. (2021) found that in 2020, the number of patients waiting 
longer than admissible waiting time increased by 86% for the first 
epidemic due to poorer accessibility, in particular for 
vulnerable groups (see Section 2.1). 
The accessibility of healthcare is good in terms of 
the financial coverage of rights, but the shortage 
of family doctors and long waiting times are highly 
problematic. In Slovenia, the very broad health benefit 
package173 is financed from the combined compulsory 
and complementary health insurances. The coverage 
of the population with compulsory insurance is almost 
100%, and 95% of persons liable for co-payment are 
included in the complementary insurance scheme. The 
complementary health insurance premiums for socially 
disadvantaged people (approximately 100,000 people) 
are covered by the State. Voluntary health insurance 
(mostly complementary health insurance) represents 
more than one half of private expenditure on healthcare 
and the out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure174 is 
among the lowest in the EU (Indicator 3.6 and IMAD, 
2021b). In 2018, only 0.8% of the population had 
dangerously high out-of-pocket expenditure, which 
is the least among EU Member States (6.5%) (OECD/
information and consulting) are organised (SIAE, 2021).
173 The benefit package includes services at the primary, secondary and 
tertiary levels, medicinal products, medical devices, reimbursement of 
sickness benefits for absences of more than 20 days, and certain travel 
expenses. Full coverage is provided for the services related to cancer, 
communicable diseases, family planning, emergency treatment, long-
term medical care in hospitals and other environments, and services 
for children/students up to 26 years of age. Costs of other services are 
divided, this between 10% and 90% of the costs, which are covered from 
complementary health insurance (for more details, see IMAD, 2021).
174 Out-of-pocket expenditure relates to direct payments for services not 
included in the obligatory benefit package and not covered from the 
compulsory and complementary health insurances. The greatest share 
of these (34%) is spent on non-prescription or "white prescription" 
medicinal products, followed by medical devices (corrective glasses), 
self-pay services, including physiotherapy and alternative medicine, 
dental services, etc. According to WHO recommendations, out-of-
pocket expenditure is acceptable until it accounts for around 15% of 
health expenditure.
72
65
62 60
56
50 49 47 47 46 46 45 45 44 44 42 40 38
35 32 30
23 23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Sp
ai
n
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
la
nd
Ire
la
nd
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
Es
to
ni
a
EU
22
H
un
ga
ry
Po
rt
ug
al
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sl
ov
ak
ia
G
re
ec
e
A
us
tr
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Ita
ly
G
er
m
an
y
Fr
an
ce
2020 2021
Share of adults who sought health advice from a 
doctor via telephone or e-mail, June/July 2020 and 
February/March 2021
Sh
ar
e 
of
 re
sp
on
de
nt
s,
 in
 %
71 82
128
162 188
241
417
776
80 107
142
267
203
300
541
1070
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
N
ew
Ze
al
an
d
Sw
ed
en
Sp
ai
n
H
un
ga
ry
Ire
la
nd
Po
rt
ug
al
sl
ov
en
ia
Es
to
ni
a
In
 d
ay
s 
(m
ed
ia
n)
Hip replacement 2019 Hip replacement 2020
Knee replacement 2019 Knee replacement 2020
 Figure 52: In Slovenia, waiting times are among the longest in the EU and have even increased in 2020 (left); during the 
epidemic, the share of remote consultations with doctors was among the highest in the EU (right)
Sources: OECD (2022b) and Eurofound (2021d).
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 87Development report 2022
65 years who were severely limited in basic daily 
activities said that they received a formal in-home care 
(EU: 34%) (Eurostat, 2021c). Furthermore, in Slovenia, 
persons with a medium-level limitation cannot cover 
co-payments for a formal long-term in-home care solely 
from their income (Hashiguachi and Llena-Nozal, 2020) 
(Indicator 3.7). Inadequately governed LTC at home 
increases the burden on families and the pressures on 
institutional care and the use of healthcare services 
(IMAD, 2021a). The Personal Assistance Act, which 
entered into force in 2019, improved the opportunities 
of persons with limitations to live independently at 
home, but public expenditure for this purpose has 
been rising sharply for three years, which is not fiscally 
sustainable.179 In the middle of 2021, an amendment to 
the Act was adopted, providing additional conditions 
for assessing the eligibility to personal assistance and 
certain restrictions for service providers (Box 9). In 
2020, the epidemic markedly exacerbated the staff 
situation in LTC.180 Therefore the Government allocated 
additional funds for 620 new staff in institutional care, 
primarily in LTC (ZZUOOP, 2020). Since the main problem 
is the shortage of suitable staff on the labour market, 
additional recruitments were carried out by including 
the participants in community work programmes, 
paying temporary and occasional work, and establishing 
working hours for student work. In 2021, investments in 
improving the infrastructure of public residential care 
homes started with the assistance from the REACT-EU 
fund, in particular in converting multi-bed rooms into 
one- or two-bed rooms and setting up separate paths to 
prevent the spread of viruses and other diseases. In order 
to expand the network of residential care homes, in 
2021 concessions were granted for 1,285 places and an 
invitation to tender for additional 1,100 places for new 
residents of care homes was published (MDDSZ, 2022b). 
The accessibility of leisure activities increased in 
2015–2020 and then took a downturn during the 
COVID-19 epidemic. In 2015 and 2016, the share of 
the population181 that did not have access to leisure 
activities fell considerably and remained at more or 
less the same level in 2016–2020 (around 45%). Two-
thirds of them were not able to afford leisure activities 
for financial reasons, in particular older people, low-
educated people, and people below the at-risk-of-
poverty and material and social deprivation thresholds 
(SURS, 2022b) and were thus at greater risk of social 
179 Public expenditure on personal assistance increased from EUR 3.8 
million in 2018 to EUR 130.5 million in 2021 (MDDSZ, 2022a).
180 By the end of 2020, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases 
among the residents reached 10,800, which was almost one half of 
all institutional LTC recipients. Unfortunately, 1,781 residents died 
(57% of all deaths). An analysis of LTC staff (Jež et al., 2016) showed 
that, in 2015, formal LTC services in Slovenia were provided by 11,514 
carers, i.e. 2.7 carers per 100 LTC recipients over the age of 65, which is 
significantly less than the EU average (3.8 carers per 100 recipients) (for 
more information, see IMAD, 2021a). The too low staffing standards in 
residential care homes was also highlighted by the audit conducted by 
the Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia (2019).
181 The indicator measures the share of the population aged 16 years or 
older who have no access to leisure activities.
The COVID-19 epidemic reduced the accessibility 
of healthcare for many patients but also mitigated 
the accessibility problem by increasing the use of 
e-health services. The main problem of healthcare 
provision during the epidemic was the lack of staff. 
The measures to increase the capacities for the care 
of COVID-19 patients required slowing or temporarily 
suspending some non-urgent outpatient and inpatient 
treatments. At the primary level, the total number of 
visits fell slightly in 2020 but then increased by 15% in 
2021, with a great surge in remote consultations (from 
5% to 22% of all visits) (HIIS, 2022). At the secondary level, 
the impact of the epidemic was also smaller in 2021 than 
the year before. The number of treatments in specialist 
ambulatory services was already higher than in 2019. 
However, total realisation of all inpatient treatments was 
still lagging behind. This contributed to further increase 
in waiting times. On 1 January 2022, 88,233 patients had 
been waiting longer than the admissible waiting time 
(on 1 December 2020 there were 56,029 such patients). 
In order to mitigate the effects of poorer accessibility 
on public health, the volume of remote consultations, 
which the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia has 
been acknowledging as provided healthcare services 
since the middle of 2020, have increased greatly in the 
last two years, and e-prescriptions and e-referrals have 
become the predominant form of issuing prescriptions 
and referrals. In the first 12 months of the epidemic, 
64% of the population (EU: 53%) reported receiving 
a prescription via internet or telephone and 65% (EU: 
45%) of population consulted medical staff in this 
manner (Eurofound, 2021d). As pointed out by OECD 
(2021i), remote consultations and other digital tools 
for healthcare are used less by older, low-educated and 
socially disadvantaged people, so it is likely that the 
gap in the accessibility of healthcare services between 
different groups has increased during the epidemic.
The problems of long-term care (LTC) were 
exacerbated by the epidemic, in particular due to 
the lack of staff in residential care homes and poorly 
developed in-home care. The share of the population 
over the age of 65 in institutional care in Slovenia is 
higher than the EU average,178 but the problem lies 
in outdated standards regarding staff, of whom there 
is a critical shortage in residential care homes, and 
sometimes inadequate accommodation infrastructure 
(IMAD, 2021a). Every year, Slovenia is lagging more 
behind the developed countries in terms of inclusion 
of people over 65 years of age in the formal in-home 
care (OECD, 2021i). In 2019, only 17% of people over 
specialist consultation in rheumatology, 34% for oral and maxillofacial 
surgery, 31% for diagnostic examinations with kidney and bladder 
x-ray, 56% for surgical procedures on the carpal tunnel, 22% for 
varicose veins surgery, 12% for cataract surgery, 20% for vascular 
surgery, 16% for knee endoprosthesis, and 13% for hip endoprosthesis.
178 In 2019, 4.7% of the population were in institutional care in Slovenia 
(the OECD average was 4%). The ratio between the number of people 
included in in-home care and the number of those in institutional 
care was 60:40, while the average across 20 OECD countries was 70:30 
(OECD, 2022b).
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society88 Development report 2022
 Box 9: The Long-Term Care Act establishes a new social security system
Twenty years after the first drafts, the Long-Term Care Act (LTC Act) was adopted in December 2021. The LTC 
Act (ZDOsk, 2021) comprehensively regulates an area that was previously governed by several acts1 and through 
separate social protection systems (healthcare, pension and social systems) (IMAD, 2021a). The establishment of 
the new system will be gradual: in 2022, implementing regulations will be adopted, single entry points will be set 
up and staff training will be carried out; in 2023, the LTC Act will enter into force in institutional care; and in 2024, 
in-home care services, e-care and cash benefits will be introduced. The LTC Act prescribes a single assessment of 
eligibility for LTC2 and a coordinated exercising of rights, introduces the additional control of quality and safety of 
services, and ensures greater transparency of the use of public resources. LTC providers will be public institutions 
and concessionaires, which can be legal or natural persons, and also operators of complementary activities on farms 
that provide LTC in residential units. 
The Ministry estimates that the number of LTC recipients will increase by approximately one-fifth. The 
recipients who enter the new LTC system based on the eligibility assessment will be classified in five categories 
according to the level of limitations. The Ministry of Health estimates (MZ, 2021) that the total number of recipients 
in 2024 will be roughly 63,000 and that it will rise by 3% per year in the next two years. This will mean a 20% increase 
in the number of beneficiaries by 2024 compared to the current situation, taking into account that some current 
beneficiaries will not meet the criteria for entry in the new system. According to the international methodology, the 
number of LTC recipients will be higher, as this methodology also includes the recipients of long-term nursing care 
(community nursing care), personal assistance and home help, which will continue to be governed by other acts 
(ZOA, 2019; ZSV, 1992; ZZVZZ, 1992). 
The LTC Act provides a wide range of benefits not depending on the socioeconomic status of beneficiaries. 
Beneficiaries will be able to choose among institutional care, in-home care, a family member carer or a cash benefit. 
The Act also introduces co-financing of in-home e-care services for all beneficiaries, both in institutions and at home, 
and new services for strengthening and maintaining independence (physiotherapy, kinesitherapy, psychologist). It 
also envisages the training of informal carers and the improvement of the status of home care assistants (higher 
compensation for loss of income and 21 days of substitute care). In addition to the wide range of benefits, the LTC 
Act also lays down that all beneficiaries with the same level of limitations will receive the same scope of benefits 
regardless of their socioeconomic status. It should be noted that due to fiscal constraints, in the majority of OECD 
countries beneficiaries pay user charges at least for LTC and in-home care services depending on their income status 
(in 23 of 31 countries) and in some countries the income of family members is also taken into account (in 18 of 32 
countries), similarly to Slovenia under the hitherto applicable regulation. In some countries (in 11 of 28) the amount 
of cash benefits also depends on the income position of the beneficiaries (Neubert et al., 2019).
Public expenditure for LTC is expected to almost double, while the rise of private expenditure should slow. 
The Ministry of Health estimates (MZ, 2021) that in 2025, public expenditure for all benefits under the new LTC Act 
will amount to EUR 763 million, of which EUR 300 million would be covered from the same financing sources as at 
present (the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia, the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia, and the 
Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs), while an additional EUR 463 million would come partly from the state 
budget and partly from the new compulsory insurance for LTC which is to enter into force in 2025.3 This would be 
1.2% of GDP. The public expenditure for the services that are considered LTC services according to the international 
methodology (Indicator 3.7) but will continue to be governed by the ZZVZZ, the ZOA and the ZSV will amount to 
an additional 0.5% of GDP. The rise in private expenditure should slow: in 2023, the residents of residential care 
homes will cover the accommodation part of the fee but not the social services that used to be included in the 
price. However, it should be noted that for the majority of residents the amount they will pay will not change much 
as under the existing system they receive an attendance allowance to cover a part of the fee, to which they will no 
longer be entitled under the new system. Much more than for residential care homes, the new system will reduce 
1 These areas are regulated by ZOA (2017), ZPIZ-2 (2013), ZSV (1992), ZSVI (2019), ZSVI (2019), ZSVarPre (2012), ZSDP-1 (2014), ZUPJS (2010), ZVojI 
(1996), ZVV (2003) and ZZVZZ (1992).
2 The eligibility for LTC services and cash benefits is based on the following definition of long-term care: "long-term care is a series of measures, 
services and activities intended for those who, due to diseases, frailty associated with old age, injuries, disabilities, or lack or loss of intellectual 
capacities, are for an extended period of time that is not shorter than three months or permanently dependent on others for assistance with basic 
and instrumental activities of daily living" (ZDOsk, 2021).
3 These estimates of the Ministry of Health have already taken into account the amendments and agreements adopted with regard to the amendments 
during the procedure for the adoption of the Act by the National Assembly and are slightly higher than in the proposal for the Long-Term Care Act that 
was submitted to public debate. The amendments included are the postponement of the start of formal care in institutions to 1 January 2023, a higher 
benefit for a family member carer, the expansion of the right to e-care services and higher co-financing of this right, and the financing of additional 
labour costs under Article 130, which arise from the Annex to the Collective Agreement for the Healthcare and Social Protection Sector.  
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 89Development report 2022
about personal matters. In Slovenia, life satisfaction 
has been above the EU average since the beginning 
of measurements (2004); however, the lead has been 
reducing since 2017. Following the two years of the 
epidemic, it is slightly lower than in 2017–2019, but it 
remains above the long-term average and the EU average 
(see Indicator 3.13). Since 2014, trust in people has been 
increasing, but in 2018 it was still lower than the average 
of the European countries included in the survey184 
(ESS-ERIC, 2020). In 2020,185 27% of respondents felt 
that most people could be trusted, which is the most in 
2002–2020. Trust in people’s honesty and their readiness 
to help was also higher. The majority of people had at 
least one person in their lives to talk to about personal 
matters, which is important with regard to social support 
and inclusion. Older people, low-educated people and 
184 The chart shows the total average result of the selected countries 
regardless of the size of the national samples or the size of the country 
(Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Ireland, Hungary, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, 
Spain, Sweden and the UK).
185 The data from the European Social Survey, which due to the epidemic 
was conducted in two stages: from 18 September to 19 October 2020 
and from 1 June to 31 August 2021 (CJMMK, 2022).
exclusion. In 2021, due to the temporary restrictions on 
several leisure activities because of the epidemic, the 
accessibility of such activities was reduced markedly (for 
61% of the population). Although many activities moved 
online during the epidemic, they remained inaccessible 
to people without the necessary infrastructure, 
appropriate internet connection and digital skills (see 
Section 2.1). In 2021, the financial accessibility of leisure 
activities increased, at least temporarily, with the option 
to redeem tourism vouchers for culture, sports and 
recreation (ZIUPGT, 2021),182 which resulted in people 
spending more time for such activities than before and 
more than was the EU average (Eurofound, 2021b).183
Life satisfaction has reduced slightly, while trust in 
people was higher; the majority of the population 
had at least one person in their lives to talk to 
182 Adults could redeem vouchers of EUR 100 and minors vouchers of 
EUR 50.
183 According to the survey on the quality of life during the COVID-19 
epidemic conducted in February and March of 2021, the residents of 
Slovenia aged 18 years and over spent on average 9.7 hours (EU: 5.2 
hours) per month for sport, culture and leisure activities.
the user charges for in-home care, because the scope of services per beneficiary will be substantially greater and 
free of charge for all beneficiaries under the LTC Act.
The introduction of a new compulsory insurance for LTC should solve the problem of public financing 
sources for LTC, but the long-term projections for age-related expenditure will also have to be taken into 
account. The LTC Act provides that one of the sources of financing the LTC benefits will be compulsory insurance 
for LTC, which is planned to be introduced by a special act by 30 June 2025 at the latest. Until this act is adopted, 
one part of the LTC benefits will be financed from the funds transferred for this purpose from the compulsory health 
insurance and pension and disability insurance and the remaining part from the state budget, the Demographic 
Fund, EU funds, and donations and other resources. In seeking suitable solutions regarding the new compulsory 
LTC insurance, long-term projections for public expenditure for LTC will have to be taken into account. The most 
recent projections, made in 2021 within the Ageing Working Group (AWG) of the European Commission (EC, 2021u), 
show that in 2019–2070, public expenditure for LTC will more than double or increase from 1.0% of GDP to 2.2% of 
GDP (reference scenario)4 or, if various non-demographic factors are also taken into account (risk scenario), it will 
increase by 4.5 p.p. of GDP, i.e. to 5.5% of GDP (EC, 2021u). The adoption of the new LTC Act, which will expand the 
scope of benefits from public resources, will further increase the pressure on expenditure and financing.
In order to meet all the needs for LTC, the number of staff should be increased substantially. Taking into 
account the current ratio of LTC recipients to LTC staff, we estimate that in order to meet all the needs, the number of 
staff should be increased by 30% in institutional care and almost threefold in in-home care. Considering that there 
is already a shortage of staff in these professions, the recruitment can only be carried out if working conditions are 
improved and salaries increased to attract additional labour force from abroad. It is very likely that, due to fiscal 
constraints regarding salaries, there will be a lack of staff in the future and that, as a result, there will be waiting 
times for residential care homes or in-home care. Under the LTC Act, while waiting for LTC services, the beneficiaries 
will receive an attendance allowance to enable them to arrange certain services for themselves with the assistance 
of families or private providers. Considering the planned amount of assistance allowance, which on average will be 
relatively low (from EUR 89 to EUR 491 per month, depending on the LTC category) (MZ, 2021), the beneficiaries will 
very likely have to cover a substantial part of their care from their own funds.
4 The AWG reference scenario in LTC projections takes into account the impact of changes in the demographic structure of the population, the 
growth in expenditure for LTC services in accordance with productivity growth and the assumption that for half of the additional life expectancy 
years people will not need assistance from others to perform daily tasks. In addition to the demographic changes, the risk scenario also takes into 
account the assumption of the convergence of expenses per recipient and the convergence of the LTC service coverage to the level of the EU 
average in 2070. 
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society90 Development report 2022
According to the most recent data available, fewer 
women experienced violence from their partners 
in Slovenia than the EU average;189 however, the 
COVID-19 epidemic contributed to an increase in 
the number of domestic violence cases. Any violence, 
be it physical, sexual, psychological or/and economic, 
is a violation of the victim’s human rights, dignity and, 
at worst, the right to life (EC, 2021a). Men most often 
experience violence in a public space and women at 
home, which has significant consequences for the 
victims, as incidents at home often occur without the 
presence of other people or solely in the presence of 
children, who are thus also made victims of the violence 
(FRA, 2021).190 One of the most frequent forms of 
violence based on gender191 is domestic violence. This is 
a serious and often long-term and hidden social problem 
and one which has a negative impact on the emotional, 
economic and social well-being of the entire family (EP, 
2021b). Due to the changes in the way of life during 
the COVID-19 epidemic, many countries reported an 
increase in the number of domestic violence cases (EC, 
2021a; IMAD, 2021a, 2021c).192 According to the police 
data (2021d), there were 10.7% more criminal offences of 
domestic violence in 2020 than the year before. In 2021, 
fewer domestic violence cases were reported and the 
number of female victims of crime (domestic violence 
and sexual violence) was again significantly higher than 
the number of male victims (Police, 2022). The rate of 
reporting violence to the police and other institutions 
is low in Slovenia, as the violence and its consequences 
are dealt with by victims on their own or with the help 
of friends and family (violence is considered a private 
matter) (FRA, 2014, 2020), and the data recorded by 
the authorities often do not reflect the actual scope of 
gender-based violence (EIGE, 2021b).
189 In 2012, 13% of women suffered physical and/or sexual violence from 
their partners (EU: 22%) and 34% psychological violence from their 
partners (EU: 43%) (FRA, 2014).
190 In 2019, in Slovenia and the EU physical violence was experienced on 
average by 11% of men and 8% of women (estimate for the last five 
years). Of these, 34% of men (EU: 36%) and 8% of women (EU: 20%) 
experienced violence in a public space and 47% of women (EU: 35%) 
and 13% of men (EU: 15%) at their homes (FRA, 2020).
191 Members of the LGBTIQ+ community are also victims of violence based 
on gender, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics 
(EP, 2021c).
192 Some EU Member States, including Slovenia, introduced several 
measures to support victims of violence during the COVID-19 
epidemic (e.g. setting up a 24/7 helpline for victims, while pharmacies 
were identified as contact points for dissemination of information on 
the services of non-governmental organisations working in the field of 
domestic violence against women) (see EC, 2021a).
people with low income were most prone to social 
isolation and loneliness.186 Slightly more people than in 
previous years187 and more people than during the first 
wave of the COVID-19 epidemic, when social contacts 
were maintained by using modern technology, had 
frequent contacts with relatives, friends or co-workers 
(at least once a week) (see Lenarčič and Smrdelj, 2020; 
IMAD, 2021c).
According to international data from 2019, exposure 
to various forms of discrimination in Slovenia was 
among the lowest in the EU; however, the most recent 
data of the Advocate of the Principle of Equality 
show that it increased in 2017–2020. According to 
an international survey, in 2019, 9% of respondents 
in Slovenia (EU: 16%) experienced discrimination or 
harassment (Eurobarometer, 2019). National surveys, 
which are not comparable to international ones, recorded 
a rise in discrimination188 in 2017–2020 (Advocate of the 
Principle of Equality, 2017, 2021c) (see Indicator 3.11). 
Greater exposure to discrimination is related to the 
situation during the COVID-19 epidemic and the measures 
to contain the virus. These disproportionately affected 
vulnerable groups that are already disadvantaged due 
to a personal circumstance (children from vulnerable 
families, older people, Roma, foreigners, people with 
disabilities, socially disadvantaged people, women and 
other groups) (Dalli, 2021; ECRI, 2021; Marouda, 2021; 
Šimonović Einwalter, 2021; Advocate of the Principle of 
Equality, 2021b). Prolonged or repeated discrimination 
has a negative impact on the discriminated person or 
group and can lead to social exclusion; it increases the 
costs of healthcare services, contributes to the neglect of 
available resources, and reduces productivity and social 
well-being (Kogovšek and Petković, 2007).
186 In 2020, 5% of respondents over 15 years reported that they do not 
have a confidant in their lives. The majority were from the lowest 
income bracket (10%), older than 65 years (9%) or had no more than 
basic education (8%).
187 In 2020, 56% of respondents had regular contacts with relatives, 
friends and co-workers, while in 2014–2018 this share was 53% to 55% 
and constantly below the average of the countries included in the 
survey (2018: 60%) (ESS-ERIC, 2020).
188 In 2020, 22% of the Slovenian population experienced discrimination, 
which is 5 p.p. more than in 2017 (Advocate of the Principle of Equality, 
2017, 2021c).
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 91Development report 2022
In 2020, the employment rate declined, but was still 
above the SDS target.
who are laid off for more than three months or expect to be laid off for 
more than three months are no longer counted among the persons in 
employment but among the unemployed (if they are seeking work) 
or the inactive population. The change in the methodology primarily 
affected the number of persons in employment in the first half of 2021, 
when many employed people participated in measures. Accordingly, it 
mainly affected the activity rate and the employment rate.
After the deterioration caused by the outbreak of 
the COVID-19 epidemic, the labour market situation 
started to improve in the second half of 2020 due 
to the support of intervention measures and the 
revival of the economy. In the second quarter of 2020, 
the epidemic slowed and the containment measures193 
ended, noticeably weakening the long-term favourable 
trends in the labour market. Initially, the unemployment 
rate increased rapidly, as the first response of some 
businesses to the precarious situation was not to renew 
or to terminate fixed-term contracts. By swiftly adopting 
intervention measures to retain jobs,194 the Government 
mitigated the effect of the fall in economic activity on 
the labour market. It also adopted other intervention 
measures to help the business sector and vulnerable 
groups. In the second half of 2020 and in 2021, the 
situation improved as the majority of activities restarted 
and the demand for labour grew rapidly, which again 
led to businesses having difficulties in finding workers. 
The labour market continued to improve in 2021. The 
number of persons in employment at the end of the 
year was the highest to date (916,756), and the number 
of registered unemployed persons (65,969) was close 
to the lowest level, which was reached in the second 
half of 2008. Following the temporary transition to 
inactivity (in particular among women) during the first 
wave of the epidemic, the labour market participation 
also returned to the pre-epidemic level (see 
Indicator 3.21). At the beginning of 2021, the change in 
the methodology used in the Labour Force Survey that 
gives internationally comparable data also affected 
the activity rate and employment rate (Figure 53).195 
193 In particular, the temporary lockdown and restrictions on certain 
activities.
194 For a more detailed presentation of measures to retain jobs, see IMAD 
(2021c).
195 The change in the methodology is related in particular to the change in 
the definition of persons in employment in relation to a temporary lay-
off. According to the change in the methodology in early 2021, people 
3.3 An inclusive labour market and quality jobs
 An inclusive labour market and high-quality jobs (Development Goal 7):
The goal is to create an inclusive labour market that will provide high-quality jobs with high value added (see 
also Development Goal 6). The introduction of the concept of sustainable working life and the adjustment of 
jobs to demographic changes will help increase the labour force participation of older workers and improve their 
health. Improving the system of flexicurity and promoting the employment of both genders in gender-atypical 
professions will contribute to the increased inclusion of under-represented groups in the labour market.
 Performance indicators for Development Goal 7:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
Employment rate (20–64 years), in % 75.6 (2020) 72.6 (2020) > 75
At-risk-of-poverty rate of persons in 
employment, in % 5.0 (2020) 9.2 (2019) < 5
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
20
19
Q
1
20
19
Q
2
20
19
Q
3
20
19
Q
4
20
20
Q
1
20
20
Q
2
20
20
Q
3
20
20
Q
4
20
21
Q
1
20
21
Q
2
20
21
Q
3
In
 %
Activity rate (estimate according to the old methodology)*
Activity rate (official)
Employment rate (estimate according to the old methodology)*
Employment rate (official)
 Figure 53: In the second half of 2021, the employment 
rate and activity rate exceeded the pre-COVID-19 
epidemic level; however, in early 2021, they were affected 
by the change in the methodology
Sources: SURS (2021c and 2022b), IMAD estimates. Note: *The estimate of the 
activity rate and the employment rate applicable until the end of 2020 was 
made by IMAD based on the microdata from the Labour Force Survey. The 
estimate of both indicators is merely for the illustration of the effect of the 
methodology change. To measure the performance indicator (employment 
rate), values officially published by the Statistical Office of the Republic of 
Slovenia are used.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society92 Development report 2022
After the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, 
Slovenia adopted measures to retain jobs, which 
significantly mitigated the impact of the fall in 
economic activity on the labour market. The most 
important of these measures in terms of the volume 
of payments and the number of people included, was 
a partial subsidisation of compensation for temporary 
laid-off workers. The measures were aimed at reducing 
labour costs, which often account for a significant part 
of businesses’ expenditure, to increase the chances of 
retaining jobs and keeping workers employed until the 
economy could recover.196 In the period from March 2020 
to October 2021, EUR 1.77 billion was paid out for job-
retention measures, with the largest amount, of EUR 596 
million, paid out for the temporary layoff measure.197 
In the second quarter of 2020, 375,000 payments were 
made with regard to temporary lay-offs, which was the 
most in the entire period the measure was in force.198 In 
terms of job retention, the adopted measures have had 
196 The temporary lay-off measure also provided employers with the right 
to partial reimbursement of salary compensation paid to workers 
who could not be provided with work due to the epidemic and were 
temporarily laid off. Such workers were entitled to 80% of salary 
compensation, with the State reimbursing employers a part of this 
amount. In mid-2020, the measure of partial subsidisation of short-
time work was also put in place. The measure enabled employers 
to temporarily impose short-time work (to a maximum of half the 
full working time), while for the rest of the time the worker was on 
temporary lay-off. In doing so, employers were entitled to a subsidy, 
the amount of which depended on how much the working time was 
shortened.
197 Measures to retain jobs also included other measures, such as the 
payment of a basic income and social contributions to sole traders 
and other beneficiaries (EUR 440 million), payment of pension and 
disability insurance contributions to employees who worked during 
the epidemic (EUR 436 million), payment of social contributions for 
temporarily laid-off employees (EUR 124 million), partial subsidisation 
of short-time work (EUR 74 million), crisis allowance (EUR 58 million), 
subsidising of the minimum wage (EUR 25 million), and sickness 
benefits for employees (EUR 21 million).
198 From March 2020 to June 2021, 31,700 companies have taken up this 
measure for 215,000 people.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
D
en
m
ar
k
Ire
la
nd
H
un
ga
ry
Sw
ed
en
Bu
lg
ar
ia
La
tv
ia
Po
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
Ro
m
an
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sp
ai
n
A
us
tr
ia
Ita
ly
G
re
ec
e
Fr
an
ce
Cr
oa
tia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Cy
pr
us
M
al
taS
ha
re
 o
f p
eo
pl
e 
pa
rt
ic
ip
at
in
g 
in
 th
e 
sc
he
m
es
, i
n 
%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Ja
n 
20
Fe
b 
20
M
ar
 2
0
A
pr
 2
0
M
ay
 2
0
Ju
n 
20
Ju
l 2
0
A
ug
 2
0
Se
p 
20
O
ct
 2
0
N
ov
 2
0
D
ec
 2
0
Ja
n 
21
Fe
b 
21
M
ar
 2
1
A
pr
 2
1
M
ay
 2
1
Ju
n 
21
N
um
be
r o
f p
ay
m
en
ts
Temporary lay-off Short-time work
 Figure 54: The largest number of employees participating in the temporary lay-off scheme was in the second quarter of 
2020; at that time, Slovenia had a medium share of people included in the schemes compared to other EU Member States
Sources: EC (2021b), Eurostat (2022), ESS (2021); calculations by IMAD.
a positive and desired effect, as their quick adoption 
significantly contributed to the fall in the employment 
being considerably smaller than the fall in economic 
activity.199 The adjustments in the labour market mainly 
took the form of a reduction in the number of working 
hours (see also Section 1.1). The scope of application of 
the schemes in individual countries also depended on 
the epidemiological situation, the scope of containment 
measures, and the extent to which individual economic 
activities and economies were affected or the fall in GDP 
(OECD, 2021h). According to the data of the European 
Commission, in the second quarter of 2020, the greatest 
shares of workers included in the schemes were in 
Malta, Netherlands, Cyprus and Croatia (Figure 54 right). 
Slovenia is in the group of countries with the medium 
share of such workers (10–20%). Similar applies to the 
share of self-employed persons who received financial 
assistance from the Government in the second quarter 
of 2020 (Kajzer, 2021).
Following a long period of improvement of the 
position of vulnerable groups in the labour market, 
the situation deteriorated in the second quarter of 
2020 with the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic; 
however, in the middle of 2021, the majority of 
vulnerable groups were in a situation similar to that 
before the crisis. The vulnerable groups in the labour 
market tend to have fewer opportunities for quality jobs 
and job security and are more often unemployed or 
inactive, which has a negative impact on their income 
security and quality of life. The epidemic initially caused 
199 Assessments show that the measure benefited a wide range of 
different businesses. The broad orientation of the measure was 
aimed at protecting businesses and safeguarding jobs in response to 
the sharp decline in activity. This preserved the potential for a faster 
recovery and prevented excessive dismissals that could have slowed 
and prolonged the recovery. For more information, see Productivity 
Report 2021 (IMAD, 2022).
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 93Development report 2022
quarter of 2021, the unemployment among young 
people and low-educated people had not yet reached 
the pre-crisis level, which is to some extent related to 
the restrictions for the control of the epidemic, which 
at that time still affected the extent of operation of 
some activities.202 Active labour market policy (ALMP) 
programmes can also contribute to the improvement 
of employment opportunities for vulnerable groups, 
but for many years relatively small resources have 
been allocated to such programmes and their volume 
was further reduced during the epidemic. Slovenia is 
among the EU Member States with a below-average 
number of people included in ALMP programmes and 
below-average funds for such programmes.203 When 
the demand for labour increases, the share of hard-to-
employ among the unemployed usually also increases, 
which will require the adjustment of measures and funds 
for ALMP programmes, better integration with social 
protection services, greater investments in education 
unemployed was slightly higher (by 2.1 p.p., amounting to 44.3%). 
This was due to the people with certain skills and knowledge in 
demand gaining employment, while the hard-to employ persons stay 
unemployed for long periods and thus increase the share of the long-
term unemployed in total unemployment. The long-term unemployed 
are often at risk of their skills and knowledge diminishing due to long-
term absence from the labour market, which can increase their stigma 
in the eyes of potential employers, further reduce their job prospects 
and have a lasting impact on future earnings. There is also an increased 
risk of health problems associated especially with depression and 
stress.
202 This is also reflected in the fact that, as of the end of 2021, the 
employment in sectors such as accommodation and food service 
activities, culture and entertainment and various other business 
activities (including employment agencies) had not yet reached the 
level of the end of 2019.
203 According to Eurostat data, in 2005–2019 the average number of 
people included in the AEP measures per 100 people seeking work 
was 13.5 in Slovenia and 30.4 in the EU. In the same period, the share 
of funds (as a % of GDP) allocated to the AEP measures was also 
considerably lower in Slovenia (0.19% of GDP) than in the EU (0.51% of 
GDP). For more information, see IMAD (2021a).
extreme deterioration of the position in the labour 
market of low-educated people, low-income people, 
young people and women. The greater impact on low-
educated people and women was due to the marked 
sectoral and occupational dimension of the coronavirus 
crisis, as the sectors most exposed to the lockdown and 
reduced activity were accommodation and food service 
activities, tourism and, at least initially, also trade and 
sectors where women are predominantly employed 
and salaries are below average. Due to great exposure 
to temporary forms of work (in particular student work), 
young people were seriously affected at the start of the 
epidemic, as some businesses decided to downsize the 
number of employees by not extending or terminating 
temporary employment contracts and substantially 
reducing the volume of student work despite the rapid 
adoption of emergency measures to retain jobs.200 
With the reopening of activities (the quick recovery 
of economic activity) and employment, the situation 
in the labour market gradually improved also for the 
vulnerable groups. Similarly to the time before the 
coronavirus crisis, better employment opportunities for 
the vulnerable groups were due to labour shortage. In 
such circumstances, businesses often decide to employ 
the long-term unemployed or inactive persons with 
less suitable qualifications and skills. This is also one 
of the reasons that the long-term unemployment rate 
has not noticeably increased in the last two years (see 
Indicator 3.19). The share of the long-term unemployed 
among the unemployed remains high.201 In the third 
200 In the second quarter of 2020, the volume of student work was 50% 
smaller on a year-on-year basis. 
201 The long-term unemployed are people without employment for one 
year or more. Although the long-term unemployment rate (i.e. the 
number of the unemployed compared to the number of persons in 
employment and the unemployed together) in the second quarter 
of 2021 was similar (1.9%) to that in the second quarter of 2019 
(1.8%), while the share of the long-term unemployed among all the 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20
–2
9 
ye
ar
s
30
–5
4 
ye
ar
s
55
–6
4 
ye
ar
s
Lo
w
M
ed
iu
m
H
ig
h
M
en
W
om
en
Le
ss
 th
an
 1
 y
ea
r
M
or
e
Age Education Gender Unemploy-
ment
Pr
ob
ab
ili
ty
 o
f t
ra
ns
iti
on
 to
 e
m
pl
oy
m
en
t, 
in
 %
2019 Q1–Q3 2021 Q1–Q3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
20
19
Q
1
20
19
Q
2
20
19
Q
3
20
19
Q
4
20
20
Q
1
20
20
Q
2
20
20
Q
3
20
20
Q
4
20
21
Q
1
20
21
Q
2
20
21
Q
3
U
ne
m
pl
oy
m
en
t r
at
e,
 in
 %
Total
Young people (20–29 years)
Older people (55–64 years)
Low-educated people (ISCED 0-2)
Women
 Figure 55: In 2021, the unemployment of vulnerable groups already came close to the pre-crisis levels (left), which is also 
reflected in better employment opportunities for these groups (right)*
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: *The probability of transition to employment is a logistic regression estimate based on microdata from the Labour Force Survey. The 
transition to employment is defined as a transition from unemployment or inactivity to employment from one quarter to the next. Black and red columns represent 
the averages of quarterly estimates in the period concerned.
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society94 Development report 2022
unadjusted gap in the average salary between genders, 
but has been fairly stable in the last ten years (Figure 56 
left). A model decomposition shows that the majority 
of differences in average salaries of men and women 
can be explained by the difference in the demographic 
employment structure of men and women (Figure 56 
right). The factors that explain the greatest part of the 
unadjusted gender pay gap include the differences 
in the education level and occupational and sectoral 
structure, which reduce the gap in Slovenia, where on 
average women attain a higher level of education than 
men and thus receive higher pay and are employed in 
professions where the pay is relatively high. On the other 
hand, the sectoral structure, i.e. the structure of activities 
employing men and women, increases the pay gap as 
men are employed in the sectors where above-average 
salaries predominate. There is still a significant part of 
the gender pay gap that remains unexplained, which 
increased in 2010–2018.
An important factor of quality employment is 
adequate pay, which is significantly affected by the 
trend in and amount of the minimum wage, which 
was increased in the majority of EU Member States 
also during the epidemic. In Slovenia, like in the 
majority of EU Member States, the statutory minimum 
wage continued to rise in 2020 and 2021. Following the 
rise in 2020, which was substantial in some countries, 
the minimum wage was raised again in 2021 in the 
majority of countries, but the governments and social 
partners were slightly more cautious this time. Some 
countries also decided to freeze the minimum wage 
(Eurofound, 2021f ). In Slovenia, a part of the minimum 
wage increase in 2021 was temporarily assumed by the 
Government, which reduced the pressure on labour 
costs and prevented potential dismissal of minimum 
and training, and retraining. This could also reduce 
labour market mismatch and help job seekers from 
vulnerable groups to integrate into the labour market.
In the majority of EU Member States, the employment 
rate and average salary of women are lower than 
those of men. In Slovenia, these gaps are relatively small. 
Slovenia is among the countries with small differences in 
employment rate between men and women. The gap has 
been even further reduced in the last ten years, which 
was to a great extent due to the rise in employment in 
activities predominantly employing women. The gender 
pay gap also remains relatively small, despite an increase 
in the last ten years.204 The differences in the employment 
rate and pay between genders can seep into different 
areas of work over the course of a lifetime.205 In Slovenia, 
the adjusted gender pay gap206 is greater than the 
204 The internationally comparable data that served as the basis for 
determining the gender pay gap are from the Structure of Earnings 
Survey conducted every four years. The survey includes business 
entities (and their employees) employing more than 10 persons and 
classified in categories B to S of the Standard Classification of Activities 
(SKD), excluding category O (public administration, defence and 
compulsory social security).
205 For example, the pay gap affects the amount of unemployment 
benefit and the pension gap, and all this in the short and long term 
adversely affects the well-being and position of women in society.
206 There are two measures of gender pay gap – the unadjusted and the 
adjusted. The unadjusted gender pay gap is the gap in the average 
salary between men and women, while the adjusted gender pay 
gap is the gap in the average salary between men and women 
from which differences in the demographic and employment 
structure between genders are excluded by a regression analysis. 
The adjusted gender pay gap is thus the gap showing what the 
difference in the pay between genders would be if the demographic 
and education structure were the same in both genders. The 
gender pay gap adjusted in this way gives a clearer insight into pay 
differences between genders, as the differences in the demographic 
and employment structure can distort the picture of pay gap. This 
approach also gives an insight in how particular structural factors 
contribute to the gender pay gap.
-8 -4 0 4 8 12
Unexplained
Activity
structure
Years of
employment
Other factors
included
Occupational
structure
Educational
structure
Gender pay gap in p.p.
2018 2014 2010
Reducing the gap Increasing the gap
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2010 2014 2018
G
en
de
r p
ay
 g
ap
, i
n 
%
Unadjusted gender pay gap
Gender pay gap with excluded differences in the structure of the employed
 Figure 56: The adjusted gender pay gap is larger than the unadjusted one (left); the gap is best explained by the educational 
and occupational structure, but a substantial part remains unexplained (right)*
Source: SURS (2021d); calculations by IMAD.   Note: *The unadjusted gender pay gap is the difference in the average salary of men and women expressed as the share 
of the salary of men. When the gap is positive (negative), the average salary is lower (higher) among women then among men. The gender pay gap with excluded 
differences in the structure of the employed is a regression estimate (grey columns in the figure on the left). Due to the methodological specifics, it is similar but not 
entirely equal to the unexplained part of the decomposition (in the figure on the right) For details on the methodology, see IMAD (2021a).
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society 95Development report 2022
promotes collective bargaining with social partners 
on the amount of the minimum wage, envisages the 
establishment of clear and stable national criteria 
to ensure the adequacy of the statutory minimum 
wage, and regular updates of the statutory minimum 
wage. The national criteria should include at least the 
purchasing power of minimum wages, the general level 
of gross wages and their distribution, the growth rate 
of gross wages, and changes in labour productivity. 
In Slovenia, the Minimum Wage Act (2018), which was 
adopted in 2018 (i.e. before the directive on minimum 
wages), unilaterally set the amount of minimum wage 
for 2019 and 2020, which is contrary to the directive on 
minimum wages. The Act also envisaged that in 2021 a 
formula would start to be applied, according to which 
the minimum wage would have to exceed the calculated 
minimum living expenses by at least 20% but no more 
than 40%, which could be interpreted as a criterion for 
the purchasing power of the minimum wage. However, 
the last calculation of minimum living expenses was 
made with the data for 2015. The directive also requires 
timely and effective involvement of social partners 
in statutory minimum wage setting and updating, 
including through participation in consultative bodies. 
The Slovenian Act provides that the amount of the 
minimum wage is set and published by the minister 
responsible for labour, after a consultation with social 
partners. However, the form of the consultation is not 
formalised and does not ensure the inclusion of social 
partners in the selection of criteria for annual updates of 
the minimum wage. In view of the directive on adequate 
minimum wages, Slovenia will need to make a few minor 
adjustments, in particular to how the minimum wage is 
set and the calculation of the minimum living expenses 
are taken into account.
Labour market segmentation continued to reduce in 
the first year of the COVID-19 epidemic, but with the 
economic recovery in 2021 combined with still high 
uncertainty, it has increased again. The segmented 
labour market is characterised by a gap between 
workers in regular, protected, better-paid permanent 
jobs and those in less protected, lower-quality forms 
of work with less chance of moving to a safer form of 
employment. Following the increase in 2013–2017, 
the share of temporary employment had been falling 
until 2020, which was related to the increased demand 
for labour and the shortage thereof and the outbreak 
of the epidemic in 2020.209 The economic recovery in 
the second half of 2020 and the easing of restrictions 
adopted to prevent the spread of the epidemic, 
combined with great uncertainty, increased the share 
of temporary employment again. Thus, in the second 
quarter of 2021, the share of temporary employment 
again rose above the EU average (see Indicator 3.20). 
Young people are exposed to temporary employment 
adequacy of the minimum wage (EC, 2021s).
209 With a pronounced shortage of labour, in 2019 the share of temporary 
employment in Slovenia (12.5%) fell below the EU average (13.5%).
wage recipients.207 Unlike in many other countries, the 
minimum wage in Slovenia has been increasing faster 
than the average wage in the last ten years, which could 
have contributed to the small pay inequalities and low 
risk-of-poverty rate among those in work (Indicator 3.18) 
but also led to one of the highest ratios between 
the minimum and average wage compared to other 
countries. This is reflected in small differences in pay, in 
a great concentration of workers receiving the minimum 
wage compared to other EU Member States that have 
a minimum wage in place, and also in the greatest 
share of people receiving a salary of up to 105% of the 
minimum wage (Figure 57). All this can be unstimulating 
for certain groups and causes problems in the adequate 
remuneration of certain low-educated staff, for example 
in public services.
In order to ensure adequate remuneration in EU 
Member States, a proposal for an EU directive on 
adequate minimum wages was published at the 
end of 2020 (EC, 2021s) in accordance with one of 
the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights 
adopted in 2017. In the proposal for the directive, 
the European Commission stresses that an adequate 
minimum wage ensures a decent living for workers and 
notes that many workers in the EU are currently not 
protected by adequate minimum wages.208 The directive 
207 With regard to the minimum wage, the Additional Measures to 
Mitigate the Consequences of COVID-19 Act (ZDUOP, 2021) introduced 
the intervention measure of subsidisation by the State. In 2021, the 
Government helped employers with the increase in the minimum 
wage in two ways. For the remuneration for work from January to June 
2021, it paid a EUR 50 subsidy for each worker. From June to December, 
it reduced the minimum base for calculating contributions from 60% 
of the average pay to the amount of the minimum wage.
208 In almost every EU Member State, the national statutory minimum 
wages are lower than 60% of the gross median wage and/or 50% 
of the gross average wage, which are used as the criterion for the 
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Sp
ai
n
Be
lg
iu
m
M
al
ta
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Es
to
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Cr
oa
tia
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
G
er
m
an
y
La
tv
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Ire
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
Fr
an
ce
Po
la
nd
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sh
ar
e 
of
 e
m
pl
oy
ee
s,
 in
 %
 Figure 57: In 2018, Slovenia had the highest share of 
people receiving a salary of up to 105% of the minimum 
wage among the countries with a statutory minimum 
wage
Source: Eurostat (2022).
An inclusive, healthy, safe and responsible society96 Development report 2022
The increased volume of remote work and the 
COVID-19 epidemic brought new challenges to 
health and safety at work. Remote work can contribute 
to a more environmentally sustainable and regionally 
balanced development. Demographic changes require 
longer working lives, which also means a longer 
exposure to risks in the workplace. This also leads to a 
higher proportion of older workers and consequently 
the increased presence of chronic health problems. 
Therefore, an integrated lifelong approach to ensuring 
health at work is important, i.e. better prevention that 
ensures healthy ageing and a sustainable working life 
for all. In addition to the ageing of the population and 
the increased volume of remote work, the epidemic 
and its long-term effects on people’s health also pose 
new challenges for health and safety at work. Petrišič 
(2020) points out that an increased volume of remote 
work could increase some of the risks of musculoskeletal 
disorders arising from poor workplace ergonomics and 
too intensive or frequent use of modern information 
technologies, thus posing new challenges for health and 
safety at work.212 The right to disconnect is becoming 
increasingly relevant and included in the discussion on 
adequate working conditions. In January, the European 
Parliament passed a resolution on the right to disconnect 
and called for the drafting of EU legislation to ensure 
that workers have the right to digitally disconnect 
from work without facing negative repercussions. 
The increase in the volume of sick leave as a result of 
the epidemic also poses challenges to employers in 
organising uninterrupted work processes. The long-term 
health effects of COVID-19 (long COVID) may contribute 
to a future increase in the volume of sick leave, which is 
already above the EU average in Slovenia and increased 
considerably in 2021 (Indicator 3.22). That COVID-19 has 
long-term effects on health and the quality of life was 
also shown in some preliminary studies, according to 
which a large proportion of workers who recovered from 
COVID-19 did not return to previous jobs but started 
performing adjusted work tasks or transitioned to part-
time work (Chopra et al., 2021). The increased volume 
of remote work caused by the epidemic also prompted 
reflections on the advantages of remote work. Many 
studies consider the increasing significance of remote 
work for reducing the pollution of the environment by 
transport (see Section 4.1) and ensuring more balanced 
regional development (see Section 1.1). Therefore, it 
would be reasonable to promote remote work also after 
COVID-19, primarily in the context of environmentally 
sustainable and regionally balanced development.
212 For example, increased psychosocial risks that may be associated with 
(i) poor work organisation, (ii) lack of appropriate work instructions, 
and (iii) neglect of the right to disconnect outside working hours and 
to breaks during working hours.
in all EU Member States, but in Slovenia this exposure 
is more pronounced, mostly due to student work, which 
is a very flexible form of work, while constituting an 
important financial resource for students’ livelihood (see 
also IMAD, 2021b, p. 29).
There are no comprehensive data on the quality of the 
workplace and working environment for the period 
of the coronavirus crisis, but some analyses highlight 
the advantages and disadvantages of remote work. 
Although there is an extensive range of indicators that 
measure the individual dimensions of job quality, there 
are only few synthetic indicators that measure and rank 
countries according to the quality of employment (Cazes 
et al., 2016). In 2020, the European Working Conditions 
Survey, which is conducted every five years by the 
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living 
and Working Conditions (Eurofound) and serves as a 
basis for assessing workplace quality and calculating 
the European job quality index, was not carried out 
due to the COVID-19 epidemic. In 2005–2015, the 
aforementioned index indicated a deterioration of job 
quality in Slovenia. Eurostat data for 2020 (the most 
recent data) for Slovenia show that the incidence of 
certain work elements that have a negative impact on 
job quality has reduced (e.g. work through temporary 
work agencies, precarious employment and workers 
working at weekends). Following the reduction in 2020, 
in 2021 the share of temporary jobs, which are often of 
poorer quality, increased again, although it remained 
lower than before the epidemic (see Indicator 3.20) 
The increase in remote work during the epidemic also 
induced studies on the impact of such work on job 
quality. Although remote work usually facilitates the 
reconciliation of work and family life, this proved not 
to be entirely the case during the epidemic. This could 
be associated with the larger share of women among 
those who worked remotely, who were additionally 
burdened with childcare and housework due to the 
closure of childcare and educational institutions (see 
Section 3.1). The Eurofound survey (2021a) showed that 
in the summer of 2020, more respondents were satisfied 
with remote work in Slovenia than was the EU average 
(60.8%; EU: 57%).210 In the first wave of the epidemic in 
the spring of 2020, Fana et al. (2020) analysed the impact 
of remote work on particular elements of job quality 
in France, Spain and Italy and established that (i) the 
majority of respondents did not detect any impact of 
remote work on their income; (ii) the impact of remote 
work on their job satisfaction very much depended on 
the type of job and the occupation, whereby reduced 
job satisfaction was primarily reported by the highly 
qualified and educated staff;211 and (iii) the majority of 
employees did not consider the consequences of remote 
work for their career opportunities to be negative. 
210 This is the share of respondents who agreed or fully agreed with the 
statement that they were satisfied with remote work.
211 This was primarily due to reduced social contact and the lack of 
professional recognition.
A well-preserved 
and healthy natural 
environment
Burdening of the environment, as measured by greenhouse gas 
emissions, energy use, consumption of natural resources and generated 
waste, which mainly increased in the recovery period following the 
global financial crisis, decreased again in the last years of the previous 
decade and in particular in the first year of the COVID-19 epidemic. 
The 2020 targets for emissions and energy use have been achieved 
and exceeded, but the unachieved target for the share of renewables 
in total energy consumption, which has been growing at the slowest 
rate among all EU Member States since 2005, stands out. Productivity 
growth, expressed in relation to GDP generated, accelerated somewhat 
in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption before 
and during the epidemic, which was largely an effect of restrictive 
measures in transport in the last observed year (2020). Productivity in 
material consumption remained unchanged in the context of relatively 
small changes in construction activity. Emission, energy and resource 
productivity were about one-tenth lower than the EU average. As this 
lag has not improved significantly over the long term, this will not 
be sufficient to achieve the SDS sectoral targets, and the much more 
ambitious national and EU targets for 2030 and 2050 will be more 
difficult to achieve. The circular material use rate, which is a criterion 
of the economy’s circularity, will need to be significantly increased, 
also in view of the rising costs of raw materials, scarcity thereof in the 
environment and difficulties in supplying them. At the same time, this 
will lead to less waste generation; the upward trend in this came to a 
halt during the epidemic, but some new types of waste have emerged. 
For the transition to a low-carbon circular economy, it is crucial to 
4
make effective use of all available financial resources, and in order to 
accelerate the decarbonisation process in line with ambitious targets, 
additional systemic measures are also needed, supported by additional 
resources for sustainable investments in clean technologies, innovation 
and new knowledge.
Slovenia’s unsustainable economy and way of life are also reflected in 
its relatively high and growing ecological deficit. As in most developed 
countries, natural resources are being exploited at a much faster rate 
than they can be restored. The large share of protected areas, high 
forest cover and moderate intensity of farming contribute significantly 
to mitigating this problem in Slovenia. On average, soil and water are 
still relatively well-preserved natural resources. Air quality, measured by 
the content of the finest dust particles, is more problematic, due to the 
inadequate combustion of wood biomass in individual heating systems 
and extensive road transport.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment 99Development report 2022
4.1 A low-carbon circular economy
 A low-carbon circular economy (Development Goal 8):
The goal of the SDS 2030 is to break the link between economic growth and the increasing consumption of raw 
materials and energy and the associated high burden on the environment. Sustainable growth will be achieved 
primarily through radical changes in consumption and production patterns, including more efficient exploitation 
of resources, waste management and energy use with a higher share of renewable energy sources. This will also 
help reduce GHG emissions. The planned changes will be supported by education and integration, the promotion 
of environmental innovation, and, above all, the phasing out of fossil fuels. In addition, the SDS 2030 underlines 
the urgency of changes in transport in order to accelerate the development of sustainable mobility.
 Performance indicators for Development Goal 8:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
Resource productivity, PPS/kg 2.0 (2020)  2.2 (2020) 3.5
Share of RES in final energy consumption,  % 24.1 (2020) 22.1 (2020) 27.0
Emission productivity, PPS/M kg CO2  3.5 (2020) 3.7 (2019) EU average in 2030
In the first year of the epidemic, 2020, the use of key 
natural resources decreased along with greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions with lower economic activity, 
as was expected, while the intended break between 
them and economic growth was more pronounced; 
however, more radical systemic changes will be 
needed to achieve the ambitious targets by the end of 
the decade. The environmental dimension of economic 
development is typically analysed using indicators that 
show the ratio between economic growth and emissions, 
the use of materials, energy and water, and the resulting 
GHG emissions. The use of resources and, consequently, 
GHG emissions, largely levelled off following an 
increase in the first years of economic upturn after the 
global financial crisis, but in 2019, and especially in the 
epidemic year 2020, the decline was greater. The shifts 
were towards achieving the set targets, but this was 
easier to achieve due to lower economic activity. As a 
rule, the ambition of environmental policies required by 
the increasing impact of climate change is limited due to 
the expected negative effects on the economy, but these 
have been relatively low on average so far (OECD, 2021a). 
In this context, major changes are expected in sectors 
where productivity is lower and the negative impact 
on the environment is high. More radical shifts will be 
needed to achieve the agreed short-term targets for 
rapid emission reductions and carbon neutrality by mid-
century. This will require changes in technologies and 
reallocation of resources, monitoring of development 
performance and ongoing policy adjustments. 
 Figure 58: In the first year of the COVID-19 epidemic and the resulting lower GDP, GHG emissions, energy and material use, 
and waste generated decreased, while favourable hydrological conditions led to an increase in water use
Source: SURS (2022b); calculations by IMAD. Note: the resulting wastes excluding mineral resources are not deducted from waste incineration and treatment (Eurostat 
methodology). The year 2020 was hydrologically favourable, so more water was used to power turbines in hydropower plants.
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
In
de
xe
s,
 2
00
0 
= 
10
0 
(w
at
er
: 2
01
3 
= 
10
0,
 
to
ta
l w
as
te
: 2
00
2 
= 
10
0,
 w
as
te
 e
xc
lu
di
ng
 
m
in
er
al
: 2
01
0 
= 
10
0)
GDP, fixed prices GHG emissions Final energy consumption
Resource consumption Abstracted water Total waste
Waste excluding mineral
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment100 Development report 2022
due to around a fifth lower transport volume. Emissions 
from this sector, which had previously been growing 
rapidly, fell in 2020, with its sharply reduced activity, 
approximately to the 2005 level. Total GHG emissions 
increased again in the first three quarters of 2021, by 
around 5% year-on-year (EU average: 8%), which is lower 
than the growth in GDP.214 The use of fossil fuels, which 
in past years has also been encouraged by exemptions 
from excise duties on fuels,215 remains problematic, so the 
emissions from this activity continue to be high and will 
improved efficiency (Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia, 2021c).
214 Year-on-year GDP growth in the first three quarters of 2021 was 7.3%.
215 Exemptions from excise duties on motor fuel used in agricultural 
and forestry machinery, for industrial commercial purposes, and for 
commercial transport.
Greenhouse gas emissions fell more than economic 
activity in 2020, bringing emission productivity back 
on track and somewhat closer to the EU average, 
while the first estimates of emissions for 2021 point 
to a renewed increase. As expected, GHG emissions 
decreased more considerably in 2020, by around 7% (see 
Indicator 4.1), and were about 5% lower than in 2014, 
when they reached the lowest level in the observed two 
decades following the global financial crisis and changes 
in energy use.213 The lower emissions in 2020 were mainly 
213 The reduction in emissions was mainly due to the decommissioning 
of certain large installations included in the EU ETS (Block 3 and Block 
4 of Thermoelektrarna Šoštanj d.o.o., HSE-Energetska družba Trbovlje 
d.o.o., and Lafarge Cement d.o.o.) and only to a lesser extent due to the 
reduced GHG emissions of installations covered by the EU ETS due to 
0
5
10
15
20
25
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
G
H
G
 e
m
is
si
on
s,
 in
 m
ill
io
n 
to
nn
es
 
CO
2
ek
v.
, S
lo
ve
ni
a
Industrial processes, waste and other
Fuel in households and other
Fuel in industry
Agriculture
Energy
Transport
8.2 8.4
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
Sw
ed
en
M
al
ta
Ro
m
an
ia
Cr
oa
tia
La
tv
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
H
un
ga
ry
Fr
an
ce
Sp
ai
n
Ita
ly
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
Sl
ov
en
ia EU
G
re
ec
e
A
us
tr
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Fi
nl
an
d
Po
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Es
to
ni
a
Cy
pr
us
Cz
ec
hi
a
Ire
la
nd
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
G
H
G
 e
m
is
si
on
s,
 to
nn
es
 p
er
 c
ap
ita
, 2
01
9
 Figure 59: GHG emissions, which are at the level of the EU average if calculated in terms of per capita in Slovenia, fell to the 
lowest level in the last two decades in 2020, as had been expected
Sources: Eurostat (2022), ARSO (2022a); calculations by IMAD. The assessment for 2020 is preliminary.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
Em
is
si
on
 p
ro
du
ct
iv
ity
 o
f S
lo
ve
ni
a,
 
re
la
tiv
e 
in
de
x
EU-27 = 100
EU-13 = 100
Leading 3 EU Member States* = 100
50
100
150
200
250
300
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10
20
12
20
14
20
16
20
18
20
20
In
di
ce
s
GHG emissions, EU-27, 1990=100
GHG emissions, Slovenia, 1990=100
Emission productivity, EU-27, 1995=100
Emission productivity, Slovenia, 1995=100
 Figure 60: In the long term, emissions decreased less than the EU average but slightly more in 2020; the lag behind the 
emission productivity of the EU and the three leading Member States has been roughly the same in recent years, as has the 
advantage over the group of new EU Member States, though this has declined significantly in the long term
Sources: ARSO (2022a), Eurostat (2022). Notes: *Sweden, Malta and France (see Indicator 4.1). The evaluation for 2020 is preliminary; a meaningful comparison in PPS 
with other countries can only be made for individual years and not for a longer time period.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment 101Development report 2022
 Box 10: Greater awareness of the threat of global warming and the need to act as soon as possible
At the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, 197 Parties reached a global compromise. The 26th session of 
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2022) focused on promoting short-term 
reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilising public and private finances and helping communities adapt 
to climate impacts. To achieve the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5°C, global GHG emissions will 
need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010. The main objective is linked to (i) adaptation and promotion 
of concrete resilience-building activities; (ii) climate finance to channel financial flows from public and private sources 
towards emission reduction measures; (iii) nature conservation to prevent biodiversity loss as a result of climate change 
impacts; (iv) the transition to clean and sustainable transport through the development of zero-emission transport 
technologies; and (v) faster decarbonisation of the energy sector. For the first time in history, the phase-out of coal 
burning in thermal power plants and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies have been addressed. A commitment was 
made to increase financial assistance to developing countries. Countries will review and strengthen their so-called 
national contributions, i.e. their current emissions targets for 2030. COP27 will take place in November 2022 in Egypt.
COP26 commitments will have a serious impact on several industry sectors, particularly energy and transport, 
but also finance and consumer goods (EIU, 2021). The priorities defined as “coal, cars, cash and trees” are to be 
translated into a raft of new regulations around emissions. In particular, most major companies are expected to 
increase their efforts to achieve net-zero emissions and increase investment in the green transition. In this context, 
there is a pressing need for oversight and harmonisation in regulation, especially in areas where changes will be 
immediate and greatest: from coal-dependent sectors to heavy industry and transport. 
 
The EU has committed itself to reduce GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030 in order to reach the target of 
climate neutrality by 2050, and is putting forward a set of new proposals and amendments with the Fit for 
55 package. The objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 became legally binding with the adoption of the 
European Climate Law (2021), which also sets an interim target of reducing GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030 
compared to 1990 levels. A package of legislative proposals has been prepared for action (EC, 2021p), in which the rules 
already in force are tightened up. They relate to the following: (i) GHG emissions, where changes from the existing ETS 
should lead to a 61% reduction in emissions in these sectors in 2030 compared to 2005, with the scope then extended 
by including aviation and maritime transport; at the same time, emissions in non-ETS sectors should be reduced by 
40%; (ii) removals of gases by sinks where there is a need to reverse the current downward trend of carbon removal 
and increase the natural sink; (iii) RES energy, with an EU-wide target of at least 40%; (iv) energy efficiency, reducing 
final energy consumption by 36% and primary energy consumption by 39%; (v) energy taxation in line with climate 
and environmental objectives; (vi) efforts to increase the use of alternative fuels and the number of charging stations 
for electric vehicles; (vii) just transition, i.e. helping the territories most affected by the transition; and (viii) carbon 
border adjustment, which will prevent the relocation of production from the EU to countries that are less ambitious in 
reducing emissions or replacing products with more carbon-intensive imported products.
Achieving such ambitious targets requires the establishment of a sustainable and climate-resilient carbon 
cycle, the so-called “sustainable carbon cycles” (EC, 2021d). This should be achieved through three steps: (i) by 
drastically reducing our reliance on carbon, for instance by improving energy efficiency, increasing the use of RES, 
increasing the use of wood for building construction and reducing the use of primary resources and sustainable 
transport; (ii) recycling of carbon from waste streams, from sustainable sources of biomass or directly from the 
atmosphere, to use it in place of fossil carbon; and (iii) the removal of carbon from the atmosphere and its long-term 
storage in ecosystems through nature protection or in other storage forms. In order to achieve climate neutrality, it 
will be essential to develop and deploy innovative technological breakthroughs, which will require targeted support. 
In Slovenia, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to decrease by about a third by 2030 and achieve net 
zero by 2050, following the adopted strategic targets in the NECP, but the targets will need to be reviewed 
and tightened to be consistent with the new EU targets. Targets for reducing GHG emissions by 2030 are set 
out in the Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (Government of the RS, 2020) and the longer-term ones, to 
2050, in the Resolution on the Slovenian Climate Long-Term Strategy (ReDPS50, 2021). The NECP targets include 
(i) reducing emissions of these gases by at least 20% in sectors not covered by the EU trading scheme (non-ETS) 
and thus reducing total emissions by at least 36% compared to 2005; (ii) increasing the share of RES in final energy 
consumption to at least 27%; and (iii) improving energy efficiency by at least 35% with regard to the 2007 basic 
scenario. The strategic goal set in the ReDPS50 is to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Total emissions are expected 
to fall by 80% to 90% by 2050 compared to 2005; of this, in transport and energy by 90% to 99%, which should 
be sufficient for climate neutrality, taking into account the sink. The 2030 targets set in the NECP will need to be 
tightened in line with the new EU targets. In order to accelerate progress, additional possibilities will have to be 
analysed across sectors and appropriate additional measures agreed upon. 
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment102 Development report 2022
require a more sustainable transformation (JSI-CEU, 2021). 
The EU 2020 Strategy target that emissions in sectors not 
covered by the Emissions Trading Scheme216 should not 
increase by more than 4% in Slovenia compared to 2005 
has been exceeded, but this was more easily achieved 
at the time of lower-than-expected economic activity. 
In order to achieve the significantly more ambitious 
2030 targets set out in the NECP (Government of the 
RS, 2020),217 it will be crucial to ensure more radical 
systemic changes towards sustainable development as 
soon as possible (Kovač, 2020).218 Emission productivity, 
measured as the ratio of GDP to total GHG emissions, also 
improved in 2020, and the lag behind the EU average has 
been reduced to less than a tenth, according to initial 
estimates. This gap with the EU average widened during 
the global financial crisis; in subsequent years it initially 
narrowed under the impact of changes in the energy 
sector, but no further progress has been made more 
recently. In order to achieve the SDS target for emission 
productivity, which is to reach the level of the EU average, 
and to move closer to carbon neutrality, the cross-sectoral 
integration of economic development and emission 
reduction measures will need to be systematically 
strengthened through innovation and investment in 
clean technologies. Financial incentives are provided 
for the transition, and it will be of utmost importance to 
ensure their effective use as soon as possible. 
216 The Emissions Trading Scheme, i.e. the EU ETS sectors, covers 
emissions mainly from energy, metals and non-metals activities. 
These companies receive or purchase emissions rights that they can 
trade with other companies. By attributing monetary value to carbon, 
businesses are encouraged to find the most cost-effective solutions to 
reduce emissions and invest in clean low-carbon technologies. 
217 The NECP set targets for Slovenia to reduce total emissions by 36% 
by 2030 compared to 2005, with emissions in the non-ETS sectors 
reduced by at least 20%.
218 A faster transition to a low-carbon economy is also driven by high prices 
of emission allowances, which are becoming an increasingly important 
cost for activities covered by the EU ETS (Sandbag, n.d.; IMAD, 2022)
Energy consumption decreased significantly in 
2020 and will need to be further reduced in this 
decade in order to achieve the environmental goals. 
In the period 2005–2020, primary and final energy 
consumption in Slovenia decreased by about 15%. This 
was similar to the situation in the EU overall, except 
that in the EU, primary energy consumption decreased 
slightly more and final energy consumption slightly 
less. The 2020 energy efficiency targets have been met, 
indeed exceeded, for both primary and final energy 
consumption, but they were more easily achieved due 
to the global financial crisis and the epidemic situation in 
the last year. Primary energy consumption is estimated 
to be down by approximately 19% in 2020, which is 
more favourable than the target consumption for that 
year (see Indicator 4.2). In the crisis years 2009 and 
2020, it decreased by 12% and 9% at the annual level 
respectively, which means that without these major 
reductions in energy consumption, the 2020 target 
would not have been reached. Energy use for heating has 
been reduced in the long term through more economical 
use, better insulation of buildings, increased efficiency of 
combustion installations and other efficiency-enhancing 
measures and owing to less cold winters. The use of solid 
fuels decreased in 2014 due to the closure of the thermal 
power plant powered by brown coal and modernisation 
of the power plant powered by lignite. Regarding liquid 
fuels, the use of petrol and heating oil219 has been falling 
for a long time, while diesel fuel use fell considerably 
in 2020 due to traffic restrictions imposed during the 
epidemic. Energy productivity, measured by the ratio 
of GDP to total energy consumption, only improved in 
2017–2020 as a result of the relatively lower GDP growth 
since the global financial crisis. The reduction in energy 
consumption would have been much more effective if 
219 The reduced consumption of fuel oil for space heating is partly 
compensated by the use of wood and wood briquettes.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
En
er
gy
 p
ro
du
ct
iv
ity
, S
lo
ve
ni
a,
 re
la
tiv
e 
in
de
x
EU-27 = 100
EU-13 = 100
Leading 3 EU Member States* = 100
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
100
120
140
160
180
200
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
 %
In
de
x,
 2
00
5=
10
0
Share of energy used by road transport in Slovenia (right axis)
Share of energy used by road transport in the EU (right axis)
Energy productivity, Slovenia
Energy productivity in manufacturing, Slovenia
 Figure 61: The share of energy consumption in road transport in final energy consumption remains high; Slovenia’s 
energy productivity has improved slightly in relation to the EU average in recent years but has moved away from the most 
successful countries and was approximately at the level of new Member States
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Note: *Ireland, Malta and Denmark
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment 103Development report 2022
RES growth since 2009220 (their shares each accounted 
for around 4% of total RES in 2020). In the last 15 years, 
the share of RES in electricity consumption has increased 
by 6 p.p. in Slovenia (to 35%) and by 21 p.p. in the EU 
(to 37.5%). In heating, the share of RES in Slovenia is 
also increasing at a slower pace than the EU average,221 
but it has remained relatively high due to the extensive 
use of wood. This can be problematic in terms of poor 
air quality in case of inappropriate heating. In 2020, a 
slight rise in the share of RES use was mainly driven by 
the increased use of RES in transport, where the target 
share of 10% was exceeded by 0.9 p.p. in the last year 
(as in the EU).222 The target was exceeded mainly due 
to a sharp reduction in overall energy consumption in 
transport. An acceleration in green energy investments 
will be necessary to increase the use of RES towards 
reaching the SDS targets.223 In order to replace fossil 
fuels and increase the use of RES, common solutions 
when siting individual energy projects should be sought 
more intensively to better exploit our favourable natural 
conditions, such as high forest cover and water and wind 
abundance.224 
Transport, which has a major impact on the 
environment, has temporarily decreased in the 
context of the COVID-19 crisis; however, long-term 
220 In 2009, the share of RES use increased the most due to the crisis and 
the fall in energy use, while the use of RES has decreased less.
221 The use of RES for electric heating is included in electricity generated 
from RES and not in RES in heating.
222 It was only in the last three years that the share of biofuels in transport 
increased sharply, as at 2.6% in 2017, it was almost three times lower 
than in the EU overall.
223 Slovenian energy companies plan at least EUR 4 billion of green 
energy investments for the 2021–2027 period. Most of the projects 
are being developed for renewable energy sources, which also include 
the reduction of GHG emissions, for the introduction of low-carbon 
technologies, smart grids, electric mobility and energy efficiency 
(Energy Industry Chamber of Slovenia, 2021).
224 Environmental issues are mainly related to the further increase in the 
use of water and wind energy. 
energy consumption in road transport had not increased 
significantly due to Slovenia’s transit position in the 
enlarged EU in the years preceding the global financial 
crisis and then remained high, despite fluctuations, until 
2019. In some years, this was further stimulated by the 
lower price of motor fuels compared to neighbouring 
countries. Slovenia’s lag behind the EU in energy 
productivity narrowed again in 2019, to around one-
tenth; in 2020, energy productivity increased both in 
Slovenia and the EU, the drop in energy consumption 
being greater than the drop in GDP, with the increase 
slightly higher in the EU. 
Within a few years, the share of renewable energy 
sources (RES) will lag behind the EU average and 
the targets unless radical changes are made, as the 
use of RES since 2005 has experienced the smallest 
increase of all EU Member States. The overall share 
of RES peaked in 2013–2015, when it exceeded 22%; it 
then decreased by 1 p.p. and remained at approximately 
the same level until 2019. In 2020, the first year of the 
epidemic, it increased significantly, to around 24%, but 
still lagged slightly behind the 25% target (see Indicator 
4.3). However, this increase in the share of RES was not 
related to the increased use of RES, but mainly to the 
reduced use of liquid fuels during the epidemic. On 
average in the EU as a whole, the share of RES persistently 
increased in all observed years and exceeded the target 
of 20% by more than 2 p.p. in 2020. In Slovenia, the use 
of traditional RES, i.e. wood and hydropower, strongly 
predominates. Slovenia ranks at the tail end of the EU 
by use of other RES, with the gap in wind energy being 
particularly wide. Wind energy is hardly exploited in 
Slovenia at all, whereas in the EU it already accounts for 
15% of total RES consumption and even exceeds the use 
of hydropower. The increased consumption of solar and 
geothermal energy has been the main contributor to 
8.
0
1.
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
A
us
tr
ia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sw
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
G
er
m
an
y
Be
lg
iu
m
H
un
ga
ry
D
en
m
ar
k
EU
Po
la
nd
Sp
ai
n
Ita
ly
Fi
nl
an
d
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Po
rt
ug
al
Ro
m
an
ia
La
tv
ia
Ire
la
nd
Cr
oa
tia
Es
to
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
In
 %
, 2
01
9
Share of rail transport
54
0
55
6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Ro
m
an
ia
La
tv
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Ire
la
nd
D
en
m
ar
k
Sw
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
G
re
ec
e
Be
lg
iu
m
Sp
ai
n
Po
rt
ug
al
Li
th
ua
ni
a
EU
Cz
ec
hi
a
Sl
ov
en
ia
A
us
tr
ia
G
er
m
an
y
M
al
ta
Es
to
ni
a
Po
la
nd
Fi
nl
an
d
Cy
pr
us
Ita
ly
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Pe
r 1
00
0 
in
ha
bi
ta
nt
s,
 2
01
9
Number of cars
 Figure 62: Slovenia exceeds the EU average in terms of the number of cars per capita, but the share of rail passenger 
transport in total passenger transport is right at the tail end of the Member States
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Notes: (a) Figure to the left: Austria 2018; (b) Figure to the right: the indicator refers to travel within the country.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment104 Development report 2022
of public transport is also very low by international 
comparison, while the share of the use of passenger 
cars is high. This is partly due to the lower degree of 
urbanisation and greater settlement dispersion and, 
in particular and increasingly, to the outdated and 
modest public passenger transport service. In 2020, 
public passenger transport, like car transport, was 
rather restricted amid efforts to contain the COVID-19 
epidemic, but the share of public passenger transport in 
total transport is most likely to have further decreased. 
Increasing the decarbonisation of passenger transport 
will require an increase in the use of alternative fuel 
vehicles while also applying all other solutions. In cities, 
this may take the form of transition to non-motorised 
modes of transport, while in interurban transport, it 
sustainable solutions are needed. Like elsewhere 
in the EU, most goods in Slovenia are transported by 
lorry and most passengers travel by car, which are the 
least environmentally acceptable modes of transport. 
Moreover, due to Slovenia’s transit position, total freight 
transport is high and has even increased, in particular 
in the middle of the preceding decade. Per unit of GDP, 
it grew the most, by 17% in Slovenia in 2010–2019, 
compared with other EU Member States, while it 
decreased in the EU overall, by 3%. In per capita terms, 
much more goods are transported than in the EU overall. 
Road transport has increased by one-sixth, while at the 
same time a higher share of rail freight transport stands 
out favourably compared to the EU (see Indicator 4.4). 
In passenger transport, the use of rail and other modes 
 Box 11: Promoting the use of passenger cars using alternative fuels
In order to meet the set climate targets, the EU is encouraging the increased use of low-emission1 vehicles 
driven by alternative fuels to replace petrol and diesel vehicles. At the end of 2020, 4.4% of all passenger cars 
in the EU were alternative fuel vehicles and 0.5% were battery electric vehicles. The majority of vehicles powered 
by alternative fuels (about 70%) used LPG. In the last quarter of 2021, of all new passenger cars registered, around 
28% were alternative fuel vehicles, around 14% battery electric vehicles and around 10% plug-in hybrids. Compared 
to the fourth quarter of 2020, the number of all registered new passenger cars (partly due to the epidemic and 
difficulties in the supply of semiconductors) was lower by a quarter, and the number of battery electric vehicles was 
higher by the same figure. The average CO
2
 emissions of new passenger cars registered in the EU decreased from 
139 g/km to 108 g/km over the period 2010–2020 (ACEA, 2022). After 2035, only zero-emission new vehicles, i.e. 
only battery electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles, are planned to be sold.
In Slovenia, no significant progress has yet been made in increasing the share of alternative fuel vehicles. At 
the end of 2020, the share of alternative fuel vehicles among all vehicles was 1.3% – three times less than in the EU. 
Liquefied petroleum gas vehicles were predominant. For battery vehicles, which accounted for only 0.3%, the same 
number of charging points was available as in the EU, i.e. one per five vehicles. The indicative conversion into zero-
emission equivalent vehicles (in terms of CO
2 
emissions) shows that at the end of 2020, Slovenia had less than three 
such vehicles per thousand population, while the EU average was close to seven.
1 Alternative fuels are electricity, hydrogen, biofuels, synthetic and paraffin fuels, compressed or liquefied natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas. 
Electric vehicles include plug-in hybrids.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sw
ed
en
Po
la
nd
Ita
ly
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
D
en
m
ar
k
EU
Be
lg
iu
m
Fi
nl
an
d
G
er
m
an
y
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
A
us
tr
ia
Fr
an
ce
Bu
lg
ar
ia
M
al
ta
La
tv
ia
G
re
ec
e
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Ire
la
nd
Sl
ov
en
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Es
to
ni
a
Ro
m
an
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Sp
ai
n
H
un
ga
ry
Cy
pr
us
N
o.
 o
f v
eh
ic
le
s/
10
00
 in
ha
bi
ta
nt
s
BEV PHEV/2 H CNG, LNG/4 LPG/7
 Figure 63: At the end of 2020, there were significantly fewer alternative fuel vehicles in Slovenia than the EU average
Source: EAFO (2022); calculations by IMAD. Note: In the indicative conversion, we assumed that the same reduction in CO2 emissions (compared to a petrol or diesel 
vehicle) as a zero-emission battery electric vehicle (BEV) or a hydrogen vehicle (H) is achieved by (i) two plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), (ii) four CNG and LNG vehicles, or 
(iii) seven LPG vehicles.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment 105Development report 2022
lines, which will need to be upgraded in the initial phase, 
was highlighted. In passenger transport, the travel speed 
needs to be increased and cyclic schedules introduced. 
New high-speed lines are planned in order to achieve the 
desired standard, competitive travel times, and thus the 
transition of passengers from road to rail. Investments in 
railway infrastructure, which have been modest in the 
past, will require between EUR 300 and 450 million per 
year. They will be financed mainly from the state budget, 
but additional EU funds will also have to be mobilised. 
Resource productivity, which is one of the basic 
indicators of a sustainable economy, improved 
during the global financial crisis due to lower resource 
consumption but has stagnated in recent years. In 
Slovenia, changes in resource productivity, calculated as 
the ratio of GDP to raw materials and materials consumed, 
are strongly impacted by construction activities and 
the related consumption of non-metallic minerals. In 
the structure of resource consumption, the share of 
construction materials is among the highest in the EU. 
After resource productivity had increased at a faster pace 
than the EU average in the 2007–2012 period, the pace 
had remained at about the same level over the next few 
years. There were no major changes in 2020, the first 
year of the epidemic. In Slovenia, resource consumption 
decreased slightly less than GDP, against slightly more 
in the EU, so Slovenia’s lag in resource productivity 
increased slightly to almost 10% in this comparison 
(see Indicator 4.5). It is estimated that in 2021, the use 
of fuels and non-metallic minerals did not increase and 
resource productivity improved with GDP growth. The 
implementation of major construction projects, such as 
the planned construction of railway infrastructure and 
the road links of the third development axis, is expected 
to again slow the growth of resource productivity, so 
more attention will need to be devoted to the planned 
may include increased vehicle sharing, where shifts have 
already been made, protecting the environment and at 
the same time contributing to lower household costs.225  
The EU’s goal is to achieve sustainable, smart 
and resilient mobility, while there is increasing 
awareness of the importance of rail transport in 
Slovenia. The European Commission presented a new 
Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy addressing 
key areas for the future development of transport 
and transport infrastructure (EC, 2020k). To this end, 
three general objectives have been set: (1) sustainable 
mobility, whereby the implementation of measures for 
all modes of transport is envisaged in order to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions from transport, including the 
availability and accessibility of effective incentives; (2) 
smart mobility – achieving seamless, safe and efficient 
connectivity, whereby digitalisation and automation 
should help exploit new technologies to provide 
multimodal solutions for sustainable mobility, which 
should also have a beneficial impact on transport times, 
transport costs, and reliability and safety in transport; 
and (3) more resilient mobility, with a single European 
transport area, which should help the transport sector 
bounce back after the COVID-19 crisis and become more 
resilient to future crises. In Slovenia, long-term systemic 
shifts will need to be accelerated, not least in view of 
the problems associated with increasing GHG emissions 
from this activity. It is desirable to increase the share of 
transport by rail, which is a safe and sustainable mode 
of transport. The Vision of Rail Infrastructure Development 
2050+ was adopted for upgrading and refurbishment 
(MzI, 2021). In freight transport, the capacity of railway 
225 In 2019, 105,000 people, i.e. 7% (EU average: 8%) of the population 
aged 16 to 74, organised their transport with another natural person 
via an intermediary website, a mobile transport management app or 
social networks (SURS, 2022b).
12
.8
12
.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Be
lg
iu
m
Fr
an
ce
Ita
ly
Es
to
ni
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Cz
ec
h 
R.
G
er
m
an
y
EU
Sl
ov
en
ia
A
us
tr
ia
Sp
ai
n
Po
la
nd
H
un
ga
ry
M
al
ta
D
en
m
ar
k
Sw
ed
en
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
G
re
ec
e
Cr
oa
tia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Cy
pr
us
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Ire
la
nd
Ro
m
an
ia
Sh
ar
e 
of
 p
ro
ce
ss
ed
 m
at
er
ia
ls
 u
se
d 
in
 o
ve
ra
ll 
m
at
er
ia
l u
se
, 2
02
0
0
25
50
75
100
125
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
EU
=1
00
In
 m
ill
io
n 
to
nn
es
Metal ores Biomass and other
Fossil fuels Non-metallic minerals
Resource productivity (right axis)
 Figure 64: The lag in resource productivity behind the EU average has remained unchanged since 2011 (left) and the circular 
material use rate* lags only slightly behind the EU average (right)
Sources: SURS (2022b), Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Notes: Domestic resource consumption is defined as the exploitation of domestic resources increased by 
net imports of resources. *The ratio between the recovered amount of waste used and the total amount of resources used and waste.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment106 Development report 2022
measures pertaining to the materials cycle in order to 
achieve the set goal of bringing resource productivity 
closer to the EU average.
The circularity of the Slovenian economy, measured 
by the circular material use rate, has risen to the 
EU average; however, the potential for further 
more efficient use remains significant. With the 
overexploitation of natural resources, economic growth 
has a negative impact on the environment, while at the 
same time reducing the Earth’s limited stocks of raw 
materials, increasing their prices and thus production 
costs.226 The rate of integration of circular materials 
in the work processes of economic activities, which 
is calculated as the ratio between the quantity of 
used circular materials and the total amount of used 
materials,227 has increased faster in Slovenia in the last 
decade than the EU average and came close to it in 
2020. The success of the transition to a green and digital 
economy will depend heavily on the reliable supply of 
raw materials that are most important for the economy, 
with their supply at high risk of being disrupted. The 
crises have shown that disruptions in supply can escalate 
quickly and that economies are very vulnerable in this 
226 Prices of all basic raw materials rose sharply in 2021 and remained at 
much higher levels than before the epidemic (WB, 2021).
227 The circular material use rate indicator, which is a new indicator 
for monitoring the circularity of the economy, is lower than other 
circularity indicators, such as recycling rates. The latter indicates 
the share of recycled waste in the total amount of waste treated 
(see Indicator 4.6), while the indicator of the circular material use 
rate indicates the use of recycled materials in total material use. The 
difference between the two can be significant, because some materials 
cannot be recycled, e.g. fossil fuels or biomass. The different values 
of the indicator in individual countries are due not only to different 
recycling rates, but also to the different structures of the economies. 
For example, the use rate of circular materials may be low if the total 
domestic use of materials is high (Vozel, 2021).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
 m
ill
io
n 
to
nn
es
, S
lo
ve
ni
a
Waste generated
Municipal waste Manufacturing waste
66 73
47
3
64
6
0
50
100
150
200
250
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ire
la
nd
D
en
m
ar
k
Cy
pr
us
Fr
an
ce
Sw
ed
en
A
us
tr
ia
M
al
ta
G
er
m
an
y
La
tv
ia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sp
ai
n EU
Ita
ly
Fi
nl
an
d
Cz
ec
hi
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Sl
ov
en
ia
Cr
oa
tia
G
re
ec
e
H
un
ga
ry
Be
lg
iu
m
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ro
m
an
ia
Po
la
nd
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Es
to
ni
a
In
 k
g/
EU
R 
th
ou
sa
nd
, 2
01
8
Waste generated, excluding mineral, per unit of GDP
 Figure 65: The increase in the volume of waste, which Slovenia generates about a tenth more than the EU average, 
calculated per unit of GDP and excluding mineral waste, was halted due to lower economic activity during the COVID-19 
epidemic
Sources: Eurostat (2022) and SURS (2022b). Note: The fall in waste generated in 2012 in Slovenia was the result of (i) a reduction in construction waste and (ii) a revised 
methodology: some waste categories have been reclassified as by-products.
regard (EC, 2020f ).228 As prices of limited primary raw 
materials found in nature will increase and the prices of 
secondary raw materials will decrease, achieving higher 
productivity will require increased processing and 
decoupling of economic growth from the use of primary 
resources (OECD, 2019d, and International Resource 
Panel, 2019). In order to ensure steady supply and greater 
resilience to the limited availability of natural resources, 
reuse of products will have to be increased and the 
circular and efficient use of resources will have to be 
enhanced through green research and innovation, while 
strengthening supply chains and reducing dependence 
on imports (IMAD, 2022). In Slovenia, a model project is 
being implemented at the EU level under the auspices of 
the circular economy umbrella centre, supporting small 
and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups engaged in 
the systemic transformation into a low-carbon circular 
economy (EIT Climate-KIC, 2020).229
As expected, the total amount of waste generated 
in 2020 decreased after a long-term increase; in the 
course of recovery after the COVID-19 epidemic, it 
will also be necessary to considerably reduce waste 
generation from a systemic perspective and to 
increase the use of waste in the circular economy. 
The volume of total waste generated increased annually 
by a tenth per year in the period 2012–2019, but this 
trend was interrupted in 2020 (see Indicator 4.6). The 
amount of total waste generated, including when 
calculated per unit of GDP, has decreased. With lower 
228 Around 30 materials are included in the EU’s list of critical raw materials. 
The list grows longer every year: in 2020, for example, lithium, which is 
essential to the transition to e-mobility, was placed on that list. These 
raw materials are found in high concentrations only in certain areas of 
the world, e.g. in China, Turkey and South Africa.
229 This is the so-called Deep Demonstration Project. For more, see IMAD 
(2020b), Box 6 on p. 69.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment 107Development report 2022
 Box 12: The environmental issue of plastic waste
Plastic waste is a major environmental problem that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, so it 
is crucial to use plastics more prudently and to increase the use of renewable raw materials and circularity in 
production. Plastic production is based on fossil fuel consumption, which has a negative impact on the environment 
and climate change. If the production of plastic increases as expected, the share of oil consumption in the plastics 
industry could rise to a fifth from the current 7% by 2050. Changes in the production and the increased use of 
disposable plastic products during the pandemic, such as personal protective equipment and packaging for ready-
to-eat food or products sold online, may in the short term undermine the efforts to make the use of plastic more 
sustainable and circular and reduce environmental pollution (EEA, 2021b). 
With the increased use of plastic, it is essential to increase its circular use. As global oil prices fell sharply during 
the period of lower economic activity, the production of fossil-based plastic products from non-recycled materials 
was significantly cheaper for producers and became cheaper than when using recycled plastic materials. Moreover, 
the lower demand for recycled plastics on the market has slowed efforts towards sustainable waste management. 
It will be important to assess the challenges to increase the use of biodegradable and compostable plastics. A 
faster transition to circular business models will require appropriate support policies that accelerate changes in 
consumption and behaviour while raising awareness and educating (EEA, 2021a). 
 Figure 66: Generation of plastic waste in the world will increase sharply and in handling such waste, zero disposal must be 
achieved in the circular economy
Sources: Geyer et al. (2017), PlasticsEurope (2020).
economic activity, the total waste generated was 
around 9% less than in the previous year; while the 
waste from economic activity decreased by around 
a tenth and the total municipal waste by about 4%, 
household waste and waste related to healthcare 
and more widespread online shopping, e.g. the use of 
medical accessories, personal protective equipment and 
disposable protective plastic packaging, increased.230 
230 Increased consumption of disposable plastic products also greatly 
increases the problem of plastic waste accumulation in global terms. 
It is estimated that humanity generates around 300 million tonnes of 
plastic waste per year, and in the COVID-19 pandemic, the amount 
has been increasing significantly. The problem of additional COVID-
19-related waste from hospitals in Asian countries was raised. A major 
challenge is the discharge from rivers of plastics into the oceans, 
because in the next few years, a significant part of this debris will land 
on the beach or will accumulate on the seabed (Peng et al., 2021). 
Waste management has improved considerably in recent 
years, partly due to several new or upgraded regional 
waste management centres. There has been a significant 
increase in recycling and a reduction in disposal, which 
is the least desirable handling of waste. The share of 
recycled waste in Slovenia, excluding mineral waste, is 
already the highest among the EU Member States.231 A 
systemic shift of production towards a circular system 
is desired; this will require further investment and 
innovation towards achieving cleaner technologies 
(OECD, 2019b).This will contribute to a reduction in the 
use of primary raw materials, which are in short supply 
in nature due to their limited quantity and are becoming 
more and more expensive as their prices rise, along with 
231 The proportion of mineral waste is relatively high, accounting for 
about three-quarters.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment108 Development report 2022
the necessary decarbonisation of industry. One possible 
incentive for producing less waste or its increased reuse 
may be to include waste incineration in the greenhouse 
gas emissions trading scheme (EU ETS). As this would 
incur additional costs in activities, incineration would 
become more expensive than recycling and, as a result, 
only those waste residues that could not be used in any 
other way would be used as an energy source (Warringa, 
2021). A particular problem is food waste, also due to its 
increasing volume.232
Funding for environmental protection increased 
significantly in 2020, with the main focus being on air 
and climate protection and waste management.233 
Total current expenditure on environmental protection, 
which is increasing over the long term, increased 
by around 2% in 2020, to around EUR 700 million. 
More than half, about 56%, was devoted to waste 
management. Most current expenditure was incurred in 
232 In the period 2013–2020, the statistically recorded annual amount 
of food waste increased by 19% to around 143,000 tonnes, which in 
2020 represented 68 kg of food waste per capita. The impact of the 
pandemic in 2020 was mainly reflected in the distribution of food 
waste quantities generated in this year by activity: more food was 
discarded by households and food trade than in 2019 and less in food 
production, the accommodation and food service activities. According 
to SURS, the food waste amounted to an estimated 60% of inedible 
food parts such as bones, peelings, eggshells and husks, while the 
remaining 40% were edible food parts and could have been reduced 
or prevented through awareness-raising and a correct attitude to food. 
Most food waste was processed anaerobically in biogas plants.
233 SURS publishes all financial resources earmarked for the protection 
of the environment from pollution by environmental purposes: air 
and climate protection (i.e. climate), waste water management, waste 
management, protection and improvement of soil, groundwater and 
surface water, protection against noise and vibration, protection of 
biodiversity and landscape, protection against radiation, research 
and development, and other. The research involves companies and 
organisations that are registered for performing their activities and 
having at least 10 persons in paid employment. It includes resources 
from own resources, the national budget and EU funds, credits, and 
other sources of financing.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
In
 E
U
R 
m
Investments
Air and climate protection Waste water management
Waste management Other
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
In
 E
U
R 
m
Current expenditure
Waste management Waste water management
Air and climate protection Other
 Figure 67: Current expenditure on environmental protection increases in the long term and investment in environmental 
protection, which has been relatively low for several years, increased to normal levels in 2020
Source: SURS (2022b); calculations by IMAD.
the Osrednjeslovenska region, this around 30%, followed 
by the Savinjska and Podravska regions. In 2020, EUR 
412 million was earmarked for total investments in 
environmental protection, which is much more than in the 
previous four years, when these funds were relatively low, 
and about as much as in the first half of the decade. The 
main contributor to growth was increased investment 
in air and climate protection. Those rose approximately 
to the level of 2012, when they were the highest in the 
decade observed and when they accounted for about 
half in total investment for environmental protection. 
Most investments in environmental protection, about a 
third, were made in the Savinjska region, followed by the 
Osrednjeslovenska and Posavska regions. 
A faster transition to a low-carbon circular economy 
will require significant public and private financial 
resources, and it will be important to make optimal 
use of all available EU funds. In financing the transition, 
in addition to the EU budget funds, the key role will be 
played by the European Investment Bank, which outlined 
the path towards becoming the so-called EU climate 
bank with the adoption of its 2021–2025 roadmap.234 
Additional funds for the transition to a low-carbon 
circular economy are provided by the NextGenerationEU 
agreement (EC, 2020e). Slovenia allocated 42.45% of the 
available funds (EUR 552 million in grants and EUR 513 
million in refundable funds) to green transition measures 
in its Recovery and Resilience Plan. The majority of 
funds will be dedicated to reduce flood risks, ensure 
clean municipal water, supply drinking water, increase 
the capacity of railway infrastructure and increase the 
energy efficiency of buildings. This suggests that the 
234 It plans to achieve this by increasing the share of funding for climate 
action and environment measures to 50% of its operations (over a 
ten-year period such investments will amount to EUR 1 billion) and 
through the already adopted alignment of its activities with the goals 
of the Paris Climate Agreement.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment 109Development report 2022
due to lower economic activity and further reductions 
in excise duties on certain fuels adopted to mitigate the 
effects of the epidemic. The preliminary implementation 
of the 2021 state budget shows that the revenues from 
excise duties on fuels did not reach the 2019 level either. 
The reform of motor vehicle taxation and the abolition 
of the additional motor vehicle tax will also lead to a 
reduction in turnover tax revenues.236 After 2015, the 
already modest share of revenue from taxes on pollution 
and the use of natural resources decreased. Although 
the majority of environmental taxes do not constitute 
a dedicated resource for financing and achieving 
environmental objectives,237 such changes do not reflect 
efforts to limit emissions. The price deregulation of 
petroleum products in 2020 and the increase in margins 
in the final price of petroleum products announced 
by traders reduce the room for manoeuvre for raising 
excise duties on fuel in the future as this is limited by 
prices in neighbouring countries. At the beginning 
of 2022, excise duties decreased further, as part of the 
response to the strong increase in fuel prices in 2021, 
which has been exacerbated by the crisis in Ukraine in 
2022238 (see Section 1.1). The tax reforms which relieved 
the taxation of labour in 2019, 2020 and 2022 did not 
take advantage of the opportunities for green tax 
restructuring, while maintaining other tax incentives of 
various forms (subsidies and reliefs) which are contrary 
to the objectives of reducing environmental burdens 
(MF, 2019; JSI, 2020).
236 As of 2021, the additional tax on motor vehicles was abolished and at 
the same time the taxation of motor vehicles was reformed (taxation is 
now linked only to environmental factors and no longer to the selling 
prices of vehicles; the tax scale was also revised). When drafting the 
amendments to the Motor Vehicle Tax Act, the loss of revenue under 
this title was estimated at EUR 28 million.
237 Most of the revenues from environmental taxes are integral 
(unallocated) revenues of the state budget. Only some environmental 
taxes are allocated, e.g. the proceeds from the sale of emission 
allowances that are channelled to climate change mitigation measures 
through the Climate Change Fund.
238 Due to the high volatility of fuel prices after the beginning of the 
war in Ukraine, the Government of the Republic of Slovenia also set 
maximum permitted retail prices for premium (unleaded) gasoline 
and diesel for a period of one month in mid-March 2022.
GHG emission reduction targets set out in the NECP and 
the Long-term Climate Strategy (Box 10) will also need 
to be mobilised from other sources.235 As by existing 
measures alone and the currently available public and 
private financing sources, environmental objectives 
cannot be achieved, it will be crucial to make the best 
use of these resources and align them with the climate 
transition objectives, but additional resources will be 
required as well. This is also confirmed by one of the first 
estimates of the volume of investments that contributed 
to the achievement of climate and energy targets 
in 2016–2020 and which, at the level of the national 
economy, amounted to EUR 5 billion or on average 2% 
of GDP per year. The identified dedicated resources 
available for the period 2021–2030 are estimated at 
between EUR 11.6 billion and EUR 12.3 billion, while the 
investment requirements for meeting the targets in the 
NECPs are estimated at EUR 28.4 billion, which amounts 
to, on average, 6% of GDP per year (FC, 2022a). 
In addition to new public and private sources of 
funding, better use of the government budget 
revenue and expenditure will be necessary. After 
several years of declining, to finally reach 2.95% of GDP 
in 2020, the share of environmental taxes to GDP was at 
one of the lowest levels in the last two decades, but is 
still among the highest in the EU (see Indicator 4.7). The 
decline was due to lower energy tax revenues as a result 
of the reduced excise duties on fuels in 2018, and was 
even more pronounced during the COVID-19 epidemic 
235 In order to achieve the overarching climate-neutrality objective, it also 
sets strategic sectoral goals for 2030 and 2050, which must be taken 
into account consistently across every sector and integrated into their 
sectoral documents and plans.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment110 Development report 2022
4.2 Sustainable management of natural resources
 Sustainable management of natural resources (Development Goal 9):
The goal of the SDS 2030 is to protect natural resources in a sustainable manner and plan their efficient use, as 
they are one of the key pillars of ensuring a healthy living environment, producing quality food and carrying out 
high value-added economic activities. The goal will be achieved by overcoming the silo mentality, preserving 
biodiversity, sustainable soil management, preserving quality agricultural land, sustainable forest development 
and efficient water management. The SDS 2030 recognises the importance of responsible spatial management. 
Mitigation of, effective adaptation to and exploitation of the opportunities provided by climate change will be of 
particular importance.
 Performance indicators for Development Goal 9:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
Share of utilised agricultural area, in % 23.9 (2020) 39.2 (2019) >24
Watercourse quality, mg O
2
/l 0.9 (2018) 2.0 (2018) < 1
Ecological footprint, gha/person 5.4 (2018) 4.8 (2018) 3.8
Current production processes and lifestyles in 
Slovenia have been exerting too much pressure on 
nature since 2014. The ecological footprint, which is one 
of the most comprehensive indicators of environmental 
burden (see Indicator 4.8), dropped to roughly the level 
of the beginning of the last decade during the global 
financial crisis, but in the 2015–2018 period (latest data) 
it increased again and, on a per capita basis, exceeded 
the European average in this period. This shows that 
economic development in these years was achieved 
through increased use of resources and increased 
environmental pollution. The structure of the ecological 
footprint mostly contains the carbon footprint, mainly 
due to the use of fossil fuels in transport and energy.239 
The share of carbon in the overall footprint is comparable 
to the average in Europe and the rest of the world, with 
differences in structure occurring in other categories. 
Forest products account for a larger share due to greater 
use of wood in heating and construction. Timber exports 
in logs and imports of finished products contribute 
to increasing the ecological footprint240 and reducing 
the added value of the economy. In Slovenia, nature’s 
239 The methodologies for calculating greenhouse gas emissions under 
the GFN ecological footprint and the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where actual emissions 
and sinks are taken into account, differ, and therefore the results of the 
calculations are very difficult to compare. According to the UNFCCC 
methodology, emissions in Slovenia amounted to 16.7 Mt CO
2
 in 
2014. The ecological footprint according to the GFN methodology 
amounted to 5,857 thousand gha this year, equivalent to 17.3 Mt CO
2 
(Kovač and Piciga, 2020).
240 The depletion of a country’s biocapacity for export needs and the 
import of additional biocapacity constitute an ecological deficit. In 
the calculations, the same products produced in Slovenia have a 
lower ecological footprint than imported ones. With a higher rate of 
wood processing in Slovenia, transport routes would be shortened 
and waste biomass for heating would also be increased, which would 
reduce the use of fossil fuels and the related greenhouse gas emissions 
and ecological footprint.
biocapacity, i.e. biological areas with regeneration 
capacity, is above the world average on a per capita 
basis but below the European average. Slovenia’s largest 
biocapacity is provided by forests, which, by absorbing 
carbon dioxide emissions, mitigate climate change, 
although at the same time the consumption of forest 
products contributes to the environmental burden. In 
Slovenia, the difference between the ecological footprint 
and biocapacity, i.e. the ecological deficit, is above the 
European and the world average. Humanity consumes 
70% more natural resources than can be restored, and in 
Slovenia we consume as much natural resources as if we 
had been living on three planets. A dignified life of the 
population within the limits of the planet’s capabilities 
calls for a comprehensive and systemic transition to low-
carbon circular solutions as soon as possible.  
Slovenia is classified as an area of greatest 
biodiversity in Europe, and the need to find 
acceptable compromises in solving common 
challenges is becoming increasingly apparent. High 
biodiversity is primarily a natural condition but also a 
result of the systematic protection of plant and animal 
species and sound ecosystem management. Measured 
by the share of protected areas which, due to their 
great biodiversity and landscape diversity, are key to 
preserving the habitats of endangered species, Slovenia 
ranks at the top among EU Member States, with twice 
the average share of such areas. Yet despite numerous 
activities to protect it, biodiversity in Slovenia has also 
continued to decline over the long term. The farmland 
bird index, which is one of the indicators of change, 
shows a decline in the farmland bird population.241 
241 It is quite difficult to determine biodiversity, because of the large 
number of species and interactions between them and with the abiotic 
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment 111Development report 2022
38
19
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Sl
ov
en
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Cy
pr
us
G
re
ec
e
Sp
ai
n
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ro
m
an
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Po
rt
ug
al
Po
la
nd
Ita
ly EU
Es
to
ni
a
G
er
m
an
y
A
us
tr
ia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Cz
ec
hi
a
M
al
ta
Ire
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
Be
lg
iu
m
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
La
tv
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
In
 %
, 2
00
0
 Figure 69: In the EU, the share of protected areas – Natura 2000 is the highest in Slovenia
Source: Eurostat (2022).
The most pressing problems are (i) development, with 
the spread of urbanisation, transport and economic 
activities, (ii) poorly conceived management of 
waterways, mostly in connection with flood prevention 
measures, and (iii) agriculture, which provides habitat for 
protected species but also shrinks habitat in areas of very 
intensive agriculture. Investment in the conservation 
and restoration of nature, which are becoming urgent, 
will also be instrumental in the economic recovery of 
Europe.242 The challenges are to overcome silo mentality 
environment. Indicators that broadly show the general condition 
include the population size of selected bird species, the farmland bird 
index, conservation of wildlife populations and forest conservation. 
242 More than half of the world’s GDP depends on nature and its services, 
in particular three economic activities – construction, agriculture, 
and food and beverage production. The biodiversity crisis and the 
climate crisis are intrinsically linked as climate change accelerates 
the destruction of the natural world through droughts, flooding and 
wildfires, while the loss of nature and its unsustainable use are key 
and seek a compromise between the interests of nature 
protection and economic activity. Recently, finding a 
compromise solution for the siting of power plants for 
the generation of energy from renewable sources has 
been extremely challenging.
Agriculture, which plays a key role in preserving 
biodiversity, is not particularly intensive in Slovenia 
by international standards, and the crisis has even 
intensified the awareness of the importance of food 
security, in particular the importance of efficient and 
competitive supply chains. Slovenia ranks among the 
EU Member States where the conditions for agricultural 
drivers of climate change. But just as the crises are linked, so are the 
solutions. When restarting the economy after the COVID-19 crisis, 
this awareness will have to be raised, taking greater account of the 
business value of biodiversity and finding ways out of harmful former 
habits (EC, 2020j). 
0
1
2
3
Eu
ro
pe
Cr
oa
tia
A
us
tr
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
en
ia
W
or
ld
Ita
ly
In
 g
ha
/c
ap
ita
Infrastructure Cropland Fishing grounds
Forests Grazingland
5.4
4.8
2.8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
In
 g
ha
/c
ap
ita
Slovenia Europe World
 Figure 68: The ecological footprint in Slovenia was higher in 2015–2018 than in Europe as a whole and the gap widened 
(left), while nature’s biocapacity in this comparison is lower and largely dependent on forests (right)
Source: Global Footprint Network (2022). Note: the global hectare (gha) is the fertile area needed to meet human needs for food and maintain humans’ lifestyle and 
dispose of the waste generated in the process.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment112 Development report 2022
36
48
60
88
40
67
84
95 96
107 111
134
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Fr
ui
t
Ve
ge
ta
bl
es
Po
ta
to
es
Ce
re
al
s
Po
rk
H
on
ey
To
ta
l m
ea
t
Eg
gs
G
oa
t a
nd
sh
ee
p 
m
ea
t
Be
ef
Po
ul
tr
y
M
ilk
In
 %
2010 2020
Plant production  Animal production
Self-sufficiency rate
94 95
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Po
rt
ug
al
G
re
ec
e
Cy
pr
us
A
us
tr
ia
Ita
ly
Sp
ai
n
Ro
m
an
ia
Sw
ed
en
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Fi
nl
an
d EU
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Es
to
ni
a
Fr
an
ce
H
un
ga
ry
Cr
oa
tia
La
tv
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Cz
ec
hi
a
D
en
m
ar
k
Po
la
nd
Ire
la
nd
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
In
 k
g 
/ h
a 
of
 U
A
A
, 2
01
9
NPK fertilisers/ha of UAA
 Figure 70: Sales of NPK fertilisers per unit of agricultural area (UAA) in Slovenia are close to the EU average, and the level of 
self-sufficiency of basic agricultural products is low, especially for plant crops
Sources: Eurostat (2022), SURS (2022b), MKGP (2021b).
production are on average more difficult: the share of 
agricultural land in the total area is relatively low, while 
the land is fragmented and a relatively large part of it 
lies in less-favoured areas. These conditions hamper 
agricultural production, reduce efficiency and, with 
a large proportion of grassland, direct activity more 
towards livestock farming. The share of arable land per 
capita is poor by international comparison (see Indicator 
4.9). In agriculture, significant structural changes, such 
as increases in the size of agricultural holdings and 
their specialisation, are underway, but organic farming 
and rearing are also on the rise.243 Since attention has 
increasingly been turned to environmental concerns, 
gross nitrogen and phosphorous surpluses, which 
are basic indicators of agriculture’s impact on soil and 
water, have significantly declined over the long term.244 
The average yields per hectare are mostly below the 
EU average (see Indicator 4.10), which means that 
the impact on the environment is less severe but also 
indicates lower productivity of natural resources. Self-
sufficiency in the majority of basic agricultural products, 
in particular organic produce, is relatively low, partly 
due to poor knowledge transfer to producers and their 
poor integration and technological backwardness of 
243 By 2027, the share of organically cultivated agricultural land is 
expected to increase by 8 p.p., i.e. to 18%. The target has been set 
ambitiously in order to be able to move closer to the EU target of 25% 
of organically cultivated agricultural land by 2030 (MKGP, 2021a). In the 
EU, organic farming has been identified as one of the key mechanisms 
for achieving the objectives of the Green Deal. 
244 The reduction in the consumption of mineral fertilisers is due to the 
requirements of the Nitrates Directive and the principles of good 
agricultural practice in fertilisation to which all agricultural holdings 
are committed. Much attention is paid to the use of livestock manure 
and the consideration of plant nutrients in livestock manure in the 
planning of fertilisation with mineral fertilisers. Since agricultural 
holdings must have fertilising plans in place in which the used plant 
nutrients from livestock manure are also evaluated, the consumption 
of mineral fertilisers is being reduced accordingly (ARSO, 2022b). It is 
preferable that the balance surplus of the element, i.e. the positive 
difference between its input to the soil and crop uptake, is low.  
production. The imbalance in the levels of self-sufficiency 
between animal and plant products is high, not least 
because the livestock sector has been more financially 
supported during the current programming period 
(Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia, 2021). The 
vast majority of food is imported, with only about a fifth 
produced at home (ARSO, 2022b). In this context, the 
majority of exports are unprocessed, while processed 
agricultural products are imported, which is an untapped 
opportunity to increase value added. The establishment 
of efficient and competitive supply chains is crucial.245 
The scale of production is highly dependent on weather 
conditions, and this dependence will increase further 
under the influence of climate change. At the same time, 
agriculture also plays a major role in carbon storage (EC, 
2021d).246 Agricultural policy faces major challenges 
that relate to sustainable food production and also to 
the responsibility for nature and the conservation of its 
resources. 
The management of forests, which cover a large 
proportion of the land area of Slovenia, has been 
under the impact of mitigating the effects of natural 
disasters for several years, but logging is declining 
and wood as a raw material still remains insufficiently 
exploited. Slovenia is one of the three most forested 
countries in Europe, with its forests being its best-
preserved natural ecosystem. This has a beneficial 
effect on the environment. Forests play a major role in 
achieving the objectives of various policies, for example 
245 The COVID-19 epidemic has highlighted the importance of a stable and 
sustainable food supply chain. With the closure of the accommodation 
and food service acctivities, tourism and public institutions which 
had previously regularly purchased domestic agricultural products 
and foodstuffs, the producers who had concluded prior purchase 
agreements and contracts were the least affected.
246 It is important to increase the organic matter in the soil through 
measures such as greening, successive secondary crops and crop 
rotation. This will also be encouraged in the context of the Strategic 
Plan 2023–2027 (MKGP, 2021c).
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment 113Development report 2022
as a carbon sink, for biodiversity protection, for rural 
development, for green job creation and for fossil fuel 
replacement, and are therefore crucial for the transition 
to a low-carbon society (EC, 2021z). In recent years, more 
than 60% of forests in Slovenia have been hard hit by 
natural disasters (ZGS, 2021): glaze ice in 2014, strong 
windthrows in 2017 and 2018, and consequently the 
overpopulation of wood pests. Due to a high share of 
older and thicker trees, which provide high biocapacity 
and carbon storage with a high average growing stock, 
the resilience of Slovenia’s forests decreased (Stritih, 
2018). Total tree falling, raw wood production and net 
exports247 have increased in the context of relatively 
extensive sanitary felling, but after 2018 they decreased 
again as the population of pests diminished and damage 
to forests was mitigated (see Indicator 4.11). As intensity 
of tree felling lags far behind the annual wood increment, 
it should be increased and brought closer to that planned. 
At the same time, this would provide an opportunity 
to rejuvenate forests by planting tree species that are 
more resilient to climate change. Increased tree felling, 
which does not contribute to increased carbon sinks in 
forests, would encourage more extensive use of wood in 
building construction, processing for other activities and 
heating. It should be based on environmentally friendly 
technologies and efficient use in line with the principles 
247 Relatively high exports of unprocessed wood decreased after 2016, 
when the Slovenski državni gozdovi d.o.o. company (SiDG), which 
manages one-fifth of all forests in Slovenia, was founded. One of the 
objectives of the SiDG is to increase the processing and treatment 
of timber and support the development of the domestic wood 
industry. When selling wood, the company gives preference to wood 
processors over wood traders. In 2018, it entered into long-term sales 
contracts for the first time to ensure a stable supply of raw material for 
the next three years. This is one of the key measures to support the 
development of forest–wood chains and to create higher value added 
in activities. The most important purchasers of unprocessed wood 
are sawmills, wood composite industries, and the cellulose and paper 
industries (SiDG, 2022).
of the circular economy.248 Using modern technology, 
wood is a raw material with a low ecological footprint, so 
the replacement of fossil materials and fuels with wood 
also contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 
and preserving the environment (Lin et al., 2020).
Soil, which is one of the basic limited natural 
resources, is mostly unpolluted in Slovenia. Despite 
the good overall condition of soil, there are individual 
areas highly contaminated by some heavy metals, e.g. 
cadmium, zinc, lead, arsenic and mercury (ARSO, 2022b). 
Exceeded action values, and in some areas critical values, 
have been detected in particular in areas with a long 
history of mining, smelting and metallurgic activity and 
in areas with denser traffic. Soil degradation may be 
caused by unsustainable management, overexploitation, 
climate change and pollution. Unlike in air or water, 
substances in soil build up, which means that reduced 
release does not typically result in reduced levels. The 
most polluted areas include the Mežica Valley, the Celje 
Basin, Jesenice and Idrija.249 These and several other areas 
in Slovenia are facing a great need to clean polluted 
soil and conduct remediation of polluted sites, but this 
is often technologically demanding and entails high 
costs (Slovenian Soil Partnership, 2018). Furthermore, 
some of the pollution with heavy metals is not the result 
of human activity, since heavy metal levels may also 
depend on bedrock. In Slovenia, the pollution of soil 
with organic pollutants is less pressing, since in most 
areas action values have not been exceeded. In some 
areas of intensive agricultural production, limit values 
248 Some incentives, e.g. from the Rural Development Programme and the 
Recovery and Resilience Plan, are dedicated to this as well.
249 In the Mežica Valley, measures have been in place since 2008 to remedy 
the problem of soil pollution, including the asphalting of unmetalled 
roads, replacing polluted soil, resurfacing with unpolluted soil and 
planting grass. Lead content has dropped to below action level, but in 
some places, it has started to again increase gradually (MOP, 2017).
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
M
ill
io
n 
CO
2
eq
vi
va
le
nt
Share of GHG sink
GHG sink (LULUCF) GHG emissions (without LULUCF)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
 m
ill
io
n 
m
3
Raw wood production
Round industrial timber Firewood
 Figure 71: High production of raw wood products as a result of sanitary felling after glaze ice is decreasing, and forests, 
together with other land use, once again contribute significantly to GHG sinks
Sources: SURS (2022b), ARSO (2022a). Notes: Slovenia’s forests were hit by glaze ice in early 2014. Forests contribute the major share to the GHG sink in the LULUCF 
sector, i.e. land use, land-use change and forestry.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment114 Development report 2022
of pesticides or their breakdown products have been 
recorded to be moderately exceeded. It is particularly 
important to monitor soil quality on an ongoing basis 
and prevent excessive release of pollutants into the soil, 
especially in areas designated for food production, also 
due to the impact on water quality.
Slovenia has abundant water resources and the 
quality level of river waters is the highest among 
the EU Member States, according to the known data. 
The abundance of water resources is evident from the 
per capita availability of freshwater resources, which 
is at twice the EU average and is higher only in three 
other EU Member States. On average, water is sufficient, 
as only half of the quantity of surface waters flowing 
into or falling on the territory is utilised and only a 
fifth of groundwater. There are nevertheless occasional 
floods or water shortages, a consequence of weather 
and human intervention. In the face of major climate 
change, more attention needs to be paid to preventing 
changes in water conditions, as they may adversely 
affect fundamental values and needs, such as human 
health and ecosystems, food production and energy 
production. Water use in Slovenia is not optimal, as 
shown by overall water productivity, measured as GDP 
per unit of pumped freshwater, which remains low by 
international standards. The share of water for irrigation 
remains almost negligible. Water quality, measured with 
biochemical oxygen demand in rivers, has improved 
to the highest level among EU Member States due 
to the increasing and more efficient treatment of 
wastewater (see Indicator 4.12). There has been a 
significant improvement in its chemical, biological 
and microbiological parameters.250 Slovenian rivers are 
fairly oxygen-rich on average and contain low levels 
250 The chemical status of waters is determined with reference to 45 
priority substances including atrazine, benzene, cadmium and 
mercury. Their ecological status is assessed based on the condition of 
communities of water plants, algae, invertebrates and fish. 
of nutrients, organic matter and pesticides, though in 
some areas their content is nevertheless excessive. The 
situation is the worst in the Mura and Drava river basins, 
which are areas with more expansive and intensive 
agriculture,251 while the Adriatic rivers and the Soča and 
Upper Sava basins have the best ecological status (ARSO, 
2022b; Trobec, 2017). 
Air quality in Slovenia is held back by relatively high 
concentrations of particulate matter, but such air 
pollution was lower in 2020. The exposure of the urban 
population to the finest dust or particulate matter (PM) up 
to 2.5 µg, which are the most harmful to health, remains 
relatively high despite the downward trend in the 
international comparison (in 2019 in Slovenia 15.3 µg/m3, 
the EU average 12.6 µg/m3). In the cold part of the year, 
local concentrations are highly dependent on location 
(e.g. in basins) and wind conditions. Air pollution with the 
finest particles in 2020 was on average lower than in the 
period up to 2019 (ARSO, 2022b). The annual limit level 
for PM
10
 and PM
2.5 
was not exceeded at any measuring 
point. The less polluted air with particles is mainly due to 
the favourable meteorological conditions that prevailed 
during the winter season of the year and which made 
it possible to dilute emissions from small combustion 
plants and from transport, which are the major sources 
of these particles. At the same time, there was also less 
traffic due to the epidemic. However, total emissions 
of dust particles increased in 2020 for the second year 
in a row, due to particles over 10 µg resulting from 
increased construction activity. In addressing problems 
with some other pollutants, for example sulphur and 
nitrogen oxides, ammonia and carbon monoxide, which 
were highly problematic in the past, efficient solutions 
have been achieved over the long term as legislation has 
been tightened and sectoral policy measures deployed 
(Ogrin, 2017).252 In the years of the epidemic, lower 
economic activity also contributed to this result. In 
Europe, air pollution is recognised as the most significant 
environmental risk factor for human health, because it 
causes high morbidity and premature mortality, which is 
why policies in this area are being tightened.253 In order 
251 The common agricultural policy is increasingly paying attention to 
environmental pollution, including the protection of waters against 
pollution from agricultural sources. As the low hanging fruits have 
been already collected, now more far-reaching measures will be 
needed to improve the positive trend (EC, 2021r).
252 Recent efforts have been aimed at reducing emissions from small and 
medium-sized combustion plants. 
253 Based on the EU National Emission reduction Commitments 
Directive, which is the central element of the comprehensive Clean 
Air Programme for Europe, stricter limits for five major pollutants, 
including PM were set (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 
[Uradni list RS], No 48/18, 2018). Slovenia is expected to reduce PM
2.5
 
emissions by 25% after 2020 compared to 2005, and by 70% after 
2030 (EU average by 22% and 51% respectively). This will require new 
investments, but the savings on labour are supposed to be several 
times higher due to lower healthcare and sickness absence costs. 
Initiatives such as more stringent air pollutant emission standards 
for vehicles, revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive, and any 
measures contributing to a climate-neutral and resource-neutral 
economy by 2050 will also contribute to reducing air pollution. The 
priorities and actions announced under the European Green Deal and 
the opportunities provided by the long-term budget for the 2021–
58
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
M
al
ta
Li
th
ua
ni
a
D
en
m
ar
k
Sl
ov
ak
ia
La
tv
ia
Cz
ec
hi
a
Sw
ed
en
G
er
m
an
y
Cr
oa
tia
Cy
pr
us
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Po
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
Ro
m
an
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Po
rt
ug
al
Sp
ai
n
G
re
ec
e
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Es
to
ni
a
In
 P
PS
/m
3
10
48
 Figure 72: Water productivity is relatively low in Slovenia
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: Water productivity is measured as GDP per unit 
of pumped freshwater.
A well-preserved and healthy natural environment 115Development report 2022
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
 k
t
2.5 µm or less 2.5–10 µm Over 10 µm
 Figure 73: Particulate matter emissions, which decreased 
significantly since 2010, increased in 2019 and 2020 as 
a result of increased activity in the construction sector, 
while this year, the finest particles further decreased
Source: ARSO (2022a). Note: due to the introduction of a new source, the 
data are corrected for the entire observation period compared to previous 
publications. Particulate emissions from the construction of all roads have 
been added (previously only the construction of motorways was taken into 
account). Due to the increased construction activity in these works, emissions 
increased in 2020 – the calculation takes into account that the length of newly 
built roads has doubled compared to 2019. 
may soon end up functionally degraded as well, thereby 
deepening the problem.
to reduce the social costs associated with air quality, 
transport-related measures will also need to be stepped 
up by increasing investments in rail infrastructure 
development and alternative fuels vehicles, while 
promoting non-motorised forms of urban mobility.
In the case of land, which is also a limited natural 
resource, the process of revitalising functionally 
degraded areas (FDAs) continues, but construction 
is also expanding to the unbuilt areas, which is not 
moving in the direction of achieving the goal of net 
zero building on land after 2050. Unsustainable siting 
of activities can lead to a loss of soil, which, from the 
point of view of human civilisation, is a non-renewable 
natural resource and vital for existence in terms of the 
provision of ecosystem services. One of the orientations 
of the current Resolution on the National Environmental 
Action Programme 2020–2030 (ReNPVO20–30, 2020) 
is to gradually reduce the annual growth of developed 
(built-up) land, with the goal of zero growth after 2050. 
A review of municipal spatial plans shows that some 
municipalities also plan to build on undeveloped building 
land, while at the same time they have at their disposal 
abandoned areas of the same use that could be revived. 
This takes us away from the set goal, so it is important 
to focus initiatives more systematically on abandoned 
and functionally degraded areas. In addition, it will be 
necessary to follow more closely the orientations and 
needs in particular areas, otherwise the areas of new use 
2027 period and the NextGenerationEU instruments will help to meet 
the commitments (EC, 2020e).

A high level of cooperation, 
training and governance 
efficiency
In recent years, Slovenia has made significant improvements in 
individual areas of governance of the State, while the COVID-19 
epidemic has pointed to the functioning of public administration and 
public services and highlighted challenges that have not yet been 
adequately addressed. Progress has been made in the digitalisation 
of public services, the introduction of quality standards in public 
administration and the reduction of administrative barriers, while the 
profitability of state-owned companies and the efficiency of the justice 
system have also improved. However, institutional competitiveness is 
still characterised by a lack of effective public sector governance based 
on better coordination with all interested publics, a still high burden of 
state regulation, a lack of a predictable and stable business environment, 
mistrust in the rule of law and the judiciary, and a relatively high 
perception of corruption. The epidemic, and before that the transition to 
the fourth industrial revolution, also highlighted the need for strategic 
governance and response from public institutions, which plays an 
important role not only in the efficiency of public administration but 
also in development at national, regional and local levels. A strategic 
approach will only be possible with the involvement of all stakeholders 
(social partners and other interested public), which will enable a long-
term stable, predictable and credible development policy, which is also 
important for the green and digital transformation of the economy. 
Therefore the challenge ahead lies in ensuring proper communication 
with the public, increasing transparency and improving the involvement 
of key stakeholders, including civil society and professional circles, in 
the adoption, implementation and monitoring of measures. One of 
the key conditions for the further development of the country is also 
to strengthen the confidence of citizens and businesses in institutions, 
which fell further during the epidemic and is among the lowest in the 
EU. It should be stressed, however, that Slovenia has been one of the 
most peaceful and safest countries in the world during the last decade, 
which has had a positive effect on the quality of life of its population. 
5
The current precarious situation related to the war in Ukraine has an 
impact on the sense of security not only in Slovenia, but in the entire 
European region. 
The country’s efforts to increase global responsibility and solidarity, 
along with its engagement in international organisations (e.g. the 
EU Presidency in the second half of 2021, active engagement in the 
UN Human Rights Committee, and maintaining its contribution to 
international operations and missions, where it ranks among the 
allies with an above-average operational burden) also contributes to 
Slovenia’s reputation. In the light of the war in Ukraine, cooperation with 
key partner countries and international organisations, and in particular 
with the EU, will be necessary to avoid potentially major humanitarian, 
security and economic consequences. While Slovenia ranks among the 
most successful countries in achieving the Sustainable Development 
Goals of the 2030 Agenda, Official Development Assistance (ODA) 
expenditure continues to be significantly lower than the international 
commitments. 
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency 119Development report 2022
greater in Slovenia than in other EU Member States, so the 
lag behind the EU average increased further. Despite the 
poorer assessment of the field, the relative improvement 
in ranking was only observed in the indicator of 
government policy flexibility (from 17th to 14th place 
among EU Member States), which is attributed to the 
adoption of economic and social measures to tackle 
the crisis (the so-called anti-coronavirus packages). The 
indicators of institutional competitiveness based on 
statistical data257 have not changed significantly over the 
last year. 
The degree of participatory democracy, i.e. the 
involvement of general public in all stages of 
framing and monitoring policies and regulations, is 
low. Cooperation with stakeholders is crucial for quality 
policy-making, increases public confidence in policies 
and regulations, strengthens the legitimacy of adopted 
regulations, and helps to facilitate policy implementation 
(OECD, 2021d).258 The current arrangement of drafting 
regulations requires that drafters and proponents of a 
draft law submit, inter alia, a summary of participation 
of the public in drafting the legislation (ReNDej, 2009). 
In Slovenia, public participation is relatively low, with 
several surveys suggesting that the accepted minimum 
standards of participation259 are often ignored, while the 
257 These are the indicators of a country’s credit rating, interest rate range, 
exchange rate stability, etc. These indicators are for 2020. 
258 Public participation can be spontaneous (based on an individual’s 
interest) or organised by addressing target groups and experts. In this 
context, it should be borne in mind that certain interest organisations' 
role in the process of drafting regulations is defined by means of 
specific regulations or arrangements (ReNDej, 2009).
259 Public participation in the drafting of regulations should take from 30 
to 60 days; an exception to this rule are the proposals of regulations 
Several years of improvement in institutional 
competitiveness was interrupted by a marked 
deterioration in survey responses in the first 
year of the epidemic. During the global financial 
crisis, institutional competitiveness, as measured by 
international indicators of competitiveness, deteriorated 
significantly,254 with a marked decrease in the values of 
survey indicators measuring the perception of business 
people in the areas of functioning of state institutions255 
(IMD, 2021; Kaufmann and Kraay, 2021; WEF, 2019; 
WB, 2020). This was followed by several years of more 
favourable macroeconomic conditions and more 
stable public finances in the 2015–2019 period, which 
contributed to improving institutional competitiveness, 
which was among the highest in the EU during this 
period. With the spread of the epidemic, the business 
sentiment256 in Slovenia, as in other EU Member States, 
declined sharply. This also contributed to a noticeable 
deterioration in survey responses in all areas of the 
IMD Index, with indicators measuring the perception 
of the legal and regulatory environment, transparency 
of government policies, and bribery and corruption 
deteriorating the most (Figure 74). The deterioration was 
254 The decline in survey indicators was also the result of a sharp 
deterioration in business sentiment during the crisis, which was more 
pronounced than in other countries. 
255 Indicators measuring institutional competitiveness are mostly 
indicators from a survey of business people, mainly measuring 
respondents' perceptions in various areas related to the functioning of 
government institutions (Figure 74). The survey is usually conducted at 
the beginning of the second quarter of the current year and therefore 
measures mainly the perceptions relating to the previous year. For 
more about the IMD and WEF methodology and the issues of survey 
indicators, see Chiaiutta (2007).
256 Measured by the economic climate (SURS) and the ESI indicator 
(Eurostat). 
5.1 Efficient governance and high-quality public service
 Efficient governance and high-quality public service (Development Goal 12):
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to ensure effective strategic governance of public institutions and the 
formulation of quality public policies that respond to changes effectively and quickly. Significant factors listed in 
the SDS 2030 as contributing to stronger governance of the public sector include framing goal-oriented policies, 
creating a highly developed culture of cooperation between citizens and institutions to strengthen trust in the 
latter, involving stakeholders at all levels of policy development and monitoring, nurturing social dialogue, and 
ensuring accessibility of information. It is also important to make governance of public systems and services 
efficient (and innovative), improve oversight of institutional and social structures, and ensure accountability for 
adopted decisions.
 Performance indicators for Development Goal 12:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
Trust in public institutions, in % 
Parliament: 19
Government: 25
Local authorities: 48
(2021, summer survey)
Parliament: 35
Government: 37
Local authorities: 57 
(2021, summer survey)
At least half of the population 
trusts public institutions 
(average of the latest three 
surveys)
Executive capacity, average score on a 1–10 scale 4.97 (2020) 5.94 (2020) EU average in 2030
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency120 Development report 2022
Trust in the country’s institutions, which had always 
been relatively low in Slovenia, recorded a further 
decline in 2020 and 2021 and remained below 
the EU average. Following a gradual increase in the 
2015–2019 period, the level of trust in key institutions 
decreased again in 2020 and 2021262 amid the spread of 
the COVID-19 epidemic, while trust in the Government, 
Parliament and political parties was among the lowest 
in the EU (see Indicator 5.1). This is also reflected in 
satisfaction with the way democracy works, which, 
following an increase in previous years, declined in 
2020 and in 2021 was the lowest in the EU.263 Trust 
in government institutions is also important for 
successfully tackling the COVID-19 epidemic and for the 
country’s post-epidemic recovery and development. 
It helps to facilitate policy implementation and 
effective governance of the State, as people who 
trust public institutions are more willing to comply 
with government authorities and laws, pay taxes and 
participate in joint actions (Eurofound, 2018). In 2021, 
38% of respondents were satisfied with the measures 
taken by the government264 in Slovenia, which is much 
less than in 2020265 (64%) and also less than the EU 
average (53%). Also, more than half of the respondents 
(53%; EU: 25%) considered that the measures taken 
by public authorities to contain the epidemic were 
unjustified (Eurobarometer, 2021e). 
262 The year 2021 refers in the text to the latest available Eurobarometer 
data (June-July 2021 round).
263 Altogether 35% of respondents were satisfied with the way democracy 
works in Slovenia (EU: 59%), which is 10 p.p. more than in the previous 
round (February–March 2021) but 12 p.p. less than in 2019. Greece’s 
satisfaction level was the same as Slovenia’s (Eurobarometer, 2021e).
264 During the epidemic, trust in the government, which is responsible 
for the adoption of containment measures, was particularly volatile 
(OECD, 2020a).
265 Eurobarometer data obtained in the period July–August 2020.
majority of ministries do not involve stakeholders in the 
drafting of regulations until the final stage260 (Forbici et 
al., 2015; OECD, 2021d). On the other hand, the OECD 
data (2021m) indicate that in Slovenia the involvement 
of stakeholders in drafting regulations (in particular 
primary legislation) is stronger than on average in the 
EU, while the monitoring of their implementation is 
much weaker. In order to involve the population in 
the process of formulating government policies and 
measures, a web portal, predlagam.vladi.si, was set up in 
Slovenia at the end of 2009, through which more than 
12,000 proposals for amendments to regulations and 
laws have been submitted so far. Public participation 
is also relatively low in referendums, which are one of 
the forms of direct democracy. Participation in the last 
referendum in 2021 was 46.46%, which is the second 
highest voter turnout in any legislative referendum to 
date (DVK, 2022). According to the Democracy Index 
(EIU, 2022), Slovenia ranks among the bottom half of EU 
Member States (17th place), i.e. among the countries 
with a democracy deficit.261 The electoral process field 
and the possibility of participating in elections are rated 
the best, while the field related to political culture is 
ranked at the very bottom, which is also reflected in a 
very low level of trust in politics and political parties.
where cooperation is not possible due to the nature of matters, such as 
urgent procedures, the State budget, etc. (ReNDej, 2009)
260 It is important that stakeholders are involved both at the early stages 
of drafting of regulations, when problems and possible solutions are 
identified, as well as when they are ready for further procedure (OECD, 
2021d).
261 The umbrella index of democracy is the arithmetic mean of the five sub-
indices, with a possible number of points between 0 and 10. Countries 
with scores between 8 and 10 are fully functioning democracies, those 
with scores between 6 and 8 are countries with a democracy deficit, 
while lower scores indicate hybrid and authoritarian regimes. Sub-
indices consist of the electoral process areas and the possibilities to 
participate in elections, the functioning of the government, political 
participation, political culture and civil liberties (EIU, 2022). 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Legal and
regulatory
environment
Adaptability of
government
policy
Setting up
businesses
Transparency of
government
policies
Bureaucracy
Bribery and
corruption
Central bank
efficiency
Labour
legislation
Slovenia 2021 Slovenia 2020 Slovenia 2014
EU 2021 EU 2020
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
N
um
be
r o
f p
oi
nt
s
Legal and regulatory environment
Setting up businesses
Transparency of government policies
Adaptability of government policy
Bureaucracy
Bribery and corruption
Central bank efficiency
Labor legislation
 Figure 74: The improvement in institutional competitiveness was halted during the last measurement after several years of 
improvement
Source: IMD (2021). Note: Higher scores are better. With reference to more detailed indicators, the maximum score is 10; all indicators are survey-based. The survey takes 
place at the beginning of the second quarter of the year in which the results are published.
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency 121Development report 2022
5.1.1 Performance of the public 
administration and the provision 
of public services
Strategic governance of public institutions 
and the efficiency of public administration are 
important factors for the country’s performance 
and competitiveness and play an important role in 
development at local, regional and national levels. The 
country needs to take action and address the governance 
strategically, so a long-term, stable, predictable and 
credible development policy is essential, which is all the 
more important in the context of an intensive transition 
to Industry 4.0 (IMAD, 2020a). The basic document for 
the efficient functioning of public administration was 
the Public Administration Development Strategy 2015–
2020, which was implemented in accordance with the 
adopted two-year operational programmes. The OECD’s 
survey (OECD, 2018e) has pointed out that the objectives 
and measures have been properly designed but should 
be implemented more systematically (Rakar and 
Kovač, 2019). The COVID-19 epidemic has additionally 
highlighted the need for effective governance, as the 
new situation requires a different way of responding and 
ensuring the flow of information and points to the relevant 
competences of public employees and leaders. This has 
accelerated the introduction of some solutions, notably in 
the area of digitalisation of public administration. In its final 
report (2021b), the MJU states that most of the measures 
set out in the strategy have been implemented, but it does 
not provide a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness 
of the implementation of the strategy and, above all, 
its impact on the functioning of public administration. 
In recent years, the rating of strategic governance of 
public institutions, measured by the executive capacity 
index, has been strongly affected by inefficient strategic 
planning (i.e. a lack of coherence between development 
policies and national and other strategies), the lack of 
organisational reforms, the fragmentation of public sector 
bodies, weak inter-ministerial coordination, and the low 
involvement of various expert publics in government 
decisions (see Indicator 5.2). The value of the Executive 
Capacity Index is slowly improving, but it still remains 
lower than in most other EU Member States and lags far 
behind the SDS target. 
The development of eGovernment services 
has gradually improved in recent years and the 
adjustments required during the COVID-19 epidemic 
also contributed to reducing the lag in the uptake 
of these services behind the EU average. Citizens can 
access the eGovernment portal, offering a one-stop 
shop gateway to electronic services for dealing with the 
State, and the SPOT portal – Slovenia Business Point for 
businesses and entrepreneurs270 (e-VEM). EC data show 
270 A total of 2,452,867 documents (which is almost 300,000 more than in 
2020) were submitted via the SPOT portal in 2021. The largest number 
of documents were submitted for the purpose of registration and de-
registration of insurance against occupational injury and disease.
Social dialogue plays an important role in 
addressing issues and measures related to social 
and economic policies in Slovenia; however, its lack 
and disruptions in the functioning of the Economic 
and Social Council have been noticed in recent 
years. The Industrial Democracy Index266 shows that 
the involvement of stakeholders in social dialogue is 
high, but cooperation between the social partners in 
Slovenia has been stagnating for a long time and could 
still be improved (Eurofound, 2018a). The last Social 
Agreement for the period 2015–2016 was signed in 
2015 and since that time social dialogue has been less 
successful. A review of past practice shows that there 
is great potential in Slovenia for the development of 
social dialogue, which takes place within the framework 
of the Economic Social Council (ESC),267 and this can be 
achieved by improving the knowhow, competences 
and awareness of social partners (RGZC and ZDSS, 
2018). Representatives of civil society are also actively 
involved in social dialogue in the framework of the 
EC and other EU institutions, however in Slovenia, 
the non-governmental sector and other professional 
organisations have not played a significant role in 
social dialogue for a long time, despite the adoption in 
2018 of the National Strategy for the Development of 
Non-Governmental Organisations and Volunteering up 
to 2023 and the EC Recommendations (IMAD, 2021a). 
The EC points out that the public in Slovenia does not 
always have sufficient opportunities to participate 
in legislative procedures,268 as the recommended 
consultation period is often not taken into account 
and in some cases comments are not properly taken 
into account (EC, 2020g). In the first half of 2021, 
social dialogue was suspended due to employees’ 
dissatisfaction with their participation in the drafting 
of intervention laws and the adoption269 of some law 
proposals that were not related to the epidemic under 
the urgent procedure in the National Assembly (ESC, 
2021; HIIS et al., 2021).
266 The Industrial Democracy Index is composed of four parts: 
the autonomy of social partners in wage agreements, the 
representativeness at macro (social dialogue) level and in companies 
(work councils), participation of employees in corporate management 
decisions, and the interaction of all parties in collective bargaining and 
management decisions. 
267 In Slovenia, there is a tripartite dialogue going on within the ESC and 
it includes all types of negotiations, consultations or exchange of 
information between employers, employees and representatives of 
the country on issues of common interest regarding economic and 
social policies (for more, see IMAD, 2021a). In the process, even when 
it is not directly involved therein, the State is responsible for providing 
an appropriate institutional framework and for ensuring the right 
political and social climate (for more, see IMAD, 2021a).
268 The draft laws are published on a dedicated e-Democracy website, 
through which citizens can send their contributions.
269 For example, trade unions’ opposition to the adoption of the 
Demographic Fund Act.
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency122 Development report 2022
users have participated in the CAF quality assessment. 
The results of the regular CAF EPI external assessment 
(one ministry and five administrative units) in 2021 
suggest that, as in previous years, more attention should 
be paid to the preparation of proposals for improvements 
and to acquainting users with assessment results. The 
comparison also shows that in 2021 the assessment 
averages for all principles of excellence were higher 
than in previous years, most notably in the principles of 
leadership and stability of purpose, result orientation, 
and employment inclusion (MJU, 2021c). The changed 
situation due to the COVID-19 epidemic has highlighted 
the need to increase the prevalence (and possibilities) 
of working from home. According to the MJU survey 
(2020a), almost three-quarters of employees worked from 
home or worked hybrid in 2020. As a result of changes in 
the working model, major changes in the organisation 
of work were also detected: the respondents stated 
that competences such as professionalism, IT literacy, 
creative thinking and problem-solving increased, while 
the greatest decrease was observed in cooperation and 
teamwork. Regarding the challenges and experiences of 
the crisis period, public officials cited increased flexibility 
in the state administration and measures related to 
the digitalisation of business as the most important 
measures, whose implementation is to be continued in 
the future. The quality of services is also related to the 
satisfaction of users of public services, as the survey has 
shown that the majority of customers are satisfied with 
the expertise and professional qualification of employees 
at administrative units, with dissatisfaction mostly 
associated with waiting times (MJU, 2018). In 2022, the 
responsible ministry, in cooperation with administrative 
units, set up the eNaročanje system, which will enable 
faster processing of customers at administrative units 
and thus improve the quality of services.
In recent years, a number of measures have been 
taken to modernise and digitalise the public 
procurement system, but the challenge remains 
to further increase its efficiency. The OECD (2019e) 
states that Slovenia ranks among the most developed 
EU and OECD countries in terms of transparency of 
public procurement and publicly available information 
but lags behind the systems that ensure greater 
efficiency (e.g. in terms of analysis of the effects of 
public procurement and lengthy procedures in handling 
complaints). The focus in recent years has been on 
modernising and digitalising the public procurement 
system, as in 2018 and 2019, the eJN information system 
was set up, which enables procurement procedures to 
be fully electronically implemented, thereby reducing 
contractor costs, shortening procedures and allowing 
for greater transparency (the STATIST application) and 
enabling better supervision of the use of public funds. 
Moreover, the e-Dražba portal was established,274 which 
274 While the awarding of public contracts using electronic auctions 
increased in 2020, it remains relatively low (1.2% of all public contracts 
awarded).
that Slovenia has made progress in all digital public 
services indicators in recent years and has reached the EU 
average in terms of the development of eGovernment. 
The accessibility of services in particular is well assessed, 
as all basic public services are available to citizens online 
and the use of these services by citizens is similar to that 
in the EU generally.271 Despite the wide range of available 
services, there is a big gap especially in the uptake of 
business services, which prevents taking advantage 
of all the possibilities of e-government services (EC, 
2021g, 2021j). According to the European Commission 
(EC, 2021g), lower than expected uptake of digital 
public services could be linked to a lower level of trust, 
security concerns and poor interoperability. The uptake 
of e-health services, however, is among the highest in 
the EU (the introduction of electronic prescriptions and 
referrals), and the introduction of the electronic sick note 
in 2020 also made a positive contribution to this trend 
(eBol). The tax administration also offers a wide range 
of applications through e-tax services (e.g. tax returns 
for citizens and businesses). The limited use of physical 
services due to the COVID-19 epidemic increased the use 
of electronic services, including eGovernment services. 
A study by the Faculty of Administration indicated 
an increase in digitalisation in administrative units in 
terms both of doing business with customers and of 
cooperation with ministries and other administrative 
units. This is expected to increase the use of digital 
communication channels and eGovernment also after 
the end of the epidemic (Aristovnik et al., 2020). At the 
time of the epidemic, some identification requirements 
were lifted or relaxed, making digital public services 
more user-friendly (EC, 2021g). In 2021, the spread of the 
epidemic also accelerated the start of the transition to the 
SI-PASS service (or mobile smsPASS), which enables online 
registration and electronic signature of documents on 
several national and other portals that enable electronic 
business (eGovernment,272 SPOT, z-Vem, eDavki, etc.). 
The introduction of quality models in public 
authorities continues. An important goal of introducing 
a comprehensive quality governance system is to increase 
employees’ awareness of the importance of quality as 
a value in public administration, since the competence 
of the state apparatus is of key importance for the 
implementation of the set tasks and the achievement of 
the objectives. Quality in the public sector is examined 
using the Common Assessment Framework (CAF),273 
which was initially introduced in administrative units 
and over recent years also in the state administration 
authorities. Since the beginning of the project, over 100 
271 77% of Slovenian internet users use eGovernment services, compared 
to 64% on average in the EU. 74% of internet users (EU: 67%) used 
digital public services for citizens and 78% of companies for businesses 
(EU: 84%). 
272 The transition on the SPOT portal is expected to be completed in the 
first half of 2022.
273 The Common Assessment Framework in the public sector is a tool for 
comprehensive quality control developed in the public sector and for 
the public sector; it is based on the business excellence model of the 
EFQM European Quality Management Fund.
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency 123Development report 2022
allows for the electronic submission of tenders and price 
formation in a dynamic way, and the eRevizija portal,275 
which allows for greater transparency in the event of 
audits and complaints. At the beginning of 2022, the 
Act Amending the Public Procurement Act entered into 
force; this increases transparency276 and reduces certain 
administrative barriers (e.g. easier supplementation 
of tenders) (ZJN-3B, 2022).277 The volume of public 
procurement in recent years represents over 12% of 
GDP,278 of which around a third is represented by public 
procurement in the healthcare sector (MJU, 2021e; OECD, 
2021d). In recent years, the priority was the centralisation 
of public procurement in the healthcare sector (e.g. 
pooling of contracts for medicines, medical devices and 
equipment), while the Court of Audit of the Republic 
of Slovenia (2021a) identified several irregularities and 
issued several negative opinions on the procurement 
of medicines in pharmacies in 2020. The lack of 
competition in public procurement remains a problem 
(EC, 2020c) due to a relatively large number of calls for 
tenders with only one contractor, which could increase 
the price and the risk of corruption (MJU, 2021e).279 The 
number of requests for review and other applications in 
legal protection procedures also remains high, as in 2020 
the National Audit Commission decided on 254 requests 
for review (12 more than a year earlier, while the value of 
public procurement contracts was lower by more than 
one-third), of which it satisfied applicants in one-third 
of all requests.280 However, the structure of the requests 
received was dominated by requests for review in the 
field of construction, amounting to EUR 1.05 billion 
(around 80% of all requests),281 followed by requests 
referring to goods (EUR 182 million) and services (EUR 79 
million) (DKOM, 2021). 
275 The eRevizija portal is an online information portal of the National 
Review Commission; it is managed by Javno podjetje Uradni list 
Republike Slovenije, d.o.o. The portal is used for the electronic 
exchange of information and documents in the pre-review procedure, 
review procedure and appeal procedure and for the provision 
of information on the course of these procedures on the public 
procurement portal.
276 All documents are published exclusively on the public procurement 
portal, as are all decisions on the awarding of contracts (including from 
negotiated procedures without prior publication, with the exception 
of urgent procedures). 
277 The amending act also raises the thresholds and simplifies the 
procedures for small-value contracts and introduces more flexibility to 
the EU thresholds, which should allow for greater regionalisation and 
consumption of Slovenian goods. Public procurement in EU Member 
States is regulated by directives and countries have no room for a 
different regulation above a certain threshold. Below the EU threshold 
(which is set for each area), however, countries have the option to 
make public procurement more flexible in order to promote local and 
regional economies and agriculture.
278 According to the statistics, the volume of public contracts awarded in 
2020 amounted to EUR 5.8 billion. The share of public procurement in 
GDP in 2020 stood at 12.6% (MJU, 2021e). 
279 The MJU also states that this could be due to the small size of the 
Slovenian public procurement market and the large number of low 
value contracts and to the possible formulation of the specifications 
of the subject of the public contract, the conditions and criteria set by 
individual contracting authorities in order to reduce competitiveness.
280 In total, the applicants were at least partially successful in 89 
applications; eight procurement procedures were fully annulled. 
281 In terms of value, the vast majority were requests related to the 
construction of the second track of Divača–Koper railway line.
In recent years, Slovenia has achieved a significant 
reduction in administrative barriers, and the lag 
behind the EU average is gradually narrowing. Various 
programmes for the elimination of administrative barriers 
have been systematically implemented in Slovenia 
for more than ten years, with the currently applicable 
document being the Single Document for Ensuring a 
Better Regulatory and Business Environment, which was 
adopted in 2013 and is constantly complemented by 
new measures. The implementation of the programme 
of measures to eliminate administrative barriers and 
draft better regulations is ensured through the ongoing 
“STOP the Bureaucracy” project. By the end of 2020, 
more than 72% of the measures taken to remove 
administrative barriers had been implemented, the 
most important of which were the establishment of 
internet auctions in courts, the automatic exchange 
of data between education systems,282 the abolition of 
the additional motor vehicle tax and the liberalisation 
of petroleum product prices (MJU, 2021a). In particular, 
the COVID-19 epidemic has accelerated the deployment 
of digital solutions. Based on surveys among business 
people, progress in reducing administrative barriers 
has been reported by several international surveys 
(IMD, 2021; Kaufmann and Kraay, 2021; WEF, 2019). 
In 2021, a new Debureaucratisation Act was adopted 
(ZDeb, 2022) to increase the competitiveness of the 
business environment by reducing administrative 
barriers. It introduces a number of simplifications of 
existing legislation (e.g. simplified and harmonised 
reporting to state institutions, the interconnection of 
different registers, the possibility of using electronic 
communications in the service of postal items of 
state authorities, etc.) and mechanisms to prevent 
the accumulation of existing regulations and to allow 
for the repealing of past (out-of-date) laws and the 
implementing regulations based thereon. In the field of 
regulatory impact assessment (RIA), an action plan for 
the 2019–2022 period was adopted in 2019; it contains 
systemic measures to optimise and modernise the 
drafting of regulations and the assessment of their effects 
(MJU, 2019a). Some progress has also been made in this 
area in recent years,283 but shortcomings persist with 
regard to the implementation of the impact assessment 
of implementing regulations and better informing and 
participation of stakeholders and the public (OECD, 
2021j, 2021d). In 2019, more than 96% of the proposed 
acts were assessed in terms of their impact on at least 
one area (public finance, economy, environment, society 
as a whole), with a very high proportion of assessments 
that found no impact on the area analysed (MJU, 2019b). 
282 Among eVŠ, CEUVIZ and student services databases.
283 In 2013, according to the MJU (2019b), only 68% of government 
materials (laws and other materials) underwent impact assessments, 
while this share in 2019 was 91% (an even higher percentage of impact 
assessments was recorded in laws, i.e. 96%). The proportion of draft 
laws published on eDemokracija also increased (2013: 46%; 2019: 89%). 
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency124 Development report 2022
with the BAMC’s winding-up strategy, it was estimated 
that the company would complete the repayment of all 
liabilities by the end of 2022, leaving EUR 127 million in 
its portfolio to be transferred to SSH (BAMC, 2019). In its 
operational audit, the Court of Audit of the Republic of 
Slovenia (2022) found that the volume of assets and the 
amount of outstanding debt decreased over the years, 
but at a slower pace than projected in the BAMC’s plans. 
In that regard, it stated that the planned values for each 
year had been subject to constant changes, but that, as 
a general rule, it was not possible to identify the reasons 
for those changes from the plans.
Improving corporate governance in Slovenia, 
especially in state-owned enterprises, remains 
an important challenge. The absence of a strong 
ownership function and good corporate governance in 
individual state-owned companies increases the risks of 
inefficiency and lack of competitiveness of companies 
(OECD, 2015b). In the case of state-ownership, 
international organisations have also cautioned against 
the interference of the State and politics in company 
operations and a lack of good corporate governance in 
state-owned companies (EC, 2020c; IMD, 2021; OECD, 
2018c; WEF, 2019). Following accession to the OECD 
and the adoption of the Corporate Governance Code for 
Companies with State-Capital Investments, corporate 
governance has improved in recent years. However, the 
redemption of receivables and on recovery procedures in 2020 was 
reflected in a reduced financial potential of debtors for the repayment 
of liabilities or repayment of debts, and during this period, the BAMC 
also managed the receivables through an insurance redemption 
strategy.
5.1.2 Impact of public institutions on 
the economic sector
According to various estimates, the main obstacles to 
business remain high and are related in particular to 
the efficient functioning of state institutions. One of 
Slovenia’s main advantages is its well-qualified workforce, 
with companies stating that good staff are hard to find 
and keep (Jaklič et al., 2018). International comparisons 
show that one of the main obstacles to doing business is 
excessive red tape, reflected in the density of regulations 
and the lengthy public service procedures, while other 
important obstacles are mainly associated with tax policy 
(e.g. the labour cost burden) and relatively rigid labour 
law (IMD, 2021; WEF, 2019). Relatively rapid changes in 
regulations and legislation also have a significant impact 
on business, which significantly affects the predictability 
and stability of the business environment. In recent 
years, Slovenia has taken several measures to gradually 
reduce administrative burdens, and the changes have 
also had a significant impact on the ease of doing 
business (the establishment of a one-stop-shop system, 
changes in insolvency legislation). In tax policy, reliefs 
from the taxation of holiday allowances were adopted in 
2019 and a change in the personal income tax scale and 
general reliefs was introduced as of 2020, which resulted 
in an increase in income tax relief for certain groups of 
taxpayers (with higher education, professionals). The 
introduction of the eRačun has simplified the payment 
of taxes and contributions by means of a single payment 
order in electronic form (MF, 2022a; MJU, 2022). 
Despite the measures taken, barriers to doing business, 
including excessive bureaucracy, remain higher than the 
EU average (IMD, 2021; Kaufmann and Kraay, 2021; WEF, 
2019). 
State ownership of companies, despite a decline in 
recent years, remains high in Slovenia, especially 
in network industries. In the period 2008–2013, the 
state ownership of enterprises in Slovenia was among 
the highest in the EU, both in terms of the value of 
enterprises in GDP and in terms of the share of employees 
in these enterprises (EC, 2016). With the divestment of 
companies through SSH284 and BAMC, state ownership 
in companies decreased in the following years, most 
notably in the financial sector. After the sale of two major 
banks in the period 2018–2019 there was no major 
divestment of shareholdings in companies. In certain 
sectors, state ownership remains high, especially in 
some network industries where state-owned enterprises 
are also market leaders (e.g. transport, energy and 
telecommunications) (OECD, 2018c). The BAMC is due to 
complete its operations by the end of 2022,285 and in line 
284 Equity stakes in 10 out of 15 state-owned companies designated 
for sale have been disposed of so far, while privatisation procedures 
for the remaining five are currently suspended or the companies no 
longer exist.
285 The assets under the BAMC management amounted to EUR 615 
million as of the end of 2020 and decreased by a further 10% by mid-
2021 (to EUR 552 million). The impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on the 
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
31
.1
2.
20
13
31
.1
2.
20
14
31
.1
2.
20
15
1.
1.
20
16
*
31
.1
2.
20
16
31
.1
2.
20
17
31
.1
2.
20
18
31
.1
2.
20
19
31
.1
2.
20
20
30
.6
.2
02
1
31
.1
2.
20
21
31
.1
2.
20
22
načrt
EU
R 
m
ill
io
n
Real estate Equity investments Loans
Plan
 Figure 75: Assets managed by the BAMC are 
progressively, albeit slowly, decreasing
Source: BAMC (2021a and 2021b). Note: *On 1 January 2016, the value of 
the portfolio increased after the merger by acquisition of Factor banka and 
Probanka with the BAMC. Under the transaction, the BAMC also received 
a small leasing portfolio that is included among the loans. In 2019, the 
asset reduction plan for 2019–2022 was amended for failing to achieve the 
objectives.
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency 125Development report 2022
increase, the net return on equity (ROE) in the portfolios 
of Republic of Slovenia and SSH declined in 2020 (by 
2.6 p.p. to 4.3% in 2020289), mainly due to the tightened 
economic situation as a result of the epidemic. The 
companies in the tourism industry have been worst 
struck by the crisis, while the least affected were the 
pharmaceutical industry and telecommunications. 
Compared to the previous year, however, there was 
a marked increase in the amount of dividends290 for 
the financial year 2020, which was mainly due to the 
easing of conditions for the payment of dividends 
by banks and insurance companies, which were not 
allowed to pay dividends in the previous year due to 
unfavourable business conditions.291 The assessment of 
the performance of the SSH portfolio companies shows 
that the ROE of the portfolio could reach 5.5% in 2021, 
as the year was successful for some large companies in 
the management portfolio of this pillar due to increased 
demand and favourable market conditions (the 
pharmaceutical industry and some companies) (SSH, 
2021a). 
portfolio assets on the basis of predefined criteria set out in the State 
Assets Management Strategy (OdSUKND, 2015).
289 In the calculation of the portfolio returns, the two major one-off events 
were excluded from the calculations in 2020. If these events had been 
included, the profitability would have stood at 2.2%.
290 2018: EUR 252.9 million EUR; 2019: EUR 85.9 million; 2020: EUR 150.9 
million.
291 Dividends for the current year are paid out with a one-year delay.
analysis of the Code shows significant discrepancies 
in terms of compliance with the corporate integrity 
policy recommendations, communication with the SSH 
about the risks (especially when the SSH is not the sole 
shareholder of the company), and the establishment of 
internal audit and public announcements of concluded 
transactions in the procurement of services. Following 
a public debate, the code was supplemented in 2021 
(Ljubljana Stock Exchange and Slovenian Directors’ 
Association, 2021b and 2021a; SSH, 2020). 
The profitability of asset management of state-
owned equity stakes decreased markedly in 2020 
due to harsh economic circumstances. Slovenian 
Sovereign Holding (SSH), as the manager of state-
owned equity stakes in companies, provides conditions 
for active management of its assets in accordance 
with annual management plans (OdSUKND, 2015). 
The concentration of investments in the management 
portfolio remains relatively high, with the ten largest 
investments at the end of 2020 accounting for almost 
79% of the book value of the total portfolio,286 while 
SSH managed a total of 69 active financial assets. As a 
result of the sale of the shares of the Republic of Slovenia 
in two banks, the share of financial companies in the 
portfolio decreased significantly, while the major pillars 
(energy and turnover) already account for almost three-
quarters of the management portfolio according to the 
available data (in 2016, this share was 61%).287 Strategic 
investments (almost 81%) account for the largest share 
of investments (SSH, 2021b).288 After several years of 
286 The largest strategic investment is DARS (pillar of transport), which 
represents 30% of the book value of the SSH portfolio. 
287 At the end of 2020, the book value of assets under management 
totalled EUR 9.9 billion and decreased slightly compared to the 
previous year as a result of the sale of shares in banks.
288 State-owned assets are classified into strategic, significant and 
41.2%
31.7%
17.8%
9.3%
Transport Energy industry Finance Tourism and economy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
In
 %
Net return on equity of the Republic of Slovenia and SSH (ROE)
Capital dividend of portfolio of the Republic of Slovenia and SSH
 Figure 76: With the deteriorating economic situation due to the epidemic in 2020, the return on equity in state-owned 
investments declined markedly (left), with more than two-thirds of dividend payments being made up of companies in the 
transport and energy pillars (right)
Source: SSH (2021b).
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency126 Development report 2022
many EU Member States. In the period between March 
2020 and June 2021, the Constitutional Court received 
188 complaints regarding the measures imposed to 
contain the COVID-19 epidemic (EC, 2021w), and in 
2021 the number of applications lodged before the 
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR, 2022) increased 
again; this time, they mainly referred to the measures 
imposed to contain the epidemic. In Slovenia, the 
Constitutional Court imposed on the Government the 
obligation to regularly (periodically) review and adjust 
measures that must be proportionate and limited in time 
(Constitutional Court, 2020). 
The main priorities set in the judiciary over recent 
years have been to improve the effectiveness, 
transparency and quality of the justice system. In 
implementing the Justice 2020 Strategy, one of the 
principal challenges was to create a predictable and 
stable legal environment. Significant progress has been 
made in recent years in terms of increasing efficiency 
and reducing employment; however, some of the goals 
set by the justice strategy by the end of 2020 have not 
been achieved. There has been a considerable delay 
in achieving the goals related to the expected time to 
resolve major pending cases, with the ratio between 
court staff and judges also being too low (Supreme 
Court, 2022).293 Currently, the EU2020 project Slovenian 
Justice 2020 is in the implementation phase; it is aimed 
at increasing the quality of the entire judicial system, of 
293 The strategy pursues the goals that by 2020, the expected disposition 
time for major cases should be reduced to six months (the goal was 
not achieved, as the average length of proceedings is now eight 
months), and for other cases to three months (the goal was achieved). 
The number of judges per 100,000 population should also decrease (to 
42; the number at the end of 2020 was 42.5), while the ratio between 
court staff and judges should increase to 4.3 (the number at the end of 
2020 was 3.95).
Trust in the rule of law and the judiciary is relatively 
low and has not changed significantly in recent years. 
The bedrock of people’s trust in the legal order and 
respect for legislative provisions is clear, understandable, 
transparent and unambiguous legislation, while people’s 
trust in the legal system and the rule of law also depends 
on the enforcement of rights in practice, the duration 
of administrative and court proceedings, accessibility 
to legal remedies, and the predictability and stability of 
legal standards. International comparisons (Kaufmann 
and Kraay, 2021; World Justice Project, 2021) suggest 
that trust in the judiciary in Slovenia has not changed 
significantly over the last five years and is around the EU 
average, while trust in the rule of law remains below the 
average (see Indicator 5.3). The EC (2021w) states that 
the level of perceived independence of the judiciary 
is improving, but trust in the independence of courts 
and judges remains much lower than in most other EU 
Member States. Surveys point to the perceived influence 
of politics on court decisions as the main reason and 
to the interference with or pressures on the courts due 
to economic or other special interests (Eurobarometer, 
2021a, 2021b).292 By 2020, the number of applications 
lodged before the European Court of Human Rights 
(ECHR) and the violations found have substantially 
decreased, and both indicators have no longer deviated 
from the EU average in the recent years. The COVID-19 
epidemic posed a new challenge in the area of human 
rights, as basic freedoms such as freedom of movement, 
assembly or business initiatives have been restricted in 
292 The perceived independence of the judiciary among the general 
public improved slightly in 2021 (47% rating it fairly good or very 
good) but is lower than the EU average (54%). It has also improved 
among businesses (43%; EU: 49%). The main reasons for mistrust 
by the general public and businesses are similar. In both surveys, a 
significant proportion of respondents failed to reply (general public: 
11%; businesses: 21%). 
5.2 A trustworthy legal system
 A trustworthy legal system (Development Goal 10):
The legal system is of significant national and strategic importance for the protection of the rights of citizens, 
economic development and prosperity, given the fact that all social systems and subsystems are highly dependent 
on it. The goal is to create a legal system that provides a high-quality and efficient legal framework. Key factors of 
trust in the legal system listed by the SDS 2030 include the protection of human rights, fundamental liberties and 
equal opportunities, clear procedural and substantive legislation, concern for the independence, efficiency and 
transparency of the judiciary, and the elimination of the causes of corruption.
 Performance indicators for Development Goal 10:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
Rule of law index, 
ranking between EU Member States
Ranking 18 (data for 20 EU 
Member States) (2020) –
Ranking in the top half of EU 
Member States
Estimated time to resolve civil and 
commercial court cases, number of days 281 (2019) 258 (2019) 200
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency 127Development report 2022
considerably since 2014, but the disposition time for 
major cases did not significantly change in recent years 
(see Indicator 5.4). However, the Supreme Court further 
points out that excessive shortening of proceedings 
may undermine the parties’ right to be heard and to a 
fair trial; moreover, the increasing jurisdiction of courts 
has also had a considerable impact on their efficiency in 
recent years. Compared to other EU Member States, the 
expected duration of civil and commercial proceedings 
at first instance is longer and has even increased in recent 
years. Legal proceedings related to money laundering 
are also among the lengthiest in the EU (EC, 2021v).
The quality of the Slovenian judiciary is comparable 
to other EU Member States, while the changed 
situation due to the COVID-19 epidemic highlighted 
the need for faster implementation of ICT tools in 
the justice system. This includes, in the strict sense, the 
quality of court decisions (e.g. the appropriate structure 
and procedures, the merits of judgments and the legal 
bases used), and, in the broad sense, also the provision 
of judicial services. Quality is influenced by several 
factors, such as the accessibility of judicial services for 
users, quality assessment, the use of ICT, and financial 
and human resources. Since 2016, a project to improve 
the quality of the judiciary has been implemented by the 
Supreme Court; this has so far focused on judicial skills, 
transfer of knowledge, and the training and improving 
the competences of judges and court staff.296 Within the 
framework of the Procedural Justice project, the judiciary 
has established a comprehensive communication system 
that enables its users to obtain the information they need 
in simple and comprehensible language; the system is 
intended for anyone who contacts the courts. In 2020, 
296 In the form of mentoring new judges and those who changed the legal 
field of adjudication or as on-the-job training for new judicial staff.
judges and court staff (increasing their competences), 
and awareness of parties and other participants in court 
proceedings (procedural justice, electronic auctions, 
access to foreign e-Justice systems, publication of 
decisions and electronic operation in civil judicial 
proceedings, records of liabilities and claims arising in 
court proceedings, and electronic files) (Supreme Court 
et al., 2021). In addition to digitalisation, the priority area 
remains the administrative area, in particular monitoring 
the resolution of administrative disputes. In recent 
years, the Administrative Court has failed to manage 
the caseload, reduce the number of pending cases and 
achieve a reasonable length of proceedings (Supreme 
Court, 2022).
The multi-annual trend of increasing court efficiency 
continued in 2021 after the increase was temporarily 
halted during the COVID-19 epidemic. Court statistics 
suggest that in the period 2014–2021, the number of 
pending cases in almost all courts continued to decrease 
annually, and the courts, despite a decrease in the 
number of judges and court staff, generally294 resolved 
more pending cases than came in. The only exception was 
2020, when the activity of courts was limited due to the 
containment measures imposed during the epidemic. 
This also affected their efficiency, as the courts resolved 
fewer cases in 2020 than came in (Supreme Court, 
2022).295 The average disposition time has shortened 
294 The Administrative Court had the biggest problem with efficiency, 
as the average disposition time for major cases was too long (14.8 
months in 2021), while at the same time, it resolved fewer cases in 
recent years than came in. 
295 With a lower new caseload, the number of resolved cases decreased by 
around 13%, while the number of pending cases at the end of the year 
increased by 7.6% compared to the previous year. Reduced handling 
of caseload was particularly noticeable in respect of major cases at 
local, labour and social courts. In total, however, the courts managed 
to resolve 99% of the caseload. 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
N
um
be
r o
f m
on
th
s
N
um
be
r o
f o
th
er
 c
as
es
Incoming
Resolved
Unresolved
Average disposition time (right axis)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
N
um
be
r o
f m
on
th
s
N
um
be
r o
f m
aj
or
 c
as
es
Incoming
Resolved
Unresolved
Average disposition time (right axis)
 Figure 77: The efficiency of courts improved in recent years, as, with the exception of 2020, a larger number of major (left) 
and other (right) cases were resolved; in particular, the time required for resolving land registry, enforcement and other 
matters (right) was considerably reduced
Source: Supreme Court (2022).
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency128 Development report 2022
corruption. In recent years, some measures have been 
adopted to improve the integrity of institutions, public 
employees and holders of public office and increase 
the transparency of public sector operations (MJU, 
2020b). Nevertheless, international comparisons of the 
perception of corruption suggest that the perception 
of corruption got slightly worse during the COVID-19 
epidemic and has remained higher than the EU average 
(see Indicator 5.5), which is reflected in the lack of public 
trust in the work of competent authorities (Transparency 
International et al., 2022). According to the Commission 
for the Prevention of Corruption (KPK, 2021), the 
epidemic revealed a number of corruption risks and 
suspicions of irregularities in the procurement of medical 
equipment,300 which further increased the number 
of reports of corruption in 2020. The Eurobarometer 
survey (2020b) shows that the respondents in Slovenia 
are of the opinion that high-profile and major cases of 
corruption are not properly sanctioned. In the area of 
legislative regulation, the Act Amending the Integrity 
and Prevention of Corruption Act (ZIntPK) was adopted; 
it should provide, inter alia, tools for more effective work 
of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption 
(e.g. supervision of lobbying and regulation of the legal 
basis for the operation of the Erar application, clear and 
specific regulation of procedures applying to participants 
appearing before the Commission for the Prevention of 
Corruption, and extending the supervision of assets) and 
delimit the competences of the police and authorities 
for the prosecution of criminal offences of corruption 
(ZIntPK-C, 2020). In line with the adopted legislation 
and the promotion of greater integrity, the reporting of 
lobbying contacts has been increasing in recent years, 
which in 2020 was mainly related to exerting influence 
on anti-coronavirus legislation (CPC, 2021).
300 Based on the investigation, the thematic surveillance report identified 
a number of corruption risks that need to be better managed in 
the future in order to carry out procedures more efficiently and 
transparently. The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption also 
issued recommendations to the competent institutions. 
the focus of this project was on the implementation of 
training for judges and court staff, new content for the 
website and activities related to the renovation of court 
documents (Supreme Court, 2021). According to the 
EC survey (2021w), information and communication 
technologies (ICT) for the management of court cases 
are well297 developed and, compared to other countries, 
Slovenia has very well-regulated monitoring and 
evaluation of court activities and transparent standards 
of efficiency. There are still some shortcomings in 
electronic communication with customers,298 while 
progress was made in recent years in some procedures299 
(EC, 2021w). At the time of severe restrictions due to the 
COVID-19 epidemic, the work of the courts was severely 
disrupted; therefore access to videoconferencing of 
court proceedings was provided and a dedicated portal 
for judges and court staff (including access to the 
support system to panel sessions and similar) was set 
up (Supreme Court, 2021). According to the European 
Commission (EC, 2021w), the use of digital technologies 
has been particularly restricted in the Public Prosecutor’s 
Office, while the lack of digitalisation within the police 
contributes to delays in complex cases (e.g. when a 
complaint is received only in paper form). 
The perception of corruption is relatively high, and 
it increased further during the COVID-19 epidemic. 
The evaluation (perception) of corruption reflects 
the performance of institutions of the rule of law, 
public sector integrity and the quality of public sector 
management. The number of reports of corruption and 
other irregularities surged after the start of the global 
financial crisis, which can be largely attributed to the 
increased exposure of competent institutions and, as 
a result, the increased recognition and reporting of 
297 Slovenia is among the best-ranked EU Member States in terms of the 
availability of online information on the judicial system for the general 
public and in terms of e-commerce of courts in civil proceedings.
298 Digital solutions for conducting and monitoring judicial proceedings 
are limited, especially in criminal matters.
299  In some areas, documents need to be submitted to the court only in 
electronic form, e.g. by notaries public and receivers in land registry 
proceedings, in cases concerning the court register and insolvency 
proceedings, and by the debtors in the recovery of uncontested debt.
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency 129Development report 2022
prices of fuels and certain other raw materials. The 
suspension of food exports (mainly cereals), agricultural 
products and fertilisers from Russia and Ukraine could 
also have a major impact on food security in the wider 
region, as the Middle East and parts of Africa might 
be particularly affected (Glauber and Laborde, 2022). 
The war also triggered a refugee wave, with around 
10.2 million people leaving their homes in the first 
four weeks of fighting and over 3.7 million population 
of Ukraine seeking refuge in neighbouring countries 
(UNOCHA, 2022). In early March, the UN approved by 
an overwhelming majority302 a motion for a resolution 
condemning Russia’s aggression and demanding an 
immediate end to the conflict and the withdrawal of 
Russian troops from Ukraine (UN, 2022), and the war 
was also unanimously condemned by the Council of 
Europe, which excluded Russia from the organisation 
for attacking a sovereign state and a member of the 
Council of Europe (CoE, 2022). War also represents a 
major challenge for the further development of the EU’s 
Common Foreign and Security Policy. In this light, an 
important step forward is the adoption of the so-called 
Strategic Compass, which sets out guidelines for the 
development of European defence and security, crisis 
management, capability development, partnerships 
and resilience. It foresees a number of rapid action 
measures in the event of an outbreak of different types 
of crises (e.g. the establishment of an EU capacity for 
rapid deployment of forces) and includes measures to 
improve the ability to anticipate threats, ensure secure 
access to strategic domains and protect the citizens of 
the European Union (EEAS, 2022). 
302 141 votes in favour, 5 against, 35 abstentions.
Since its independence, Slovenia has been a member 
of the most important international organisations 
that maintain a stable international environment, 
security and human rights. In 1992, Slovenia joined 
the United Nations (UN), which is a uniform system 
established for dealing with global challenges 
in international peace and security, sustainable 
development, and human rights. For over a decade it 
has also been a member of the EU, its most important 
political and legal environment. The fundamental 
framework of institutional national security aside from 
the EU’s common foreign and defence policy is NATO. 
Changes in the broader international environment affect 
both the EU and Slovenia, the two grappling not just 
with important developmental, political and economic 
issues, but also with global security challenges. Slovenia 
is also striving to increase global responsibility and 
solidarity and among the most successful countries in 
achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals 
(Sachs et al., 2021).301
Russia’s attack on Ukraine in February this year 
could have significant humanitarian, security and 
economic consequences. The aggression triggered 
a strong international response, with the EU, the US 
and some of the world’s other important economies 
reacting as early as at the end of February with the 
imposition of large-scale sanctions aimed at isolating 
Russia financially and economically. The impact on 
international trade and economic activity could be seen 
mainly through disruptions in supply chains and higher 
301 Slovenia ranks 9th among 165 countries and has been rated best in 
terms of eradicating extreme forms of poverty and access to cleaner 
energy sources. 
5.3 A safe and globally responsible Slovenia
 A safe and globally responsible Slovenia (Development Goal 11):
The aim is to address global challenges that Slovenia is facing, such as migration flows, terrorism, climate change 
and respect for human rights. Some of the challenges also pose threats and risks to national security. Factors listed 
by the SDS 2030 as instrumental to strengthening global responsibility and solidarity include providing a high level 
of security, which includes providing protection against terrorist and other supranational threats (cyber threats 
included), promoting prevention, and strengthening the capacity for managing natural and other disasters. The 
SDS 2030 also draws attention to increasing foreign policy cooperation at the bilateral and multilateral levels and 
defence capabilities. Through international development cooperation and humanitarian aid, Slovenia contributes 
to a more balanced and fair global development and the eradication of poverty and inequality.
 Performance indicators for Development Goal 11:
Latest data
Target value for 2030
Slovenia EU average
Share of population that reported crime, 
violence or vandalism in their area, in % 7.3 (2020) 10.9 (2020) < 10
Global Peace Index, Rank 3rd place (EU) (2021)
5th place (163) (2021) –
Ranking among the top five countries 
in the EU or among the top ten in the 
world
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency130 Development report 2022
5.3.1 Safety
In the last decade, Slovenia has been one of the world’s 
most peaceful and safest countries. The Global Peace 
Index shows that Slovenia ranked among the most 
peaceful countries in the world over the past decade, 
which is also a SDS 2030 target, with Europe being the 
most peaceful region, at least before the start of Russia’s 
aggression in Ukraine (see Indicator 5.6). The number 
of criminal offences in 2020 was the lowest over the 
past ten years, with a decrease in general, economic, 
juvenile and organised crime compared to the previous 
year.303 The downward trend in the number of criminal 
offences continued in the first half of 2021 (Police, 
2021c).304 General crime decreased the most,305 which 
was partly due to the COVID-19 containment measures 
in 2020. Compared to 2019, there were fewer crimes of 
fraud, robbery, theft and grand theft in 2020, but the 
changed social situation was reflected in an increase in 
the number of crimes of domestic threats and violence 
(see Section 3.2) and a slight increase in the number 
of homicides (Police, 2021b). In 2017, the standardised 
death rate from assault in Slovenia was higher than in 
the previous five years and higher than the EU average 
(Slovenia: 1.1 persons per 100,000 population; EU: 
0.7); in 2018 (the latest available data), it went down 
to 0.7 person (Eurostat, 2022). In 2018, the EU General 
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) began to apply, 
strengthening and extending the protection of the 
rights of individuals with regard to their personal data, in 
particular in terms of information security, and Slovenia 
is the only EU Member State that has not yet transposed 
this regulation into its legal order nor adopted the 
relevant legislation.306
Slovenians have felt safe in their country over the past 
years. The sense of personal endangerment of people in 
their living environment has remained low at all times. 
The results of the European Social Survey show that in 
the period 2010–2020, the share of respondents who 
felt safe when walking alone in their neighbourhood 
at night ranged from 92% to 94% and, according to 
2018 data, this share has remained higher than the 
international average (83%)307 (CJMMK, 2022; ESS-
ERIC, 2020). In 2020, the share of people who reported 
problems with crime, vandalism or violence in their 
303 Organised crime accounted for the smallest percentage of total crime 
in the 2011–2020 period (2020: 1%) (Police, 2021b).
304 Data for the first half of 2021 are compared with the data for the first 
half of previous years.
305 The share of general crime in total crime has not changed much in the 
last ten years, fluctuating around 85% (Police, 2021b).
306 The regulation became directly applicable in May 2018. It should be 
noted that the national data protection authority in Slovenia was 
established on the basis of the applicable national data protection 
legislation and supervises the application of the Regulation (EC, 
2020m).
307 The chart shows the total average result of the selected countries 
regardless of the size of the national samples or the size of the country 
(Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Ireland, Hungary, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, 
Spain, Sweden and the UK).
living environment was the lowest ever (7.3%) and 
within the SDS 2030 target (Eurostat, 2022), and 10% of 
the respondents had a personal experience of burglary 
or physical assault, which is similar to previous years 
(CJMMK, 2022) (see Indicator 5.7). The sense of safety also 
depends on people’s trust in the police, which has been 
significantly higher over recent years than trust in other 
institutions in the country, though it declined markedly 
in 2021, moving further away from the EU average.308 
This was also a consequence of the police’s monitoring 
of the measures taken to contain the epidemic (the 
ban on public gatherings, restrictions on movement 
between municipalities and statistical regions, restricted 
movement at night, use of a protective masks, etc.), the 
duration of which increased general discontent among 
people, which was also reflected in many unregistered 
public rallies.309 
Road safety deteriorated in 2021 compared to 2020, 
when the number of fatalities from road accidents was 
the lowest ever. Road safety has been improving since 
2010. There are several factors behind the improvement, 
including better transport infrastructure (e.g. motorway 
construction), safer cars and preventive measures (e.g. 
the reduction of permitted blood alcohol level and 
education of young drivers). It should be noted that in 
the period 2000–2018, the volume of traffic increased 
308 In autumn 2019, 65% of Slovenians trusted the police (EU: 71%) and in 
summer 2020, 67% (July–August survey). In winter (February–March 
survey) 2021, the trust dropped sharply (to 51%), before increasing 
to 58% in the summer (June–July survey) (EU: 71%) (Eurobarometer, 
2021e).
309 Despite the ban, more than 400 public rallies took place in 2020, with 
the police responsible for public order. At one of the public rallies in 
November 2020, there were serious violations of public order and 
peace (there were five serious violations in 2020), where the police 
used a water cannon vehicle, police horses and other means of 
temporary crowd control (Police, 2021b).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Sw
ed
en
M
al
ta
D
en
m
ar
k
Sp
ai
n
Ire
la
nd
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
G
er
m
an
y
Sl
ov
en
ia
Fr
an
ce
A
us
tr
ia
Ita
ly
Fi
nl
an
d
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Be
lg
iu
m
Es
to
ni
a
Sl
ov
ak
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Po
rt
ug
al
G
re
ec
e
Cy
pr
us
Cr
oa
tia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
la
nd
Bu
lg
ar
ia
La
tv
ia
Ro
m
an
iaN
um
be
r o
f d
ea
th
s 
pe
r m
ill
io
n 
in
ha
bi
ta
nt
s
EU average
 Figure 78: In 2020,1 Slovenia recorded fewer deaths per 
million inhabitants as a result of traffic accidents than the 
EU average
Source: EC (2021t). Note: 1The latest data for EU Member States are available 
for 2020.
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency 131Development report 2022
The spread of a communicable disease in humans was 
identified as one of the major risks in Slovenia in the 
disaster risk assessment process in the period 2015–
2018. In the light of the actual experience with COVID-19, 
an amended National Protection and Rescue Plan in the 
event of a communicable disease epidemic or pandemic 
in humans was adopted in July 2020 in order to better 
prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Potential 
risks in Slovenia also include earthquakes, aircraft 
accidents, terrorism, glaze ice and nuclear accidents, 
with flooding posing the greatest risk, which led to the 
adoption of a new National Plan for Flood Protection and 
Rescue in 2019 (URSZR, 2022). The key challenge is to 
create a system that will facilitate effective coordinated 
action and contribute to the mitigation of damage and 
other consequences of accidents. Preventive measures 
are an important factor as well, in particular in spatial 
planning and management and in protection against 
fire and other natural disasters.316 
COVID-19 containment measures have had a 
significant impact on reducing the number of illegal 
border crossings and organised crime. Regarding 
national security, activities are primarily focused on 
ensuring the security of the EU’s national and external 
borders, preventing, detecting and investigating 
organised crime, cybercrime and crime associated with 
firearms, and fighting terrorism. In recent years, the 
prevention of illegal border crossings has been one of 
the priority tasks of the police. The number of illegal 
state border crossings has increased since 2015, mainly 
as a result of increased migration from crisis areas, but 
this trend was halted in 2020. This was influenced by 
the actions of the countries at the European level, as 
transport communications were virtually cut off in 
spring and countries significantly tightened controls at 
their borders and inland, also in the second wave of the 
epidemic (Police, 2021b). The downward trend of illegal 
border crossings continued in 2021, but the number 
remains higher than in 2018.317 Compared to the two 
previous years, there was also less organised crime in 
2020. This was mainly due to a decrease in the number 
of organised crime offences related to illegal crossing 
of the state border or territory, which together with 
offences related to illicit drug trafficking and doping in 
sport are the most common organised crime offences.318 
forces and public services participated, of these 300,023 at municipal 
level, 6,881 at regional level and 12,307 at state level (MO, 2021).
316 Slovenia will also address these challenges by using EU funds, 
in particular for the 5th and 6th priority axes of the Operational 
Programme for the Implementation of EU Cohesion Policy (adaptation 
to climate change and better state of the environment and 
biodiversity).
317 In 2015, a total of 452 illegal crossings of the national border were 
dealt with (not including migrants who entered Slovenia during the 
period of mass migrations (around 360,000 persons), with the figure 
increasing to 9,262 in 2018 and surging to around 16,259 in 2019 
(Police, 2021b). In 2020, the number of illegal crossings decreased to 
14,635, and in 2021 to around 10,000 (mostly citizens of Afghanistan, 
Pakistan and Bangladesh) (Police, 2021a).
318 The highest number of organised crime offences in the last five years 
was in 2019 (809) (Police, 2021b).
by more than 86% (OECD, 2021). In 2020, Slovenia 
recorded 38 deaths per million inhabitants as a result of 
traffic accidents, which is less than the EU average (42 
per million inhabitants). The number of deaths from 
traffic accidents in the 2010–2020 period decreased by 
42% (EU: 36%) and is much lower than before 2010.310 
In 2020, 80 people died in traffic accidents, which is 22% 
less than in the previous year and the lowest figure since 
records began.311 This was mainly due to reduced traffic 
as a result of COVID-19 containment measures (see AVP, 
2021). In 2021, the number of fatalities increased to 114 
and was the highest in the last five years (AVP, 2022).
Natural and other disasters are among the constant 
sources of threat in Slovenia; the work of the 
protection and rescue system in 2020 was also 
linked to the COVID-19 epidemic. The goals, policies 
and strategy for the protection against natural and 
other disasters in the country are set out in the national 
programme for the 2016–2022 period, which was 
adopted in 2016.312 In 2020, 16,895 different incidents 
took place in Slovenia313 in which protection, rescue 
and relief personnel were engaged, in addition to 
other services. Since 2013, the number of incidents has 
fluctuated from year to year due to various circumstances 
and was the highest in 2017, mainly due to a number of 
fires and explosions. Compared to the previous year, the 
number of events decreased in 2020, mainly due to a 
lower number of traffic accidents and other accidents. 
There were also fewer natural disasters, with considerably 
fewer interventions in 2019 and beyond than in previous 
years.314 However, there were more events where 
technical and other assistance was needed. Timely 
emergency response is ensured through emergency 
notification centres and public rescue services and by 
the preparedness of other rescue services, commissions 
and units and the Civil Protection Headquarters. The 
above-mentioned protection and rescue structures 
have also been actively involved in the implementation 
of activities related to the containment of COVID-19. 
In the first wave, most of the tasks of the protection, 
rescue and relief forces were related to the provision 
and distribution of personal protective equipment and 
disinfectants, the provision of quarantine facilities and 
the care of the most vulnerable population groups.315 
310 In those Member States where the number of fatalities is less than 100 
or close to this number, significant annual fluctuations are observed, 
which means that the actual trend can only be identified over a longer 
period of time (EC, 2020i).
311 The number of fatalities caused by road accidents also decreased in 
most EU Member States (EC, 2021t).
312 Resolution on the National Programme for Protection against Natural 
and Other Disasters 2016–2022.
313 These are natural and other disasters, traffic accidents, fires and 
explosions, pollution incidents, accidents involving hazardous 
substances, nuclear and other incidents, finds of unexploded 
ordnance, supply disruptions, damage to buildings, and other events 
that required technical and other assistance (MO, 2021).
314 There were fewer incidences of flood and strong wind, which generally 
cause the most problems and trigger most interventions among 
natural disasters (IMAD, 2021c).
315 In the response 319,211 members of the protection, rescue and relief 
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency132 Development report 2022
Slovenia’s Presidency of the Council of the EU in the 
second half of 2021 was the Government’s main 
project in recent years and also an opportunity to 
re-position Slovenia within the EU. The year 2020 
and the first half of 2021 were marked by organisational 
and human resources preparations and adjustment 
of priority areas (MZZ, 2020c). During the Presidency, 
Slovenia chaired 42 ministerial meetings of the Council 
of the EU and around 1,400 working group meetings; in 
Slovenia, 23 meetings were organised at ministerial level 
during this period. In negotiations with the European 
Parliament, 21 legislative proposals (trialogues) were 
completed under the ordinary legislative procedure.321 
The most important achievements of the Slovenian 
Presidency are progress in adopting legislation on 
digital services and digital markets, strengthening 
the European Health Union, and the recovery and 
resilience-building after the COVID-19 pandemic. Under 
the Next Generation Recovery Instrument, finance 
ministers endorsed 22 National Recovery and Resilience 
Plans, which allowed countries to receive advance 
payments worth more than EUR 54 billion under the 
mechanism (MZZ, 2022b). During the Presidency, the 
2021 “Conference on the Future of Europe” also took 
place, focusing on European citizens’ fora and debates on 
European democracy, values and rights, the rule of law, 
security, climate change, the environment, and health 
(Lange and Bobotsi, 2022). The main post-Presidency 
challenge, similarly as after the conclusion of the first 
Presidency in 2008, will be to maintain a higher level of 
focus on decision-making processes within the EU also 
in the future. This requires, in particular, further in-depth 
action in the field of EU affairs, closer coordination within 
the state administration and the reinforcement of staff 
of the competent institutions (Barbutovski et al., 2017).
Expenditure on official development assistance 
(ODA) has increased over recent years but remains 
well below internationally agreed commitments. 
International development cooperation and 
humanitarian aid are important components of global 
responsibility and contribute to the strengthening of 
Slovenia’s bilateral relations and visibility in the world 
(Mrak et al., 2007). A new strategy up to 2030 was 
adopted in 2018, which established a framework for 
strengthening bilateral development cooperation and 
determined orientations for action at a multilateral level 
and was also aligned with the implementation of the 
2030 Agenda (MZZ, 2018). The share of ODA expenditure 
increased from 0.13% to 0.17% of GNP in the 2010–2021 
period and by around 70% in nominal terms, i.e. to 
EUR 79.6 million. Over the last three years, the share 
has not changed significantly and remains well below 
the internationally agreed commitments,322 imposing 
on Slovenia the obligation to strive towards increasing 
official development assistance to 0.33% of GNI by 
321 More information on the EU legislative process: https://ec.europa.eu/
info/law/law-making-process/adopting-eu-law_en.
322 Resolution on the International Development Cooperation and 
Humanitarian Aid of the Republic of Slovenia, 2017.
The number of criminal offences of illicit manufacturing 
of and trafficking in firearms remained at the level of 
the previous year319 in 2020 and these criminal offences 
were dealt with mostly in connection with other forms of 
organised crime. The investigation of cybercrime showed 
that in 2020, the highest number of criminal offences 
consisted of attacks on the information system, and the 
new forms of cybercrime such as malicious computer 
codes and cryptojacking remain at the forefront (Police, 
2021b). In the field of terrorism, Slovenia has focused on 
preventive action (Police, 2021b).
5.3.2 Global responsibility
Changes in the international environment and 
new global trends are a challenge for Slovenia; the 
active role of foreign policy is growing. Slovenia is 
involved in geopolitical and geo-economic processes 
as a small country and as such it is in its interest to 
maintain and promote multilateralism and to fully 
respect international law and develop it in new areas 
that require international regulation (MZZ, 2015; MZZ, 
2020a). Recent years have been marked by new global 
trends (e.g. climate change, radicalisation, violent 
extremism and terrorism, and increasing inequalities 
between regions and countries) and interference with 
the established system of international relations (EC 
and ESPAS, 2019). Thus the Foreign Policy Strategy was 
updated in 2021, in particular revising the assessment of 
the international environment and taking into account 
some new challenges, with a focus on cybersecurity, 
hybrid threats and addressing different forms of crises 
(e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic) (MZZ, 2021d). The strategy 
also puts particular emphasis on the EU’s role in the 
international environment and on its efforts to increase 
its resilience and strategic autonomy. Bilateral political 
dialogue with the US was re-launched at the highest 
level in 2020, and cooperation with Central European 
countries has intensified over the past two years in order 
to coordinate the measures to curb the spread of the 
COVID-19 epidemic, with a focus on the cross-border 
movement of persons, goods and services. Despite 
good economic cooperation with Croatia, border issues 
remain unresolved, with no significant progress made in 
recent years (MZZ, 2021b). In line with the guidelines for 
strengthening the active role in the UN (MZZ, 2021c), the 
candidacy nomination for a non-permanent member of 
the UN Security Council (UNSC) for the 2024–2025 period 
was announced at the end of 2021 (MZZ, 2021a).320
319 Following a decrease in the previous years, the number of weapons-
related crimes increased considerably in 2018 and then sharply 
declined again in 2019. In 2020, 63 such criminal offences were dealt 
with (Police, 2021b).
320 In 2024–2025, the Eastern European regional group, to which Slovenia 
belongs within the UN framework, is assigned one non-permanent 
seat. Elections to the UN Security Council for the 2024–2025 period will 
be held in the UN General Assembly in June 2023. Slovenia was elected 
a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 1998–1999. 
A high level of cooperation, training and governance efficiency 133Development report 2022
2030 (MZZ, 2022a). The majority of assistance (around 
two-thirds) is multilateral assistance in support of EU 
development policies, while in recent years Slovenia’s 
available bilateral assistance to priority geographical 
areas and thematic areas has slightly increased 
(see Indicator 5.8). This was in line with the OECD 
recommendations (2020e), as the share of assistance to 
the ten main partner countries increased from around 
50% in 2015 to more than 75% in 2020. The structure 
of assistance in 2020 was also affected by the COVID-19 
pandemic, with a stronger focus on implementation 
on activities in line with the partner countries’ needs to 
cope with the pandemic, and this was associated with 
an increase in emergency and humanitarian aid (MZZ, 
2022a).

A
p
p
en
d
ix
: 
In
d
ic
at
o
rs
 o
f S
lo
ve
n
ia
’s
 d
ev
el
o
p
m
en
t

 Economic stability
1.1 Gross domestic product per capita in purchasing power standards
1.2 Real GDP growth
1.3 General government debt 
1.4 Fiscal balance
1.5 Current account of the balance of payments and net international   
investment position
1.6 Financial stability
1.7 Financial system development
1.8 Regional variation in GDP per capita
 A competitive and socially responsible business and 
research sector 
1.9 Productivity
1.10 The European Innovation Index
1.11 The Digital Economy and Society Index
1.12 Export market share 
1.13 Unit labour costs
1.14 Exports of high-technology products and knowledge-intensive services 
1.15 Foreign direct investment
1.16 R&D expenditure and the number of researchers 
1.17 Corporate environmental responsibility
1 A highly productive economy that 
generates value added for all

Indicators of Slovenia’s development 139Development report 2022
Since 2016, Slovenia has been gradually approaching 
the EU average in terms of economic development as 
measured by GDP per capita in purchasing power 
standards, although it still lags slightly behind 
the 2008 peak. With 29,100 PPS (purchasing power 
standards), Slovenia reached 90% of the EU average in 
2021, which is 1 p.p. more than in 2020 and 1 p.p less 
than the 2008 peak. A decomposition of GDP per capita 
into productivity and employment rate shows that the 
lag in economic development behind the EU average is 
entirely the result of relatively lower productivity level, 
as the employment rate in Slovenia was above the EU 
average throughout the analysed period; in 2019–2021 
it was 7% above the EU average. The slow convergence 
with the average level of development in the EU in the 
past decade was due to the relatively low productivity 
growth (GDP per person employed), with Slovenia 
reaching only 84% of the EU average in 2021, the same 
level as in 2005–2008. Slovenia’s modest progress in this 
area after the global financial crisis was the result of the 
slow restructuring of the economy (low contribution 
of the structural component to productivity growth) 
and the insufficient increase in value added per person 
employed in individual economic sectors (inter-sectoral 
growth component) (IMAD, 2022) (see also Indicator 1.8). 
In 2021, 13 EU Member States were ahead of Slovenia 
in terms of the average level of development in the 
EU, and Slovenia’s progress over the last 16 years 
was the lowest among the new EU Member States. 
In 2005, Greece (95%), Portugal (85%) and Malta (83%) 
were closest to Slovenia in terms of GDP per capita in 
PPS; in 2021, it was Cyprus and Lithuania (88%) and the 
Czech Republic (92%). Compared to 2005, Romania, 
Lithuania, Poland and Estonia made the most progress 
among the new EU Member States, while Malta and the 
Czech Republic, which were countries with a similar level 
of development to Slovenia’s in 2005, both overtook 
Slovenia. In 2021, the greatest progress compared to 2020 
among all EU Member States was made by Luxembourg 
(14 p.p.), Ireland (12 p.p.) and Croatia (6 p.p.), while the 
largest decline was made by Germany (-4 p.p.) and 
Austria (-3 p.p.). The gap in the GDP per capita indicator 
in PPS between the EU Member States narrowed from 
1:9.3 (Romania/Luxembourg) at the beginning of the 
previous decade to 1:5 (Bulgaria/Luxembourg) in 2021.
Gross domestic product per capita in purchasing power 
standards
 Figure: Comparison of convergence to the EU average by GDP per capita in PPS from 2005 to 2021 for new EU Member 
States, in percentage points (EU=100)
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD.
37
34
25
25
19
17
15
13
12
10
6
1
-15
73 Romania
88 Lithuania
77 Poland
87 Estonia
71 Latvia
55 Bulgaria
98 Malta 
70 Croatia
76 Hungary
92 Czech R.
68 Slovakia
90 Slovenia
88 Cyprus
Romania 36
Lithuania 54
Poland 52
Estonia 62
Latvia 52
Bulgaria 38
Malta 83
Croatia 57
Hungary 64
Czech R. 82
Slovakia 62
Slovenia 89
Cyprus 103
Change in p.p. 20212005
Table: GDP per capita in purchasing power standards (EU=100)
2000 2005 2008 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 81 89 91 83 83 83 84 86 87 88 89 90 100
Scandinavian countries 132 128 131 128 126 125 123 123 122 121 126 125
New Member States 
excluding Slovenia 52 62 68 71 71 72 73 75 76 77 78 79
Austria* 133 130 127 133 132 131 130 127 128 126 124 121
Italy* 122 112 108 101 98 97 99 98 97 96 94 95
Germany* 124 120 118 125 127 124 125 124 124 121 123 119
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Note: *Three economically more developed countries that have strong economic ties to Slovenia.
1.1
Indicators of Slovenia’s development140 Development report 2022
After six years of growth, GDP fell sharply in 2020 
due to the COVID-19 epidemic but already exceeded 
the pre-crisis level in 2021 with a strong upturn. 
After the recession during the global financial crisis, 
economic growth accelerated in 2014–2017 but then 
started to slow, mainly due to a slowdown in foreign 
demand and uncertainty regarding international trade 
and political relations. In 2020, all GDP components on 
the expenditure side, with the exception of government 
consumption, declined due to the epidemic and related 
restrictions. This was followed by a strong rebound of 
activity in 2021. Trade in goods and activities related to 
international trade, construction and investment already 
exceeded their pre-crisis levels by the end of 2020 or 
the beginning of 2021. Among investments, faster 
growth was recorded by investments in equipment 
and machinery, while slower growth was recorded 
in investments in construction. Amid supply chain 
problems, manufacturing growth began to slow in the 
second half of 2021, while trade in goods rebounded 
sharply in the final quarter after a quarterly decline in 
the third. In 2021, private consumption, which was the 
main driver of GDP growth in that year, also exceeded 
pre-crisis levels. With the easing of containment 
measures, it was stimulated by growth in disposable 
income, high savings1 and vouchers. In 2021, trade in 
services continued to recover and was mostly above 
pre-epidemic levels by the end of the year, with the 
exception of trade in travel.
After several years of higher growth, the decrease 
in real GDP was lower than the EU average in 2020 
and the recovery in 2021 was stronger (SI: 8.1%, EU: 
5.3%). The stronger recovery was due to faster growth 
in all GDP components. Economic growth in Slovenia 
having been slower than the (unweighted) average of 
the other new EU Member States in previous years, the 
decline in 2020 was smaller and the rebound in 2021 
larger, reducing Slovenia’s cumulative growth gap since 
2005 to 14.1 p.p.  
Real GDP growth
 Table: Contribution of expenditure components to GDP change, Slovenia
2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Real GDP growth, in % 3.7 3.8 3.5 -7.5 1.3 0.9 -2.6 -1.0 2.8 2.2 3.2 4.8 4.4 3.3 -4.2 8.1
Contribution to GDP growth, in p.p.
Domestic consumption 1.3 1.7 3.5 -9.1 -0.8 -0.2 -5.4 -1.8 1.2 1.6 2.8 3.6 4.6 3.0 -4.2 9.7
Private consumption -0.1 1.1 1.5 1.1 0.5 0.4 -1.2 -2.3 0.9 1.1 2.4 1.0 1.9 2.5 -3.4 5.8
Government consumption 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.4 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.8
Gross fixed capital formation 0.7 0.9 2.0 -6.5 -3.2 -1.0 -1.7 0.7 0.0 -0.2 -0.7 1.8 1.8 1.1 -1.6 2.3
Change in inventories 0.1 -0.9 -0.8 -4.1 1.9 0.4 -2.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.4 -0.9 0.1 0.8
External trade balance (goods 
and services) 2.3 2.1 0.0 1.6 2.1 1.1 2.8 0.8 1.6 0.6 0.4 1.2 -0.1 0.3 -0.1 -1.6
Exports of goods and services 5.6 6.3 2.8 -11.0 5.8 4.4 0.3 2.2 4.5 3.6 4.8 8.6 5.1 3.8 -7.3 10.3
Imports of goods and services -3.2 -4.1 -2.8 12.6 -3.7 -3.4 2.4 -1.5 -2.9 -3.0 -4.3 -7.4 -5.3 -3.6 7.2 -11.9
Source: SURS (2022b).
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: *Data for the NMS-12 represent an unweighted average for countries that joined the EU in 2004 or later except for Slovenia.
Figure: GDP growth
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Re
al
 g
ro
w
th
, i
n 
%
Slovenia EU-27 NMS-12*
1.2 
1 The household savings rate, which was above 22% in 2020, declined in 2021 but remained higher than before the epidemic.
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 141Development report 2022
In 2021, general government debt stood at 74.7% of 
GDP, which is 5.1 p.p. lower than in 2020, when it had 
increased by 14.2 p.p. due to the COVID-19 epidemic. 
The sharp decline in debt in 2015–2019 (by 17 p.p.), which 
was larger among the EU Member States only in Ireland, 
was interrupted by a sharp debt increase in 2020 due 
to a decline in economic activity, measures to mitigate 
the impact of the epidemic and greater pre-financing 
of future borrowing, which the government used to 
increase the country’s cash reserves. However, the strong 
economic recovery and the reduction in cash reserves 
lowered the debt-to-GDP ratio slightly again in 2021, 
partly due to a lower primary deficit than in the previous 
year. Despite the uncertainties, but with the support 
measures of the ECB, which kept the interest rates for 
borrowing by the EMU countries low, and with active 
debt management, some strategic objectives of debt 
management in relation to refinancing risk were further 
pursued, i.e. extending the average term to maturity and 
lowering the average interest rate (MF, 2020). Slovenia’s 
debt-to-GDP ratio increase in 2019–2021 was lower than 
the average of EMU and EU countries and indeed among 
the lowest in the region.
General government debt
 Table: General government debt, Slovenia
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SDS 2030 target
In EUR billion 8.3 12.5 13.9 17.2 19.4 25.5 30.2 32.1 31.8 31.9 32.2 31.8 37.4 38.9
As a % of GDP 21.8 34.5 38.3 46.5 53.6 70.0 80.3 82.6 78.5 74.2 70.3 65.6 79.8 74.7 60.0
Debt change, in p.p. 
of which: -1.1 12.7 3.7 8.2 7.1 16.4 10.3 2.3 -4.1 -4.4 -3.8 -4.7 14.2 -5.1
1. Primary balance 0.3 4.5 4.0 4.7 2.0 12.0 2.3 -0.4 -1.1 -2.5 -2.8 -2.1 6.2 3.9
2. Snowball effect -0.6 2.2 1.5 1.2 3.0 2.2 1.0 0.7 -0.2 -2.1 -2.5 -2.0 3.6 -6.4
- Interest payments 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.3
- Effect of GDP growth -0.7 1.7 -0.4 -0.3 1.2 0.5 -1.9 -1.7 -2.5 -3.5 -3.1 -2.2 2.8 -5.8
- Effect of inflation* -1.0 .0.8 0.3 -0.4 -0.2 -0.9 -0.3 -0.8 -0.7 -1.1 -1.5 -1.5 -0.8 -1.9
3. Stock-flow 
adjustments** -0.7 5.9 -1.8 2.3 2.1 2.2 7.0 2.0 -2.7 0.3 1.5 -0.6 4.3 -2.4
Source: SURS (2022c). Notes: *Measured by the GDP deflator. **The change in the debt-to-GDP ratio that is not a consequence of the primary balance or the snowball 
effect (currency, deposits, loans and other liabilities). Some calculations do not add up to total due to rounding.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Es
to
ni
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Sw
ed
en
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
La
tv
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
G
er
m
an
y
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Ire
la
nd
Au
st
ria
Po
la
nd
Sl
ov
ak
ia
M
al
ta
Sl
ov
en
ia EU
Fr
an
ce
Ro
m
an
ia
EM
U
Cr
oa
tia
Be
lg
iu
m
Cy
pr
us
Sp
ai
n
H
un
ga
ry
Po
rt
ug
al
G
re
ec
e
Ita
ly
As
 a
 %
 o
f G
D
P
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ire
la
nd
Sw
ed
en
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
D
en
m
ar
k
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
La
tv
ia
Po
la
nd
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cr
oa
tia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Es
to
ni
a
G
er
m
an
y
Be
lg
iu
m EU
Po
rt
ug
al
H
un
ga
ry
EM
U
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Au
st
ria
Cy
pr
us
G
re
ec
e
Ro
m
an
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Fr
an
ce
M
al
ta
Ita
ly
Sp
ai
n
In
 p
.p
. o
f G
D
P 
 
 Figure: Change in the public debt-to-GDP ratio in 2019–2021 (left) and interest expenditure in 2021 (right) in EU Member 
States
Source: Eurostat (2022).
1.3 
Indicators of Slovenia’s development142 Development report 2022
Due to the strong impact of the epidemic on the 
economy and the strong measures taken to mitigate 
its consequences, the general government deficit was 
high in 2020, but it fell to 5.2% of GDP in 2021 given 
the strong recovery. Exceptional circumstances have 
interrupted the favourable fiscal performance since 2015. 
After falling in 2020 due not only to the deterioration in 
economic conditions caused by the epidemic but also 
to tax cuts and measures to support the economy (e.g. 
write-offs of tax liabilities), revenues rose sharply (by 
11.9%) in 2021 due to the recovery in domestic demand, 
exceeding the 2019 level. The high revenue growth is 
due to the strong increases in VAT revenues from high 
household consumption, income tax and social security 
contributions, driven by the recovery of employment and 
higher wage growth, partly due to allowances for work 
in hazardous conditions in the public sector.1 Growth in 
total expenditure slowed in 2021 (from 14.8% to 6.1%). 
Temporary expenditure on measures to mitigate the 
impact of the epidemic decreased slightly (from 5.2% 
to 4.5% of GDP) and was mainly concentrated on the 
activities most affected by the epidemic, especially in 
the second half of the year, while a significantly higher 
amount than in 2020 was allocated to the payment of 
public service allowances. Growth in other expenditure, 
which declined slightly in 2020 (from 5.1% to 3.1%), 
strengthened significantly in 2021 (to 7.3%). In addition 
to an increase in public investment as part of a broader 
European response to support a rapid recovery, this was 
influenced by increases in other expenditure that had a 
lasting impact, particularly in the area of the wage bill 
and social transfers.2 The high growth in expenditure 
that supported recovery was made possible by the 
implementation of the escape clause.
Last year, the general government deficit narrowed in 
most EMU countries but remained above 3% of GDP, 
with an average of 5.1% of GDP. In most countries, the 
deficit exceeded 6% of GDP in 2020 and 4% of GDP in 
2021. It varied considerably from country to country, 
due, for example, to different containment measures 
and economic consequences, the impact of measures 
taken in previous years, and measures to mitigate the 
consequences of the epidemic. Some countries have 
largely taken measures that have a direct impact on 
public finances (such as Slovenia), while others have 
provided more support through various guarantee 
schemes. The EC notes that many countries, similar to 
Slovenia, in addition to taking temporary measures to 
deal with the COVID-19 crisis, have also taken measures 
that will have a lasting impact on the general government 
budgetary position over the medium term (EC, 2021m).
Fiscal balance 
1 Part of the allowances paid during the epidemic was exempted from income tax. In 2021, some additional taxes were reduced (abolition of the luxury tax on motor 
vehicles and changes in motor vehicle taxation, while VAT exemptions for certain goods had a smaller effect). 
2 Thus the compensation of employees further increased due to the impact of the 2018 wage agreement (annual disbursement of performance-related payments) and 
the increase in holiday allowance and some other labour cost reimbursements. Social transfers and benefits increased due to the increase in the minimum pension, 
the increase in the percentage to be applied in calculating the retirement pension, the extraordinary adjustment of pensions, etc.
 Table: General government revenue, expenditure and balance, ESA 2020, Slovenia, as a % of GDP
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Revenue 43.7 43.5 44.6 44.2 45.4 45.7 45.3 45.9 44.2 44.0 44.2 43.8 43.5 43.9
Expenditure 45.1 49.4 50.2 50.9 49.4 60.3 50.8 48.7 46.2 44.1 43.5 43.3 51.3 49.1
Balance -1.4 -5.8 -5.6 -6.6 -4.0 -14.6 -5.5 -2.8 -1.9 -0.1 0.7 0.4 -7.8 -5.2
Primary balance -0.3 -4.5 -4.0 -4.7 -2.0 -12.0 -2.3 0.4 1.1 2.5 2.8 2.1 -6.2 -3.9
Source: SURS (2022c).
 Figure: General government balance in EU Member States in 2021 and comparison with 2020
Source: Eurostat (2022)
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
D
en
m
ar
k
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Sw
ed
en
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cy
pr
us
Ire
la
nd
Po
la
nd
Es
to
ni
a
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Fi
nl
an
d
Po
rt
ug
al
Cr
oa
tia
G
er
m
an
y
Bu
lg
ar
ia EU
EM
U
Sl
ov
en
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Cz
ec
h 
R.
A
us
tr
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Fr
an
ce
H
un
ga
ry
Sp
ai
n
Ro
m
an
ia
Ita
ly
La
tv
ia
G
re
ec
e
M
al
ta
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f G
D
P
2021 2020
1.4 
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 143Development report 2022
The current account surplus, which Slovenia has had 
since 2012, lowered significantly in 2021, amounting 
to EUR 1.7 billion (3.3% of GDP). Until the beginning 
of the COVID-19 epidemic, the surplus reflected the 
extensive deleveraging of banks and companies abroad, 
favourable international conditions and the improved 
competitive position of Slovenian exporters amid 
modest growth in imports due to relatively low domestic 
spending. In 2020, the epidemic affected all sectors of the 
economy and thus the structure of the current account 
surplus, which increased sharply and was higher than ever 
before (EUR 3.5 billion, i.e. 7.4% of GDP), mainly due to a 
severe domestic consumption shock and thus significant 
savings by the private sector (households and non-
financial corporations). In 2021, the surplus declined due 
to the deteriorating terms of trade and the recovery of 
domestic demand. As import prices rose more than export 
prices, the terms of trade deteriorated, which led to higher 
operating costs of non-financial corporations. From the 
perspective of the savings/investment gap, the narrowing 
of the current account surplus was mainly due to a decline 
in net household savings and an increase in net investment 
by non-financial corporations. As gross disposable income 
continued to grow and the containment measures 
were gradually eased, households increased their 
private consumption and businesses increased their 
investment activity. The lower current account deficit of 
the government sector was mainly due to an increase in 
the country’s GNI (higher import tax revenues, lower net 
interest payments and lower subsidy payments).
In the face of the epidemic, Slovenia’s international 
investment position further improved in 2021 (to 
7.1% of GDP). The net inflow of assets of the Bank 
of Slovenia (BoS) was significantly lower than the net 
outflow of government and private sector financial assets. 
The BoS’s claims related to the TARGET payment system 
increased due to higher government deposits at the BoS, 
which also increased its liabilities within the Eurosystem. 
The BoS also reduced its purchases of foreign securities. 
In 2021, the general government sector reduced its net 
foreign liabilities. The government repaid a portion of 
its debt to foreign portfolio investors and reduced its 
derivative liabilities. Slovenia received a loan under the 
SURE programme to retain jobs during the epidemic. The 
private sector further increased its financial investments in 
foreign equity securities, while non-financial corporations 
increased their net liabilities on short-term commercial 
credits, consistent with the growth in foreign trade in 
goods and services. Commercial banks continued to 
deleverage abroad. Inward FDI flows have risen in recent 
years, on account of the sale of ownership stakes in 
domestic companies and capitalisations, and exceeded 
the outward FDI flows. 
Current account of the balance of payments and net 
international investment position
 Table: Slovenia’s international investment position, as a % of GDP
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
1 Debt claims 75.9 74.0 74.1 75.3 75.3 87.6 88.4 85.4 82.9 82.9 88.3 102.3 98.6
2 Equity claims 21.5 22.2 21.1 22.3 22.5 23.6 27.7 26.9 25.5 24.7 27.5 30.8 32.4
3 Total claims (1+2) 97.5 96.2 95.2 97.6 97.7 111.2 116.1 112.2 108.4 107.6 115.7 133.1 131.0
4 Gross external debt 115.0 115.6 111.8 117.4 112.9 124.3 118.8 109.6 100.5 91.9 91.5 101.9 97.0
5 Equity liabilities 23.1 23.8 23.2 24.2 24.2 25.2 28.4 31.4 32.1 34.7 40.2 46.4 41.1
6 Total liabilities (4+5) 138.1 139.3 135.0 141.6 137.1 149.6 147.2 141.0 132.6 126.6 131.7 148.3 138.1
7 Net external debt/claims (1–4) -39.0 -41.5 -37.7 -42.2 -37.6 -36.7 -30.4 -24.2 -17.6 -9.0 -3.2 0.4 1.6
8 Net equity debt/claims (2–5) -1.6 -1.6 -2.1 -1.9 -1.7 -1.6 -0.7 -4.6 -6.6 -10.0 -12.7 -15.6 -8.7
9 Net financial position (7+8)* -40.6 -43.1 -39.8 -44.0 -39.3 -38.4 -31.2 -28.8 -24.2 -18.9 -15.9 -15.2 -7.1
Source: BoS (2022b); calculations by IMAD. Note: *A negative (positive) sign in the balance concerned indicates a net debt (credit) external financial position.
 Figure: Breakdown in NIIP change, in EUR million (flows)
Source: BoS (2022b); calculations by IMAD.
-4,000
-3,000
-2,000
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
In
 E
U
R 
m
ill
io
n
Current account Capital account Statistical error Changes in value Sprememba neto finančne pozicije do tujine
1.5 
Indicators of Slovenia’s development144 Development report 2022
The Slovenian financial system remained stable in 
2020 and 2021 despite the COVID-19 epidemic. The 
response of economic policymakers during the epidemic 
significantly limited the spillover of risks to the financial 
system, which thus remains able to provide financial 
support to the economy. However, the risks remained 
high, especially in the medium and long term, as the 
rapid growth of public and, to a limited extent, private 
debt, the prolonged epidemic, and the deteriorating 
geopolitical situation could lead to a worsening of the 
financial system conditions. The situation could be further 
exacerbated by the persistence of higher inflation. This 
would lead to a faster monetary policy tightening and 
thus to a deterioration of credit conditions, especially 
in the peripheral EMU member states. At the end of 
2021, the ECB already announced a gradual withdrawal 
of stimulative monetary policy measures, but by the 
beginning of 2022, financing conditions were already 
deteriorating slightly despite key interest rates being 
kept low. 
The situation in the banking system also remained 
stable. Banking system liquidity remained high in 2021 
and the share of non-performing loans fell to 2.4% in 
the third quarter. Risk was slightly elevated in activities 
most severely affected by the containment measures, 
particularly in accommodation and food service 
activities, but the overall exposure of the banking system 
to this activity is relatively low.1 The capital adequacy of 
the banking system deteriorated in 2020 but remained 
at a relatively high level given the minimum capital 
requirements. The lower capital adequacy was mainly 
due to a one-off event (the merger of two banks). In 
2021, the capital adequacy increased slightly but still 
lagged behind the EU average. The inflow of deposits 
to banks slowed somewhat but remained at a relatively 
high level, more than sufficient for the credit activity 
of the banking system, which grew slightly in the last 
few months of 2021 and at the beginning of 2022. The 
loan-to-deposit ratio stabilised at around 0.70 last year 
and was more than half lower than at the onset of the 
global financial crisis. At the same time, dependence on 
foreign sources of finance remained modest. The share 
of liabilities to foreign banks was lower than 5% of the 
banking system’s total assets. 
Financial stability 
1 About 1%.  
 Table: Financial system stability indicators*
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Q3
Share of non-performing claims (in %)
Slovenia 21.5 14.4 10.5 6.8 3.7 3.2 2.4
EU 5.8 5.1 4.1 3.2 2.7 2.6 2.1
TIER 1 capital adequacy ratio (in %)
Slovenia 18.1 18.7 18.3 18.4 18.7 15.4 15.7
EU 14.8 15.5 16.3 16.3 16.7 17.2 17.0
Source: EBA (2022). Note: *Data refer to a sample of banks that changes annually. In 2021, 162 banks and bank branches were included, accounting for more than 80% 
of the EU banking system. According to the EBA definition. non-performing claims include not only arrears of more than 90 days, but also claims that meet the “unlikely 
to pay” criterion. Data up to 2019 also include the United Kingdom.
 Figure: Yield to maturity of government bonds
Source: Eurostat (2022).
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Ja
n 
16
M
ar
 1
6
M
ay
 1
6
Ju
l 1
6
Se
p 
16
N
ov
 1
6
Ja
n 
17
M
ar
 1
7
M
ay
 1
7
Ju
l 1
7
Se
p 
17
N
ov
 1
7
Ja
n 
18
M
ar
 1
8
M
ay
 1
8
Ju
l 1
8
Se
p 
18
N
ov
 1
8
Ja
n 
19
M
ar
 1
9
M
ay
 1
9
Ju
l 1
9
Se
p 
19
N
ov
 1
9
Ja
n 
20
M
ar
 2
0
M
ay
 2
0
Ju
l 2
0
Se
p 
20
N
ov
 2
0
Ja
n 
21
M
ar
 2
1
M
ay
 2
1
Ju
l 2
1
Se
p 
21
N
ov
 2
1
Yi
el
d 
to
 m
at
ur
ity
 in
 %
Slovenia EU
1.6 
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 145Development report 2022
Slovenia’s gap with the EU average in the level of 
financial system development remains wide and 
the only sector where it has narrowed slightly is 
the insurance sector. In 2021, the banking system’s 
total assets increased by 7%, but the indicator of total 
assets as a share of GDP further decreased slightly 
amid strong economic growth. The growth of the 
balance sheet total on the liabilities side was mainly 
due to the growth in domestic non-banking sector 
deposits (mainly household sight deposits), whose 
growth slowed slightly in 2021 due to higher household 
spending and the introduction of deposit fees on certain 
household deposits. On the asset side, amid subdued 
lending activity, banks again increased their deposits 
with the central bank, which already account for a fifth 
of banks’ total assets. The loan-to-deposit ratio has 
stabilised at around 0.70 and was the lowest since 2004 
(since comparable data are available). The gap in capital 
market development, measured by the stock market 
capitalisation-to-GDP ratio, also remains wide. The 
market capitalisation of shares listed on the Ljubljana 
Stock exchange increased by 37,5% in 2021, which is 
about 4 p.p. more than the EU average and is mainly due 
to the growth in the value of shares. A large part of the 
Slovenian capital market is represented by government 
bonds, while corporate financing via issuance of shares 
and bonds is still negligible compared to other sources 
of financing. 
The development gap with the EU average is smaller 
in the insurance sector than in other segments of the 
financial system and further decreased markedly 
in 2020 to reach about three-quarters of the EU 
average. The smaller development gap is the result of 
continued growth in both life and non-life premiums 
in the insurance system, while in the EU the volume of 
premiums (especially life insurance) fell by almost 5% in 
the year of the outbreak of the epidemic. Nevertheless, 
the share of life insurance premiums in Slovenia is 
still well below the EU average. The large volume of 
household deposits in banks and low interest rates could 
lead to a somewhat faster shift in household savings 
habits towards an increase in retirement savings, which 
could increase the share of life insurance and capital 
market investments.  
Financial system development 
 Table: Indicators of financial system development in Slovenia and the EU
In % 2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Banks’ total assets, as a % of GDP
Slovenia 84.5 103.5 129.2 147.3 145.8 107.1 99.4 94.0 88.6 88.2 98.4 95.0
EU 219.8 267.4 312.1 320.3 321.4 277.7 273.3 259.2 253.5 257.6 292.7 282.6
Insurance premiums, as a % of GDP
Slovenia 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.7 5.8 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.5
EU-24* 7.7 7.3 8.0 8.1 7.8 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.5
Market capitalisation of shares, as a % of GDP
Slovenia 17.7 23.0 22.3 23.3 19.3 14.2 12.4 12.3 13.8 14.6 14.7 18.3
EU 80.9 82.2 37.1 47.7 51.2 61.8 62.3 69.3 56.5 66.3 72.6 89.6
Sources: BoS (2022a), ECB (2022), SURS (2022b), Eurostat (2022), Slovenian Insurance Association (2021), Swiss Re (2021), Ljubljana Stock Exchange (2022), FESE (2022). 
Note: *The indicator of insurance premiums (as a % of GDP) does not include data for the Baltic states.
 Figure: Balance sheet total relative to GDP in 2021
Sources: BoS (2022a), ECB (2022), SURS (2022b), Eurostat (2022).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Fr
an
ce
D
en
m
ar
k
Ire
la
nd
Cy
pr
us
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
EU
-1
4
EM
U
M
al
ta
Sw
ed
en
Fi
nl
an
d EU
G
er
m
an
y
Sp
ai
n
A
us
tr
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Ita
ly
Po
rt
ug
al
G
re
ec
e
Cz
ec
hi
a
Es
to
ni
a
Cr
oa
tia
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
ak
ia
EU
-1
3
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Po
la
nd
Sl
ov
en
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f G
D
P
18
89
1.7 
Indicators of Slovenia’s development146 Development report 2022
The COVID-19 epidemic has had an uneven impact 
on regions, depending on their economic structure. 
The Osrednjeslovenska region, where the capital, with 
its state-building functions and numerous jobs that also 
provide employment for inhabitants of other regions, 
is located was one of the regions least affected by the 
COVID-19 crisis, with a GDP per capita 44.2% higher 
than the Slovenian average in 2020. Jugovzhodna 
Slovenija, whose economy is primarily focused on the 
pharmaceutical and automotive industries, recorded a 
smaller decline in economic activity than the Slovenian 
average in 2020, surpassing Slovenia’s average GDP 
per capita for the first time. The Obalno-kraška region, 
which was hit hardest by the COVID-19 epidemic (10% 
drop in GDP in real terms) due to the high share of 
accommodation and food service activities and tourism, 
has widened its gap with the Slovenian average. The 
Posavska, Zasavska and Pomurska regions were less 
affected and narrowed their gap in GDP per capita 
with the Slovenian average. The Pomurska region thus 
overtook the Primorsko-notranjska region, which ranked 
second to last. The Zasavska region also narrowed its 
gap, but with 54.6% of the Slovenian average it is still at 
the tail end of the regions. 
Regional disparities widened again in 2020 after 
being stable for a long period of time. In 2020, the 
relative dispersion of GDP per capita1 was 1.8 p.p. higher 
than a year earlier, approaching the level of ten years ago. 
The ratio between the two extreme statistical regions 
decreased slightly (1:2.6), due to a smaller decrease in 
GDP per capita in the Zasavska region. The disparities 
between the two cohesion regions remained stable, 
but they widened considerably within the regions of 
Zahodna Slovenija due to the sharp decline in GDP in the 
weakest statistical regions.
Statistical regions, with the exception of 
Osrednjeslovenska, lag behind the European average 
and also the regions in neighbouring countries. With 
an increase of 3 p.p., the Osrednjeslovenska region 
remained the highest above the EU average in 2020, while 
the Obalno-kraška and Gorenjska regions saw their gaps 
widen the most. Given the considerable lagging behind 
of the majority of the regions, the catching up with the 
European average seems to be an extremely complex 
long-term objective. Therefore, we compared individual 
statistical regions with regions in neighbouring 
countries that are at a similar stage of development. In 
2019, the Osrednjeslovenska region was at the same 
level as the Klagenfurt–Villach region, the Goriška region 
lagged behind the Italian Gorizia region by 16 p.p. and 
the Pomurska region lagged behind the Hungarian Vas 
region by 5 p.p. In 2020, the Zahodna Slovenija cohesion 
region was 6% above the European average, while the 
Vzhodna Slovenija cohesion region was among the less 
developed regions, at 74% of the European average.
Regional variation in GDP per capita 
1 One of the indicators of regional disparities. It is measured as the sum of the absolute differences between the regional and the national GDP per capita weighted by 
the share of the population. It is expressed as a percentage of national GDP per capita.
 Table: Regional GDP, Slovenia
Cohesion (NUTS 2) /  
statistical (NUTS 3) region
GDP per capita GDP 
structure, 
in % Slovenia = 100 EU = 100
2008 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2019 2020 2020
Slovenia 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 88 89 100.0
  Zahodna Slovenija (KRZS) 121.2 119.2 119.1 119.4 119.6 119.8 119.2 119.0 105 106 56.5
  Obalno-kraška 107.1 97.6 99.8 99.8 102.3 102.4 98.7 92.2 87 82 5.1
  Goriška 95.5 90.6 91.7 92.2 92.3 90.4 89.3 87.6 79 78 4.9
  Gorenjska 84.7 87.8 88.3 87.8 89.3 89.7 89.7 84.7 79 75 8.4
  Osrednjeslovenska 144.9 142.1 140.9 141.5 140.6 141.0 140.8 144.2 124 128 38.1
  Vzhodna Slovenija (KRVS) 82.0 83.0 83.0 82.7 82.5 82.2 82.7 82.8 73 74 43.5
  Primorsko-notranjska 73.0 72.2 74.6 74.9 72.5 71.9 69.5 68.9 61 61 1.7
  Jugovzhodna Slovenija 97.0 95.0 95.3 94.3 97.5 98.1 99.8 100.3 88 89 7.0
  Posavska 79.8 83.6 83.9 83.7 83.1 83.1 84.5 87.7 75 78 3.2
  Zasavska 60.7 56.7 54.2 53.5 52.6 52.3 52.9 54.6 47 48 1.5
  Savinjska 89.5 91.3 92.4 92.0 91.6 90.5 90.5 89.1 80 79 11.0
  Koroška 77.0 80.2 81.4 81.2 80.2 81.1 80.6 79.6 71 71 2.7
  Podravska 83.7 83.4 82.6 82.1 81.1 80.8 81.5 81.5 72 72 12.7
  Pomurska 63.3 68.4 67.3 68.1 67.6 67.9 67.7 69.2 60 61 3.8
Dispersion of GDP per capita (NUTS 3) 23.0 21.8 21.2 21.6 21.5 21.8 21.6 23.4
Sources: SURS (2022b), Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD.
1.8 
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 147Development report 2022
value added per person employed was significantly 
higher than in 2019 in financial services, manufacturing 
and, due to the strong upswing last year, also in trade. 
Productivity growth in these activities was also much 
higher than the EU average. The sharpest decline both 
in Slovenia and in the EU as a whole was recorded in 
services that were hampered by operating restrictions, 
i.e. the arts, entertainment and recreation. Construction 
also stands out when it comes to lagging behind the pre-
epidemic levels, although activity in this sector was not 
significantly disrupted by the epidemic. Value added in 
construction grew slightly over this two-year period, but 
much less than employment, whose growth in Slovenia 
and the rest of the EU was among the highest among all 
economic sectors (higher only in ICT services). The high 
employment growth could indicate labour hoarding 
ahead of the expected investment boom, but it was 
probably also sustained by job-retention measures 
and partial compensation of labour costs during the 
epidemic.  
Following the global financial crisis, productivity 
growth slowed and with it also the closing of the 
productivity gap to the EU average. The average annual 
productivity growth eased from 3.0% in 2000–2008 to 
0.6% in 2009–2019 (or to 1.4% in the period of economic 
expansion 2014–2019). As productivity growth slowed, 
so did the closing of the gap and thus the process of 
real convergence with the more developed EU Member 
States. In 2021, Slovenia reached 84% of the EU average 
in terms of productivity level, which, despite the gradual 
convergence in recent years, is still at the level reached 
before the global financial crisis and far below the set 
SDS 2030 target (95%).
After a sharp downswing in the initial phase of 
the COVID-19 epidemic, productivity – per person 
employed – increased gradually, exceeding pre-
epidemic levels in most activities. Productivity in the 
economy as a whole, measured by real GDP per person 
employed, exceeded 2019 levels by mid-2021; in 2021 
as a whole, it was 2.7% higher than in the year before 
the COVID-19 outbreak (-0.7% in the EU).1 The level of 
Productivity
1 Labour productivity, measured by real GDP per hour worked, recorded slight growth already in 2020, which intensified in 2021. According to this productivity 
indicator, Slovenia exceeded the pre-epidemic level (2019) by 3.0% in 2021 (EU average: +0.8%). The difference between the two productivity indicators is largely due 
to large-scale intervention measures that enabled jobs to be retained, while work was adjusted to initially lower economic activity primarily by reducing the number 
of hours worked.
 Table: Labour productivity, Slovenia
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SDS 2030 target
Productivity level*, EU=100 84 80 80 81 81 81 82 81 81 82 82 83 83 84 95
Real productivity growth**, % 1.0 -6.0 3.5 2.6 -1.7 0.1 2.3 0.9 1.3 1.9 1.2 0.8 -3.7 6.6
Sources: SURS (2022b), Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. 
Note: *GDP (in purchasing power standards) per person employed; **GDP (at constant prices) per person employed.
1.9 
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
SIEU SIEU SIEU SIEU SIEU SIEU SIEU SIEU SIEU SIEU
A B-E F G-I J K L M-N O-Q R-U
Ch
an
ge
 2
02
1/
20
19
, i
n 
%
Value added Employment (inverse)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
G
D
P 
pe
r p
er
so
n 
em
pl
oy
ed
 (i
n 
PP
S)
, E
U
-2
7=
10
0
Slovenia EU-13 EU-14
 Figure: Productivity level (left) and real productivity growth by activities (right)
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. 
Note: Productivity level (left) measured by GDP (in PPS) per person employed; productivity growth (right) measured by value added (at constant prices) per person 
employed. EU-13 (EU-14) represents the countries that joined the EU in 2004 or later (before 2004). NACE classification: agriculture (A), mining and quarrying (B), 
manufacturing (C), energy supply (D), public utilities (E), construction (F), trade (G), transportation (H), accommodation and food service activities (I), information and 
communication activities (J), financial services (K), real estate (L), professional, scientific and technical activities (M), administrative and support service activities (N), 
public administration (O), education (P), human health and social work (Q), arts, entertainment and recreation (R), and other service activities (S).
Indicators of Slovenia’s development148 Development report 2022
According to the European Innovation Index (EII), 
Slovenia was still classified in the group of moderate 
innovators in 2021, having been classified among the 
strong innovators before 2018. The EII is a composite 
indicator measuring the EU Member States’ performance 
of national research and innovation systems on 12 
components.1 Its value determines the classification of 
countries into four groups.2 The EII value for Slovenia 
had deteriorated in 2018–2020, while according to the 
latest measurement, for 2021,3 this trend was halted 
due to a considerable improvement in the innovators 
component.4 However, Slovenia still ranked second 
to last in terms of progress among EU Member States 
in the whole period from 2014 for which the data is 
available. Therefore, Slovenia was classified in the group 
of moderate innovators for the third year in a row, having 
previously been among strong innovators, with a value 
close to the EU average. The European average increased 
in 2014–2021, which means that Slovenia has moved 
away from the SDS 2030 target, according to which 
it should be classified among the innovation leaders. 
Broken down by EII components, the worst result 
compared to the EU average in 2021 was achieved in 
terms of firm investments, which is mainly a result of low 
non-R&D innovation expenditure.5 Here the gap with the 
EU average widened the most between 2014 and 2021. 
The best result was recorded in the use of information 
technologies, due to a high proportion of companies 
providing ICT training for employees. However, the 
biggest improvement in the result compared to the EU 
average was achieved in environmental sustainability, 
mainly due to improved resource productivity (see 
Indicator 4.5). 
The European Innovation Index
1 These are human resources, attractive research systems, finance and support, firm investments, linkages, intellectual assets, sales impacts, and environmental 
sustainability, with three indicators included, and digitisation, use of information technologies, innovators, and employment impacts, with two indicators included. 
The EII 2021 calculation covered 32 indicators. 
2 Innovation leaders achieved innovation performance above 125% of the EU average in 2014, strong innovators between 100% and 125%, moderate innovators 
between 70% and 100% and emerging innovators below 70% (EC, 2021n).
3 The European Innovation Scoreboard 2021 has undergone methodological changes. For example, the threshold for inclusion in the group of innovators has been 
raised and content related to digitalisation and the environment has been newly included. The data included in the last EII 2021 calculation took into account the 
situation on 28 April 2021 and refer to the period from t-1 to t-5. Data for most indicators are for 2018 and 2019 and some for 2020, which should be taken into 
account in the interpretation (for more, see EC, 2021n).
4 The indicators in the 2016–2018 Community Innovation Survey (CIS 2018) improved significantly, in particular the share of SMEs that introduced product innovations. 
Additionally, the share of SMEs that implemented a business process innovation is also included. 
5 It includes, for example, expenditure on the purchase of fixed assets (machinery and equipment, software and buildings), intellectual property rights, external 
expertise and training on innovation activities for employees.
 Table: The European Innovation Index
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia (EU index 2014=100) 97.6 99.3 99.6 100.9 100.0 98.1 93.8 100.5 >120 (ranking among innovation leaders)*
Slovenia (index EU=100) 97.6 98.2 97.6 97.7 96.0 90.7 85.4 89.3
Slovenia 0.456 0.464 0.466 0.471 0.467 0.458 0.439 0.470
EU 0.467 0.473 0.477 0.482 0.487 0.506 0.513 0.526
Source: EC (2021n). Note: *Innovation leaders are countries with innovation performance above 125% of the EU average recorded in 2014. In 2021, the innovation 
leaders reached EII values of between 0.671 and 0.731.
1.10 
 Figure: The European Innovation Index
Source: EC (2021n).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Sw
ed
en
Fi
nl
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
G
er
m
an
y
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
A
us
tr
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Fr
an
ce
Ire
la
nd EU
Ita
ly
Cy
pr
us
M
al
ta
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sp
ai
n
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
G
re
ec
e
Cr
oa
tia
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Po
la
nd
La
tv
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
EU
 2
01
4 
= 
10
0
2021 2014
Innovation leaders Strong innovators Moderate innovators Emerging innovators
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 149Development report 2022
in the broadband price index), but at the same time it 
has significantly reduced its comparative advantage 
in the long run, seeing its ranking fall by two places 
between 2016 and 2021. In terms of integration of 
digital technology, Slovenia is well above the EU average 
according to all three sub-dimensions, although it is 
gradually losing its advantage. In addition to losing its 
advantage when it comes to digital intensity of SMEs 
compared to the EU average (which decreased by six 
index points between 2016 and 2021), the decrease in 
comparative advantage in the use of digital technologies 
in enterprises is particularly worrying: if Slovenian 
enterprises still outperformed the EU average by 24 
index points in 2016, their advantage decreased to only 
10 index points in 2021. Notwithstanding the above, 
Slovenia has maintained its 8th place in the EU in terms of 
integration of digital technology throughout the period. 
Trends in digital public services were positive throughout 
the 2016–2021 period, both in absolute and comparative 
terms, meaning that Slovenia reached the EU average 
for the first time in 2021. The last measurement showed 
significant progress in terms of take-up of e-government 
services, but Slovenia continues to lag far behind the 
EU when it comes to the quality of digital services for 
businesses, ranking 22nd in the EU.  
According to the new methodology, Slovenia is above 
the EU average in terms of the digital transformation 
of the economy and society, but it is gradually losing 
its advantage over the EU average in the long run. 
The methodology for calculating the Digital Economy 
and Society Index (DESI) was fundamentally changed 
in 2021 to align it with the four main points of the 
2030 Digital Compass (EC, 2021i), which also changed 
the ranking of countries compared to previous years. 
Taking into account the new methodology for 2016–
2021, Slovenia was above the EU average in all years, 
exceeding it by 8 p.p. in 2016 but by only 4 p.p. in 2021. 
Thus Slovenia ranks between 13th and 14th in the EU, 
which indicates that it is not making progress towards 
the set SDS strategic targets. The dynamics by individual 
DESI dimensions show that Slovenia’s relative position 
in human capital, i.e. 13th place, is slightly above the EU 
average: slightly below average in internet user skills and 
slightly above the EU average in advanced ICT skills. The 
share of the population (aged 16–74) with at least basic 
digital skills (55%) is in line with the EU average but far 
behind the innovation leaders, where this share is 70%. 
Slovenia has made progress in the area of connectivity 
over the past year compared to the EU average (both 
through the allocation of 5G frequencies and progress 
The Digital Economy and Society Index
 Table: Slovenia’s ranking on the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) among the 27 EU Member States*
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SDS 2030 target
The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 13 13 14 13 14 13 < or = 9
 Human capital 14 12 13 13 14 13 < or = 9
 Connectivity 7 8 9 8 14 9 < or = 9
 Integration of digital technologies 8 8 8 8 8 8 < or = 9
 Digital public services 17 17 16 15 16 15 < or = 9
Source: EC (2022a). Note: *Index calculations for individual years are based on data for the previous year. In 2021, the index methodology was improved and 
recalculations were made for the previous years, which changed the countries’ rankings from previous DESI reports.
 Figure: The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) and its dimensions, Slovenia
Source: EC (2022a).
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
DESI Human capital Connectivity Integration of digital
technologies
Digital
public services
EU
=1
00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
1.11 
Indicators of Slovenia’s development150 Development report 2022
(see Section 1.2.1), but accouding to our estimations it 
is even more due to weak foreign demand for some of 
the most important Slovenian product groups. More 
detailed data on the export/import flows of EU Member 
States, to which Slovenia exports around three-quarters 
of all its goods exports, show that the pandemics and the 
problems in the supply of semiconductors have severely 
affected international trade in road vehicles,1 which is 
the largest group of Slovenia’s goods exports. In 2020, 
this strong negative structural effect was mitigated by 
favourable export trends in pharmaceuticals, but these 
were interrupted in early 2021. In the second half of 
2021, exports of electrical machinery and equipment 
also lost momentum. 2021 was also marked by a notable 
increase in commodity prices on global markets. With 
a sharp rise in metal prices, the value of international 
trade in these products increased (although the increase 
in volume was less pronounced) – EU imports of metals 
(iron, steel and non-ferrous metals) already exceeded 
pre-epidemic (2019) levels by around 30%. Slovenian 
exporters also managed to increase their market shares 
in iron and steel. Since the beginning of the epidemic, 
the market shares of power generating, special purpose 
and industrial machinery and equipment have been 
increasing. 
After a sharp decline during the global financial 
crisis, Slovenia’s export market share increased in 
2013–2019. In 2008–2012, Slovenia saw a sharp drop 
in world market share, one of the largest in the region. 
This was partly due to the export (mainly geographical) 
orientation on slower-growing markets, with a sharp 
decline in cost competitiveness at the beginning of 
the global financial crisis also having a negative impact 
(see also Indicator 1.12). With an improvement in price/
cost factors and strengthening of import demand in 
Slovenia’s main trading partners, the market share 
started to increase again after 2013, and even more 
significantly in 2016–2018.
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic had a very 
asymmetric impact on export markets, which had a 
strong effect on the dynamics of Slovenia’s market 
share in 2020 and 2021. Despite a sharp decline in the 
initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, Slovenia’s export 
market share in the global goods market increased by 
1.3% in 2020 as a whole (0.4% in the EU market). In 2021, 
however, it shrunk, according to initial estimates – to a 
level slightly below that before the COVID-19 outbreak. 
The deterioration in competitiveness, with rising cost 
pressures in 2021, may already be contributing to this 
Export market share
 Table: Slovenia’s market share in the world* and EU commodity markets
Export market share, in % Average annual growth rates, in %
2000 2007 2020 2001–2007 2008–2012 2013–2019 2020–2021** 
World 0.138 0.195 0.189 5.1 -5.0 3.6 -0.4
EU-27 0.324 0.421 0.512 3.8 -1.4 3.6 -0.4
Sources: SURS (2022b); UN Comtrade (2022); calculations by IMAD. Notes: *Market share excluding the export of pharmaceutical products to Switzerland, which is 
close to the greatly increased export of previously imported pharmaceutical products (re-export), whose impact on GDP is negligible and is not included in national 
accounts export data. **The data for the world market is for the first three quarters of 2021.
Medical and 
pharmaceutical 
products
Rubber 
manufactures
Paper and 
paperboard
Mineral products
Iron and steel
Non-ferrous metals
Metal products
Power-generating 
machinery
Specialised machinery
Industrial machinery
Electrical 
machinery
Road vehicles
Furniture and parts
Professional, scientific and 
control instruments
Miscellaneous manuf. 
products, n.e.s.
Total 
goods
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Sl
ov
en
ia
’s 
ex
po
rt
s t
o 
th
e 
EU
 (c
ha
ng
e 
of
 v
al
ue
 in
 
EU
R,
 2
02
1/
20
19
, in
 %
)
EU imports from the world EU (change of value in EUR, 
2021/2019, in %)
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
**
20
05
=1
00
World* EU
 Figure: Slovenian export market share dynamics (left) and change in the EU imports and Slovenian exports to the EU since the 
beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, by major product groups (right)
Sources: SURS (SURS, 2022b); UN Comtrade (2022); Eurostat (2022); WTO (2022); calculations by IMAD. Notes: *The data for the world market share excluding the export 
of pharmaceutical products to Switzerland. **The data for the world market is for the first three quarters of 2021. The size of the circle represents the share of the 
product groups in Slovenian export to the EU (2019–2021 average), showing 15 major export manufacturing product groups.
1.12 
1 Unfavourable trends in the global and European automotive industry also have a major indirect impact on Slovenia, through lower exports of products related to the 
automotive industry, which are also an important part of the Slovenian economy.
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 151Development report 2022
compensation of employees per employee, was even 
more pronounced in 2020 and 2021, rising by 9.1% in 
2021 compared to 2019 (by 6.0% in the business sector).2 
This led to a strong growth of the RULC indicator, which 
increased by another 2.5% (by 1.8% in the business 
sector) relative to the already high 2019 level. In 2020, 
wage growth was largely supported by subsidies under 
the anti-coronavirus packages, meaning that it did 
not burden employers. Therefore we estimate that the 
RULC statistical indicator significantly overestimated 
the actual cost pressures and their negative impact 
on business results. However, in the course of 2021, 
the impact of subsidies in the business sector, i.e. the 
market-oriented part of the economy, most of which 
was already functioning normally, gradually declined.3 
Since measures to retain jobs and workers’ incomes 
varied across countries in both scope and scale, the 
comparison of statistical indicators not adjusted for 
budget expenditures is very limited and does not reflect 
the change in the cost competitiveness of exporters 
during the epidemic. However, if productivity growth 
loses momentum, the high wage growth that Slovenia 
also experienced during the epidemic could quickly 
lead to a deterioration in the cost competitiveness of 
Slovenian exporters.  
Real unit labour costs (RULC) had started to rise 
again in the last two years before the COVID-19 
epidemic, driven by higher wage growth and lower 
productivity growth. Under the impact of a fall in 
productivity (2009) and relatively strong wage growth 
(2010)1 considering the economic situation at that 
time, Slovenia saw a significant deterioration in its cost 
competitiveness during the global financial crisis. The 
adjustments arising mainly from the labour market, 
more specifically restrained wage growth and (passive) 
productivity increase through declining employment, 
were followed by a period of relatively aligned increases 
in wages and productivity (2014–2017). Unit labour costs 
started rising again over the course of 2018 (especially in 
the business sector) and even more significantly in 2019. 
Estimates that take into account the impact of 
COVID-19 subsidies show that unit labour costs 
for businesses did not increase further during the 
epidemic, but they remained at a relatively high 
level compared both to past values and to the EU 
average. After the initial shock, productivity in Slovenia 
increased relatively quickly during the epidemic and 
was significantly above the (nominal) pre-epidemic 
level. The increase in wages, or more precisely in 
Unit labour costs
1 Boosted by the increase in the minimum wage.
2 For comparison, they increased by 3.8% in these two years on average in the EU and by 0.6% in the business sector.
3 However, some significant measures affecting public sector wages were still in place, especially in the first half of the year.
 Table: Growth in unit labour costs in Slovenia and the EU, in %
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Slovenia 1.6 4.8 1.4 -2.0 0.3 -1.2 -1.5 -0.4 0.9 -0.3 0.6 1.9 6.1 -3.6
EU 1.7 3.2 -1.2 -0.8 0.7 -0.1 -0.4 -1.3 -0.1 -0.3 0.4 -0.1 2.7 -2.2
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD.
1.13 
95
100
105
110
115
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
05
 =
 1
00
Slovenia Slovenia — adjusted EU
95
100
105
110
115
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
05
 =
 1
00
Slovenia Slovenia — adjusted EU
 Figure: Actual and adjusted unit labour costs, entire economy (left) and business sector (right)
Sources: SURS (SURS, 2022b), MF (2022b), ESS (2022), FURS (2021); calculations by IMAD. Note: The adjusted RULCs exclude the part financed by the state budget and 
not by employers under the anti-coronavirus measures (subsidy for part-time work, temporary layoff, payment of pension and disability insurance contributions for 
employees who worked, payment of social contributions for temporarily laid-off employees, quarantine, allowances for work with COVID-19 patients, allowances for 
work in hazardous conditions, crisis supplements (Dec. 2020 and Jan. 2021), subsidised part of the minimum wage and some other minor expenses).
Indicators of Slovenia’s development152 Development report 2022
The share of exports of knowledge-intensive 
services2 increased significantly in 2020, marked 
by the COVID-19 epidemic, but remained small by 
international comparison. It accounted for 30.4% of 
services exports (the highest in 2010–2020), though this 
still places Slovenia only 20th in the EU3. The sharp increase 
was mainly due to a significant decrease in exports of 
travel and transportation services due to the epidemic. 
Before that, it had gradually increased from 20.6% to 24.2% 
in 2010–2017 and afterwards stagnated around the level 
reached. As a result, Slovenia’s gap with the EU average 
and the average of innovation leaders widened (lagging 
almost 15 p.p. behind both averages in 2020). As regards 
services, Slovenia’s share was above the EU average and 
the average of innovation leaders in 2013–2020, especially 
in telecommunications services, and in the last two years 
the share started to increase again. Slovenia was furthest 
behind in computer services (in 2020 by more than 10 
p.p.), as most Eastern European Member States achieved 
much higher growth in exports of such services (by 20% 
per year on average, Slovenia by 11.1%).
The share of exports of high-technology products 
has been fairly stable in recent years and higher than 
the EU average.1 The technological intensity of exports 
in Slovenia increased more noticeably between 2005 
and 2010 and especially during the global financial crisis, 
when some other less competitive industries (e.g. certain 
low-technology products, such as textiles) started to 
contract more markedly. In 2010–2019, exports of high-
technology products increased further in nominal terms, 
while their share remained at the level achieved. Due 
to the COVID-19 epidemic and the downturn in the 
automotive industry (low- and medium-technology 
products), the share of high-technology products in 
the export structure increased in 2020, with the share 
of exports of medical and pharmaceutical products in 
particular increasing in the face of higher demand; the 
share of electrical machinery and equipment was also 
higher (the two groups account for more than half of all 
exports of high-technology products).
Exports of high-technology products and knowledge-
intensive services
1 According to the UN (Lall) methodology, under which the products are classified in compliance with their technological complexity. According to a much narrower 
Eurostat methodology, which only includes exports of high-technology products with the most intensive use of R&D, Slovenia’s share is much lower (5.8% in 2018; 
17.9% in the EU-28). 
2 Information and communication (J) and professional, scientific and technical activities (M) (OECD, 2013b).
3 Data on exports of these services for Lithuania and Malta are not available.
Table: Structure of goods exports by factor intensity
2000 2005 2008 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Natural resources
Slovenia 5.3 5.3 6.1 6.3 6.3 6.8 6.5 6.1 6.0 6.2 6.3
EU 9.5 9.3 10.0 10.9 10.7 10.2 9.7 10.0 9.8 9.7 10.6
Resource-intensive 
goods
Slovenia 15.2 13.1 13.6 15.6 16.6 15.5 14.9 15.0 15.8 15.8 14.4
EU 18.1 18.2 18.8 19.2 18.7 17.1 16.5 17.1 17.5 17.0 16.2
Low-technology 
products
Slovenia 27.1 23.4 20.8 18.8 18.0 17.9 18.0 17.7 17.6 17.0 16.6
EU 23.4 20.9 17.4 15.9 16.3 16.5 16.9 16.3 16.3 15.9 15.9
Medium-technology 
products
Slovenia 38.1 41.8 41.0 37.0 36.7 37.3 38.5 39.0 39.5 38.8 39.0
EU 29.3 31.6 32.8 32.1 33.3 34.5 35.6 35.4 35.8 35.9 35.0
High-technology 
products
Slovenia 13.1 13.7 16.2 18.3 19.5 19.7 19.6 19.8 19.0 20.0 21.6
EU 15.7 15.4 15.5 16.4 15.5 15.9 17.2 17.0 16.6 17.6 18.8
Sources: UN Comtrade (2022); SURS (SURS, 2022b); calculations by IMAD. Note: The classification of products is based on the UN methodology (Lall). As some products 
are unclassified, the sums of the five product groups for individual countries do not equal 100. For the period 2018–2020, the data for Slovenia are adjusted so that the 
so-called re-export of medical and pharmaceutical products to Switzerland is excluded. 
 Figure: Share of knowledge-intensive non-financial market services* in total exports of services, 2020
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Notes: *Exports of telecommunications, computer and information services (SI), and other business services (SJ). For 
Ireland, data for computer and information services refer to 2016 as there is no data for the years after.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Ire
la
nd
Fi
nl
an
d
Be
lg
iu
m
Sw
ed
en
Ro
m
an
ia EU
Es
to
ni
a
Ne
th
er
la
nd
s
La
tv
ia
Sp
ai
n
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Fr
an
ce
Po
la
nd
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ita
ly
Hu
ng
ar
y
Ge
rm
an
y
Au
st
ria
Po
rtu
ga
l
Sl
ov
en
ia
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Cy
pr
us
Cr
oa
tia
De
nm
ar
k
Gr
ee
ce
In
%
Telecommunications services Computer services Information services
R&D Professional and consulting services Technical, trade-related services
1.14 
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 153Development report 2022
Foreign direct investment
 Table: Flows and stocks* of inward and outward FDI** in Slovenia
In million EUR 2005 2008 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Inward FDI
Year-end stock 5,981 8,598 7,983 9,249 8,897 10,202 11,612 12,970 13,957 15,254 16,179 16,567 17,697
Inflow*** 452 832 80 264 -114 791 1,510 1,126 795 1,172 1,096 463 1,283
Stock as a % of GDP 20.5 22.7 22.0 25.5 24.4 27.1 29.9 32.1 32.4 33.3 33.4 35.3 34.0
Izhodne NTI
Year-end stock 2,777 6,085 6,097 5,710 5,179 5,335 5,508 5,741 5,969 6,107 6,840 6,954 7,408
Outflow*** 505 961 -14 -201 -161 207 241 262 300 238 348 486 779
Stock as a % of GDP 9.5 16.0 16.8 15.8 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2 13.9 13.3 14.1 14.8 14.2
Source: BoS (2022b). Notes: *Stocks are calculated by the new BPM6 methodology according to the directional principle used by the Bank of Slovenia since 2014. The 
stocks calculated according to the new methodology changed significantly owing to changes in the categories taken into account in the calculation. In the case of 
Slovenia, this holds true particularly for inward FDI: at the end of 2013, the stock of inward FDI amounted to EUR 10,729 million according to the previous and only to EUR 
8,897 million according to the new methodology, while the stock of outward FDI totalled EUR 5,121 million according to the previous and EUR 5,179 million according to 
the new methodology (BoS, 2014). **Companies in which an individual foreign investor holds a 10% or higher equity stake. ***Inflows and outflows are shown according 
to the principle of investment direction.
Figure: Stocks of inward and outward FDI, as a % of GDP
Source: UNCTAD (2021). Note: For better illustration, the figure shows the EU Member States excluding Cyprus, Malta, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, which 
stand out with their high FDI stocks in comparison with other countries.
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Ita
ly
G
re
ec
e
G
er
m
an
y
Fi
nl
an
d
Fr
an
ce
D
en
m
ar
k
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
la
nd
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ro
m
an
ia
Au
st
ria
Cr
oa
tia
La
tv
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Sp
ai
n
Sw
ed
en
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Po
rt
ug
al
U
. K
in
gd
om
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Be
lg
iu
m
As
 a
%
 o
f G
D
P
Inward FDI, 2010 Outward FDI, 2010 Inward FDI, 2020 Outward FDI, 2020
1.15 
Inward foreign direct investment (FDI) into Slovenia 
had risen relatively rapidly from 2015 until the 
outbreak of the epidemic, while outward FDI had 
been modest, but during the epidemic inflow of 
inward FDI in particular decreased significantly. 
The amount of foreign direct investment increased 
by as much as 52.4% in 2015–2021, primarily owing 
to the inflow of equity capital, but also partly to debt 
instruments. Higher inward FDI was primarily due to the 
acceleration of the privatisation process and increased 
sales of equity stakes in Slovenian companies. There 
were also more expansions of the existing foreign-
owned companies and new (greenfield) investment. EU 
Member States were the biggest investors in Slovenia, 
with Slovenia’s main trading partners contributing 
about two-thirds of total inflow of FDI. The average 
implicit rate of return on foreign direct investment was 
7.7%,1 the highest among the international investment 
components.2 Outward FDI had been increasing since 
2014, but at a relatively slow pace. In 2021, the stock of 
such investment was only 21.5% higher than in 2010. 
Slovenian direct investors have the largest share of 
direct investment in the other countries of the former 
Yugoslavia. The declining share of goods exports to this 
region over the last seven years indicates that Slovenia is 
replacing part of its former exports with local production 
in these markets. The average implicit rate of return on 
foreign direct investment was 2.7%.
Despite some progress, Slovenia remains among the 
EU Member States with the lowest inward FDI stock 
as a share of GDP. Although by 2021, the share of inward 
FDI in GDP had risen to 34.0%, it remained lower than in 
the new EU Member States overall despite the highest 
growth among these countries in the period 2009–2020. 
In terms of the share of outward FDI in GDP, the only new 
EU Member States that Slovenia lagged behind were 
the Czech Republic, Hungary and Estonia, which all had 
significantly higher shares.
1 The rate of return is calculated by comparing the sum of direct investment expenditure flows (profits and interests) in the current year with the balance of direct 
investment liabilities in the previous year.
2 The categories for which returns are calculated include direct investment, investment in securities and other investment.
Indicators of Slovenia’s development154 Development report 2022
compared to 2011); their nominal growth until 2020 
covered only around 80% of this fall. The decline in R&D 
investment in the business enterprise sector in 2015–
2017 (by EUR 175 million or by about 30% compared 
to 2014) was due to several factors,3 and its nominal 
increase to 2019 did not yet offset this decline. With a 
further fall in investment in 2020, the decline increased 
further, with the volume of investment falling short of 
the 2014 peak by almost a fifth.
Growth in the number of researchers in the business 
enterprise sector was halted in 2020, although 
growth having been driven mainly by this sector 
in 2008–2019. In 2018–2020, the business enterprise 
sector employed 53.6% of researchers. In the innovation 
leaders, this share in 2020 was only slightly higher than 
in Slovenia (60.7% and 62.6%), and Slovenia has been 
above the EU average since 2011 (EU 2020: 55.4%). 
Although the trend of several years of decline in the 
number of public sector researchers ended in 2018, the 
gap with the 2010 peak widened slightly in 2020, to 351 
researchers.  
Expenditure on research and development (R&D) 
has been increasing over the last three years, but 
expressed relative to GDP, it still lags behind the 
2013 peak and behind the EU average and the 
average of innovation leaders. It reached its highest 
nominal value in 2020,1 but in relative terms it still 
lagged behind in international comparison. The lag 
behind the EU average has been observed since 2016 
(in 2020 by 0.2 p.p.) and an even larger gap has been 
observed behind the innovation leaders (in 2020 by 1.2 
p.p.). Relative investment in R&D declined in only three 
EU Member States in 2020, marked by the onset of the 
COVID-19 epidemic, but only five Member States have 
already exceeded the so-called Barcelona objective.2 
Over the period 2008–2020, Slovenia increased its 
relative investment in R&D by an average of 2.3% per 
year, but 12 other Member States increased it by much 
more (ranging from 2.9% in the Netherlands to 7.3% in 
Poland). Among the innovation leaders, a faster increase 
in R&D investment was recorded by Belgium (by 5%). 
Investments in R&D were falling in Slovenia with the 
consolidation of public finances after 2013, first in the 
public sector (by EUR 117 million by 2017 or around 40% 
R&D expenditure and the number of researchers
1 With the release of the final data, SURS also published revised data by source of funds for the period 2017–2019. Due to the revision, the data for the business 
enterprise sector and abroad are no longer comparable with the period before 2017 (Trol, 2022). 
2 The EU has set a target to spend at least 3% of GDP on R&D by 2020 (ReRIS11-20, 2011). Besides three innovation leaders (Belgium, Denmark and Sweden), the 
Barcelona objective was surpassed also by Germany and Austria. 
3 For more on factors, see IMAD (2022). In 2020, the amount of R&D tax relief claimed declined again, by one-fifth (MF, 2022c).
 Table: R&D expenditure, as a % of GDP
2000 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Slovenia 1.36 1.42 1.63* 1.81 2.05 2.41* 2.56 2.56 2.37 2.20 2.01 1.87* 1.95 2.05 2.15
EU 1.81 1.78 1.87 1.97 1.97 2.02 2.08 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.12 2.15 2.19 2.23 2.32
Source: Eurostat (2022). Notes: Data for the EU are Eurostat estimates. *The breaks in the time series in 2008 and 2011 are due to the higher number of reporting units in 
the business enterprise sector, while in 2017 it is due to harmonisation of data with the revised methodology, the OECD’s Frascati Manual (for more, see IMAD, 2019e).
1.16 
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
As
 a
 %
 o
f G
D
P
Slovenia EU Leaders
 Figure: Total R&D expenditure (left) and R&D expenditure in nominal terms by source of funds, Slovenia (right)
Sources: Eurostat (2022), SURS (2022b); calculations by IMAD.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
 E
U
R 
m
ill
io
n
Business enterprise sector Public sector
Abroad Total expenditure on R&D
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 155Development report 2022
in Slovenia has stagnated for the third year in a row. In 
the EU, growth of 3.8% was recorded in 2020, but the 
prevalence of this certificate in 2021 remained at the 
previous year’s level. Measured by the number of ISO 
14001 environmental certificates per million inhabitants, 
Slovenia still lagged behind most other new EU Member 
States in 2020 but was still above the EU average. In 
terms of EMAS certificates, on the other hand, Slovenia 
still lagged behind the EU average in 2021 but was 
surpassed among the other new EU Member States only 
by Cyprus, Estonia and Slovakia. 
In the recent period, a slowdown in the growth in 
the number of ISO 14001 and EMAS environmental 
certificates issued has been observed both in Slovenia 
and in the EU as a whole.1 Despite the epidemic, the 
number of ISO 14001 certificates issued per million 
inhabitants in Slovenia increased by 4.8% in 2020, which 
is still 2.8 p.p. lower growth than in the previous year. 
Growth was also lower in the EU. It decreased from 5% 
in 2019 to almost zero in 2020. The situation is even less 
favourable in the case of EMAS certificates, where the 
number of certificates issued per million inhabitants 
Corporate environmental responsibility
1 The international standard ISO 14001 (environmental management system) and the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) (Chamber of Commerce and 
Industry of Slovenia, 2022; MOP, 2020b).
 Table: The number of environmental certificates in Slovenia and the EU, per million inhabitants
2005 2008 2010 2015 2018 2019 2020 2021
ISO 14001*
Slovenia N/A N/A N/A N/A 209.0 224.9 235.7 N/A
EU N/A N/A N/A N/A 172.4 181.0 182.0 N/A
EMAS**
Slovenia 0.5 0.5 1.5 4.8 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8
EU 6.9 8.8 9.9 8.7 8.5 8.2 8.6 8.6
Sources: Eurostat (2020), ISO (2020, 2022), MOP (2020), EC (2020, 2022), calculations by IMAD. Notes: Data on EMAS are available on Eurostat’s webpage for the period 
2005–2015; data for later periods were obtained at http://ec.europa.eu/environment. N/A – data not available. *Data for ISO 14001 since 2018 are not comparable 
with data for previous years due to changes in the reporting. **Calculations using data on the population for the previous year. Since the number of EMAS certificates 
changes every six months, the annual figure represents the average number of certificates in spring and autumn.
Figure: The number of ISO 14001 certificates in the EU
Sources: Eurostat (2020), ISO (2020, 2022); calculations by IMAD.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Es
to
ni
a
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
ak
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Ita
ly
Cr
oa
tia
Fi
nl
an
d
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Sw
ed
en
Ro
m
an
ia
Sp
ai
n
Cy
pr
us
Sl
ov
en
ia
EU
 w
ith
ou
t U
K
La
tv
ia
Ire
la
nd
D
en
m
ar
k
G
re
ec
e
A
us
tr
ia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
G
er
m
an
y
Fr
an
ce
M
al
ta
Be
lg
iu
m
Po
rt
ug
al
Po
la
nd
N
o.
 o
f I
SO
 1
40
01
 c
er
t. 
pe
r m
ill
io
n 
in
ha
bi
ta
nt
s
2019 2020
1.17 

 Knowledge and skills for a high quality of life and work 
2.1 Share of the population with tertiary education 
2.2 Enrolment in upper secondary and tertiary education
2.3 Tertiary education graduates
2.4 Performance in reading, mathematics and science (PISA) 
2.5 Education expenditure
2.6 Participation in lifelong learning 
 Culture and language as main factors  
of national identity
2.7 Attendance at cultural events
2.8 Share of cultural events held abroad
2 Lifelong learning

Indicators of Slovenia’s development 159Development report 2022
The share of adults (25–64 years) with tertiary 
education increased further in 2020 and exceeded 
the SDS target, but at the same time it was much lower 
than in most economically developed countries. In 
2020, it was 35.9%, which is higher than the EU average 
(32.8%) and the SDS 2030 target (35%) but much lower 
than in most economically developed EU Member States. 
The long-term growth of the share is related to the high 
participation of young people in tertiary education and 
the transition of younger, on average more educated, 
people to higher age groups (a demographic effect). As 
a result, the highest increase in the share of adults with 
tertiary education over the period 2010–2020 was seen 
in the 35–44 and 25–34 age groups (the participation 
in the former group was also the most above the EU 
average). In the 30–34 age group, it has also been higher 
than the EU target of 40% since 2013, although lower 
than in most economically developed EU Member States. 
Despite the high participation of young people in tertiary 
education, their share (in the 20–24 age group) is lower 
than the EU average. Due to their greater participation 
in tertiary education, the share of tertiary-educated 
women is higher than that of men and the difference 
between the citizens of the Republic of Slovenia and 
foreign citizens is larger than the EU average. The share 
of people with tertiary education is highest in the most 
developed Osrednjeslovenska region (47.2%), followed 
by the Zasavska region with a half lower share (23.4%). 
In 2010–2020, the share of employees with tertiary 
education increased and was higher than the EU 
average. In 2020, it was 42.2% (the EU average was 
37.8%);1 in most private sector activities it was lower 
than in the public sector.2 With the increase in the share 
of employees with tertiary education, the share of 
tertiary educated people (20–64 years) also increased in 
2010–2020 in occupations for which upper secondary 
or lower education is sufficient, in 2020 amounting to 
15.3% (2010: 8.6%). The increase was higher in private 
sector activities, where the share was also higher than 
in the public sector. The share of the unemployed with 
tertiary education in the total number of unemployed 
also increased. This indicates a mismatch between 
tertiary education and labour market needs.   
Share of the population with tertiary education 2.1
1 The share of employees with tertiary education in Slovenia in 2020 was higher than the EU average in all activities except mining and quarrying, manufacturing, 
accommodation and food service activities, construction, and information and communication and administrative and support service activities.
2 In 2020, it was the highest in education and the lowest in construction. It was also low in manufacturing.
 Table: Share of the population with tertiary education, in %
2005 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia
25–64 years 20.2 22.6 23.3 23.7 26.4 27.9 28.6 30.2 30.7 32.5 32.5 33.3 35.9 35.0
30–34 years 24.6 30.9 31.6 34.8 39.2 40.1 41.0 43.4 44.2 46.4 42.7 44.9 46.9
EU
25–64 years 21.5 23.1 23.9 24.6 26.2 27.1 27.7 28.5 29.1 29.9 30.7 31.6 32.8
30–34 years 27.2 30.1 31.1 32.6 34.5 35.6 36.5 37.3 37.8 38.6 39.4 40.3 41.0
Source: Eurostat (2022).
Figure: Share of the population aged 25–64 with tertiary education, 2020, in % (left) and share of the population aged 30–34 
with tertiary education, 2020, in % (right)
Source: Eurostat (2022).
35.9
32.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ire
la
nd
Fi
nl
an
d
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Cy
pr
us
Sw
ed
en
Li
th
ua
ni
a
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Be
lg
iu
m
Es
to
ni
a
D
en
m
ar
k
Sp
ai
n
Fr
an
ce
La
tv
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Au
st
ria
Po
la
nd EU
G
re
ec
e
G
er
m
an
y
M
al
ta
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Ita
ly
Ro
m
an
ia
In
 %
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Cy
pr
us
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ire
la
nd
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d
La
tv
ia
Fr
an
ce
Be
lg
iu
m
Po
la
nd
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sp
ai
n
Es
to
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
Au
st
ria EU
M
al
ta
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
G
er
m
an
y
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Cr
oa
tia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Ita
ly
Ro
m
an
ia
In
%
Total Women Men
Indicators of Slovenia’s development160 Development report 2022
to acquire skills to face future challenges of society and 
the economy. 
In the 2020/2021 school year, the number of students 
enrolled in tertiary education increased for the 
second year in a row after several years of decline. 
Past trends were mainly related to demography (smaller 
generations of young people). The increase in the 
number of students enrolled last year (by 7.8%) is mainly 
due to the increase in the number of students who were 
granted the right to extend their student status due to 
the COVID-19 epidemic.2 In the long run, the number of 
students enrolled in social sciences and thus their share 
in the structure of enrolled students decreased and was 
lower in 2019 than the EU average. The share of students 
enrolled in science and technology, which was one of 
the largest among EU Member States in 2019, increased, 
but the number of students decreased, posing a pressing 
problem in terms of innovation needs. The number of 
students enrolled in health and welfare programmes has 
been rising for several years and their share was close to 
the EU average in 2019 but is still too low to meet the 
challenges of the long-lived society and to cope with the 
COVID-19 epidemic.  
The number of young people enrolled in upper 
secondary education increased again in the 
2020/2021 school year after a long period of decline. 
In the longer term, the number of candidates for direct 
enrolment in tertiary education and participation in the 
labour market decreased. After declining for several 
years due to demographic reasons (smaller generations 
of young people), it rose again in the 2020/2021 school 
year with a slightly larger generation of young people 
(for demographic reasons) and was about a tenth lower 
than a decade ago (a good fifth lower at general upper 
secondary schools and 1.7% lower at vocational and 
technical schools). Although the share of those enrolled 
in vocational and technical programmes increased 
over the past ten years and is above the EU average, 
employers have difficulties in recruiting due to the low 
reputation of these professions and, consequently, 
the decision of young people to enrol in tertiary 
education and the increasing overall labour shortage 
due to demographic reasons and favourable economic 
developments.1 According to demographic projections, 
the number of young people enrolled in upper 
secondary schools is expected to increase in the future. 
It will therefore be crucial to encourage young people to 
enrol in educational programmes that will enable them 
Enrolment in upper secondary and tertiary education 2.2
 Table: Structure of young people* enrolled in upper secondary education by field of education, in %
2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Slovenia
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
General educational programmes 39.1 41.1 41.2 40.7 40.1 39.7 38.4 37.5 36.4 35.6 35.3 35.0
Vocational programmes 60.9 58.9 58.8 59.3 59.9 60.3 61.6 62.5 63.6 64.4 64.7 65.0
EU
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
General educational programmes 44.1 46.5 46.8 47.2 47.6 50.4 51.2 51.0 51.6 57.5 57.2 57.1
Vocational programmes 55.9 53.5 53.2 52.8 52.4 49.6 48.8 49.0 48.4 42.5 42.8 42.9
Sources: SURS (2022b) and Eurostat (2022). Note: *Full-time students.
 Figure: Number of students enrolled in tertiary education, structure by field of education, 2019
Source: Eurostat (2022).
0
20
40
60
80
100
G
er
m
an
y
Fi
nl
an
d
Ro
m
an
ia
Es
to
ni
a
A
us
tr
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Sl
ov
en
ia EU
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cr
oa
tia
Sw
ed
en
Cz
ec
h 
R.
H
un
ga
ry
Fr
an
ce
Po
la
nd
La
tv
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sp
ai
n
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Sl
ov
ak
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
M
al
ta
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Be
lg
iu
m
Cy
pr
us
In
 %
Science and technology Social sciences, journalism, information, business,
Health and welfare Educational science and teacher education
Arts and humanities Transport, security, hospitality and tourism, personal services
Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary
administration and law
1 According to the Employment forecast (ESS, 2021d).
2 See ZIUZEOP (2020).
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 161Development report 2022
The number of new PhDs in 2020 was the lowest in 
the last decade. It peaked in 2015 and 20163 but has 
fluctuated since 2017 and was quite far from the peak 
in 2020. Such trends were related to the decrease in the 
number of those enrolled in doctoral studies from the 
2012/2013 to 2015/2016 academic years, which could be 
attributed to the temporary suspension of co-financing 
of doctoral studies from public sources, years of reduced 
funding under the Young Researchers Programme, 
the ending of the Young Researchers in Economics 
programme and smaller generations. The decline in 
the number of new PhDs in 2020 could also be due to 
delays in completing studies because of the COVID-19 
epidemic. In 2019, their number per 1,000 inhabitants 
aged 25–34 was 1.9, slightly above the EU average (1.7) 
but lower than in the innovation leaders, which adversely 
affects the country’s innovation potential. 
The number of tertiary education graduates 
decreased in 2020 for the second year in a row and 
was the lowest in the last decade. It decreased in all 
areas except social sciences, although here the decline 
was greatest compared to 2012. The largest increase 
was in the share of graduates in education.1 The share 
of graduates in natural sciences and technology, which 
was among the highest in the EU in 2019, also increased 
significantly in 2020, but their number was below the 
2012 peak and insufficient to meet the labour market 
needs.2 The share of health and social welfare graduates 
also increased, but in 2019 it was among the lowest 
in the EU. Their number has been declining in the last 
few years, in contrast to the growing needs of the 
long-lived society. For a successful digital and green 
transformation of society and the economy, addressing 
the challenges of a long-lived society and promoting 
greater competitiveness of the economy, it is essential to 
increase the number of enrolment places for occupations 
for which demand will grow in the future. In 2020, 60.3% 
of tertiary education graduates were women. Their 
share has not changed significantly over the years and 
is higher than the share of men in all fields of education, 
with the exception of science and technology.
Tertiary education graduates 2.3 
1 The field of education includes educational sciences and teacher education.
2 According to Occupational barometer, there is a shortage particularly of engineers in the labour market (ESS, 2020c, 2021a).
3 In 2016, the number of graduates was affected by the completion of pre-Bologna degree programmes with a deadline of 30 September 2016.
 Table: Number of tertiary education graduates, per million inhabitants
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Slovenia 8,566.5 8,907.4 9,621.0 9,980.1 10,237.4 9,313.6 9,133.1 9,031.6 15,002.0 7,966.5 8,070.1 7,737.0 7,737.0
EU 8,187.1 7,917.6 8,417.8 9,232.6 7,634.6 8,932.5 8,958.7 8,908.4 8,883.1 8,957.3 8,932.3 8,748.9 N/A
Source: Eurostat (2022).
Source: Eurostat (2022).
Figure: Structure of tertiary education graduates, by field of education, 2019
0
20
40
60
80
100
G
er
m
an
y
A
us
tr
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
Po
rt
ug
al
Sl
ov
en
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Sw
ed
en
G
re
ec
e
Cr
oa
tia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
EU
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Fr
an
ce
Ire
la
nd
Ita
ly
H
un
ga
ry
D
en
m
ar
k
Sp
ai
n
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Po
la
nd
La
tv
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Be
lg
iu
m
M
al
ta
Cy
pr
us
In
 %
Science and technology Social sciences, journalism and information, business,
Health and welfare Educational science and teacher education
Arts and humanities Transport, security, hospitality and tourism, personal services
Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary administration and law
Indicators of Slovenia’s development162 Development report 2022
and science and the same as boys in mathematics. 
Fifteen-year-olds with the highest socio-economic 
status performed better than their peers with the lowest 
socio-economic status; the gap between the two groups 
was narrower than the EU average but widened between 
2015 and 2018. The share of fifteen-year-olds with the 
lowest socio-economic status and low reading literacy 
scores was higher than the share of their peers with the 
highest status, with the gap being one of the smallest 
in the EU. Fifteen-year-olds with the lowest status were 
also more likely to enrol in upper secondary vocational 
education, including compared to other EU Member 
States, and had lower expectations of completing 
tertiary education than their peers with the highest 
status. Pupils from abroad performed worse in reading 
than their native peers, the difference between them 
being larger than on average in the EU.3  
In 2018, 15-year-olds in Slovenia achieved good 
results in mathematics, science and reading. 
According to the PISA 2018 survey,1 they score higher 
than the EU average in all three literacy types, which 
are an indirect indicator of quality. The SDS target (by 
2030), which is to be ranked in the top quarter of EU 
Member States, was achieved in mathematics and 
science. Between 2015 and 2018, the performance in 
science and especially in reading deteriorated, while in 
mathematics it remained roughly the same. One of the 
2020 targets set in the Strategic Framework for European 
Cooperation in Education and Training is that the share 
of 15-year-olds with low achievement (below proficiency 
level 2) in reading, mathematics and science should be 
less than 15% by 2020 on the respective literacy scale. 
Slovenia achieved this goal only in science.2 
Inequalities in the learning achievements of 15-year-
olds increased between 2015 and 2018. In 2018, girls 
achieved better results (in points) than boys in reading 
Performance in reading, mathematics and science 
(PISA)
2.4 
1 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) is an international survey of reading, mathematics and science literacy conducted under the auspices of the 
OECD. It look at the performance of 15-year-old pupils regardless of the type of school they attend. Carried out in three-year cycles, the survey is aimed at capturing 
data on the competencies of pupils that are needed in professional or private life and are important for both individuals and society.
2 In 2018, it was 17.9% in reading, 16.4% in mathematics and 14.6% in science.
3 Data for performance in mathematics and science are not available.
 Table: Slovenia’s ranking in science, mathematics and reading among EU Member States
2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 SDS 2030 target
Reading 10 15 20 6 9 Ranking in the top 
quarter of EU Member 
States
Mathematics 8 7 9 5 5
Science 4 5 7 3 4
Sources: OECD (2016b) and OECD (2019i). Note: In Slovenia the PISA survey has been carried out since 2006.
Figure: Average performance of 15-year-olds in mathematics, science and reading (PISA) (left) and share of 15-year-olds 
with a low score* in science, mathematics and reading (PISA) (right)
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
Re
ad
in
g
M
at
he
m
at
ic
s
Sc
ie
nc
e
Re
ad
in
g
M
at
he
m
at
ic
s
Sc
ie
nc
e
2015 2018
Po
in
ts
Slovenia EU Estonia Finland
0
5
10
15
20
25
Re
ad
in
g
M
at
he
m
at
ic
s
Sc
ie
nc
e
Re
ad
in
g
M
at
he
m
at
ic
s
Sc
ie
nc
e
2015 2018
In
 %
Slovenia EU Estonia Finland Danmark Ireland
Sources: OECD (2016b) and OECD (2019i) (left) and Eurostat (2022) (right). Notes: Of the EU Member States, for each type of literacy, the data for the country with the 
highest scores in the EU is shown. For the EU, the figure on the left shows the unweighted average. *Results below proficiency level 2 are regarded as poor.
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 163Development report 2022
(Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Finland), with the 
gap being widest at the tertiary level. In 2020, private 
expenditure on education amounted to 0.57% of GDP 
(the same as the previous year) and was the lowest in ten 
years and, according to 2018 data, also below the EU-22 
average (0.63% of GDP).
Although expenditure (both public3 and private) 
per participant in education mostly increased in 
the last ten years, it remained low in international 
comparison, which limits opportunities to improve 
the quality of education. In 2018, the last year for 
which internationally comparable data are available, it 
only exceeded the average of EU Member States that are 
members of the OECD (EU-22) at the lower secondary 
level (in Slovenia this includes the third triad of basic 
schools). It lagged the most at the upper secondary 
school level (the gap was wider in vocational and 
technical education than in general upper secondary 
education), where the participation of young people in 
education is high and public and private expenditures 
are low. 
Public expenditure on education1 (as a % of GDP) 
increased in 2017–2020 after several years of 
decline, but was still below the previous peak; 
private expenditure was the lowest in ten years, and 
both public and private expenditure lag behind in 
international comparison. Public expenditure as a 
share of GDP fell from 2012 to 2017. In the first few years, 
the decline was mainly resulting from austerity measures 
after the global financial crisis, later from changes in 
social legislation and for demographic reasons. Since 
2014, public expenditure has not kept pace with GDP 
growth. In 2018, it increased again and remained 
roughly unchanged in 2019. In 2020, public expenditure 
(especially at the basic education level) increased again 
and stood at 5.1%2 of GDP, due to higher expenditure on 
educational institutions related to increased investment 
and wage bill for employees. However, it still lagged 
behind the 2010 peak, with the gap being widest in 
upper secondary education. According to data for 
2018 (latest international data), public expenditure on 
education was below the EU average of EU Member 
States that are members of the OECD and much lower 
than in the economically highly developed countries 
Education expenditure 2.5 
1 Total public expenditure on education comprises the total budgetary expenditure on formal education of young people and adults at state and local levels. It includes 
direct public expenditure on educational institutions and transfers to households (scholarships, subsidised meals, travel tickets, accommodation, textbooks, etc.).
2 Excluding the first age group of the pre-school level of education. According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, which also 
includes this group, public expenditure on education totalled 5.40% of GDP in 2020.
3 Public expenditure does not include transfers to students/households.
 Table: Total public expenditure on education as a share of GDP, in %
2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Slovenia 5.65 5.11 5.55 5.54 5.31 5.05 4.95 4.61 4.50 4.49 4.64 4.62 5.07
EU-23 5.37 5.35 5.59 5.62 5.20 5.31 5.22 4.88 4.78 4.76 4.73 N/A N/A
Sources: OECD (2021b), SURS (2022b); calculations by IMAD. Note: N/A – data not available. Data since 2018 refer to the EU-22, which excludes the United Kingdom.
Figure: Expenditure (public and private) on educational institutions per participant*, 2018, and public expenditure on 
education as a share of GDP, by education levels**, Slovenia, in % (right)
12 12
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Au
st
ria
Sw
ed
en
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
G
er
m
an
y
D
en
m
ar
k
Fr
an
ce
Fi
nl
an
d
Av
er
ag
e 
EU
-2
2
Av
er
ag
e 
O
EC
D
Ita
ly
Ire
la
nd
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Sp
ai
n
Es
to
ni
a
Po
la
nd
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
ak
ia
La
tv
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
In
 U
SD
 P
PS
, i
n 
'0
00
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Pre-scool
education
(second age
group)
Basic education Upper
secondary
education
Tertiary
education
In
 %
2010 2019 2020
Sources: OECD (2021b) (left) and SURS (2022b) (right). Notes: *Including basic, secondary, upper secondary and tertiary levels of education. **Data for the first age group 
of pre-school education is not available for 2010. In 2020, expenditure on this level of education amounted to 0.33% of GDP (2019: 0.29% of GDP).
Indicators of Slovenia’s development164 Development report 2022
Broken down by activity status, participation in 
lifelong learning declined most in 2020 and over the 
2010–2020 period among those in employment. The 
participation of the unemployed and inactive in lifelong 
learning was below the EU average.2 Participation 
also varies among the employed. In the private sector, 
where the share of low-educated workers is higher, 
participation in 2020 was lower than in the public 
sector. Broken down by activity, participation was 
low in accommodation and food service activities, 
construction and manufacturing, while the highest 
level was in education. Lower participation of employed 
persons in lifelong learning has a negative impact on 
the achievement of higher competitiveness and the 
adaptability of workers to changes in the workplace 
due to digital and green transformation, technological 
progress, and other development trends. Only in 2020 
did the reduced implementation of education and 
training under the AEP3 result in lower participation 
of the unemployed in lifelong learning. In 2020, the 
smallest decline in participation in lifelong learning was 
found among the inactive, where it was already low. 
The participation of adults (aged 25–64) in lifelong 
learning1 declined over the longer term and was 
below the EU average for the first time in 2020. 
Since peaking in 2010, it has mostly declined and in 
2020, with the outbreak of COVID-19, it fell sharply and 
slipped below the EU average for the first time, to 8.4% 
(EU: 9.2%). It has thus moved far away from the target 
of the Strategic Framework for European Cooperation 
in Education and Training by 2020 (15%) and even 
further away from the target of the Resolution on the 
National Programme of Adult Education in the Republic 
of Slovenia 2012–2020 and the SDS 2030 target (19%). 
As in the decade before the epidemic, participation in 
2020 was particularly low among people with low levels 
of education, older people, men and immigrants. The 
decline in participation in lifelong learning has a negative 
impact on employment opportunities and social 
inclusion of adults. From a development perspective, the 
long-term decline in participation in lifelong learning is 
unfavourable in all regions.
Participation in lifelong learning 2.6
1 Lifelong learning includes formal and non-formal education.
2 In 2020, the participation rate in lifelong learning for the employed totalled 9.0% (EU: 9.5%), the participation rate for the unemployed 8.6% (EU: 10.5%) and the 
participation rate for the non-active population 5.7% (EU: 7.7%).
3 For details, see “Annual report on the implementation of state measures on the labour market in 2020” (MDDSZ, 2021a).
 Table: Participation of adults aged 25–64 in lifelong learning, in %
2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 15.3 14.3 14.8 16.4 16.0 13.8 12.5 12.1 11.9 11.6 12.0 11.4 11.2 8.4 19 %
EU 7.7 8.0 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.2 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.8 9.2
Source: Eurostat (2022).
Figure: Participation of employed persons (aged 25–64) in lifelong learning, 2020, in % (left) and participation of adults 
(aged 25–64) in lifelong learning, by activity status, in % (right)
9.59.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
D
en
m
ar
k
Es
to
ni
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Fr
an
ce
M
al
ta
Au
st
ria
Ire
la
nd
Sp
ai
n
Po
rt
ug
al EU
Sl
ov
en
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ita
ly
G
er
m
an
y
Be
lg
iu
m
La
tv
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
H
un
ga
ry
Po
la
nd
Cy
pr
us
G
re
ec
e
Cr
oa
tia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
In
 %
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Persons in employment Unemployed Inactive
In
 %
2010 2019 2020
Source: Eurostat (2022).
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 165Development report 2022
The average attendance at cultural events per 
inhabitant1 plummeted in 2020. It was highest in 
2012, owing to the many events hosted by Maribor, the 
city that held the European Capital of Culture title that 
year. In the remaining years it amounted to around 5–6 
visits per inhabitant. After increasing for the most part 
in 2009–2019, the total attendance at cultural events fell 
by 68.4% in 2020 as the number of cultural events fell 
sharply. Attendance at cultural events in houses of culture 
and cultural centres, which had the highest number of 
visitors among all types of cultural institutions in 2020, 
also declined as the number of cultural events decreased 
significantly. The most unfavourable development 
was that of cinema attendance (-76.2%), of which 5.4% 
were visits to screenings of Slovenian films. Attendance 
at musical institutions, which had been declining for 
several years before the epidemic, and at museums, 
galleries, theatres and operas, which had fluctuated 
before the epidemic, also declined. After several years 
of stagnation, the number of visits to amateur cultural 
events increased in 2019 and then decreased by 68.5% 
in 2020. 
Attendance at cultural events 2.7 
1 In 2016, due to an extensive revision in the methodology, there was a break in the data series for the following groups: (i) museums, galleries and exhibition grounds, 
(ii) theatres, (iii) orchestras and choirs, and (iv) houses of culture and cultural centres. Since 2016, data on cultural performances cover: (i) museums and galleries, (ii) 
theatres and opera houses, (iii) musical institutions, (iv) cinemas, (v) houses of culture and cultural centres, and (v) amateur culture.
2 This includes houses of culture and cultural centres, theatres and operas and musical institutions.
3 In 2020, 57.0% of the institutions with stage activity were fully equipped for people with reduced mobility and 15.0% for those with sensory disabilities.
4 In 2020, 29.0% of museums and galleries were fully equipped for people with reduced mobility and 9.7% for those with sensory disabilities.
 Table: Average attendance at cultural events per inhabitant
2005 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 5.0 5.4 5.7 6.0 9.6 6.2 5.9 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.2 2.0 8.0
Sources: SURS (2022b), JSKD (2021) and SFC (2021); calculations by IMAD.
Before the epidemic, cultural institutions carried out 
many activities enriching the cultural offer but in 
2020 these activities shrunk noticeably. The number 
of events held by institutions with stage activity2 
fluctuated in 2016–2019; in 2020, it fell by 55.0% (to 
11.2 thousand). By type of activity, as in previous years, 
the highest attendance was recorded for film and video 
screenings (see Section 2.2), followed by events showing 
dramatic and other theatre works, and musical events, 
while the lowest attendance was recorded for ballet 
events. In 2020, institutions with stage activity performed 
a good third fewer new works than in the previous year, 
with a smaller proportion being co-productions with 
foreign co-producers (5.1%) and a larger proportion with 
Slovenian co-producers (about two-thirds). There were 
also fewer festivals organised. The COVID-19 epidemic 
in 2020 also affected the activities of museums and 
galleries, which organised 36.5% fewer exhibitions than 
in the previous year. In addition, some groups of the 
population (persons with reduced mobility and sensory 
impairments) face obstacles in accessing institutions 
with stage activity3 and museums and thus cultural 
events.4
Figure: Attendance at cultural events, Slovenia, 2010, 2019 and 2020 (left) and attendance at events held by institutions 
with stage activity by type of event, 2010, 2019 and 2020 (right)
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Houses of culture/
cultural centres
Amateur culture
Museums and
galleries
Cinemas
Theatres,
operas
Musical
institutions
Number, in '000
2010 2019 2020
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
M
us
ic
D
ra
m
a 
an
d 
ot
he
r
th
ea
tre
 w
or
ks
Ar
t e
xh
ib
iti
on
s 
an
d 
ot
he
r
vi
su
al
 a
rt 
ev
en
ts O
th
er
Fi
lm
 a
nd
 v
id
eo
Pu
pp
et
 th
ea
tre
Le
ct
ur
es
 a
nd
 ro
un
d 
ta
bl
es
de
vo
te
d 
to
 th
e 
fie
ld
 o
f c
ul
tu
re
Fo
lk
lo
re
 a
ct
iv
ity
M
od
er
n 
da
nc
e
M
us
eu
m
 a
nd
 o
th
er
 e
xh
ib
iti
on
s
Ex
pe
rim
en
ta
l t
he
at
re
Li
te
ra
ry
 e
ve
ni
ng
s 
an
d
ev
en
in
gs
 o
f p
oe
try
Ba
lle
t
Ev
en
ts
 o
f i
nt
er
m
ed
ia
 a
rt
N
um
be
r, 
in
 '0
00
2020 2019 2016
Sources: SURS (2022b), JSKD (2021) and SFC (2021) (left) and SURS (2022b) (right).
Indicators of Slovenia’s development166 Development report 2022
In 2020, the share of cultural events held abroad1 
decreased for the second year in a row. Touring is an 
indirect indicator of the quality of cultural production, 
as invitations to perform abroad generally signify 
recognition of good work. In 2020, the share of cultural 
events held abroad totalled 2.6%. Due to the COVID-19 
containment measures, it was lower compared to the 
previous year. The share of tours in museums has been 
declining for several years, while in stage-related activity 
it declined for the second year in a row in 2020. Among 
cultural events held abroad, those in the EU accounted 
for the highest share in 2020, i.e. 85.0%, which is more 
than in 2019. This indicates the geographical attachment 
of cultural institutions to this area. Due to the measures 
taken to contain the COVID-19 epidemic, it is estimated 
that the number of events held abroad remained modest 
in 2021. 
Share of cultural events held abroad 2.8 
1 The indicator of the share of events held on tours abroad in the total number of events is the ratio of events held outside Slovenia to all events held by given cultural 
institutions. Data on cultural events include data for (i) museums, galleries or exhibition grounds, (ii) theatres, (iii) professional orchestras or choirs and opera, and 
(iv) houses of culture/cultural centres, cultural institutions and other cultural performers. In 2016, due to a significant change in the methodology, a break in the data 
series occurred. The sources of data are the surveys “Activity of cultural institutions, theatres, operas and professional orchestras and choirs” (KU-ODER) and “Activity 
of museums and galleries” (KU-MZ).
 Table: Share of cultural events held abroad in the total number of cultural events, in %
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 2,8 (estimate)* 3.1 3.9 5.1 3.9 2.6 3.5
Source: SURS (SURS, 2022b). Note: *In 2016, due to a significant change in the methodology, a break in the data series occurred. Data for 2015 are therefore estimated, 
i.e. adjusted to the methodology used in the surveys “Activity of Houses of Culture, Theatres, Operas and Professional Orchestras and Choirs” (KU-ODER) and “Activity 
of Museums and Galleries” (KU-MZ) for 2016. The estimate was made by SURS. Data for houses of culture up to 2015 were not available. The sources of data were the 
surveys “Activity of Museums, Museum Collections, Special Museums for Art Heritage and Art Exhibition Grounds” (KU-MZ), “Activity of Theatres, Operas and Ballet” 
(KU-GL), and “Activity of Professional Orchestras and Choirs” (KU-FO).
In 2020, the COVID-19 epidemic had a negative 
impact on hosting foreign events in Slovenia and on 
cultural production in Slovenia. Visiting events from 
abroad enrich the offer of cultural events in Slovenia and 
show the extent of cooperation with cultural institutions 
from abroad. Due to the COVID-19 epidemic, the number 
of visiting events from abroad in institutions with stage 
activity fell by 85.2% in 2020, the number of visiting 
exhibitions in museums and galleries fell by 39.0%, 
and the number of visiting events and exhibitions from 
Slovenia fell by 60.1%. Cultural production in Slovenia 
(Indicator 2.7), which is the basis for promoting and 
publicising culture abroad and attracting visitors from 
abroad, was also reduced. In 2021, the international 
Europa Cantat Festival, which took place in Ljubljana, 
had a positive impact on international cooperation in 
the field of culture.
Figure: Share of cultural events held abroad, Slovenia (left) and share of visiting cultural events from abroad in Slovenia (right)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
In
 %
Museums Stage activities
Source: SURS (2022b). Note: Theatrical activity includes: (i) theatres, (ii) professional orchestras and choirs and opera, and (iii) houses of culture/cultural centres, cultural 
institutions and other organisers of cultural events.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
In
 %
Museums Stage activities
 A healthy and active life
3.1 Healthy life years 
3.2 The Gender Equality Index 
3.3 Life expectancy
3.4 Unmet needs for healthcare
3.5 Avoidable mortality
3.6 Health expenditure
3.7 Expenditure on long-term care
3.8 Overweight and obesity 
 A decent life for all
3.9 At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate 
3.10 Inequality of income distribution
3.11 Experience of discrimination
3.12 Median equivalised disposable income
3.13 Life satisfaction
3.14 Social protection expenditure 
3.15 Housing deprivation rate
3.16 Material and income deprivation 
 An inclusive labour market and high-quality jobs
3.17 Employment rate
3.18 In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate 
3.19 Unemployment and long-term unemployment rates 
3.20 Precarious and temporary employment
3.21 Activity rate
3.22 Absence from work due to illness
3 An inclusive, healthy, safe  
and responsible society

Indicators of Slovenia’s development 169Development report 2022
In 2019, Slovenia’s lag behind the EU average as 
regards the healthy life expectancy at birth indicator1 
was smaller than in the past. The SURS (2019) analysis 
showed that the very low value of this indicator in 
Slovenia in the past was mainly related to inadequate 
translation and the method of surveying. The data for 
2019 already reflected changes in the survey method, so 
the results for Slovenia significantly improved. In 2020, 
the translation of the question was changed, but the 
data is not yet available. The indicator for 2019 shows 
that a person born in Slovenia can expect 60.9 years of 
healthy life, while the EU average is 65 years. Healthy life 
expectancy at the age of 65 is 8.6 years in Slovenia on 
average, compared with 10.3 years in the EU. According 
to the latest results, the number of healthy life years is 
higher for women than for men, which is similar to the 
situation in most other EU Member States (previously it 
was the opposite). Increasing the number of healthy life 
years, which requires higher investment in preventive 
care, should make a significant contribution not only 
to extending the working life of individuals, but also to 
slower growth in health and long-term care expenditure 
in the future.
According to the latest data, the lag behind the 
EU average in the ratio between healthy life years 
and life expectancy is also significantly smaller.2 In 
Slovenia, we had an average of 74.8% healthy life years in 
2019 for both genders, which is still below the EU average 
(79.6%) but significantly better than in previous years. 
Slovenia’s gap with the EU average is still mainly due to 
the lower number of healthy life years. The smaller share 
of years that a person on average spends healthy means 
more pressure on social protection systems due to early 
retirement and greater demand for health and long-term 
care services. The COVID-19 epidemic will bring about 
major changes in the indicator in the coming years. We 
can expect that the high number of deaths will lead to 
a decrease in life expectancy, but it is difficult to predict 
how this will affect healthy life years.  
Healthy life years 3.1
Table: Expected healthy life years at birth and the proportion of healthy life years in LE*
Number of expected healthy life years at birth Share of healthy life years in LE,* in %
Women Men Women Men
2010 2018 2019 SDS 2030 target 2010 2018 2019 SDS 2030 target 2010 2019 SDS 2030 target 2010 2019* SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 54.6 54.6 61.2 64.5 53.4 56.3 60.8 64.5 65.7 72.4 75.0 69.8 77.3 80.0
EU 62.2 64.2 65.1 61.3 63.7 64.2 75.0 77.5 80.0 81.8
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: In 2019, there was a change in the survey approach in the EU-SILC survey, on the basis of which the healthy life expectancy indicator is 
calculated. *LE – life expectancy.
1 The indicator of healthy life years measures the number of remaining years that a person of a specific age is expected to live without disability or activity limitations. 
This is a composite indicator which combines mortality and health status data. The estimate of activity limitations is based on the Global Activity Limitation Indicator 
(GALI), which, within the EU-SILC survey, measures self-perceived limitations people have experienced, because of health problems, in carrying out their everyday 
activities for at least six months. 
2 A decline in the ratio of healthy life years to life expectancy means a deterioration; an increase signifies an improvement. 
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: The countries are ranked according to the average number of years that men and women spend in a healthy state.
 Figure: Healthy life years expectancy at birth, 2019
50
55
60
65
70
75
Sw
ed
en
M
al
ta
Sp
ai
n
Ire
la
nd
Ita
ly
Bu
lg
ar
ia
G
er
m
an
y
G
re
ec
e
EU
Fr
an
ce
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Cy
pr
us
Po
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
Cz
ec
h 
R.
H
un
ga
ry
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sl
ov
en
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
D
en
m
ar
k
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cr
oa
tia
A
us
tr
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Es
to
ni
a
La
tv
ia
In
 y
ea
rs
Men Women
Indicators of Slovenia’s development170 Development report 2022
In 2021, the gender equality index1 for Slovenia was 
slightly below the EU average. Until 2017, Slovenia 
had progressed faster than the majority of EU Member 
States, but since then it has fallen furthest behind among 
all Member States, mainly due to a lower score in the 
area of power (lower political participation of women), 
and fell below the EU average in 2021. In order to meet 
the SDS 2030 target (> 78), Slovenia should improve the 
index value by more than 10 index points in 2021–2030.
Since 2010, Slovenia has achieved the highest scores 
in the areas of health and money, while gender 
inequalities have been the most pronounced in the 
areas of knowledge and power. Men more often than 
women consider that they are in good or very good 
health, although women live almost six years longer on 
average than men. In the field of knowledge, the share 
of tertiary educated women is still higher than the share 
of men, and the uneven concentration of women and 
men in different study fields remains a key challenge.2 
The gender gap is also present in various labour 
market sectors.3 The gender gap in the employment 
rate narrowed, while the pay gap is constant but small 
compared to other EU Member States (see Section 3.3, 
IMAD, 2021). Due to the introduction of gender quotas 
on candidate lists, women’s political participation had 
increased since 2011, but since 2017 it has decreased 
again. According to the latest data for 2021, the share of 
women in the Slovenian Parliament was low (27.8%, EU: 
33.2%), and the share of women ministers was even lower 
(11.1%, EU: 32.3%) (EIGE, 2021c). The COVID-19 epidemic 
has disproportionately affected women’s quality of 
life, exacerbating pre-existing gender inequalities and 
jeopardising progress made in this area. Women were 
more exposed than men to additional workload and 
higher health risks (the majority of workers in human 
health, social work activities and trade are women), 
increased job insecurity (a large proportion of women 
are employed in the service sectors most affected by 
the crisis), difficulties in work/life balance and domestic 
violence (EIGE, 2021b; EC, 2021a, 2021q; EP, 2021a; 
Eurofound, 2021c).
The Gender Equality Index
1 Based on 31 indicators, the Gender Equality Index measures progress and gaps between women and men in six areas (see table). An index value of 1 means total 
inequality and 100 full equality. The data for the calculation of the index include the latest available data (for 2021, the index is calculated based on 2019 data). For 
more about the methodology, see EIGE (2021a).
2 In 2018, 43% of female students were enrolled in education, health and welfare, humanities, and arts, compared to 17% of male students (EIGE, 2021b).
3 In 2019, 28% of women were employed in the fields of education, human health and social work activities, compared to only 6% of men.
3.2
Source: EIGE (2021c). Note: *An index value of 1 means total inequality and 100 full equality. The data for calculating the index for 2021 are mostly from 2019 and for 
2013 from 2010.
 Figure: Gender Equality Index, 2013 and 2021*
68.0 67.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Fr
an
ce
Fi
nl
an
d
Sp
ai
n
Ire
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
G
er
m
an
y
EU
Au
st
ria
Sl
ov
en
ia
M
al
ta
Ita
ly
Po
rt
ug
al
La
tv
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cy
pr
us
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Po
la
nd
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
H
un
ga
ry
G
re
ec
e
In
 p
oi
nt
s
2021 2013
Table: Gender Equality Index
Slovenia
SDS 2030 
target
EU
 Year of GEI publication 2013 2015 2017 2019 2020 2021 2013 2015 2017 2019 2020 2021
Reference year 2010 2012 2015 2017 2018 2019 2010 2012 2015 2017 2018 2019
GEI 62.7 66.1 68.4 68.3 67.7 67.6 > 78 63.1 64.4 65.7 66.9 67.4 68.0
Health 86.8 87.3 87.7 87.1 86.9 87.8 86.7 86.7 87.1 87.8 87.8 87.8
Money 80.3 81.3 81.6 82.4 83.0 83.7 79.1 79.1 80.1 81.1 81.6 82.4
Work 71.9 71.3 71.8 73.3 73.1 73.0 69.7 70.2 70.6 71.1 71.4 71.6
Time 68.3 72.4 72.9 72.9 72.9 72.9 65.2 68.1 64.9 64.9 64.9 64.9
Knowledge 55.0 54.9 55.0 56.0 55.9 56.6 59.8 61.1 62.4 62.6 62.8 62.7
Power 41.1 51.5 60.6 57.6 55.0 53.0  41.9 43.6 48.4 51.6 53.1 55.0
Source: EIGE (2021c). Note: An index value of 1 means total inequality and 100 full equality.
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 171Development report 2022
In 2020, life expectancy1 at birth decreased in 
Slovenia and most other EU Member States due to 
the epidemic and consequent higher mortality. Life 
expectancy in Slovenia decreased to the 2013 level. The 
number of deaths was 18.8% higher than the 2015–2019 
average (by about 14.6% in 2021).2 In Slovenia, a total 
of 6,131 people died with COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021, 
95% of whom were age 65 or older in 2020 and 90% 
in 2021 (NIJZ, 2022a). As a result, premature mortality3 
continued to decline (2000: 26.7%; 2020: 13.7%), while 
the average age at death also continued to rise (2000: 
71.8 years; 2020: 79.2 years). When trying to determine 
future trends in life expectancy, the number of indirect 
deaths related to the unavailability of preventive and 
emergency health services and psychosocial support 
remains unknown (OECD and EU, 2020). 
Even in the years before the epidemic, the rate of 
increase in life expectancy at birth in Slovenia and 
EU slowed. In the period 2002–2019, life expectancy 
increased by 3.5 months per year on average in Slovenia 
compared to 2.6 months per year on average in the 
EU. This was mainly due to the improvement of socio-
economic living conditions, higher education, better 
healthcare and a better lifestyle (OECD, 2017b). However, 
after 2011, life expectancy gains slowed, mainly due to a 
slower decline in mortality rates for circulatory diseases, 
which had been the main reason for life expectancy 
gains in previous years (OECD and EU, 2018). The 
severe flu seasons, which mainly affected the elderly 
(2014/2015, 2016/2017 and 2017/2018) also contributed 
to the slowdown (OECD and EU, 2020).
Due to the epidemic, life expectancy at birth 
decreased significantly in 2020 in most regions for 
the first time since 2011; it remains higher in the 
Zahodna Slovenija region. Compared to the previous 
year, it decreased the most among women in the 
Zasavska region (to the 2015 level) and among men 
in Jugovzhodna Slovenija (to the 2017 level). Women 
in the Goriška region (84.4 years) and men in the 
Osrednjeslovenska region (79.2 years) had the longest 
life expectancy at birth. Compared to the Vzhodna 
Slovenija regions, life expectancy in the regions of 
Zahodna Slovenija, with the exception of the Goriška 
region, is about one year longer. Premature mortality 
also continued to decline, especially among men, most 
markedly in the Koroška region (by 6.5 p.p. to 18.6%), 
and among women in the Podravska region (by 3.7 p.p. 
to 9.3%). 
Life expectancy 3.3
 Table: Life expectancy at birth, in years
2000 2005 2008 2010 2012 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Slovenia
Total 76.2 77.5 79.1 79.8 80.3 80.9 81.2 81.2 81.5 81.6 80.6
Men 72.2 73.9 75.5 76.4 77.1 77.8 78.2 78.2 78.2 78.7 77.8
Women 79.9 80.9 82.6 83.1 83.3 83.9 84.3 84.0 84.4 84.5 83.4
EU
Total N/A 78.4 79.3 79.8 80.2 80.5 80.9 80.9 81.0 81.3 N/A
Men N/A 75.1 76.1 76.7 77.1 77.7 78.0 78.1 78.2 78.5 N/A
Women N/A 81.5 82.4 82.9 83.1 83.3 83.7 83.6 83.7 84.0 N/A
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: N/A – data not available.
1 The average number of years that a person at a given age can expect to live, under the assumption that age-specific mortality rates remain constant throughout their 
lifetime (i.e. equal to the values in life tables for the observed year) (Šter, 2020). Due to the different methodologies used, Eurostat data (for comparison with the EU) 
differ slightly from SURS data.
2 Excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 is the ratio of the number of deaths due to all causes of death in 2020 or 2021 compared to the average for the period 2015–2019. 
Sambt et al. (2021) point out that such an approach does not take into account changes in the number and age structure of the population, nor the trend of declining 
mortality over time. For Slovenia, the estimated excess mortality for 2020 would thus be around 4 p.p. lower.
3 The share of deaths under the age of 65 among all deaths in a calendar year.
Source: Eurostat (2022).
 Figure: Difference in life expectancy at birth compared to the previous year, 2015–2019 average and 2020
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
Sp
ai
n
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
la
nd
Ro
m
an
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Ita
ly
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
en
ia
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Po
rtu
ga
l
Cr
oa
tia
Hu
ng
ar
y
Sw
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
Ne
th
er
la
nd
s
Au
st
ria
Gr
ee
ce
Es
to
ni
a
M
al
ta
Ge
rm
an
y
Cy
pr
us
La
tv
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d EU
Ire
la
nd
Di
ffe
re
nc
e 
in
 y
ea
rs
Average annual change in 2019–2015 Change in 2020–2019
Indicators of Slovenia’s development172 Development report 2022
In 2020, 2.7% of the population in Slovenia had 
unmet needs for medical examinations, which is 
significantly above the EU average, the main reason 
being waiting times.1 According to the EU-SILC 2020 
survey, unmet needs for medical examinations did not 
increase during the epidemic, despite the cancellation 
of many health activities and poor accessibility of 
healthcare.2 This is probably due to the fact that part of 
the EU-SILC 2020 survey was conducted before the first 
wave of the epidemic and only part after the first wave 
and partly to the fact that many people did not seek 
medical care at all, even in cases where they should have 
done so, and therefore did not report unmet needs. The 
differences between countries are large, both in terms of 
the proportion of the population reporting unmet needs 
and in terms of the reasons for unmet needs and income-
based inequalities. In contrast to other Member States, 
respondents in Slovenia cite waiting times rather than 
financial reasons as the main reason for unmet needs, 
and the gap between the first and fifth income quintiles 
of the population is very small. This is related to a broad 
healthcare benefits basket, which is covered partly 
by compulsory and partly by complementary health 
insurance, which ensures good financial accessibility 
of healthcare, limited by long waiting times for many 
services. Unmet needs for dental care in Slovenia are 
also high mainly due to long waiting times in the public 
dental healthcare network and not due to financial 
reasons (see Table). 
According to the EHIS survey, unmet needs for 
healthcare in Slovenia in 2019 were significantly 
higher than the EU average. In 2019, unmet needs 
for healthcare were reported by as many as 28% of 
respondents in need of healthcare.3 According to this 
survey, the largest share reported problems due to 
waiting times (22.8%; EU: 19.4%) and a relatively high 
share of respondents reported unmet needs due to 
financial reasons (15.6%; EU: 13%). In Slovenia, higher 
unmet needs are reported by people with higher 
education and income, which is typical for some 
countries with high unmet needs due to waiting times. 
According to the previous EHIS survey from 2014, the 
share of unmet needs in Slovenia has increased mainly 
due to waiting times and to some extent also due to 
financial reasons. 
Unmet needs for healthcare 3.4 
 Table: Unmet needs for healthcare in the population aged 16 and over, in %
Reasons for unmet needs Waiting times, financial reasons, geographical distance Waiting times
2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
For medical examinations
Slovenia 3.3 2.9 2.7 3.2 2.9 2.6
EU 1.8 1.7 1.8 0.6 0.7 0.7
For dental examinations
Slovenia 3.6 3.7 3.1 2.9 3.4 2.7
EU 3.0 2.8 3.3 0.3 0.2 0.3
Source: Eurostat (2022), data according to the EU-SILC 2020 survey. Note: The EU average is Eurostat’s estimate.
1 The main indicator of accessibility to health services under the European Pillar of Social Rights is the survey indicator of unmet needs for medical examinations due 
to financial reasons, geographical distance or waiting times. Part of the problem with the unmet need indicator is that the surveys do not cover certain population 
groups (homeless people, some migrants and people living in institutions). In Slovenia, in the past there was a problem in the translation of the EU-SILC survey 
question, so the data is only relevant since 2017.
2 At the primary level, the number of visits, including distance consultations, decreased by 1.7% compared to 2019, after increasing by around 3% annually before the 
epidemic. An even higher decrease in the number of treatments was observed in specialist ambulatory services (by 20%), in imaging diagnostics (by 15%) and in 
inpatient treatments (by 15%), which means that many patients did not receive treatment (HIIS, 2021).
3 The proportion of unmet needs is higher according to the EHIS survey, as only those who actually needed medical care were interviewed.
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: Data for Italy is for 2019. The EU average is Eurostat’s estimate.
 Figure: Unmet needs for medical examinations (due to waiting times, financial reasons or geographical distance) and the 
differences by income, 2020
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Es
to
ni
a
Po
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
Fi
nl
an
d
La
tv
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Fr
an
ce
Ire
la
nd
Ita
ly EU
D
en
m
ar
k
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Be
lg
iu
m
Cr
oa
tia
Sw
ed
en
Bu
lg
ar
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sp
ai
n
Cy
pr
us
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
G
er
m
an
y
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Au
st
ria
M
al
ta
Sh
ar
e 
am
on
g 
pe
op
le
 a
ge
d 
16
+,
 in
 %
Total population First quintile Fifth quintile
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 173Development report 2022
of deaths decreased significantly due to the successful 
strengthening of primary prevention interventions 
focusing on smoking, alcohol consumption, nutrition, 
physical activity, screening programmes and counselling 
(OECD/EOHSP, 2021a). 
The rate of treatable mortality decreased further 
slightly in 2018 and was already well below the 
EU average, which indicates relatively effective 
healthcare from the aspect of treatment. In 2018, 77 
people per 100,000 inhabitants died in Slovenia from 
causes that could have been avoided through timely 
and effective healthcare (including through screening 
programmes and treatment) (EU average: 92). The 
indicator points to effective healthcare in terms of 
treatment, particularly with regard to the relatively 
lower investment in health than in countries that reach 
comparable results (see also Indicator 3.6). The main 
causes of deaths are ischemic heart disease, colon and 
rectal cancer, followed by strokes and breast cancer. In 
all countries, the indicator is significantly worse for men 
than for women. 
In 2011–2018, avoidable mortality1 in Slovenia 
decreased twice as fast as the EU average. The rate 
of avoidable mortality, which consists of (i) preventable 
mortality that could be avoided through public health 
and preventive measures and (ii) treatable mortality 
(avoidable by healthcare), decreased by 57 persons per 
100,000 inhabitants in Slovenia in 2011–2018 (in the EU 
as a whole by 28 persons). Slovenia was very successful 
particularly in reducing treatable mortality, which 
declined by 24% in seven years (by 11% on average in 
the EU). 
The rate of preventable mortality decreased in 
2018 but is still above the EU average. In 2018, 
175 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants could have been 
avoided in Slovenia by public health measures and 
preventive measures (160 in the EU in 2017). The higher 
number of deaths in Slovenia is mainly is associated 
with a high prevalence of unhealthy lifestyles.2 The 
main causes of deaths are lung cancer (smoking) and 
alcohol-related diseases (both together account for 
45% of all preventable deaths). In 2018, the number 
Avoidable mortality 3.5
1 In 2019, the methodology for calculating the indicator of avoidable mortality was changed. The indicator is used to assess the performance of the healthcare system 
and consists of two indicators: preventable mortality and treatable (amenable) mortality. The lists of both preventable and treatable causes of mortality were also 
changed in the indicators. The attribution of causes of death to the preventable or treatable mortality category is based on the criteria of whether these causes of 
death can be largely prevented through better prevention measures or more effective treatment. In addition, the age threshold used to define premature deaths is 
now 75 years (previously 65 years). For both indicators, the data series from 2011 to 2018 is available.
2 According to the estimates of international institutions, in 2020 Slovenia ranked 8th in the EU by cancer incidence and 7th in terms of mortality (European Cancer 
Information System, 2022; International Agency for Research of Cancer, 2022).
 Table: Avoidable mortality, age-standardised rates per 100,000 inhabitants
1. Avoidable mortality (1=2+3) 2. Preventable mortality 3. Treatable mortality
2011 2017 2018 2011 2017 2018 2011 2017 2018
Slovenia 309 265 253 209 187 175 101 78 77
EU 281 252 N/A 178 160 N/A 103 92 N/A
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: N/A – data not available.
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: *Data for the EU average is from 2017 (left).
 Figure: Avoidable mortality rates in the EU, 2018 (left) and mortality per 100,000 population (right)
100
200
300
400
500
600
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
M
or
ta
lit
y 
ra
te
 p
er
 1
00
,0
00
 in
ha
bi
ta
nt
s
EU Italy Latvia Slovenia
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
La
tv
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Cr
oa
tia
Po
la
nd
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
en
ia
EU
*
G
er
m
an
y
Au
st
ria
Fi
nl
an
d
G
re
ec
e
D
en
m
ar
k
Po
rt
ug
al
Be
lg
iu
m
Ire
la
nd
M
al
ta
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Fr
an
ce
Sw
ed
en
Cy
pr
us
Sp
ai
n
Ita
ly
M
or
ta
lit
y 
ra
te
 p
er
 1
00
,0
00
 in
ha
bi
ta
nt
s
Preventable mortality Treatable mortality
Indicators of Slovenia’s development174 Development report 2022
3.6
Health expenditure increased significantly in 2020 
due to the epidemic. Slovenia entered the epidemic 
with an underfunded and understaffed health system, 
as health expenditure declined sharply during the global 
financial crisis. In 2013–2019, growth averaged only 
2.6% per year, lagging behind the EU average (3.0%). In 
2017–2019, the transmission of the financing of medical 
practitioners and traineeships to the state budget 
contributed to the additional revenues of the HIIS.1 
However, given the increasing demand, this additional 
budgetary resource was not sufficient for the health 
system, leading to a rapid increase in waiting times and 
thus unmet needs (see Indicator 3.4). In 2020, most of 
the costs of dealing with the COVID-19 epidemic were 
covered by the state budget (EUR 298 million, i.e. 0.64% 
of GDP according to the first estimate). According to the 
preliminary estimate by OECD (2022b), total government 
scheme (state budget) expenditure as a share in total 
current health expenditure increased from 4.2% in 2019 
(EUR 174 million) to as much as 9.7% in 2020 (EUR 437 
million), and the share of total current public expenditure 
increased from 72.8% to 75.2%. 
In 2021, the contribution from the state budget for 
healthcare related to the costs of dealing with the 
COVID-19 epidemic doubled compared to 2020. 
According to the Ministry of Health and HIIS (Ministry 
of Health, personal email, 24 March 2022; HIIS, 2022), a 
total of EUR 811.3 million (1.56% of GDP) was allocated 
in 2021 to combat the COVID-19 epidemic: EUR 306.9 
million was paid directly by the Ministry of Health to 
healthcare providers to cover crisis allowances, an 
additional EUR 211.4 million was paid directly through 
the HIIS to cover various costs related to preventing 
the spread of the epidemic,2 and EUR 179.1 million was 
transferred from the budget to the HIIS to cover part of 
the HIIS expenditure related to the COVID-19 (EUR 293 
million in total3).4 According to the first estimate, EUR 
697.4 million, i.e. 1.3% of GDP, was allocated from the 
state budget for the management of the epidemic in 
2021 (see Section 3.1, Box 6).
Health expenditure
 Table: Health expenditure5
Health expenditure as a % of GDP Public health expenditureas a % of GDP
Private health expenditure 
as a share of current health 
expenditure, in %
Out-of-pocket expenditure 
as a share of current health 
expenditure, in %
2010 2018 2019 2020 2010 2018 2019 2020 2010 2019 2020 2010 2019 2020
Slovenia* 8.6 8.3 8.5 9.7 6.3 6.0 6.2 7.3 26.6 27.2 24.8 13.0 11.7 10.6
EU** 9.0 8.3 8.3 N/A 6.5 6.1 6.1 N/A 29 27 N/A 23 21.7 N/A
Sources: For Slovenia SURS (2021) and OECD (2022); for the calculation of EU average Eurostat (2022). Note: N/A – data not available. *For Slovenia, the figure for 2020 
is a preliminary estimate by SURS (see OECD, 2022); **EU is a usual arithmetic mean of EU Member States, calculation by IMAD; Eurostat and the EC publish a weighted 
EU average that mainly reflects data from large countries (Germany, France), so it differs significantly from the simple average.
1 In July 2017, amendments to the Medical Practitioners Act were adopted; according to these the obligation to finance traineeships and specialisations of doctors 
from the HIIS was transferred back to the state budget. The transfer was gradual: over 2017–2020 every year an additional EUR 20 million, to a total of EUR 80 million. 
2 To cover the costs of COVID-19 testing and vaccination, distribution of medicines, influenza vaccination, telemedicine care for patients with COVID-19 and various 
sickness benefit reimbursements.
3 Of which EUR 179.9 million for health services and EUR 113.1 million for compensation for isolation.
4 For more see HIIS (2022), Section 5.1.2., “Impact of measures to mitigate the consequences of the epidemic on HIIS operations”.
5 Expenditure on healthcare includes current expenditure according to the methodology of the system of health accounts (SHA, 2011); investments are not included.
Source: OECD (2022b).
Figure: The share of health expenditure as a % of GDP, 2019 and estimate for 2020
 Slika: Realna letna rast javnih izdatkov za dolgotrajno oskrbo na prebivalca v obdobju 2005–2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Ge
rm
an
y
Fr
an
ce
Sw
ed
en
Be
lg
iu
m
N
or
w
ay
Au
st
ria
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
U.
 K
in
gd
om
D
en
m
ar
k
Po
rt
ug
al
Fi
nl
an
d
Sp
ai
n
O
EC
D
Ita
ly
Sl
ov
en
ia
Gr
ee
ce
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Ire
la
nd
La
tv
ia
Po
la
nd
Hu
ng
ar
y
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
As
 a
 %
 o
f G
D
P
2019 2020
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 175Development report 2022
Netherlands and Belgium standing out (at 2 to 4% of 
GDP). In addition to the different levels of development, 
these large differences also reflect differences in LTC 
systems, the impact of demographic factors and life 
patterns, particularly regarding the role of family and 
informal care (see IMAD, 2021a).
In Slovenia, formal LTC is still mainly implemented 
as institutional care, which is expected to change by 
the LTC Act, which was adopted at the end of 2021. In 
Slovenia, almost three-quarters of total expenditure on 
LTC is spent on institutional care in nursing homes (69%) 
and hospitals (4%), which is more than in most of the 
21 OECD members for which data are available (OECD, 
2021i). At the end of 2021, the LTC Act was passed to 
ensure, among other things, faster development of 
LTC at home and the introduction of new services to 
strengthen and maintain independence, co-finance 
e-care services at home, and improve the status of home 
care assistants (see Section 3.2., Box 9).
In 2019, the share of public expenditure on long-term 
care (LTC) increased significantly, but as a share of 
GDP it is still far below the EU average. In the structure 
broken down by financing schemes, the share of public 
expenditure on LTC in Slovenia increased sharply after 
two years of decline. Broken down by function, the share 
of expenditure on the health component of LTC, which 
is mainly financed from public sources, increased. The 
main reason for the increase in public expenditure was 
the adoption of the Personal Assistance Act (ZOA, 2019), 
which significantly increased public financing for LTC at 
home. The growth of private expenditure was also very 
high, mainly due to the rising costs of nursing home care.1 
International comparison shows that public expenditure 
for LTC in 2019 in the 22 EU Member States for which 
data are available averaged 1.3% of GDP, in contrast to 
still only 1.0% in Slovenia. In 2008–2019, expenditure 
on LTC as a share of GDP increased at a far slower pace 
than the average of EU and OECD countries. There are 
large differences between countries in the level of public 
expenditure on LTC, with the Scandinavian countries, 
Expenditure on long-term care 3.7
 Table: LTC expenditure by source of funding and by function, 2009, 2018 and 2019
In EUR million As a % of GDP Breakdown, in % Real growth, in %
Average annual 
real growth, in %
2008 2018 2019 2008 2018 2019 2009 2018 2019 2019/2018 2008–2019
Long-term care 349 547 617 0.99 1.19 1.34 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.9 2.3
By source of funding
Public expenditure 269 400 454 0.77 0.87 0.99 77.2 73.3 73.7 10.5 2.1
Private expenditure 80 147 162 0.23 0.32 0.35 22.8 26.7 26.3 8.1 3.2
By function
Healthcare 239 361 421 0.79 0.82 0.87 73.3 66.0 68.3 13.7 2.0
Social care 87 186 195 0.29 0.42 0.40 26.7 34.0 31.7 2.5 3.1
Sources: SURS (2021b) and OECD (2022b). Note: For definitions of LTC, healthcare, social care, and public and private expenditure, see Nagode et al. (2014).
1 Public expenditure on personal assistance has been growing sharply for the last three years, from EUR 3.8 million in 2018 to EUR 84.4 million in 2020 and EUR 
130 million in 2021 (2021b). According to the international methodology, this expenditure will be included in public expenditure on LTC (at home). In 2021, an 
amendment to the Personal Assistance Act was passed that tightens the conditions for personal assistance providers and also provides for a reassessment of all 
personal assistance beneficiaries.
Figure: Structure of total expenditure on long-term care by LTC providers, 2019
69
52
4
9
6
18
17
9
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Es
to
ni
a
Ca
na
da
Sw
itz
er
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
Ko
re
a
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sp
ai
n
Fi
nl
an
d
Ja
pa
n
Ire
la
nd
O
EC
D
-2
1
Sw
ed
en
A
us
tr
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
Be
lg
iu
m
G
er
m
an
y
La
tv
ia
N
or
w
ay
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Po
rt
ug
al
In
%
Homes for the elderly or nursing homes Hospital Home care Allowances for home care Social care providers Other
Source: OECD (2021i). Note: The figure only includes OECD members for which data is available. The category "social assistance providers" includes those providers who 
are mainly involved in assistance with instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) or other social care. For more explanations, see Nagode et al. (2014).
Indicators of Slovenia’s development176 Development report 2022
The share of overweight or obese adults in Slovenia 
increased over the 2014–2019 period and was above 
the EU average. In most EU Member States, the share of 
the population that is overweight or obese is lower among 
those with high education and higher among those with 
low education; in Slovenia, the difference is smaller than 
the EU average. The proportion of overweight or obese 
women is lower than the proportion of overweight or 
obese men. However, the reverse was true for those 
with low education in Slovenia in 2019. The proportion 
of overweight or obese adults in Slovenia and the EU 
average increased by 1.6 p.p. over the period studied, 
and the gap by educational attainment narrowed, mainly 
due to a lower number of overweight or obese men. 
Compared to the last survey from 2014, the share of 
overweight or obese people decreased the most among 
men with low levels of education, while it increased the 
most among women with high levels of education. Broken 
down by educational groups, the largest increase was 
observed among those with upper secondary education 
(from 19.2% in 2007 to 23.0% in 2019). According to the 
latest survey, Slovenia diverges from the EU average 
particularly in the prevalence of obesity in men with a 
high level of education and women with a low level of 
education. A high share of overweight or obese people 
can be associated with poor eating habits and excessive 
alcohol consumption. As much as 9% of adults, more 
men than women, consume sugary drinks daily, and 
in 2019 the average annual alcohol consumption per 
capita was 11.1 litres, which is significantly more than 
the EU average (2018: 10 litres). Overweight and obesity,1 
usually a consequence of excessive food intake and 
insufficient physical activity, are important risk factors 
for the development of chronic health conditions2 and 
premature mortality. Cardiovascular diseases are the 
main cause of mortality in Slovenia and indeed in most 
developed countries. Obesity can, moreover, have not 
only medical but also socio-economic consequences 
(social exclusion, lower income, higher unemployment, 
more working days lost and early retirement). Research 
shows that obesity also increases the risk of severe illness 
and death due to COVID-19 (Katz, 2021). According to 
OECD model calculations (2019), life expectancy will be 2.7 
years lower on average over the 2020–2050 period due to 
overweight; the cost of treating obesity-related diseases 
will amount to more than 8% of total health expenditure; 
due to the economic and social consequences, GDP will 
be 3.3% lower on average in OECD countries and 3.1% 
lower in Slovenia. Combating overweight and obesity 
therefore requires more targeted and restrictive measures 
than in the past: promotion of healthy diets and physical 
activity, taxes on high fat and high sugar foods, nutritional 
labelling of foods, agreements with the food industry 
to improve the nutritional value of products, and the 
introduction of physical activity prescription by general 
practitioners.
Overweight and obesity 3.8 
 Table: Overweight and obesity, by sex and educational level, Slovenia and the EU average, 2014 and 2019
Overweight and obesity, in % Overweight, in % Obesity, in %
Total Total Women Men Total Women Men
2014 2019 2014 2019 2014 2019 2014 2019 2014 2019 2014 2019 2014 2019
Slovenia 55.0 56.6 36.5 37.3 30.3 30.8 42.7 43.7 18.6 20.3 17.0 18.0 20.3 20.7
EU 49.7 51.3 34.8 35.2 28.4 28.8 41.7 42.1 15.4 16.0 15.3 15.8 15.6 16.3
Source: Eurostat (2022), according to the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS).    
1 Adults with a body mass index (BMI) from 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2 are defined as overweight and those with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or over as obese. The BMI is a ratio of an 
individual’s weight to the square of his or her height. This is a criterion according to the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2003). The BMI is a good indicator of the 
amount of body fat, but it has the major limitation that it says nothing about the distribution of body fat or functional muscle mass.
2 The burden of non-communicable chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases is rapidly rising.
Source: Eurostat (2022), according to the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS).
Figure: Share of overweight or obese adults by educational level, 2019
51 57
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Ita
ly
Fr
an
ce
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Cy
pr
us
Be
lg
iu
m
D
en
m
ar
k
Sw
ed
en
Au
st
ria EU
G
er
m
an
y
Sp
ai
n
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ire
la
nd
Po
rt
ug
al
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Es
to
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
Ro
m
an
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
La
tv
ia
Po
la
nd
Fi
nl
an
d
Sl
ov
ak
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Cr
oa
tia
M
al
ta
In
 %
Total Low level of education High level of education
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 177Development report 2022
The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate1 
calculated according to the new methodology (see 
Section 3.2, Box 7) decreased in Slovenia in 2015–
2019 and increased slightly in 2020. According to the 
EU-SILC 2020 survey, which was based on 2019 income 
and covered only part of the first wave of the epidemic,2 
a total of 259,000 people were at-risk-of-poverty or 
social exclusion in Slovenia (14.3%). The at-risk-of-
poverty rate and severe material and social deprivation 
rate increased (both by 0.4 p.p.), while the very low work 
intensity rate decreased (by 0.4 p.p.). Slovenia continues 
to have the lowest at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion 
rate in the EU among those aged under 18 (12.2%, EU: 
24.2%), which corresponds to about 47,000 children 
and young people, while the at-risk-of-poverty or social 
exclusion rate is higher than average among those aged 
65 or more (21.0%; EU: 20.3%). The at-risk-of-poverty or 
social exclusion rate remains above the national and EU 
average in single-person households (46.8%; EU: 31.8%) 
and among women aged 75 and over (30.4%; EU: 24.9%). 
The risk is also high among those with low education, 
people with long-term limitations in activities of daily 
living and a number of other groups (see Section 3.2). 
The at-risk-of-poverty rate, which was one of the 
lowest in the EU in 2017–2019, increased slightly 
in 2020, and the Court of Auditors and a number of 
other organisations point out that the most socially 
disadvantaged groups have not been successfully 
targeted. In 2020, every eighth person lived below the 
poverty line3 (12.4%, EU: 17.1%). Broken down by age, the 
highest at-risk-of-poverty rate was seen in the age group 
of people aged 60 and over (19.4%; EU: 17.1%), especially 
among women (25.9%; EU: 19.0%), reaching the highest 
level since 2005. 10.5% of children, 19.5% of pensioners, 
5% of employed persons, 43.4% of unemployed persons, 
and 19.6% of other inactive or unclassified persons lived 
below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold. In terms of the 
type of household, single-person households were at 
above-average risk of poverty (39.7%, EU: 26.5%), with 
the risk significantly higher for single women (42.1%, EU: 
27.6%) than for single men (36.6%; EU: 25.2%). The Court 
of Auditors (2021d), Human Rights Ombudsman (2021), 
the IRSSV (2021) and 19 non-governmental organisations 
(EAPN, 2021) draw attention to the failure to take care of 
the most vulnerable groups of the population, whose 
poverty and hardship are increasing. 
At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate 3.9
1 The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate is composed of the at-risk-of-poverty rate (the share of persons living in households with an equivalised disposable 
income below 60% of the median equivalised disposable income of all households), the severe material and social deprivation rate (see Indicator 3.16), and the 
proportion of persons living in households with very low work intensity (i.e. less than 20% of a household’s total work potential). Persons included in more than one 
component are only counted once. In 2020, 7,000 persons were exposed to all three components of the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate.
2 Part of the EU-SILC 2020 survey was conducted before the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic and part was completed later than usual, so it is not fully comparable 
with previous surveys; see in particular Inglič et al. (2021) and IMAD (2021a).
3 In 2020, people living below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold were those whose net disposable income per adult equivalent was below EUR 739 per month or EUR 
8,864 per year. The threshold for a two-member household without children was set at EUR 1,108 per month and the threshold for a four-member household with 
two adults and two children younger than 14 at EUR 1,551 per month (Inglič et al., 2021).
 Table: The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate, in %*
 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 17.7 16.9 16.6 15.4 13.7 14.3 < 16*
EU** 24.0 23.7 22.4 21.7 21.9 21.9
Sources: Eurostat (2022), EU-SILC 2020 data (based on 2019 income). Notes: *In 2021, Eurostat and national statistics switched to a new methodology for calculating 
the at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate (see Section 3.2, Box 7). New national goals by 2030 according to the new methodology will be set in June 2022. **Data 
for the EU average are Eurostat’s estimate.
 Figure: The at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion rate (left) and the at-risk-of poverty rate in the EU (right), 2020, in %*
Sources: Eurostat (2022), EU-SILC 2020 data (based on 2019 income). Due to the COVID-19 epidemic, it was very difficult to conduct the EU-SILC survey in 2020, which 
is why the national statistical offices and Eurostat pointed out that comparability between and among countries is difficult. Note: *Data for the Italy are for 2019. The 
EU average is Eurostat’s estimate. The estimate of the EU average for the at-risk-of-poverty among tenants is for 2019.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
ak
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d
Hu
ng
ar
y
Sl
ov
en
ia
Ne
th
er
la
nd
s
Fr
an
ce
Ire
la
nd
Au
st
ria
Be
lg
iu
m
Cy
pr
us
Po
la
nd
Sw
ed
en
Po
rtu
ga
l
M
al
ta EU
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Gr
ee
ce
Cr
oa
tia
Ge
rm
an
y
Ita
ly
Es
to
ni
a
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Sp
ai
n
La
tv
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
At
-ri
sk
-o
f-p
ov
er
ty
 ra
te
, in
 %
All Tenants Low-educated people (basic education or less)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
Ne
th
er
la
nd
s
Au
st
ria
D
en
m
ar
k
Po
la
nd
Cy
pr
us
Sw
ed
en
Fr
an
ce
Hu
ng
ar
y
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
M
al
ta
Po
rtu
ga
l
Be
lg
iu
m
Cr
oa
tia
Ire
la
nd EU
Ge
rm
an
y
Es
to
ni
a
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ita
ly
La
tv
ia
Sp
ai
n
Gr
ee
ce
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
At
-ri
sk
-o
f-p
ov
er
ty
 o
r s
oc
ia
l e
xc
lu
sio
n 
ra
te
, in
 %
All Single-person households Pensioners
Indicators of Slovenia’s development178 Development report 2022
accounted for around a tenth of total disposable income, 
while the wealthiest fifth accounted for a third. 
In 2008–2020, the inequality of income distribution 
changed only marginally both in Slovenia and in the 
EU as a whole. The quintile share ratio (80/20) in Slovenia 
was slightly lower than that in 2008, according to the 
latest available data. Inequality of income distribution 
increased slightly in 2009–2014, mainly due to the onset 
of the global financial crisis and the adoption of austerity 
measures following it. In 2014, it started to decline again 
with the rapid growth of economic activity and the 
phasing out of austerity measures. Similar movements 
for Slovenia are also indicated by the most commonly 
used measure of income inequality, the Gini coefficient. 
In 2020, the Gini coefficient was 0.235, slightly above the 
2008 value and below the 2014 peak.  
The values of income inequality indicators (Gini 
coefficient1 and quintile class ratios2) in Slovenia 
continue to be among the lowest in the EU. The EU-
SILC 2020 survey is based on 2019 income and therefore 
does not yet reflect the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic 
on income inequality. The low income inequality in 
Slovenia is mainly due to progressive taxation and, to 
some extent, to social transfers. In 2020, the top 20% 
of households in Slovenia received 3.3 times as much 
income as the bottom 20%, which was within the SDS 
target for four years in a row and is equal for both sexes.3 
Even for people aged 65 and over, the income ratio is 3.3, 
which is noticeably closer to the EU average (4.5) than 
for those under 65 (5.4). A further breakdown of income 
distribution in Slovenia for 2020 showed that the gap 
between the fifth and third quintiles was 1.81 (EU: 2.19) 
and was slightly lower than the gap between the third 
and first quintiles, which was 1.84 (EU: 2.32) (SURS, 2022; 
calculations by IMAD). The poorest fifth of households 
Inequality of income distribution 3.10 
1 The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion based on the comparison of cumulative proportions of the population against cumulative proportions of 
income they receive and ranges from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect inequality) (OECD, 2021e).
2 The quintile class ratio (80/20) is the ratio between the equivalent disposable incomes of the persons in the highest and the lowest quintile classes (the ratio between 
the income of the fifth of the population with the highest income and the fifth of the population with the lowest income) (Intihar, 2020).
3 In 2020, the quintile share ratio (80/20) for both men and women was 3.3.
 Table: Inequalities of equivalised disposable income distribution, quintile share ratio 80/20
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 < 3.5
EU* N/A N/A 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.2
Sources: Eurostat (2022), EU-SILC 2020 (based on 2019 income). Note: N/A – data not available. Data for the EU is an estimate of the average.
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: For 2008, data from 2010 were taken into account for the EU and Croatia. For Italy, data from 2019 are used for 2020. Data for the EU is 
an estimate of the average.
 Figure: Gini coefficient for equivalised disposable income
0.235
0.308
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Be
lg
iu
m
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
A
us
tr
ia
Po
la
nd
D
en
m
ar
k
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
H
un
ga
ry
Cr
oa
tia
Ire
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
Cy
pr
us EU
M
al
ta
Es
to
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
Po
rt
ug
al
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Sp
ai
n
Ita
ly
Ro
m
an
ia
G
er
m
an
y
La
tv
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
G
in
i c
oe
ffi
ci
en
t
2020 2008
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 179Development report 2022
According to research by the Advocate of the Principle 
of Equality, the share of the population in Slovenia 
that has experienced discrimination4 is significantly 
higher and increased over the 2017–2020 period. 
In 2020, 22% of respondents felt discriminated against, 
which is 5 p.p. more than in 2017 (Advocate of the 
Principle of Equality, 2017b and 2021c). This was also 
influenced by the COVID-19 epidemic and the measures 
taken to contain the spread of the virus, which caused 
many fears and concerns among the population.5 Of 
those who felt discriminated against, more than half said 
that they felt discriminated against at work and when 
looking for a job (52%), followed by discrimination while 
receiving healthcare (17%), and in the provision of goods 
and services (15%). Most frequently mentioned reasons 
for discrimination were age (22%), education (20%), 
political opinions (16%), disability (14%), gender (12%) 
and social status (11%). Of those who felt discriminated 
against, the majority (80%) did not initiate proceedings 
to protect their rights, mostly because they believed it 
would not change anything (Advocate of the Principle of 
Equality, 2021c). Therefore a good awareness of people’s 
rights in the event of discrimination and the constant 
efforts of the government to eliminate all forms of 
discrimination are important.
According to internationally comparable 
Eurobarometer data, the share of people who 
experienced discrimination or harassment 
decreased over the 2015–2019 period and is within 
the SDS target. In 2019 (the latest available data), 9% 
of respondents felt discriminated against, which is one 
of the lowest shares in the EU. Among them, the share 
of those who felt discriminated against at work was 
the highest (33%; EU: 21%).1 The most frequently given 
reasons for discrimination were age, gender, religion 
or beliefs, and general physical appearance (all 2%).2 
Discrimination on the grounds of disability, ethnic 
origin, sexual orientation, social class, political opinions, 
skin colour or being Roma was experienced by 1% of 
respondents. Though discrimination was below the 
EU average in terms of most personal circumstances, 
it was as common as the EU average in terms of sexual 
orientation, religion or belief, and being Roma. In 
Slovenia and the EU overall, the share of respondents 
discriminated against on the basis of age declined the 
most compared with 2015. Experience of discrimination 
was more frequently mentioned by individuals who 
considered themselves being part of a minority group.3
Experience of discrimination
1 It is followed by the share of those discriminated against in a public place (17%), at a café, restaurant or a night club (13%), and when looking for a job (12%). For more, 
see IMAD (2021a) and Eurobarometer (2019).
2 In the EU, the most frequently given reasons for discrimination or harassment were gender and age (both 4%).
3 In Slovenia, 11% of respondents considered themselves being part of a minority group (in the EU, 12%). 50% of respondents who considered themselves being 
part of a sexual minority said that they felt discriminated against or harassed, 40% of those belonging to a religious minority, 32% of those belonging to an ethnic 
minority, 28% of disabled persons and 16% of Roma respondents. On the insufficient involvement of marginalised and segregated social groups in research on 
discrimination, see IMAD (2021a).
4 Answers to the question “Have you personally been a victim of discrimination in the last 12 months?”
5 Due to the plight of the population, in 2020 the Advocate of the Principle of Equality carried out more consultations, received and dealt with more complaints against 
discrimination, and made several recommendations to improve the situation of the most vulnerable population groups (Advocate of the Principle of Equality, 2021c).
 Table: Total share of those who have experienced some form of discrimination or harassment, in %
2008 2009 2012 2015 2017 2019 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 15 16 12 13 10 9 < 10
EU 15 16 16 21 16 16
Source: Eurobarometer, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018c, 2019.
Source: Eurobarometer (2019). Note: Respondents answered under what circumstances (where and when) they felt discriminated against. Discrimination in a public place 
was the most frequently reported form of discrimination and Slovenia is among the countries with the highest share of people who experienced discrimination at work.
 Figure: The most frequent circumstances cited by persons who felt discriminated against in EU Member States, 2019
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Ire
la
nd
Cr
oa
tia
Au
st
ria EU
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Ro
m
an
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
G
re
ec
e
La
tv
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
G
er
m
an
y
Be
lg
iu
m
Sp
ai
n
M
al
ta
Es
to
ni
a
Cy
pr
us
Fr
an
ce
Fi
nl
an
d
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sw
ed
en
Sl
ov
en
ia
Ita
ly
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Po
la
nd
In
 %
At work In a public spaces When looking for a job By healthcare personnel
3.11
Indicators of Slovenia’s development180 Development report 2022
of 18 and under is similar to the total EDI, which is 
mainly a result of policies to protect the material well-
being of children and young people in Slovenia. The 
median EDI of those aged 65 and over was lowest up to 
and including 2018, mainly because the increase in the 
average pension was very modest. After a significant 
increase in the average pension, the median EDI for this 
age group has also seen a strong increase in the last 
two years.2 Over the period 2010–2020, the increase in 
median income for those with a high level of education 
was significantly lower than that of those with lower and 
upper secondary education. This was influenced by the 
progressive reduction in public sector wages during the 
fiscal consolidation period (2013) and by an increase 
in the share of young people with tertiary education 
employed in jobs requiring upper secondary or lower 
level education (see Section 2). The gap in Slovenia’s 
median EDI in PPS compared to Austria, which is at 
the top in terms of income,3 narrowed in 2015–2019, 
reaching 27% in 2020. The gap was larger for those with 
upper secondary education (29%) and especially for 
those over 65 (36%).
In terms of the median equivalised disposable income 
(EDI), Slovenia was in the middle of the EU Member 
States. The strong growth in 2008 and 2009 was followed 
by a period of negative or low growth (2010–2013) as a 
result of lower economic activity, austerity measures 
(the ZUJF and ZUPJS) and changes in the allocation of 
transfers (ZSVarPre), which reduced the equivalised 
disposable income and thus its median value. After the 
recovery of economic activity (2014–2019) and phasing 
out of austerity measures after the global financial crisis, 
the median EDI in Slovenia gradually increased, which 
contributed to the improvement in the living standard 
of the population. In 2020, it reached the highest level in 
real terms in the entire period.1 
After several years of slow growth in the median ERD 
for those over 65, growth has increased markedly 
in the last two years. The increase in the median EDI 
in 2010–2020 (25.9%) was larger than the EU average 
(21.5%), with the working population in the 18–64 age 
group reaching the highest level in both Slovenia and 
the EU, as expected. The median EDI of the age group 
Median equivalised disposable income 3.12 
 Table: Median equivalised disposable income, Slovenia and the EU average
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Slovenia
Slovenia (amount in EUR) 10,893 11,864 11,736 11,999 12,122 11,852 11,909 12,332 12,327 12,713 13,244 14,067 14,774
Slovenia (real growth in %) 4.2 8.0 -3.1 0.1 -1.7 -4.1 0.1 4.4 0.2 1.5 2.2 4.4 5.3
EU
EU (amount in EUR) N/A N/A 14521 14,652 14,924 14,962 15,101 15,422 15,847 16,281 16,832 17,325 17,637
EU (real growth in %) N/A N/A N/A -1.9 -0.7 -1.0 0.5 2.0 2.6 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.1
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Notes: N/A – data not available; data for the EU is an estimate of the average.
Source: Eurostat (2022). Notes: for Croatia, data from 2010 are used for 2008; for Italy, data from 2019 are used for 2020.
 Figure: Median equivalised disposable income
16,988
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
A
us
tr
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
G
er
m
an
y
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
Ire
la
nd
Fr
an
ce
M
al
ta
Cy
pr
us
Ita
ly
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sp
ai
n
Es
to
ni
a
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Po
la
nd
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
La
tv
ia
Cr
oa
tia
G
re
ec
e
Sl
ov
ak
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
In
 P
PP
2020 2008
1 The EU-SILC 2020 survey is based on 2019 income and therefore does not reflect the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic.
2 Growth in the average pension was higher in 2018–2020 and the intervention measures (PKP1) with a one-off solidarity allowance provided additional income to 
pensioners in 2020, which will only be included in EU-SILC 2021 data (based on 2020 income).
3 The country with the highest incomes is Luxembourg, but for the sake of more appropriate comparability, we took the country with second highest incomes, i.e. 
Austria.  
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 181Development report 2022
are optimistic about the personal employment situation, 
the household financial situation and the employment 
situation in the country also declined (the first two by 
5 p.p. and the last by 2 p.p.), while the share of those 
who are optimistic about the economic situation in the 
country was 1 p.p. higher than in 2019.3 
When asked about two main problems, Slovenian 
respondents cited health as the most important 
problem at all three levels (personal, state and EU), 
while the EU average cited the economic situation 
as the most urgent problem. At the personal level, the 
main concern4 of Slovenian respondents in 2021 was 
still health (31%), followed by inflation and living costs 
(27%) and living conditions (22%). At the national level, 
Slovenian respondents in 2021 again pointed to health 
(47%) as the most important problem, followed by the 
economic situation (30%) and inflation and living costs 
(26%), which increased the most compared to autumn 
2019 (by 14 p.p.). At the EU level, Slovenian respondents 
cited health (34%), the economic situation (28%) and 
immigration (26%) as the most pressing problems. On 
average in the EU, respondents pointed to the economic 
situation (27%) as the most important problem, followed 
by immigration and climate change (both 25%) and only 
then by health and the public finances of the Member 
States (both 22%). 
In 2021, life satisfaction1 in Slovenia was higher 
than in 2020 but lower than in 2019. Life satisfaction 
in Slovenia has been above the EU average since 
measurements began (in 2004), but the gap has narrowed 
since 2017, when it was the widest. At the level of the EU 
average, in the summer of 2021 the share of those satisfied 
was the highest ever (85%), as was the share of those 
who were satisfied with the household financial situation 
(74%) and those who expressed optimistic expectations2 
about the household financial situation (25%). In 2021, 
satisfaction increased the most in Member States with 
the lowest satisfaction before the COVID-19 epidemic 
(Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Italy, Portugal, Croatia and 
Hungary) but remained below the EU average. In 2021, 
Slovenia ranked one place better among EU Member 
States than in the previous year, i.e. 10th. 
In 2021, the level of satisfaction with the personal 
employment situation in Slovenia was the highest 
recorded (69%). Satisfaction with one’s own financial 
situation, which reached its highest level in 2020 (74%), 
fell below the 2019 level (73%) in 2021 (72%). At the 
national level, in the summer of 2021, the shares of 
those satisfied with the employment and economic 
situation were higher than in 2020 but lower than in 
2019 (both by 7 p.p.). The shares of respondents who 
Life satisfaction 3.13 
1 The Eurobarometer survey measures life satisfaction with the following question: “All things considered, how satisfied would you say you are with your life these 
days?” In our analysis, the category of satisfied people includes very satisfied and satisfied people. 
2 The share of those expecting improvement in the next 12 months.
3 Expectations for the next 12 months and perceptions of the situation at the country level tend to be more dependent on the presentation of reality in the media than 
those at the personal level that reflect one’s personal situation. 
4 Respondents were asked to identify two areas (of those listed) they perceive as their greatest concerns at the personal, national and EU levels.
 Table: Life satisfaction, in %
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Slovenia 90 89 88 89 87 86 85 83 85 82 83 84 89 92 91 92 90 91
EU 81 81 82 80 77 78 78 77 77 75 80 76 81 82 83 84 84 85
Source: Eurobarometer (2021e). Note: The annual data represents the average of two measurements, except for 2004, 2020 and 2021. Only one survey was conducted 
in 2020, this in July and August 2020. Due to a methodological error, the winter survey is not taken into account (Eurobarometer, 2021f ).
Source: Eurobarometer (2021e).
 Figure: Overall life satisfaction, EU Member States, 2019 and 2021, in %
91
85
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
D
en
m
ar
k
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sw
ed
en
G
er
m
an
y
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
M
al
ta
Be
lg
iu
m
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Fi
nl
an
d
Sl
ov
en
ia
Ire
la
nd
Po
la
nd
Sp
ai
n
Fr
an
ce EU
Cr
oa
tia
A
us
tr
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Cy
pr
us
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
La
tv
ia
Ita
ly
Ro
m
an
ia
G
re
ec
e
Bu
lg
ar
ia
O
ve
ra
ll 
lif
e 
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n,
 in
 %
2021 2019
Indicators of Slovenia’s development182 Development report 2022
adjustments were higher), guaranteed pensions and 
their increases in 2017,3 and the increase in the number 
of beneficiaries, which has been more moderate after 
the last reform. Expenditure on sickness/healthcare has 
increased due to higher expenditure on healthcare (see 
Indicator 3.6) and on sickness benefits (see Indicator 
3.22). In 2019, the third largest transfer in Slovenia 
(8.2%) and the EU (8%) was intended for families and 
children. Compared to the EU average (2.2%), Slovenia 
(3.5%) spends a larger share of total expenditure on 
social exclusion n.e.c. It spends a lower share than the 
EU average in the areas of disability, unemployment 
and housing. The share of expenditure on disability 
has been declining for a long period, mainly due to a 
lower number of beneficiaries of disability pensions 
(according to the ZPIZ, their number was 15% lower in 
2019 than in 2009). In the area of unemployment, the 
share of unemployment benefit beneficiaries among 
the unemployed is low compared to other EU Member 
States. The relatively low expenditure on housing (mainly 
on subsidised rents) is to a great extent attributable to 
the very high share of owner-occupied dwellings and 
the relatively poorly developed rental housing market. 
Slovenia lags behind the EU average in terms of 
social protection expenditure1 as a share of GDP and 
in purchasing power standards (PPS) per capita. As a 
share of GDP, it was around 4.9 p.p. below the EU average 
in 2008–2019. In PPS per capita, Slovenia achieved 67.2% 
of average EU social protection expenditure in 2019. 
Since the 2008 crisis (72.9%), this share has decreased 
due to austerity measures and the implementation of 
new social legislation,2 reaching its lowest level in 2016 
(66.2%; simple average in 2008–2019: 68.6%). Among 
the individual expenditure areas, Slovenia spent slightly 
more than the EU average on expenditure on social 
exclusion n.e.c. (i.e. expenditure on the poorest) in 
2008–2019, followed by expenditure on sickness and 
healthcare (only 79.1% of the EU average).
The major part of social protection expenditure in 
Slovenia and in the EU is intended for old age and 
sickness/healthcare. Slovenia spends slightly more on 
these two expenditure categories than the EU average. 
In 2019, it spent 40.4% (EU: 38.6%) on old age and 33.5% 
(EU: 28.3%) on sickness/healthcare. Expenditure on 
old age has increased in recent years due to pension 
adjustments (since 2016 and especially since 2018, when 
Social protection expenditure 3.14 
1 According to the ESSPROS methodology, expenditure covers the following categories: sickness/healthcare, disability, old age, death of the breadwinner, family/
children, unemployment, accommodation, and other forms of social exclusion (Zupanc et al., 2018). See also IMAD (2021a).
2 The ZUPJS (2010) redefined the eligibility criteria for social benefits and family receipts in order to improve their targeting. The ZUJF (2012) limited or froze the 
payment of certain family receipts and parental compensation.
3 In 2020 and 2021, some changes were introduced that are also expected to increase expenditure on old age, such as the increase in the accrual rates. For more about 
changes in this field, see IMAD (2021a). According to our estimates, the increase in these expenditures in 2022 will be higher than has previously been the case, which 
is the result of regular and extraordinary adjustment of pensions (on average by about 7% in total).
 Table: Social protection expenditure, as a % of GDP
2000 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Slovenia 23.8 22.7 21.0 24.4 24.7 23.9 23.8 23.2 22.6 22.0 22.2
EU N/A N/A 26.0 28.6 28.7 28.9 28.6 28.5 28.1 27.9 28.1
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: N/A – data not available.
Source: Eurostat (2022).
 Figure: Social protection expenditure, in purchasing power standards per capita, 2008 and 2019 (left) and changes in the 
number of pensioners and pension mass according to the ESSPROS methodology (right)
3,000
3,200
3,400
3,600
3,800
4,000
4,200
4,400
4,600
4,800
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
In
 E
U
R 
m
ill
io
n
N
um
be
r i
n 
'0
00
The number of pensioners
Total expenditure on pensions, right axis
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
D
en
m
ar
k
G
er
m
an
y
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Au
st
ria
Fr
an
ce
Be
lg
iu
m
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
Ita
ly
Ire
la
nd
Sp
ai
n
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Po
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
Cy
pr
us
M
al
ta
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cr
oa
tia
Es
to
ni
a
Sl
ov
ak
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Ro
m
an
ia
La
tv
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
 P
PS
 p
er
 c
ap
ita
2008 2019
EU, 2019
EU, 2008
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 183Development report 2022
Compared to the EU average, housing costs in 
Slovenia were not high in 2020 and they were also 
below the EU average for households below the at-
risk-of-poverty threshold. The housing cost overburden 
rate,4 which had decreased since 2014, increased slightly 
in 2020 (to 4.4%) but is still more than half lower than 
the EU average (10%). Of households below the at-risk-
of-poverty threshold, 23.1% were overburdened with 
housing costs (EU: 38.4%). In 2020, 30% of people in 
households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold lived 
in poor housing conditions, most often households 
with elderly members (in the Goriška and Pomurska 
regions) who are less able to make renovations.5 From 
the point of view of ownership, tenants who pay rent at 
the market price continue to be the most overburdened 
with housing costs. Their share decreased by 10.4 p.p. in 
the period from 2016 to 2020 (EU: 1.2 p.p.) and fell below 
the EU average (to 18.6%; EU: 25.8%).
Slovenia has a relatively high housing deprivation 
(HD)1 rate and a relatively low severe housing 
deprivation (SHD)2 rate compared to other EU 
Member States. In 2020, more than a fifth of the 
population lived in poor housing conditions, which is 
one of the largest shares in the EU.3 Compared to 2014, 
the HD rate fell by 9.1 p.p. Although this is a much larger 
decrease than the EU average (1.6 p.p.) the HD rate in 
Slovenia is still 6.8 p.p. above the EU average. A good 
quarter of households facing housing deprivation live 
in the Pomurska, Obalno-kraška, Zasavska and Posavska 
regions. This is mainly due to the old and poorly 
maintained housing stock in Slovenia, as more than 80% 
of dwellings were built before 1990. In 2016–2020, only 
about 4,000 dwellings were built in total, the most in 
Osrednjeslovenska and Obalno-kraška and the least in 
the Zasavska region. Nevertheless, the SHD rate (3.1%), 
which is also declining, is below the EU average (4.2%), 
even among households below the at-risk-of-poverty 
threshold (6.5%, EU: 9.2%).
Housing deprivation rate 3.15
 Table: Housing deprivation (HD) rate and severe housing deprivation (SHD) rate, in %
Slovenia EU
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
HD 29.9 26.9 23.8 22.0 22.7 20.6 20.8 15.6 15.3 15.2 13.1 13.6 12.7 14.0
SHD 6.5 5.6 4.5 4.4 4.8 3.9 3.1 5.4 5.3 5.1 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.2
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: Data for the EU is Eurostat’s estimate.
1 The proportion of the population living in in poor housing condition (roof leaking, damp walls/foundations/floors or rot in window frames/floors) (SURS, 2020). Data 
do not include homeless people, Roma, who are insufficiently included, or other low-income groups often living in poorer housing conditions (see IMAD, 2021a). 
2 The share of people in overcrowded housing who are simultaneously deprived of at least one of the deprivation elements: (i) poor housing condition, (ii) no bathtub 
or shower in the dwelling, (iii) no flushing toilet for own use, or (iv) the dwelling is too dark (Eurostat, 2021b).
3 Until 2007, like most EU Member States, SURS collected data for the HD based on one question (see note above) and since 2008 based on three: (i) leaking roof, (ii) 
damp walls/floors/foundations, (iii) rot in window frames/floors. At least one positive answer means a poor condition of the dwelling. The changes were introduced 
due to the underestimation of the phenomenon in Slovenia (SURS, 2020). The results differ greatly depending on the old and the new method of measurement: the 
share of people living in poor housing conditions was 17.5% in 2007 and 30.2% in 2008.
4  The share of the population living in a household where total housing costs represent more than 40% of the household’s total disposable income. This includes total 
annual housing costs of a household (interest on a loan or mortgage, rent, insurance, the costs of regular maintenance and repairs, utilities (water, electricity, gas and 
heating), sewerage removal, waste removal, etc.), net of housing allowances (SURS, 2020).
5 The Eco Fund for the renovation and energy efficiency of buildings offers soft loans and grants for the socially disadvantaged and professional support (Eco Fund, 2021).
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: Data for the EU is Eurostat’s estimate, data for Italy is for 2019 and data for Latvia is preliminary.
 Figure: SHD rate and housing cost overburden rate, in %, 2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cy
pr
us
Li
th
ua
ni
a
M
al
ta
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Ire
la
nd
Po
rt
ug
al
Fi
nl
an
d
Cr
oa
tia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Es
to
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Po
la
nd
H
un
ga
ry
Fr
an
ce
Au
st
ria
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Ro
m
an
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Sp
ai
n
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sw
ed
en
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ita
ly EU
D
en
m
ar
k
Bu
lg
ar
ia
G
er
m
an
y
G
re
ec
e
In
 %
All households overburdened with housing
costs
Households below the at-risk-of-poverty
threshold overburdened with housing costs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
M
al
ta
Fi
nl
an
d
G
er
m
an
y
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Cy
pr
us
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ire
la
nd
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Es
to
ni
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
Au
st
ria
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Sp
ai
n
Fr
an
ce
Po
rt
ug
al EU Ita
ly
Cr
oa
tia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
H
un
ga
ry
Po
la
nd
Bu
lg
ar
ia
La
tv
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
In
 %
All households facing SHD
Households below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold facing SHD
Indicators of Slovenia’s development184 Development report 2022
The financial and material situation of households 
in Slovenia has gradually improved since 2015 but 
remains below the EU average. At the beginning 
of the epidemic, households’ financial distress 
worsened somewhat but remained relatively stable, 
while in 2021 they improved significantly. In 2019 
and 2020, 20% of households estimated that it was 
difficult to make ends meet, compared to only 13% in 
2021; the share of households that had no difficulty 
making ends meet also increased significantly (Inglič 
et al., 2022; Inglič et al., 2021; SURS, 2022b). Eurofound 
surveys (2020a, 2020b and 2021a) have shown that 
subjective perceptions of households’ financial fragility 
in early 2021 improved the most in Slovenia and Ireland 
and worsened in Finland and Austria. Other surveys 
also show that the financial situation in Slovenia has 
been relatively stable since 2019 and that it improved in 
2021 but also that the financial and material situation of 
households remains below the EU average (Demertzis 
et al., 2020; ECB, 2020; Midões, 2020). The European 
Commission (EC, 2021l) notes that the financial situation 
of the poorest households in Slovenia improved more 
than the EU average last year.
In 2015–2019, the level of (serious) material and 
social deprivation1 decreased significantly in 
Slovenia and the EU; in 2020, serious material and 
social deprivation increased slightly in Slovenia; the 
latest provisional data for 2021 indicate a significant 
improvement. According to the new measurement 
methodology (see Section 3.2, Box 7), the decline in 
material and social deprivation in Slovenia was higher 
than the EU average in the period 2015–2019, while 
the decline in severe material and social deprivation 
was slightly lower. According to EU-SILC 2020, which 
only partially reflects the impact of the first wave of the 
epidemic on the living conditions of the population,2 the 
material and social deprivation rate remained stable and 
the severe material and social deprivation rate increased 
slightly; both remained low compared to the EU average, 
placing Slovenia 10th among Member States. Provisional 
EU-SILC data for 2021 show that the severe material and 
social deprivation rate in Slovenia decreased by 1 p.p. or 
by around 20,000 people (to 1.6%), the lowest level since 
2015 (Inglič et al., 2022).
Material and income deprivation 3.16
1 The material and social deprivation rate is the percentage of people facing at least five out of 13 deprivation items and the severe material and social deprivation rate 
is the percentage of those facing at least seven out of 13 deprivation items: inability 1. to face unexpected financial expenses, 2. to take a week of holiday away from 
home, 3. to eat meat, fish or a protein equivalent every second day, 4. to pay for arrears (mortgage or rent, utility bills, or hire purchase instalments), 5. to keep one’s 
home adequately warm, 6. to have a car, 7. to replace worn-out furniture, 8. to replace worn-out clothes with some new ones, 9. to have two pairs of properly fitting 
shoes, 10. to get together with friends/relatives for a drink/meal at least once a month, 11. to have regular leisure activities, 12. to spend a small amount of money 
each week on him/herself (“pocket money”), or 13. to have an internet connection.
2 The EU-SILC 2020 survey is not fully comparable to previous surveys, as part was carried out before the epidemic (in the first two months of 2020) and was completed 
later than usual; see Ingličar et al. (2021). All EU Member States faced similar problems also in 2022.
Sources: EC (2021l), based on Business Tendency and Consumer Survey; Eurofound (2020a, 2020b, 2021a). Notes: *Share of respondents whose households need to 
“run into debt” or “draw on savings”; **share of respondents whose households would be able to maintain the same standard of living less than three months or were 
without savings.
 Figure: Households’ financial distress* in the lowest income quartile (left) and subjective assessment of households’ 
financial fragility** in the EU (right), in%
 Table: (Severe) material and social deprivation rate, in %
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Material and social deprivation rate
Slovenia 12.1 10.1 10.6 8.8 6.1 6.1
EU* 17.9 16.4 14.5 13.5 12.8 12.8
Severe material and social deprivation rate
Slovenia 4.8 4.1 4.5 3.2 2.2 2.6
EU* 9.7 9.0 7.9 7.1 6.7 6.8
Source: Eurostat (2022), EU-SILC 2020 survey data. Note: *Data for the EU average are Eurostat’s estimate.
25
35
45
55
65
75
Ita
ly
M
al
ta
Sw
ed
en
D
en
m
ar
k
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Ire
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
Au
st
ria
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sp
ai
n EU
Fr
an
ce
Ge
rm
an
y
Po
rt
ug
al
Fi
nl
an
d
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Cy
pr
us
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Hu
ng
ar
y
Po
la
nd
Gr
ee
ce
Ro
m
an
ia
La
tv
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
%
Apr/May 2020 Jun/Jul 2020 Feb/Mar 2021
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Bu
lg
ar
ia
G
re
ec
e
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
la
nd
M
al
ta
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Sp
ai
n
D
en
m
ar
k
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Fi
nl
an
d EU
Fr
an
ce
Ita
ly
Cr
oa
tia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Ire
la
nd
G
er
m
an
y
Cy
pr
us
La
tv
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Sw
ed
en
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Au
st
ria
H
un
ga
ry
Significant
decrease
Decrease Unchanged In-
crease
 Significant
increase
2020Q3 2021Q3 2012Q3
H
ou
se
ho
ld
s i
n 
th
e 
lo
w
er
 in
co
m
e 
qu
ar
til
e,
 in
 %
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 185Development report 2022
of those with low levels of education fell sharply due to 
the COVID-19 crisis, so that despite the increase, it still 
lagged behind the pre-crisis level in 2021. This was due 
to the high proportion of low-educated workers in the 
sectors that were most affected by the containment 
measures. 
After falling since the outbreak of the epidemic, 
the employment rate rose again in most regions in 
2021 and was already above the 2019 level in some 
regions. In the second quarter of 2021, the largest year-
on-year increase was recorded in the Obalno-kraška 
region (by 5.9 p.p.), which experienced the sharpest 
decline in economic activity (see Indicator 1.8) and 
employment rate in 2020. Employment was already 
higher than in 2019, mainly in the Vzhodna Slovenija 
regions. The largest increase compared to the 2019 level 
was recorded by the  Primorsko-notranjska region and 
the largest decrease by the Vzhodna Slovenija region. 
Employment was above the Slovenian average in the 
Osrednjeslovenska, Gorenjska and Goriška regions. 
After several years of increase, the employment rate1 
(20–64 years) decreased in 2020 due to the COVID-19 
epidemic and was at a similar level in the second 
quarter of 2021 as in 2019.2 Along with economic 
growth and increased demand for labour, demographic 
trends also contributed to the increase in employment 
activity in the period 2013–2019. The rising trend in 
employment was interrupted in 2020 by the COVID-19 
epidemic, which led to a significant drop in employment 
rates in the second quarter of 2020.3 In 2021, in a situation 
of rapid economic recovery, employment has already 
reached a similar level to the second quarter of 2019 
and would be even higher without the methodology 
change.4 The employment rate of young people was 
still significantly lower than before the epidemic, as 
demand for student work fell sharply after the outbreak 
of the epidemic (more precisely in the second quarter of 
2020). The employment rate among older working-age 
adults (55–64 years) increased slightly in 2020 despite 
the crisis and continued to increase in 2021, narrowing 
the gap with the EU average (to 5.2 p.p. in the second 
quarter) and no longer being among the lowest in the 
EU. After several years of growth, the employment level 
Employment rate 3.17 
1 This is the share of the employed (employees and self-employed) in the population of a certain age group.
2 Among men, it lagged behind the Q2 2019 level by 0.5 p.p. and among women only by 0.1 p.p.
3 It also achieved the SDS target in 2020, when the average annual employment rate was 75.6%.
4 As a result of the change in methodology in early 2021, persons whose duration of layoff was longer than three months or was expected to be longer than three 
months are now excluded from the total number of employed persons. They are included either in the category of unemployed (if they are actively seeking work) or 
in the group of inactive persons. Due to the participation of workers in the measures, this methodological change slightly lowered the employment rate in the second 
quarter. See Section 3.3.
 Table: Employment rate of the population aged 20–64, in %
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 72.9 72.1 70.7 68.6 68.1 67.1 68.4 69.4 70.6 73.4 75.5 77.1 74.9 76.8 >75.0
EU 69.7 68.5 68.0 68.1 67.8 67.6 68.2 69.0 70.1 71.4 72.4 73.2 71.6 73.0
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: Data for individual years refer to the second quarter.
Source: Eurostat (2022).
 Figure: Year-on-year change in employment rates (20–64 years) by gender between Q2 2019 and Q2 2021, EU
-0.3 -0.2
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
La
tv
ia
A
us
tr
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cy
pr
us
Sw
ed
en
Es
to
ni
a
Ita
ly
G
er
m
an
y
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sp
ai
n
Ire
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
Sl
ov
en
ia EU
Po
rt
ug
al
Fi
nl
an
d
G
re
ec
e
D
en
m
ar
k
Sl
ov
ak
ia
M
al
ta
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Fr
an
ce
Cr
oa
tia
Po
la
nd
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
H
un
ga
ry
In
 p
.p
.
Change Change (men) Change (women)
Indicators of Slovenia’s development186 Development report 2022
low education (by 2.6 p.p.), while it was slightly higher 
in 2020 than in 2010 for those with upper secondary or 
higher education.5
As in other countries, the in-work at-risk-of-poverty 
rate is much higher for temporary and part-time 
workers than for full-time and permanent employees. 
The at-risk-of-poverty rate for temporary workers in 
Slovenia has decreased over the last ten years, while it 
has remained at a similar level for those on permanent 
employment contracts. The at-risk-of-poverty rate for 
temporary workers fell from 7.5% in 2010 to 4.8% in 
2020, while for permanent workers it was the same in 
2010 as in 2020 (3%). Slovenia was one of the countries 
with the largest reduction in the at-risk-of-poverty rate 
of temporary workers in the period 2010–2020. The at-
risk-of-poverty rate for part-time workers in Slovenia in 
2020 was 10.9% and for full-time workers 4.5%, which is 
in line with the EU average. 
The rate of in-work at-risk-of-poverty,1 which had 
fallen sharply in 2019, increased slightly in 20202 but 
still remained among the lowest in the EU. According 
to EU-SILC 2020 survey (based on 2019 income), the 
rate of in-work at-risk-of-poverty among employed 
persons aged 18–64 in Slovenia increased by 0.5 p.p. 
in 2020 and, as in previous years, was well below the 
EU average (9.3%). For employees, it declined over the 
period 2015–2020 and amounted to 3.2% in 2020. For 
the self-employed, it was again relatively high in 2020 
(21.2%) after a sharp decline in 2019. Thus there was a 
higher overall rate of in-work at-risk-of-poverty.3 The in-
work at-risk-of-poverty rate for men is higher than for 
women in most Member States. This does not reflect 
the gender wage gap, although wages are the main 
source of household income.4 The at-risk-of-poverty 
rate for employees in Slovenia is the highest among the 
low-educated. Broken down by education level, the rate 
decreased over the period 2010–2020 only for those with 
In-work at-risk-of-poverty rate 3.18 
1 The in-work at-risk-of-poverty rate is the percentage of persons living in households where the equivalised total disposable household income is below the at-risk-
of-poverty threshold (i.e. below 60% of median equivalised disposable income of all households) (Intihar, 2020).
2 Data for 2020 do not yet reflect the impact of the epidemic, as data on 2019 income are used.
3 Employed persons include employees and self-employed.
4 We estimate that this is influenced by the fact that women are more likely to live in a family with children and therefore more likely to receive family transfers.
5 In 2020, the at-risk-of-poverty rate was 7.6% for those with a low level of education, 6.1% for those with upper secondary education (0.5 p.p.higher than in 2010) and 
3% for those with a high level of education (0.9 p.p. higher than in 2010).
 Table: At-risk-of-poverty rate of employed persons aged 18–64, in %
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 5.1 4.8 5.3 6.0 6.5 7.1 6.4 6.7 6.1 6.6 6.0 4.5 5.0 < 5
EU* N/A N/A 8.3 9.0 8.9 9.1 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.5 9.3 9.0 9.3
Source: Eurostat (2022), EU-SILC 2020 data (based on 2019 income). Note: N/A – data not available. *Data for the EU average are Eurostat’s estimate.
Source: Eurostat (2022), EU-SILC 2020 data (based on 2019 income). Note: Data for Italy is for 2019; the EU average is Eurostat’s estimate.
 Figure: The rate of in-work at-risk-of-poverty (18–64 years) in EU Member States in 2020 by gender (left) and at-risk-of-
poverty rate by type of employment in 2010–2020 in Slovenia (right)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
Ra
te
 in
 %
Temporary workers Permanent workers
Employees Self-employed
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Fi
nl
an
d
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Be
lg
iu
m
Sl
ov
en
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Ire
la
nd
D
en
m
ar
k
Au
st
ria
Fr
an
ce
Cy
pr
us
M
al
ta
Sw
ed
en
H
un
ga
ry
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia EU
Po
rt
ug
al
Po
la
nd
Bu
lg
ar
ia
G
re
ec
e
Es
to
ni
a
G
er
m
an
y
Sp
ai
n
Ita
ly
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ro
m
an
ia
Ra
te
 in
 %
Total Men Women
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 187Development report 2022
After a long period of decline, the unemployment 
rate increased at the beginning of the epidemic and 
returned to near 2019 levels in the second quarter 
of 2021. In 2014–2019, it declined as employment 
increased; it declined the most among those with low 
levels of education and the decline was similar for men 
and women. The focus of active labour market policy 
on young people and the increased volume of student 
work to 2019 contributed to a rapid decline in youth 
unemployment (15–24 years).1 Due to the COVID-19 
epidemic and the sharp decline in economic activity as 
a result of the containment measures, unemployment 
rose in 2020, most sharply in the second quarter,2 but 
the increase was much smaller than it would have 
been without the job-retention measures. The highest 
increase was seen among those with low levels of 
education and women, as they were employed in the 
sectors most affected by the crisis.3 Broken down by 
age, the sharp decline in economic activity due to the 
epidemic has hit young people (15–24 years)4 in the 
labour market the hardest, especially due to a sharp 
drop in student work. In a situation of rapid economic 
recovery and growing demand for labour in the second 
half of 2020, unemployment fell again and in the second 
quarter of 2021 reached the level of the same period 
in 2019; this applies to all three education groups. The 
youth unemployment rate did not yet fall significantly in 
the second quarter of 2021 but still remained one of the 
lowest in the EU at 14.2%. 
The long-term unemployment rate has not changed 
significantly in the last three years. After a sharp 
increase during the global financial crisis, the situation 
initially improved during the period of economic growth 
only for those with shorter unemployment duration, but 
since 2015, in the context of high demand for labour, 
the number of the long-term unemployed has also 
declined. With the COVID-19 crisis in 2020, the long-
term unemployment rate in Slovenia increased slightly, 
while the EU average fell.5 In the second quarter of 2021, 
long-term unemployment in Slovenia remained roughly 
unchanged, while it increased significantly in the EU, 
which means that the rate in Slovenia was again below 
the EU average. The share of long-term unemployed in 
the total number of unemployed, however, remained 
higher than the EU average. 
Unemployment and long-term unemployment rates 3.19
 Table: Unemployment and long-term unemployment rates (15–74 years), in %
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Unemployment rate
Slovenia 4.1 5.6 7.1 7.7 8.2 10.4 9.3 9.2 7.8 6.4 5.2 4.2 5.2 4.4
EU 7.1 9.0 9.8 9.6 10.6 11.3 10.8 10.1 9.2 8.1 7.3 6.6 6.7 7.2
Long-term unemployment rate
Slovenia N/A 1.7 3.2 3.6 3.9 5.1 5.3 4.7 4.3 3.3 2.3 1.7 2.0 1.9
EU N/A 3.0 3.9 4.2 4.8 5.4 5.5 5.0 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.7 2.1 2.9
Source: Eurostat (2022). N/A – data not available; data for individual years refer to the second quarter.
1 In the second quarter of 2019, the unemployment rate for the 15–24 age group was 6.5%.
2 In 2020, the unemployment rate increased by 0.5 p.p. to 5.0%.
3 The unemployment rate among women, which was at a record low in the second quarter of 2019 (4.7%), rose to 5.9% in the same period of 2020.
4 The third highest year-on-year increase among EU Member States in Q2 2020, but still below the EU average.
5 The reduction in the long-term unemployment rate in the EU is linked to the inactivity of those who lost their jobs before the pandemic and abandoned the search 
during lockdown (EC, 2020d).
 Figure: Change in unemployment rate (15–74 years) by gender between Q2 2019 and Q2 2021, EU
Source: Eurostat (2022).
0.6
0.2
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Sw
ed
en
A
us
tr
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Cy
pr
us
Ire
la
nd
Es
to
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sp
ai
n
Ro
m
an
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cz
ec
h 
R.
H
un
ga
ry
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
EU
G
er
m
an
y
Po
rt
ug
al
Po
la
nd
Sl
ov
en
ia
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
D
en
m
ar
k
M
al
ta
Ita
ly
Fr
an
ce
G
re
ec
e
In
 p
.p
.
Change Change (men) Change (women)
Indicators of Slovenia’s development188 Development report 2022
The share of temporary employment, which had 
increased since 2013 and decreased in 2018–2020, 
increased again in 2021. The share of temporary 
employment increased in 2014–2017 with the rise in 
economic activity. Before the outbreak of the epidemic 
(in 2018 and 2019), the decline in the share of temporary 
employment was mainly due to labour shortage caused 
by demographic factors. After the outbreak of the 
COVID-19 epidemic, companies responded to the crisis 
by not renewing fixed-term contracts, reducing the 
amount of student work and employment of agency 
workers. Given the high demand for labour in the second 
quarter of 2021, the share of temporary employment 
among young people in the 15–29 age group in Slovenia 
and many other countries was already higher than 
before the crisis. In Slovenia, the share of temporary 
employment among young people is higher than 
average due to the existence and increase of student 
work, the volume of which was significantly higher in the 
second quarter of 2021 compared to the same period in 
2020, as the containment measures were less stringent. 
In most countries, temporary work is most common 
among young people, women and the low-skilled.
The share of precarious employment1 has been 
decreasing since 2017 and remained slightly above 
the EU average. In 2020 (the latest available data), it 
was 2.5% in Slovenia, which is the lowest since 2000. In 
the EU, it has ranged between 2.0% and 2.5% over the 
past decade. The decline in precarious employment was 
due to labour shortages forcing employers to offer more 
permanent positions and, in 2020, to the sharp drop in 
demand for labour due to the COVID-19 crisis.2
Temporary and precarious employment 3.20
 Table: Share of precarious and temporary employment in total employment (20–64 years), in %
2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Share of temporary employment*
Slovenia 15.8 15.5 16.9 14.3 15.2 16.7 17.3 17.7 17.1 15.5 12.6 9.3 13.2
EU 14.5 13.7 14.1 14.1 14.0 14.7 14.6 14.7 14.9 14.7 14.1 12.1 11.1
Share of precarious employment
Slovenia 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.4 3.9 4.1 4.6 4.2 4.5 3.7 2.6 2.5 N/A
EU 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 N/A
Source: Eurostat (2022). Notes: N/A – data not available. *Data for individual years refer to the second quarter.
1 The measurement of the extent of precarious work is insufficient due to the many dimensions of such work, as often only one dimension is considered. Eurostat, for 
example, defines as precarious work only temporary work with a contract of three months or less, thus highlighting only one dimension of precarity. These Eurostat 
data are used in our analysis because they are internationally comparable and available annually. However, elements of precarity can also be found in other forms 
of work. The relatively high share of so-called dependent self-employed workers among the self-employed points to the elements of precarity among the self-
employed in Slovenia. Outside the existing statistical categories that measure precarity, home care assistants and a number of other occupations, i.e. work where 
workers are somewhere between an employment relationship and a civil law contract and are exposed to a high risk of poverty, have for decades been in a very 
precarious situation in Slovenia. Also in other EU Member States, platform work stands out among such workers, where workers are often treated as independent 
contractors when in fact they are working as employees (Kresal, 2020), but in Slovenia this also applies to student work and work under copyright contracts and 
contracts for work/service (public works, apprenticeships, etc.). For more about the precarity of employment see also IMAD (2021a).
2 Along with Croatia, Slovenia is one of the countries with the greatest decline in the share of precarious employment over the 2017–2020 period.
 Figure: Share of temporary employment among young people (15–29) (left) and share of precarious employment among 
people aged 20–64 (right)
Source: Eurostat (2022).
2.0
2.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Ro
m
an
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Cy
pr
us
M
al
ta
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
A
us
tr
ia
Ire
la
nd
La
tv
ia
Es
to
ni
a
G
re
ec
e
D
en
m
ar
k
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Po
rt
ug
al EU
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
la
nd
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
Sp
ai
n
Ita
ly
Be
lg
iu
m
Fr
an
ce
Cr
oa
tia
Sh
ar
e 
in
 %
2020 2017
35.6
42.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ro
m
an
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
H
un
ga
ry
M
al
ta
G
re
ec
e
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Au
st
ria
Cy
pr
us
D
en
m
ar
k
Ire
la
nd
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Be
lg
iu
m
Po
la
nd
G
er
m
an
y
Cr
oa
tia EU
Fi
nl
an
d
Fr
an
ce
Sw
ed
en
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Ita
ly
Sp
ai
n
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sh
ar
e 
in
 %
Q2–2021 Q2–2019
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 189Development report 2022
in Slovenia increased by 8.7% compared to the same 
period in 2019, while it increased by 7.4% in the EU as a 
whole. This indicates a similar adjustment of the labour 
force in the labour market in many countries through 
a transition into inactivity due to the shut-down of 
activities. The number of inactive persons increased 
the most in Ireland, Spain and Italy. However, economic 
activity and increased labour demand brought both the 
activity rate and the number of inactive persons back to 
pre-crisis levels in most countries in the second quarter.
Although the activity rate in the population aged 25–
54 is generally high (92.4%), it is much lower among 
low-skilled people and among older people. In the 
last decade, Slovenia has had a low activity rate of older 
people (55–64 years), which is gradually increasing, 
and of people with low levels of education, and these 
two groups often overlap. This is partly related to the 
educational structure of the population, as the share 
of people with low levels of education is higher in the 
older age groups than in the younger ones, and to the 
relatively early retirement or transition to inactivity. The 
activity rate in both groups is also much lower in Slovenia 
than the EU average.
The increase in the activity rate was temporarily 
interrupted by the COVID-19 epidemic in 20201 
but already reached the pre-crisis level again in 
2021. Until the beginning of 2020, the activity rate 
had gradually increased, due to favourable economic 
conditions and thus greater employment opportunities, 
which also attracted to the labour market those people 
who normally have greater difficulty finding a job.2 In 
the second quarter of 2020, it decreased significantly, 
which was related to measures to prevent the spread 
of COVID-19, i.e. the shutting down of activities, social 
distancing, temporary inability to find employment and 
transition to inactivity. The last was mainly the case for 
women, probably due to the sectors affected, as mainly 
activities which predominantly employ women were 
shut down, such as accommodation and food service 
activities, creative, arts and entertainment activities, and 
initially also trade. With a gradual opening of activities 
and the rapid increase in demand for labour, the activity 
rate quickly returned to pre-crisis levels in 2021.
In 2021, the number of inactive people was similar 
to pre-COVID-19-crisis levels. In the second quarter 
of 2020, the number of inactive people aged 20–64 
Activity rate 3.21 
1 The activity rate is the percentage of active persons (employed and unemployed) in relation to the total population in a certain age group.
2 The increase in the activity rate in the age group 20–64 is partly due to the decline in the population in this age group, which is used as the denominator in the 
calculation of the rate. The population decline in this age group is due to long-term unfavourable demographic trends.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Sw
ed
en
Li
th
ua
ni
a
D
en
m
ar
k
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Fi
nl
an
d
G
er
m
an
y
Es
to
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Po
rt
ug
al
Cy
pr
us
Ire
la
nd
H
un
ga
ry
Sp
ai
n EU
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Fr
an
ce
Au
st
ria
Be
lg
iu
m
Ita
ly
Sl
ov
en
ia
M
al
ta
Po
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
Cr
oa
tia
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ro
m
an
ia
In
 %
 Figure: Activity rate in the 25–54 age group (left) and activity rate in the 55–64 age group (right) in the second quarter of 
2021
Source: Eurostat (2022).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sw
ed
en
Po
rt
ug
al
H
un
ga
ry
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Au
st
ria
Fi
nl
an
d
Es
to
ni
a
Fr
an
ce
M
al
ta
Cy
pr
us
G
er
m
an
y
Po
la
nd
Sp
ai
n
D
en
m
ar
k
La
tv
ia EU
Cr
oa
tia
Be
lg
iu
m
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ire
la
nd
G
re
ec
e
Ro
m
an
ia
Ita
ly
In
 %
 Table: Activity rate in the 20–64 age group,* in %
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Slovenia 76.0 76.5 76.1 74.3 74.2 75.0 75.5 76.5 76.5 77.6 78.0 78.3 79.0 80.2
EU 74.8 75.0 75.2 75.1 75.2 76.0 76.3 76.6 77.1 77.6 78.0 78.3 76.6 78.4
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: *Data for individual years refer to the second quarter.
Indicators of Slovenia’s development190 Development report 2022
than the lowest level in 2014 (see table). According to 
the NIJZ’s preliminary estimate, the total percentage of 
absence from work due to illness rose to 5.1% in 2021. 
In particular, the proportion of absenteeism whose costs 
are covered by the HIIS has increased and has been rising 
rapidly since 2015 (in 2008, the proportion covered by 
the HIIS was 46% and in 2021 it was already 60%) (HIIS, 
2022). 
In terms of working days lost per employee, Slovenia 
exceeds the EU average. The number of working days 
lost per employed person due to illness, as reported 
to international databases (excluding the first day of 
absence and absence to care for a family member), 
had also risen in recent years (until 2019). In 2019, the 
average number of compensated work days lost per 
year due to illness totalled 13.6 in Slovenia and 12.4 in 
the 23 EU Member States for which comparable data 
are available. However, it should be noted that the 
international comparability of this indicator is limited 
because of methodological differences in data capture 
and differences in the health and social care systems and 
in eligibility criteria for sickness benefits.  
In 2021, absence from work increased sharply again 
in Slovenia.1 The rapid increase in 2014–2019 can be 
linked to employment growth, later retirement, longer 
waiting times in the health sector and the ageing of the 
working population. Absence from work due to illness 
was significantly higher among women, and the gap is 
widening every year, which can be partly explained by 
the increasing participation of children in kindergartens, 
full-time employment of women and their absence to 
care for parents due to the poorly functioning long-term 
care system (informal caregivers being mostly women). 
In 2020, the increase in absenteeism slowed somewhat 
due to lower employment and epidemic-related 
measures (school closures, temporary layoffs and work 
from home). In 2021, it increased sharply again, related 
to a high number of COVID-19 infections, isolation of 
people with COVID-19 (the number of days lost doubled 
compared to 2020) and also a significant increase in 
employment. According to National Institute for Public 
Health (NIJZ) data, employed persons were absent from 
work for an average of 17.9 calendar days in 2020, the 
share of absence from work due to illness2 averaging 
4.9%, which is the same as in 2019 but significantly higher 
Absence from work due to illness 3.22 
1 Temporary absence from work for justified medical reasons, also referred to as sick leave, is one of the indicators for monitoring the health status of the employed 
(HIIS, 2019b).
2 The percentage of calendar days of incapacity for work per person employed full-time.
 Table: Absence from work due to illness
Indicators 2008 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of working days lost per worker 
(WHO)
Slovenia 11.5 11.3 12.0 12.2 13.1 13.5 13.6 N/A
EU* 11.4 11.8 11.7 11.9 11.9 12.4 N/A N/A
Number of calendar days lost per worker 
(NIJZ)
Total 15.5 13.7 14.5 14.5 15.3 16.5 17.7 17.9
Men 13.2 11.4 12.0 11.8 12.4 13.2 14.0 14.2
Women 18.6 16.5 17.5 17.6 18.8 20.4 22.3 22.5
Absence rate (percentage of calendar days 
lost per full-time worker, in %) (NIJZ)
Total 4.3 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.9 4.9
Men 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.9
Women 5.1 4.5 4.8 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.1 6.2
Sources: WHO (2022); NIJZ (2022b). Note: *The data for the EU are WHO estimates; N/A – data not available.
 Figure: Number of working days lost per worker, 2015 and 2019 or last available year
Sources: OECD (2022b) for OECD members; WHO (2022) for Croatia, Poland, Malta and the EU average (left); HIIS (2022) (right). Note: in the figure on the left data for 
Portugal and Malta are from 2017 and data for Denmark and the EU average are from 2018. Data for Finland and Greece is based on surveys, while data for all other 
countries is based on administrative data on paid absence from work due to illness. Data for Latvia for 2015 is not available.
1
2
3
4
5
6
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
Sh
ar
e 
of
 w
or
ki
ng
 d
ay
s l
os
t, 
in
 %
Total Employers HIIS
11.8
12.012.4
13.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
M
al
ta
Po
rtu
ga
l
De
nm
ar
k
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Hu
ng
ar
y
Fr
an
ce
Es
to
ni
a
Ire
la
nd
Fi
nl
an
d
Cr
oa
tia
Sw
ed
en
Ne
th
er
la
nd
s
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
EU
Au
st
ria
Sp
ai
n
Sl
ov
en
ia
G
re
ec
e
Sl
ov
ak
ia
La
tv
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Po
la
nd
Cz
ec
h 
R.
G
er
m
an
y
Nu
m
be
r o
f d
ay
s
2015 2019
 A low-carbon circular economy
4.1 Emission productivity 
4.2 Energy efficiency
4.3 Share of renewable energy sources
4.4 Modal split of transport 
4.5 Resource productivity 
4.6 Waste
4.7 Environmental taxes 
 Sustainable and efficient natural resource management
4.8 Ecological footprint 
4.9 Utilised agricultural area 
4.10 Agricultural intensity
4.11 Intensity of tree felling 
4.12 Quality of watercourses 
4.13 Ambient air quality 
4.14 Functionally derelict areas
4 A well-preserved and healthy 
natural environment

Indicators of Slovenia’s development 193Development report 2022
4.1 
In 2020, the first year of the epidemic, greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions fell to their lowest level in two 
decades amid lower economic activity. After declining 
during the global financial crisis, they increased slightly 
in 2015–2017 but declined again in the following 
three years, amounting to 15.8 million tonnes of CO
2
 
equivalent in 2020. This was 7.3% less than a year before 
and 14.8% less than in 2000. As expected, the largest 
decrease in GHG emissions in 2020 was observed in the 
transport sector, which is the main source of emissions 
along with the energy sector, and in industrial processes 
and waste management. In the ETS sector, where they 
have decreased faster over the long term and contribute 
about 40% to total emissions, GHG emissions were 3% 
lower. In the non-ETS sector (including transport), where 
they have decreased more slowly over the long term, 
they fell more sharply in 2020, by one-tenth. According 
to the first quarterly estimates, total emissions rose 
again in 2021 as economic activity recovered: in the first 
three quarters, they were about 5% higher than in the 
same period of 2020 (about 8% higher in the EU), but still 
lower than in the same period of 2019. 
Emission productivity, which is relatively low in 
Slovenia, has increased since the global financial 
crisis, but the gap with the EU average remains 
largely unchanged. Productivity growth as measured 
by the ratio of GDP to GHG emissions accelerated again, 
as it did in the EU as a whole, after stalling during the 
2008–2014 global financial crisis. It also increased in 
2020, when economic growth declined, while the decline 
in emissions was even more pronounced. In 2014–2019, 
around one-tenth less GDP was generated per unit of 
GHG emissions than in the EU overall. According to 
preliminary estimates, this gap narrowed to about 8% in 
2020. 
Emission productivity
 Figure: Emission productivity, 2020
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD.
3.7
3.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sw
ed
en
M
al
ta
D
en
m
ar
k
Fr
an
ce
Ire
la
nd
Au
st
ria
Ita
ly
Sp
ai
n
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Po
rt
ug
al
G
er
m
an
y
EU
Ro
m
an
ia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Cr
oa
tia
Fi
nl
an
d
H
un
ga
ry
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Cy
pr
us
Cz
ec
hi
a
G
re
ec
e
Es
to
ni
a
Po
la
nd
Bu
lg
ar
ia
G
D
P/
G
H
G
 
(in
 P
PS
/m
ill
io
n 
kg
 o
f C
O
2
eq
ui
va
le
nt
)
 Table: GHG emissions and emission productivity
2000 2005 2008 2010 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 Targets
GHG emissions, index, 1990=100 (for total GHG); 2005=100 (for ETS and non-ETS) EU 2020 target
Total
Slovenia 99.9 110.0 116.0 105.6 98.1 89.3 90.3 95.3 94.4 91.8 85.1 -
EU 92.1 94.2 91.6 86.9 81.5 78.7 79.8 80.7 79.0 76.0 N/A* 80.0
ETS
Slovenia 100.0 101.6 93.2 84.7 70.1 70.1 75.3 74.4 71.7 69.9 -
EU 100.0 95.3 86.7 80.5 77.5 77.9 76.4 73.7 66.6 N/A
Non-ETS
Slovenia 100.0 108.3 98.1 92.5 89.4 91.0 95.0 94.2 92.2 82.9 < 104.0
EU 100.0 98.4 96.6 90.2 87.2 88.8 91.2 89.9 89.8 N/A
Emission productivity, in PPS/million kg of CO2 equivalent SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.5 Average EU
EU 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 N/A*
Slovenia / EU, index 92.2 92.6 87.5 85.5 85.0 90.3 89.9 88.8 89.8 90.4 N/A*
Sources: ARSO (2022a) and Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. For 2020 preliminary data by ARSO. Notes: *According to the quarterly estimates of GHG emissions 
published by Eurostat for the first time in November 2021, emissions in the EU fell by 9% in 2020, which means the EU’s emission productivity in 2020 was around 3.8 
PPS/million kg of CO
2
 eq.; a meaningful comparison in PPS with the EU average can only be made for individual years and not for a longer time period; N/A – data not 
available.
Indicators of Slovenia’s development194 Development report 2022
1 The Šoštanj thermal power plant was technologically modernised (with TEŠ 6), while the Trbovlje thermal power plant was shut down.
2 Every third year there is no regular (monthly) overhaul, which means that 10% more nuclear power is generated (2 p.p. higher primary consumption).
3 One of the three environmental targets of the EU Member States for 2020 is to improve energy efficiency, i.e. to achieve a 20% reduction in energy consumption 
compared to the consumption projected in the baseline scenario without additional measures. Most EU Member States thus had to reduce their energy consumption 
by 2020, while some, including Slovenia, were only required to limit its increase.
4 In comparisons over time, we use GDP at fixed prices, while in comparisons between countries in individual years, GDP in purchasing power standards is used.
5 Final energy consumption is primary consumption of energy excluding energy used by energy transformation processes, by the energy sector itself, and losses.
6 See also Indicator 4.5. In 2020, energy consumption in road transport contributed 35% to final energy consumption in Slovenia and 27% in the EU.
While primary energy consumption had declined in 
the years following the global financial crisis, mainly 
due to lower coal consumption, its decline during 
the COVID-19 epidemic mainly reflects lower energy 
consumption in transport. After a period of lower 
economic activity in 2009–2013, changes in thermal 
power generation1 and in some years lower demand 
for heating, the development after 2014 was influenced 
not only by rising energy consumption in transport, but 
also by several other factors. Among the most important 
factors are the annual river level fluctuations and the 
schedule of regular overhauls at the nuclear power plant.2 
In 2019, total primary energy consumption fell more 
sharply again, also influenced by deceleration of economic 
activity (with lower consumption of solid and liquid 
fuels). In 2020, it fell even more given the sharp decline 
in economic activity. Total primary energy consumption 
fell by about 6% that year, with consumption in transport 
falling by 18%. Movements in energy efficiency involving 
a reduction or at least a limitation of the increase in energy 
consumption were thus favourable also due to the lower 
activity in the two crises mentioned above (in 2009 and 
2020), while Slovenia had fewer problems meeting the 
Europe 2020 Strategy targets for both primary and final 
energy consumption.3 According to our estimates, energy 
consumption increased slightly again in 2021 in view of 
the economic recovery.
Over the long term, energy productivity increased at a 
slightly faster pace than in the EU as a whole. Growth 
 Figure: Final energy consumption by sector of consumption, Slovenia (left) and the EU average (right)
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD.
in energy productivity (defined as the ratio of generated 
GDP4 to total energy consumption) only came to a halt 
in the first years of the financial crisis and in 2011 it was 
thus almost a fifth below the EU average. In 2019, with 
higher GDP growth, it increased more in Slovenia than in 
the EU as a whole. As a result, the gap in this comparison 
narrowed to almost 10%, the lowest since 2000, rising to 
12% in 2020, with energy consumption in Slovenia falling 
less than in the EU in relative terms. Energy productivity is 
expected to have increased in 2021, as GDP is expected to 
have grown faster than energy consumption. 
Since 2005, final energy consumption has also 
decreased at about the same pace as in the EU as a 
whole. Final energy consumption,5 which had declined 
since 2008, has increased again since 2014. In the industry 
sector, it declined mainly due to the modernisation of 
aluminium production, but it has increased again in 
recent years due to economic growth. Household energy 
consumption, on the other hand, has decreased as a result 
of occasionally higher temperatures during the heating 
season, the installation of heat cost allocators, more 
efficient heating appliances and the energy renovation 
of buildings. In the transport sector, it increased owing 
to increased transit after EU enlargements6 and then 
fluctuated for several years. In 2019 and especially in 
2020, the first year of the epidemic, the significantly lower 
consumption in the transport sector was the main reason 
for the lower final energy consumption.
Energy efficiency 4.2
 Table: Primary energy consumption, index, 2005=100
2000 2005 2008 2010 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Europe 2020 target
Slovenia 87.2 100.0 106.6 97.0 91.8 88.2 87.5 90.3 92.8 91.7 90.0 84.5 104.3
EU 93.3 100.0 99.4 97.3 92.4 88.9 90.4 91.1 92.4 92.0 90.4 82.6 86.6
Sources: Eurostat (2022); EC Energy Efficiency, Reporting Targets; calculations by IMAD.
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
de
x,
 2
00
5=
10
0
EU Industry Transport Households, other
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
de
x,
 2
00
5=
10
0
Slovenia Industry Transport Households, other
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 195Development report 2022
The share of renewable energy sources (RES) in final 
energy consumption has increased only modestly 
since 2005 (i.e. the period analysed). Slovenia 
is one of the few EU Member States that did not 
reach the target use of RES in 2020. The share of RES 
consumption increased more strongly in 2009, amid a 
fall in overall final energy consumption during the global 
financial crisis and almost unchanged RES consumption, 
which was also the case in 2020 during the epidemic. 
In both years, the share of RES consumption increased 
by more than 2 p.p. In the years between the two 
crises, it fluctuated with regard to RES consumption 
for heating (the impact of milder winters) and the use 
of hydropower (the impact of annual river flows), but 
there was no significant increase. Total RES consumption 
in Slovenia rose the least among all EU Member States 
in 2005–2020, by 6% (in the EU, by 92% on average). 
Despite the increase in the share last year, Slovenia is one 
of the four EU Member States that did not reach the 2020 
target of 25% share of RES in final consumption. With 
such dynamics, the targets for the coming years are also 
very distant.1 For 2021, we estimate that the share of RES 
slightly decreased amid higher use of liquid (fossil) fuels 
and slightly lower use of hydropower (however, data on 
the use of wood is not yet available).
Slovenia has a high share of traditional and a low 
share of other renewable sources in total RES 
consumption. Traditional RES (solid biomass and 
hydropower) still account for well above 80% of total 
RES consumption in Slovenia, compared with well below 
60% in the EU overall. The extensive use of biomass 
for heating is generally desirable, but if biomass is not 
properly managed, it can also be unfavourable from the 
aspect of particle pollution. The share of other RES (wind, 
solar and geothermal energy, biofuels, heat pumps, and 
biogas), however, is among the lowest in the EU. The 
gap is the widest in the use of wind farms: their share in 
Slovenia is 0.002% compared to the EU average of 15.4%. 
Within the support scheme for electricity generation 
from RES,2 support for solar power plants has 
predominated since 2010. Support for solar power 
plants accounted for 61%, support for biomass power 
plants for 20% and support for biogas power plants for 
11% of all support in 2021.3 The rest was dedicated to 
hydropower plants. The amount of support per unit of 
electricity generated was highest for solar power plants. 
Total support, which had decreased significantly in 2019, 
increased slightly and amounted to around EUR 105 
million in 2021.
Share of renewable energy sources 4.3 
1 Individual national RES targets for 2030 have yet to be determined. For Slovenia, the SDS took into account the target that at the time of the SDS adoption applied 
to the entire EU. Since then the target for the EU has been raised from 27% to 32%, and an increase to at least 38% has already been proposed.
2 The support scheme is an instrument of government aid, which, through higher purchase prices, enables investment in environmentally friendly sources of electricity 
production. The support scheme includes several thousand production facilities, to which the support is paid by Borzen’s Centre for RES/CHP Support.
3 IMAD’s estimate on the basis of Borzen’s nine-month and annual reports.
 Table: Share of RES consumption in gross final energy consumption, in %
2005 2008 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Europe 2020 target SDS 2030 target
RES, total
Slovenia 19.8 18.7 21.1 22.5 22.9 22.0 21.7 21.4 22.0 24.1 25.0 27.0
EU 10.2 12.6 14.4 17.4 17.8 18.0 18.4 19.1 19.9 22.1 20.0
In electricity
Slovenia 28.7 30.0 32.2 33.9 32.7 32.1 32.4 32.3 32.6 35.1
EU 16.4 18.5 21.3 28.6 29.7 30.2 31.1 32.1 34.1 37.5
In transport
Slovenia 0.8 1.8 3.1 2.9 2.2 1.6 2.6 5.5 8.0 10.9 10.0
EU 1.8 4.1 5.5 6.6 6.8 7.2 7.5 8.3 8.8 10.2 10.0
In heating
Slovenia 26.4 27.5 29.5 34.6 36.2 35.6 34.6 32.3 32.1 32.1
EU 12.4 15.3 17.0 19.9 20.3 20.4 20.8 21.6 22.4 23.1
Source: Eurostat (2022).
 Figure: Increase in RES consumption over the period 2005–2020 and achievement of the RES use target for 2020
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD.
92
6
-9
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
12
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
M
al
ta
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Cy
pr
us
Ire
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Po
la
nd
Sl
ov
ak
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Cz
ec
hi
a
D
en
m
ar
k
G
re
ec
e
Ita
ly
Sp
ai
n EU
H
un
ga
ry
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Fr
an
ce
Es
to
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Sw
ed
en
Au
st
ria
Fi
nl
an
d
Ro
m
an
ia
La
tv
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Sl
ov
en
ia
In
 p
ps
In
 %
Growth of RES use in 2005–2020 Difference between the share of RES in 2020 and the 2020 target (right axis)
Indicators of Slovenia’s development196 Development report 2022
railway transport will strengthen further, as it is to a large 
extent linked to the trans-shipment of goods in the Port 
of Koper. We estimate that in 2020 and 2021 the share 
of road freight transport increased, since rail transport 
decreased more significantly during the epidemic and 
then recovered more slowly.
Transport by passenger car is the predominant mode 
of passenger transport in all EU Member States, but 
in Slovenia its share is among the highest. This can 
in part be attributed to the diversity of its landscape 
and its dispersed settlements,2 which – in spite of 
subsidies – limit a greater extension of the public 
passenger transport network and its profitability. More 
people have difficulty in accessing public transport 
than in the EU overall (in 2012, one-quarter in Slovenia 
against one-fifth on average in the EU). With such a 
passenger transport structure (where public transport 
is used relatively little in comparison with transport by 
car), the share of transportation expenditure in total 
household expenditure is also higher than in the EU (in 
Slovenia 18%, in the EU 12%). In 2020, Slovenia faced 
major restrictions on public passenger transport due 
to the epidemic and, while car travel was also limited 
owing to the ban on travel between municipalities and 
quarantines, the already low share of public passenger 
transport in total transport is likely to have fallen further. 
Owing to Slovenia’s transit location, road freight 
traffic is very heavy, but as a lot of freight is also 
transported by rail, the share of road transport is 
lower than in the EU as a whole. Over a longer period, 
the share of road transport declined slightly, to less than 
two-thirds, while it increased slightly on average in the EU, 
to more than three-quarters.1 In 2005–2019, the volume 
of road freight transport increased by one-third and 
that of rail transport by two-thirds, which is significantly 
more than in the EU as a whole, where they increased 
by 11% and 3% respectively. From the environmental 
perspective, a high growth of road transport is less 
desirable. Road freight transport increased in Slovenia 
particularly due to the rising transit traffic – more than 
three-quarters of transport in Slovenia is thus already 
accounted for by foreign hauliers (predominantly from 
Hungary, Croatia and Romania). The increased transit is 
a consequence of EU enlargements and the opening of 
competition between hauliers on the common transport 
market, but it is also related to Slovenia’s small size and 
its transit location. The volume of total freight transport 
per inhabitant is very high in Slovenia, 38% higher 
than the EU average, being higher only in five other EU 
Member States. Within that, transport by road is a sixth 
higher and transport by rail 2.8 times higher than the EU 
average. With the modernisation of the Divača–Koper 
railway line and some other sections, also planned with 
the help of funds from the Recovery and Resilience Plan, 
Modal split of transport 4.4
1 Road transport performance is calculated according to the territoriality principle and is therefore comparable to rail and inland waterway transport. 
2 Slovenia has a relatively low share of the population living in cities and a large share of the population living in rural areas: 20% and 44% respectively in 2019 (in the EU: 
38% and 28% respectively) (Eurostat, 2022).
 Table: Road transport in freight transport and car transport in passenger transport,* in %
2005 2008 2010 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Freight
Slovenia 68.9 70.3 68.2 65.2 64.0 65.0 66.1 64.5 64.7 64.5
EU 74.4 74.3 74.6 73.9 73.9 74.2 74.6 75.4 75.6 76.3
Passenger
Slovenia 85.6 86.4 86.8 86.3 86.3 86.1 86.3 86.5 86.4 86.6
EU 82.6 82.2 83.0 81.9 82.2 82.4 82.6 82.9 82.8 82.8
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: *Freight transport comprises transport by road (lorries), rail and inland waterways (in tonne km); passenger transport includes transport 
by car, bus and train (in passenger km).
 Figure: Road freight transport, 2019
Source: Eurostat (2022).
64.5
76.3
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
La
tv
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Es
to
ni
a
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
A
us
tr
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Sw
ed
en
Cr
oa
tia
Fi
nl
an
d
G
er
m
an
y
Cz
ec
hi
a
Po
la
nd
EU
-2
7
Be
lg
iu
m
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Po
rt
ug
al
Fr
an
ce
Ita
ly
D
en
m
ar
k
Sp
ai
n
G
re
ec
e
Ire
la
nd
Cy
pr
us
M
al
ta
In
 to
nn
e 
km
In
 %
Road transport in freight transport (left axis) Road freight transport per capita (right axis)
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 197Development report 2022
As a result, in contrast to the EU as a whole, material 
consumption in Slovenia has decreased less than 
GDP and material productivity has decreased slightly, 
including compared to the EU average. We estimate that 
the use of energy products and non-metallic minerals 
did not increase in 2021, so material productivity is likely 
to rise again as GDP increases. 
Slovenia’s self-sufficiency in materials is slightly 
above the EU average. Slovenia is well supplied 
with certain resources. In the breakdown of domestic 
extracted resources, more than half is sand, gravel, 
limestone and gypsum. Other important domestic 
resources are agricultural products, lignite and wood. 
Net imports account for around 12% of total material 
consumption. In 2020, the bulk of net imports were of 
petroleum products, gas, metal ores and agricultural 
products. Since the ice glaze damage in 2014, only net 
exports of wood, particularly sawlogs and veneer logs, 
have been relatively high, but these have declined 
significantly over the past year and have returned to 
previous normal levels. High net exports of raw materials 
otherwise decrease domestic material consumption in 
the calculation, but from the point of view of efficient 
use of domestic resources, they represent untapped 
potential for creating higher value added in the domestic 
manufacturing industry.2
Resource productivity in Slovenia has fluctuated 
significantly over the years, especially in relation 
to changes in the construction industry, while the 
gap with the EU average has not narrowed since the 
global financial crisis. Resource productivity, expressed 
as the ratio of GDP to material consumption, increased 
the most in 2007–2012 amid a decline in construction 
activity. The decline in construction activity was related 
to the global financial crisis and the completion of the 
motorway network (most of which was built by 2009). 
The consumption of non-metallic minerals,1 which had 
accounted for more than two-thirds of total material 
consumption, therefore dropped significantly. The 
decline in total material consumption after 2011 was, 
in addition to lower consumption of non-metallic 
minerals, also significantly influenced by changes in 
thermal power generation (lower coal consumption). 
In 2019, when growth in construction activity again 
slowed significantly, the consumption of non-metallic 
minerals fell by almost 15%, which led to a significant 
improvement in resource productivity (to lag behind the 
EU average only by 8%). In 2020, construction activity 
was not significantly affected by the measures taken to 
contain the epidemic. A somewhat larger decline, which 
was nevertheless half lower than in the EU as a whole, 
was recorded only in the consumption of liquid fuels. 
Resource productivity 4.5 
1 Among non-metallic minerals, sand and gravel accounted for 46%, one of the highest shares in the EU. A close relationship between the consumption of non-metallic 
minerals and construction activity is corroborated by the analysis of the Geological Survey of Slovenia made on data for 2014, when three quarters of non-metallic 
minerals were used as raw materials in construction, a further 17% as raw materials for the building materials industry and only 7% in manufacturing.
2 See also Indicator 4.11. lej tudi kazalnik 4.11.
 Table: Resource productivity, in PPS/kg
2000 2005 2008 2010 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 0.87 1.06 1.11 1.32 1.77 1.69 1.71 1.84 1.91 1.84 2.04 2.03 3.5
EU 1.19 1.34 1.49 1.74 1.92 1.95 2.02 2.08 2.10 2.14 2.23 2.24
Slovenia / EU, index 72.9 78.7 74.0 75.7 92.0 86.5 84.5 88.3 91.1 85.7 91.6 90.5
Sources: Eurostat (2022) and SURS (2022); calculations by IMAD. Note: A meaningful comparison in PPS between countries or with the EU average can only be made 
for individual years and not over a longer time period.
Source: Eurostat (2022).
 Figure: Resource productivity and material consumption per capita, 2020
2.2
2.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ita
ly
Sp
ai
n
Fr
an
ce
Be
lg
iu
m
Ire
la
nd
G
er
m
an
y
M
al
ta EU
G
re
ec
e
Sl
ov
en
ia
A
us
tr
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Cr
oa
tia
D
en
m
ar
k
La
tv
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Cy
pr
us
Sw
ed
en
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Po
la
nd
Fi
nl
an
d
Es
to
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
In
 to
nn
es
 p
er
 c
ap
ita
In
 P
PS
/k
g
Resource productivity (left axis) Material consumption per capita (right axis)
Indicators of Slovenia’s development198 Development report 2022
After a long period of increase, waste generation 
decreased in 2020, as expected with the COVID-19 
crisis, while it increased in households. In 2020, 
about 7.7 million tonnes of waste were generated, 9% 
less than the previous year, but 72% more than in 2012, 
when the amount generated was the lowest in the 
period analysed (since 2000).1 The amount of waste in 
production and service activities, where most of the waste 
is generated (mineral waste and construction waste 
make up the majority of waste due to their high specific 
weight), decreased by about one-tenth due to the lower 
economic activity. The amount of municipal waste, which 
was again below the EU average in terms of per capita 
generation, decreased by 4% overall, while it increased 
by 2% for households. The total amount of hazardous 
waste, which has increased in the long term, decreased 
by 5%, with its share in total waste generation being 
around 2%.
Similar to waste generation, the amount of waste 
treated also decreased in 2020. In 2020, 6.8 million 
tonnes of waste were treated in final processing, which 
is 9% less than the previous year, though a quarter 
more than ten years ago. The amount of waste treated 
decreased in all three processes: recycling, waste 
incineration as fuel and the use of waste for backfilling. 
The share of recycling, which is highly desirable, 
has increased significantly since 2010 and is high by 
international standards, except for mineral waste. As 
waste generation increases, the amount of waste used 
for backfilling is also increasing rapidly, successfully 
reducing the amount of waste landfilled, which is 
the least preferred option in the waste management 
hierarchy. Landfilling of municipal waste, around three-
quarters of which was already collected separately, also 
decreased. The main problem is the growing amount of 
packaging waste, which is increasing rapidly in the midst 
of the COVID-19 epidemic.   
Waste 4.6
 Table: Waste generation and share of recycled waste
2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total waste generation, excluding mineral waste, kg per capita
Slovenia N/A 2,163 1,982 2,018 1,706 1,692 1,604 1,684 1,481 1,553 1,545 1,506 1,430
EU N/A 1,800 1,810 1,720 1,719 N/A 1735 N/A 1763 N/A 1,820 N/A N/A
   Of which: municipal waste generation, kg per capita
Slovenia 513 485 516 490 362 414 432 449 457 471 486 508 487
EU 513 500 513 503 488 479 478 480 490 496 496 501 505
Waste recycled, total, excluding mineral waste, the share of total waste treated, %
Slovenia N/A N/A N/A 52 74 78 75 78 80 84 82 85 83
EU N/A N/A N/A 53 35 N/A 54 N/A N/A N/A 55 N/A N/A
   Of which: municipal waste recycled, the share of total municipal waste generated, %
Slovenia 6.0 20.4 15.4 22.4 41.9 34.8 36.0 54.1 55.6 57.8 58.9 59.2 59.2
EU 27.3 31.8 33.2 38.0 40.9 41.5 43.4 44.9 46.5 46.9 47.2 48.1 47.8
Sources: Eurostat (2022), SURS (2022b). Notes: Recycled waste is waste sent for treatment, excluding energy recovery and backfilling. The exclusion of mineral waste 
improves international comparability across countries, as mineral waste usually accounts for the vast majority of waste due to its high specific weight and has a decisive 
impact on the total amount; N/A – data not available.
1 In 2012, total waste decreased by one quarter. The decline was, in addition to a reduction in construction waste, also due to methodological changes (some waste 
categories being reclassified as by-products).
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: Data for Estonia is for 2010.
 Figure: Share of recycled waste in total treated waste, excluding mineral waste, 2018
82
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Sl
ov
en
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ita
ly
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
A
us
tr
ia
Cz
ec
hi
a
D
en
m
ar
k
Po
la
nd
Cr
oa
tia EU
Po
rt
ug
al
G
er
m
an
y
Fr
an
ce
La
tv
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Sw
ed
en
H
un
ga
ry
Sp
ai
n
Ire
la
nd
Fi
nl
an
d
Cy
pr
us
Ro
m
an
ia
M
al
ta
G
re
ec
e
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Es
to
ni
a
In
 %
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 199Development report 2022
A long period of growth in revenue from 
environmental taxes was interrupted in 2018 and 
especially in 2020. According to our estimates, 
despite its increase, revenue in 2021 did not yet reach 
the 2019 level. The long period of growth in revenue 
before 2018, especially in revenue from energy taxes,1 
was underpinned mainly by growth in fuel consumption 
in transport and excise duties on motor fuels. In 2018, 
revenue fell slightly year-on-year for the first time since 
2011 (-1.2%), which was linked to lower excise duties 
on unleaded petrol and diesel, introduced in May 2018 
to neutralise the pressure from high crude oil prices, 
and the slowdown in economic growth. The even more 
significant drop in revenue in 2020 (-18.4%) was due to 
a decline in economic activity related to the COVID-19 
epidemic and a reduction in excise duties on petrol and 
diesel adopted to mitigate the impact of the epidemic.2 
At the end of 2021, these duties remained below 2019 
levels. Economic activity exceeded these levels, but 
preliminary state budget data show that revenue from 
excise duties on energy, which account for the largest 
share of environmental taxes, did not yet reach 2019 
levels in 2021. 
Revenue from environmental taxes as a share of 
GDP is still among the highest in the EU, despite the 
several years of decline. In 2005–2016, the share of 
environmental taxes in GDP expanded, then declined 
notably in 2017–2020, reaching 2.95% in 2020. It was 
significantly higher than the EU average, but the gap has 
narrowed since 2013, when it was widest, to less than 
1 p.p. in 2020. The gap arises from energy taxes, which 
accounted for 81% of all environmental taxes in Slovenia 
in 2020. The high figure in Slovenia is a consequence of 
relatively high purchases and consumption of energy, 
which is related not only to extensive transit traffic 
and the strong transport sector in Slovenia, but also to 
dispersed settlement and the poorly developed public 
transport infrastructure.
Environmental taxes 4.7
1 Environmental taxes include energy taxes, transport taxes and taxes on pollution and the use of natural resources.
2 Excise duties on motor fuels (with the exception of excise duties on heating oil, which have remained unchanged since October 2015) increased in April and May 
2020 and then fell to levels below those of 2019 for the remainder of 2020.
Source: Eurostat (2022).
 Figure: Revenue from environmental taxes, 2020
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
G
re
ec
e
Cr
oa
tia
D
en
m
ar
k
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
La
tv
ia
Ita
ly
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
Po
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
Cy
pr
us
Es
to
ni
a
Po
rt
ug
al
Sl
ov
ak
ia
M
al
ta EU E
A
Fr
an
ce
H
un
ga
ry
A
us
tr
ia
Sw
ed
en
Cz
ec
hi
a
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ro
m
an
ia
Sp
ai
n
G
er
m
an
y
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ire
la
nd
A
s 
a 
%
 G
D
P
Energy taxes Transport taxes Taxes on pollution and the use of natural resources
 Table: Revenue from environmental taxes
2000 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
In nominal terms, in EUR million
Slovenia 632 920 1.261 1.312 1.277 1.389 1.428 1.453 1.509 1.569 1.578 1.560 1.615 1.383
As a share of GDP, in %
Slovenia 2.89 3.16 3.48 3.61 3.45 3.83 3.92 3.86 3.88 3.88 3.67 3.40 3.34 2.95
EU 2.57 2.54 2.36 2.36 2.41 2.44 2.47 2.47 2.45 2.47 2.42 2.40 2.35 2.24
As a share of total revenue from taxes and social contributions, in %
Slovenia 7.63 8.02 9.25 9.42 9.11 10.02 10.36 10.23 10.26 10.23 9.77 9.01 8.87 7.78
EU 6.24 6.38 6.01 6.05 6.09 6.04 6.02 6.02 5.99 6.04 5.90 5.83 5.74 5.42
Source: Eurostat (2022).
Indicators of Slovenia’s development200 Development report 2022
With its relatively high ecological footprint, the 
ecological deficit, i.e. the negative difference between 
the ecological footprint and the biological capacity, 
was also high. Biological capacity or biocapacity refers 
to the biologically productive areas capable of self-
regeneration.2 Like the ecological footprint, it is expressed 
in global hectares – each global hectare produces the 
same quantity of biological materials. Biocapacity is 
fairly stable and does not change significantly from year 
to year. The bulk of Slovenia’s biocapacity is accounted 
for by forests, which despite their large surface area 
cannot sufficiently absorb carbon dioxide emissions. 
The share of other areas, particularly arable land and 
fishing grounds, is relatively modest compared with the 
EU average. The results of the latest calculations show 
that Slovenia’s ecological footprint (5.4 gha/person) is 
more than two and a half times higher than the capacity 
of its nature to regenerate (2.2 gha/person). Most EU 
Member States have an ecological deficit – only some 
Northern countries with sustainable economies and 
relatively extensive fishing grounds have an ecological 
reserve. Slovenia’s ecological deficit (-3.2 gha/person) 
is significantly higher than the world average (-1.2 gha/
person) and also than the EU average (-1.8 gha/person). 
Slovenia’s ecological footprint, a composite indicator 
of environmental development, increased in 2015–
2018 and was above the EU average, indicating a 
significant and increasing environmental burden.1 
The ecological footprint is expressed in global hectares 
(gha), a standardised unit of biologically productive 
area. The biologically productive area is the fertile area 
needed to satisfy human needs for food and sustain their 
lifestyles, including to absorb or dispose of the waste 
generated in the process. The largest component of the 
ecological footprint is (i) the carbon footprint, resulting 
from carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions, followed 
by (ii) the biological footprint, i.e. the footprint of arable 
land, forestland, grazing land and other fertile areas, 
and (iii) the footprint of built-up land (i.e. infrastructure). 
Slovenia’s ecological footprint declined during the 
recession related to the global financial crisis but then 
increased again, unlike in the EU overall, to reach 5.37 
gha/person in 2018. The gap with the EU average has 
widened in recent years and was around 13% in 2018. 
This indicates economic development with a relatively 
high level of natural resource use and environmental 
pollution, meaning that Slovenia is not on track to reach 
the SDS target. 
Ecological footprint 4.8 
1 The ecological footprint is measured by the Global Footprint Network. The results of its calculations are available for around 200 countries for individual years of 
1961–2018.
2 The total biologically productive area accounts for approximately a quarter of the Earth’s surface, excluding ice masses, deserts and oceans, where renewable 
resources are not concentrated enough to have a significant impact.
 Table: Ecological footprint in gha/person
2000 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 4.8 5.5 5.8 5.2 4.8 4.7 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.4 3.8
Europe 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.2 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.8
World 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8
Slovenia/Europe, index 95.3 103.1 106.3 100.4 97.1 98.0 106.2 108.2 110.7 112.7
Source: Global Footprint Network (2022). Note: According to the latest calculations, the ecological footprint value for Slovenia for all observed years was revised 
upwards.
Source: Global Footprint Network (2022).
 Figure: Ecological footprint and the ecological deficit/reserve, 2018
4.8 5.4
-1.8
-3.2
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Cy
pr
us
H
un
ga
ry
Cr
oa
tia
G
re
ec
e
Ita
ly
Sp
ai
n
Fr
an
ce
Po
rt
ug
al
G
er
m
an
y
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Po
la
nd
Eu
ro
pe
Ire
la
nd
Sl
ov
en
ia
M
al
ta
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Li
th
ua
ni
a
A
us
tr
ia
Sw
ed
en
La
tv
ia
Fi
nl
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
Be
lg
iu
m
Es
to
ni
a
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
In
 g
ha
/p
er
so
n
Ecological footprint Ecological deficit/reserve
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 201Development report 2022
3% of this land is used for growing vegetables, as a large 
part of the fields is used for growing fodder crops. These 
are also grown on permanent grassland, which accounts 
for the largest share, with about six-tenths of the utilised 
arable land. Around 6% of the utilised arable land is 
accounted for by permanent cropland, where vineyards 
and orchards predominate. 
Organic farming, the most desirable form of 
agricultural production from an environmental 
perspective, is more widespread in Slovenia than 
in the EU as a whole and is constantly increasing. 
About 11% of all agricultural holdings were involved in 
controlled organic farming in 2020. Again, permanent 
pastures and meadows dedicated to fodder production 
account for the largest share, while the shares of the 
other types of land are relatively small. However, this is 
not in line with demand, which is highest for organically 
produced fresh fruit and vegetables and processed 
vegetarian foods (MKGP, 2021b). Given the natural 
conditions in Slovenia, i.e. the high proportion of farms 
in mountainous and other remote areas where intensive 
conventional farming is not possible, there is still much 
scope for further development.  
Utilised agricultural area in Slovenia accounts for 
a significantly lower share of total land than in the 
EU as a whole, but this relatively modest share has 
stabilised in the last decade after a long period 
of decline. Utilised agricultural area (UAA),1 the 
preservation of which is crucial for food self-sufficiency, 
covered around 484,000 hectares in 2020. Due to the 
abandonment of agriculture, overgrowth of land by trees 
and conversion to built-up land, UAA has decreased by 
14% since Slovenia’s independence, but it has remained 
largely unchanged over the last decade. The changes 
go both ways – conversion of agricultural land to other 
uses and conversion of non-agricultural land back to 
agricultural land, but, at least between 2014 and 2017, 
prime agricultural land was the most frequent subject of 
conversion (Court of Audit, 2021).
In terms of ensuring conditions for local food 
production, the modest share of arable land is of 
particular concern. In terms of arable land per person, 
arable land being the most important type of land 
from a food security perspective, Slovenia is among 
the bottom four countries in the EU. Its arable land per 
person is about 8.4 ares (EU average: 22 ares). Only about 
Utilised agricultural area 4.9
1 UAA includes the following land categories: arable land, permanent grassland and permanent crops. Arable land also includes fallow land, areas under clover and 
lucerne, grassland ploughed after five years, and hop fields. Land under permanent crops includes orchards, olive plantations, vineyards, nurseries, and vine and 
root-stock nurseries. Permanent grassland is land used for grazing or mown for hay that has not been ploughed for at least five years.
 Table: Utilised agricultural area (UAA), total and under organic farming
2005 2008 2010 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
UAA, share in total area, in %
Slovenia 25.1 24.3 23.8 23.7 23.8 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.6 23.7 23.9 >24.0
EU N/A 40.0 39.4 38.9 39.0 39.2 39.1 39.1 39.2 39.4 39.3
UAA, share under organic farming, in %
Slovenia 4.6 6.1 6.4 7.3 8.6 8.9 9.1 9.6 10.0 10.4 10.8
EU N/A N/A N/A 5.9 6.1 6.6 7.1 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.1
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Note: N/A – data not available.
Source: Eurostat (2022).
 Figure: Structure of agricultural land, 2019
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fi
nl
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
Sw
ed
en
H
un
ga
ry
M
al
ta
Cy
pr
us
Po
la
nd
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cz
ec
hi
a
Sl
ov
ak
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Es
to
ni
a
Bu
lg
ar
ia
La
tv
ia
Ro
m
an
ia
Be
lg
iu
m
Fr
an
ce EU
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Cr
oa
tia
Ita
ly
A
us
tr
ia
Sp
ai
n
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Sl
ov
en
ia
G
re
ec
e
Po
rt
ug
al
Ire
la
nd
Arable land Permanent grassland Permanent crops Gardens
Indicators of Slovenia’s development202 Development report 2022
Given its moderate average crop and livestock 
production, Slovenia is not among the countries 
with high agricultural intensity. The development 
of Slovenian agriculture is characterised by dualism: in 
addition to an increasing intensification of agriculture 
due to a decrease in the number of farms and thus a 
greater concentration of crop production, Slovenia 
has also seen an increase in organic farming, which 
is the most desirable form from an environmental 
perspective. A comparison with the EU average in crop 
production does not give a uniform picture, which is 
evident from the average yields for Slovenia’s two most 
important crops, wheat and maize: for wheat, the yield 
per hectare tends to be lower than the EU average, 
while for maize it is generally higher. Under the impact 
of weather conditions, the yields vary considerably from 
year to year, but in the long term they are increasing 
as technology improves. As long as they are not too 
high, this means an improvement in the exploitation of 
natural resources. The environmental burden of livestock 
production, as measured by the number of animals per 
unit of agricultural area, is not among the lowest given 
the natural conditions, but the average milk yield per 
animal is below the EU average. This is favourable from 
the point of view of the burden on animals but somewhat 
less so from the point of view of environmental impact in 
relation to the number of animals. 
The downward trend in the consumption of mineral 
fertilisers and pesticides has resumed in the last 
two years analysed after being interrupted. In 2020, 
for the second year in a row, fertilisation with plant 
macronutrients from mineral fertilisers, i.e. nitrogen, 
phosphorus and potassium (NPK fertilisers), and 
pesticide consumption, measured in terms of the total 
quantity of active ingredients sold per unit of agricultural 
land, decreased.1 A comparison of fertiliser consumption 
with the EU average shows a mixed picture: nitrogen 
consumption, which accounts for most of the NPK 
fertilisers, is lower per unit of land but phosphorus 
consumption is higher.2 In terms of pesticide sales, 
Slovenia is in the upper middle range of EU Member 
States for which data is available. This measurement is 
quite challenging, as substances with different degrees 
of toxicity are involved and sales also depend on the 
type of crops grown and weather conditions and thus on 
the occurrence of diseases and pests. 
Agricultural intensity 4.10 
1 Around two-thirds of pesticides are estimated to be used in agriculture. The rest is applied on non-agricultural land (such as alongside railway tracks and roads and 
in golf courses and parks).
2 The structure of NPK fertiliser consumption in Slovenia consists of about 60% nitrogen and 20% each phosphorus and potassium. Eurostat publishes data on 
nitrogen and phosphorus consumption.
 Table: Average yields of the main crops and consumption of NPK fertilisers and pesticides
2005 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Average yields of wheat, maize and milk, in tonnes/ha or tonnes/cow
Wheat and spelt
Slovenia 4.7 4.8 5.4 4.4 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.0 4.4 5.2 5.8 5.8
EU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.2 5.7 5.2 5.8 5.5
Maize for grain
Slovenia 8.3 8.5 7.1 5.4 9.2 9.0 9.5 7.1 9.5 9.3 10.8 9.1
EU N/A 7.1 6.0 6.8 8.1 6.4 7.3 7.8 8.4 7.9 7.3 7.4
Milk yield
Slovenia 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.4 5.6 5.9 5.8 6.0 5.8 6.1 6.3 N/A
EU N/A N/A N/A 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.4 N/A
Fertilisers and pesticides, Slovenia, growth, 2005=100
NPK fertilisers, consumption per unit 
of utilised agricultural area 100.0 89.3 83.1 85.1 87.0 89.6 86.4 85.1 86.4 83.7 82.4 N/A
Pesticides sales, in tonnes of active 
ingredients 100.0 80.2 72.9 64.9 71.4 74.0 81.8 76.9 82.9 70.7 70.2 N/A
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD. Notes: N/A – data not available; data on the sale of NPK fertilizers in the EU Member States in 2015–2019 (see figure 70 
in Section 4) and on the sales of pesticides in some EU Member States in 2011–2019 are available at Eurostat; there is no data for the EU average (see graph below).
Source: Eurostat (2022).
 Figure: Sales of pesticides calculated per unit of arable land, 2019
5.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Sw
ed
en
Ro
m
an
ia
D
en
m
ar
k
La
tv
ia
Fi
n
la
nd
H
un
g
ar
y
C
ro
at
ia
C
ze
ch
ia
Po
la
n
d
G
re
ec
e
Fr
an
ce
A
us
tr
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Sl
ov
en
ia
Sp
ai
n
Ir
el
an
d
It
al
y
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
h
er
la
n
d
s
Po
rt
ug
al
C
yp
ru
s
In
 k
g
 /
 h
a 
ar
ab
le
 la
n
d
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 203Development report 2022
The intensity of tree felling, which had been relatively 
large after 2014 as a result of sanitary felling, 
decreased significantly in 2020. The severe tree 
damage caused by the glaze ice in 2014 was exacerbated 
by a rapid spread of the spruce bark beetle in subsequent 
years, while in 2017 and 2018 forests were additionally 
damaged by strong windthrow. Therefore major sanitary 
felling was necessary. After the six-year period following 
the glaze ice, during which about 50% more wood mass 
was cut per year than before, logging fell by a fifth in 2020 
and was only 8% higher than before the glaze ice event. 
The shortfall with the maximum felling level allowed 
increased again, to around 40%.1 Tree felling intensity, 
expressed as the ratio of annual felling to annual wood 
increment, decreased again, to 48%. This means that 
it moved away from the goal determined with a view 
to ensuring sustainable development by 2020 (75%) 
(MKO, MGRT, 2012). However, the structure of cut wood, 
which had changed considerably during the period of 
sanitary felling, moved in the direction typical of normal 
conditions for the second year in a row in 2020. The 
share of sanitary logging decreased by 12 p.p. to 42%,2 
and felling for tree-tending purposes, which accounts for 
the largest share under normal conditions, accounted for 
more than half of the total tree felling for the first time 
since the glaze ice event. 
The lower felling in 2019 and 2020 was reflected in 
lower raw wood production, but the opportunities 
for further development of the forest-timber chain 
are still great, due to the large forest cover and the 
growing timber supply. After the glaze ice damage, 
production has increased for all wood categories, 
particularly pulpwood, but also sawlogs and veneer 
logs, i.e. the highest-quality wood, which generates 
the highest value added. However, external trade 
in unprocessed wood has increased more than total 
production. With annual imports slightly dropping, total 
exports have increased by around 60% annually in the 
period since the ice damage, and exports of coniferous 
logs alone more than doubled.3 The high exports of 
this high-quality raw material, however, represent a 
lost opportunity for Slovenia to increase employment 
and achieve higher value added in other sectors up the 
forest–wood chain.  
Intensity of tree felling 4.11
 Table: Forests and their economic yield, Slovenia
2000 2005 2008 2010 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020
Forest area (thousand ha) 1134.2 1169.2 1185.1 1185.2 1183.4 1181.9 1182.0 1180.3 1177.2 1176.8 1176.1
Growing stock (in million m3) 262.8 300.8 322.2 331.0 342.4 346.1 348.2 352.9 355.3 356.7 357.2
Annual wood increment (in million m3) 6.9 7.6 7.9 8.1 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.8
Removals (in million m3) 2.6 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.9 6.3 6.0 5.0 6.1 5.3 4.2
Roundwood production (in million m3) 2.3 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.5 5.3 5.2 4.6 5.1 4.7 4.0
Intensity of tree felling (in %) 38.0 43.0 43.6 41.6 46.2 74.0 70.1 57.3 68.9 59.9 48.1
Sources: ZGS (2021), SURS (2022b); calculations by IMAD. Note: The ratio of felled wood to roundwood production is also dependent on the structure of raw wood 
categories obtained and the type of felled trees. In the period after the glaze ice, the yield was 83% to 95% of felled wood.
1 The potential (or allowable) felling is determined with a view to ensuring sustainable development, i.e. the long-term stability of all forests and their habitats 
irrespective of ownership. In 2014–2019, the recorded tree felling accounted for a tenth of that allowed under forest management plans.
2 Sanitary felling is the felling of sick, damaged or drying trees that have been damaged by biotic (pest and disease outbreaks, wildlife) or abiotic (wind, snow, glaze 
ice, drought, landslide, polluted air) disturbances to such an extent that there they have no silvicultural future (SiDG, 2022).
3 Exports of coniferous logs constitute the bulk of the total exports of logs. For exports of non-coniferous logs, data for the period after 2016 are not available; these 
exports are included in total exports of non-coniferous industrial roundwood, which has increased by 30% annually in this period.
Source: Eurostat (2022); calculations by IMAD.
 Figure: Roundwood production
50
70
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
In
de
x,
 2
00
0=
10
0
EU Croatia Italy Hungary Austria Slovenia
Indicators of Slovenia’s development204 Development report 2022
The quality of Slovenian watercourses, as measured 
by biochemical oxygen demand, is high. Their 
cleanness, which was close to the EU average at the 
beginning of the previous decade, has improved 
significantly since 2005. For several years it has been 
among the highest among the EU Member States for 
which data are available. The concentrations of nitrates 
in groundwater and phosphates in rivers, which in 
excessive quantities degrade water quality, have also 
fallen in the long term and are below the EU average.1 
The decline in organic pollution, which is usually caused 
by municipal and industrial wastewater discharges and 
runoff from agricultural land, is a consequence of a 
significant improvement in wastewater treatment and 
abandonment of certain economic activities, which were 
polluting watercourses with wastewater in previous 
years.
About one-fifth of wastewater in total is treated 
before discharge and about two-thirds of municipal 
wastewater. In Slovenia, which is fairly rich in water 
resources owing to its diverse natural conditions and 
has a relatively high amount of freshwater resources 
available per capita, 1,033 million m3 of water in total was 
abstracted in 2020, 12% more than five years before. The 
majority of this water comes from surface water sources 
and is intended for industry (activities B, C, D and E), and 
only around one-fifth is abstracted from groundwater 
resources and intended for the public water supply 
system and irrigation. A total of 1,049 million m3 of 
wastewater was discharged into the environment.2 The 
share of water treated before discharge increased from 
11% to 17% between 2015 and 2020, while the majority 
of untreated water is only thermally polluted due to 
its use in hydroelectric power plants. In 2020, 69% of 
the municipal wastewater from sewers was treated in 
wastewater treatment plants before being discharged 
into the environment.  
Quality of watercourses 4.12 
1 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is an index of the degree of organic pollution in water. It refers to the amount of oxygen required by aerobic microorganisms to 
decompose organic substances in a water sample under certain conditions. The cleanest rivers have BOD values of less than 1 mg O2/l, while moderately and heavily 
polluted rivers show values ranging from 2 to 8 mg O2/l. Nitrates in groundwater are long-lasting and accumulate through inputs from anthropogenic sources, 
mainly agriculture. To prevent adverse health effects, the EU drinking water standard is limited to 50 mg NO3/l. The high levels of phosphates in rivers can cause 
eutrophication, i.e. excessive growth of microphytes and algae, which has an adverse effect on water quality (Eurostat, 2022).
2 Wastewater is not only water that is released back to the environment after use, but also runoff rainwater that flows back to the environment through the sewerage 
system or is captured and then discharged directly to rivers, streams or soil.
 Table: Water quality indicators
2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 SDS 2030 target
Biochemical oxygen demand in rivers, in mg O2/l
Slovenia 2.9 2.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 < 1
EU 3.3 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0
Nitrates in groundwater, in mg NO3/l
Slovenia 19.4 18.9 18.8 24.0 14.8 15.9 17.8 19.5 16.5 16.2 18.3
EU 21.2 21.1 21.0 21.0 20.7 20.5 21.1 21.3 21.7 21.2 22.0
Phosphates in rivers, in mg PO4/l
Slovenia 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02
EU 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Source: Eurostat (2022). Notes: The values for Slovenia according to SURS are slightly different than according to Eurostat; N/A – data not available.
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: The values for Slovenia according to SURS are somewhat higher than according to Eurostat due to a greater number of sampling places.
 Figure: Biochemical oxygen demand in rivers
2.9
3.3
0.9
2.4
0.9
2.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Sl
ov
en
ia
Ire
la
nd
La
tv
ia
Fr
an
ce
Es
to
ni
a
A
us
tr
ia
Cr
oa
tia EU
Cy
pr
us
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Cz
ec
hi
a
Be
lg
iu
m
Po
la
nd
Ro
m
an
ia
In
 m
g 
O
2 
/ l
itr
e
2000 2010 2018
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 205Development report 2022
The quality of ambient air in Slovenia is to a large 
extent related to excessive particulate matter 
(PM) pollution,1 which is mainly a consequence of 
inappropriate burning of wood biomass and poor 
ventilation of some areas. Most of the particulate 
matter (PM
10
) pollution, about 60%, is due to emissions 
from small combustion sources, to a large extent owing 
to households’ outdated wood biomass furnaces and 
the often unfavourable weather conditions in the poorly 
ventilated basins and valleys of the continental part of 
Slovenia. With pronounced temperature inversions, 
even a relatively low emission density can cause 
excessive air pollution. As there are no such problems in 
the warm season, the data on the annual averages show 
a better picture than the data on the number of days 
with the exceeded daily limit value, which are typical 
of the cold months of the year. Another major source of 
particulate emissions is energy use in industrial processes 
and fuel combustion in industry, followed by road 
transport emissions. In recent years, the overall average 
exposure of the urban population to particle pollution 
has been declining, partly as a result of milder winters, 
but exposure to the smallest particles is still significantly 
higher than the EU average. 
Another problem is the locally high presence of 
ground-level ozone. As the formation of ozone requires 
sufficient sunlight, the excessive concentrations of 
ozone, in contrast to particulate matter, mainly occur 
during the summer months. They are primarily the result 
of road traffic, the main source of ground-level ozone 
precursors. In Slovenia, the ambient concentration of 
ozone is significantly affected by transboundary air 
pollution and is highly dependent on winds from the 
west. It is highest in the Primorska region, although it is 
also high in most other areas, even in rural areas and at 
higher altitudes (ARSO, 2022a). As ozone concentrations 
are strongly dependent on weather conditions, no clear 
trend can be seen from the multi-year data series, but 
according to the most recent data, the exposure of the 
urban population to ozone was higher than the EU 
average.
Ambient air quality 4.13 
1 The most frequently measured particles are those sized 10 µm or less (PM10) and 2.5 µm or less (PM2.5). These are the most damaging for health, causing increased 
morbidity and mortality due to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
 Table: Urban population exposure to particulate matter and ozone, in micrograms per m3
2000 2005 2008 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
PM10
Slovenia N/A 36.8 29.1 28.2 25.4 24.9 22.5 27.7 25.6 24.8 24.1 20.4
EU 32.2 29.4 27.4 27.2 25.9 25.1 23.3 24.1 22.0 22.6 22.5 20.5
PM2.5
Slovenia N/A N/A 23.9 21.8 20.4 20.1 17.5 21.6 21.6 19.7 18.3 15.3
EU 14.5 16.2 18.1 18.9 17.5 16.4 15.7 15.8 14.6 14.9 14.5 12.6
Ozone, Slovenia
No. of days with exceeded values 46 33 24 40 41 31 28 24 32 26 31
Sources: Eurostat (2022), ARSO (2022b). Notes: Average annual particulate matter concentrations in urban background locations. The annual concentration limit 
recommended by the World Health Organisation to protect human health is 20 µg/m3 for PM10 and 10 µg/m3 for PM2.5 (ARSO, 2022b). The exceedance of the target 
values for ozone set for the protection of human health is determined on the basis of ozone concentrations that were measured in the previous three-year period 
at measuring points representative for the area (Decree on ozone in ambient air, 2003); data for measuring points in urban backgrounds are shown; N/A – data not 
available.
 Figure: Urban population exposure to PM2,5, 2019
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: data for Malta not available.
12.6
15.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Es
to
ni
a
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
Ire
la
nd
Po
rt
ug
al
D
en
m
ar
k
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Fr
an
ce
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
G
er
m
an
y
Be
lg
iu
m
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Sp
ai
n
A
us
tr
ia
La
tv
ia EU
Cy
pr
us
Sl
ov
ak
ia
G
re
ec
e
Cz
ec
h 
R.
H
un
ga
ry
Ita
ly
Sl
ov
en
ia
Cr
oa
tia
Ro
m
an
ia
Po
la
nd
Bu
lg
ar
ia
M
ic
ro
gr
am
s
/ m
3
Indicators of Slovenia’s development206 Development report 2022
Functionally derelict areas (FDAs)1 continue to 
undergo positive spatial changes, as reflected in the 
accelerated revitalisation of existing FDAs and the 
slower growth of new FDAs. In 2021, a higher number 
of building permits issued2 and increased investment 
activity were also observed in the FDAs. Compared 
to 2020, changes were observed in about one-tenth 
of FDAs, and both their total number and area have 
decreased. At the same time, the consequences of the 
COVID-19 crisis started to show through the cessation 
of activities in areas intended for trade, services and 
industry, which could be reflected in new FDAs.3 In 
2017–2021, activities in about one-third of, i.e. 350, FDAs 
resumed or revitalisation efforts were still ongoing.
The revival was evenly distributed across the regions 
and was most concentrated in terms of structure on 
FDAs for housing. To a large extent (59% of all FDAs), 
the construction of unfinished residential areas on FDAs 
for housing has been completed, but mainly intended 
for elite residential neighbourhoods, which will not 
significantly alleviate the deficit of public rental housing 
(see Chapter 3). Most of the residential neighbourhoods 
whose construction was completed are located in 
the Osrednjeslovenska and Koroška regions (in both 
regions they accounted for one-fifth of all revivals in 
the region), but they are also located in other statistical 
regions (e.g. Savinjska, Podravska and Jugovzhodna 
Slovenija). Abandoned construction sites, which are 
classified as FDAs of transitional use, were also revived 
at 42% of locations. For FDAs of industrial and craft 
activities, the most positive changes were observed in 
the Goriška region, while for FDAs of service activities, 
the most positive changes were observed in the 
Osrednjeslovenska and Gorenjska regions. 
Functionally derelict areas 4.14
1 In accordance with the Spatial Planning Act (ZUreP-3, 2021), the term "degraded" has been changed to "derelict".
2 In 2021, 17% more building permits were issued in Slovenia than in 2020 (Kastelic, 2022).
3 From the point of view of recording spatial changes, one year is considered a short period. To be entered in the FDA register, the area must have been without 
function for at least one year, so some newly abandoned areas are not yet entered. FDAs are not deleted from the register until they are in use again.
 Figure: Structure of positive FDA changes by types and regions, 2017–2021
Source: FF UL (2021).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pomurska
Gorenjska
Primorsko-notranjska
Obalno-kraška
Posavska
Goriška
Zasavska
Jugovzhodna Slovenija
Podravska
Savinjska
Osrednjeslovenska
Koroška
Slovenia
%
FDA for housing
FDA of infrastructure
FDA of agricultural
activities
FDA of defence, protection
and rescue services
FDA of transitional use
FDA of mineral extraction
FDA of service activities
FDA of tourist, sports and
recreation activities
FDA of industrial and craft
activities
 Table: Changes in the revival, by type of FDA, 2017–2021
FDA:
Number of FDAs FDA back in function or in the process of revival, 2017–2021
2017 2020 2021 Number Area (ha) Share in %
Industry and crafts 228 216 218 93 576 43
Infrastructure 128 164 163 34 66 21
Agriculture 74 85 84 19 88 23
Defence, protection and rescue 34 35 35 3 8 9
Transitional use 116 140 141 41 106 29
Extraction of mineral raw materials 172 182 181 33 127 18
Service activities 171 191 186 63 142 34
Tourism and sports and recreation 60 68 70 16 39 23
For housing 98 86 81 48 57 59
Total 1,081 1,167 1,159 350 1,209 30
Source: FF UL (2021).
 Efficient governance and high-quality public services 
5.1 Trust in institutions 
5.2 Executive capacity 
 A trustworthy legal system 
5.3 The Rule of Law Index
5.4 The expected time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases
5.5 The Corruption Perception Index 
 A safe and globally responsible Slovenia 
5.6 The Global Peace Index 
5.7 Share of households reporting problems with crime, vandalism or   
violence in the local area
5.8 Expenditure on official development assistance
5 A high level of cooperation, competence 
and governance efficiency

Indicators of Slovenia’s development 209Development report 2022
After several years of improvement, trust in most 
institutions decreased in 2020 and 2021, remaining 
below the EU average, and was below the SDS target, 
except for trust in local authorities.1 It was the highest 
and above the EU average in 2006 but has dropped 
significantly since then. Trust in most institutions was 
the lowest at the end of the global financial crisis, 
while it improved in 2013–2019.2 The level of trust in 
key institutions decreased again in the last two years. 
In 2021,3 trust in the government, parliament and 
political parties was among the lowest in the EU. The 
increased dissatisfaction was to a great extent due to 
the COVID-19 epidemic, which led to changes in the 
economy and people’s lives.4 In Slovenia, more than 
half of the respondents (53%; EU: 25%) thought that the 
measures taken by the public authorities to contain the 
epidemic were unjustified and 59% (EU: 50%) believed 
that things were heading in the wrong direction. Most 
respondents did not expect the economic situation and 
the general situation in Slovenia to improve in the next 
12 months. Trust in local authorities was higher during 
the epidemic than before, and this is still the institution 
people trust the most, while political parties are the least 
trusted institution.
Trust in the EU and its institutions has increased 
since 2015. It was the highest in 2006 and the lowest 
in 2015 and has been rising again since then. In 2021, 
55% of respondents trusted the EU, which is the most 
since 2008 and more than the EU average, which can 
be attributed to the increased reputation of the EU 
among Slovenian citizens.5 In 2021, trust in European 
institutions also increased further compared to the 
previous year. More than half of all respondents trusted 
the European Commission (52%; EU: 50%) and the 
European Parliament (51%; EU: 53%) and slightly fewer 
the European Central Bank (45%; EU: 48%).
Trust in institutions 5.1
1 The source of the data is Eurobarometer, which is based on public opinion polls on the level of trust in selected institutions, with the possible answers being “tend to 
trust”, “tend not to trust” and “don’t know”.
2 Trust in political parties started to improve slightly only in 2017.
3 The last available data is for 2021 (June–July 2021 survey).
4 Trust in institutions was lowest in the February–March 2021 survey, when a series of containment measures were taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
5 In 2021, 53% of respondents in Slovenia held a positive image of the EU. This is the highest figure since 2009 and 11 p.p. higher than in 2020 and is above both the EU 
average (45%) and the share of those who have a neutral image of the EU (36%). Half of the respondents also estimated that things were going in the right direction 
in the EU (EU: 41%).
 Table: Trust in institutions, in %
 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SDS 2030 target
Parliament
Slovenia 42 34 23 10 12 6 9 11 14 17 22 26 22 19 At least half of 
the population 
trust public 
institutions (the 
average of the 
last three years)
EU 33 34 31 27 28 25 30 28 32 35 35 36 36 35
Government
Slovenia 43 36 27 12 15 10 13 16 17 17 23 31 25 25
EU 30 34 29 24 27 23 29 27 31 36 35 35 40 37
Local 
authorities
Slovenia N/A 39 39 36 34 29 31 27 38 43 40 46 50 48
EU N/A 50 47 45 43 44 43 42 47 51 54 54 57 57
Political 
parties
Slovenia 20 17 11 7 9 6 6 6 6 8 10 14 12 10
EU 17 20 18 14 15 14 14 15 16 18 18 20 23 21
EU
Slovenia 70 60 47 38 39 37 40 30 37 38 37 46 47 55
EU 45 47 42 34 33 31 37 32 36 41 42 45 43 49
Source: Eurobarometer (2021e). Notes: The figures for individual years are the latest available data for that year (autumn measurements, for 2020 and 2021 summer 
measurements); For the EU, the figures for 2006 are for the EU-25, the figures from 2008 to 2012 are for the EU-27, the figures from 2013 to 2018 are for the EU-28, and 
the figures for 2019 and 2020 are for the EU-27. N/A – data not available.
 Figure: Trust in EU institutions, Slovenia
Source: Eurobarometer (2021e). Note: The figures for individual years are the latest available data for that year (autumn measurements for 2020 and 2021 summer measurements).
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
In
 %
European Commission European Parliament European Central Bank
Indicators of Slovenia’s development210 Development report 2022
A low executive capacity score points to the relatively 
low values of the government and institutional 
performance indicators. In the SGI survey (Bertelsmann, 
2020),2 the main weaknesses identified were in effective 
strategic planning and organisational reforms, where 
only limited progress has been made in recent years. 
The implementation of policy measures at various levels 
of government (both central and local) is also assessed 
as significantly worse than in other EU Member States. 
One of the issues is political interference in recruiting in 
the state administration, even at expert levels. Despite 
the progress made over the past year, Slovenia also lags 
behind other countries in producing a comprehensive 
assessment of the impact of proposed regulations (RIA) 
on public finances, the economy, the environment and 
society as a whole.   
The executive capacity indicator, which measures 
the strategic governance of public institutions, is 
gradually improving in Slovenia but remains low 
compared to other EU Member States. The executive 
capacity indicator is a sustainable governance indicator 
measuring government and institutional performance 
in eight dimensions: strategic capacity, inter-
ministerial cooperation, regulatory impact assessment, 
societal consultation, policy communication, the 
implementation of set measures, adaptability and the 
capacity for reforming the public administration.1 Since 
2017, the indicator value and Slovenia’s rank among 
the EU Member States have improved, but Slovenia 
continues to lag significantly behind the EU average in 
all indicator dimensions. 
Executive capacity 5.2 
 Table: Executive capacity indicator, Slovenia and the EU
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia* 4.46 4.64 4.81 4.77 4.81 4.91 4.97 EU average in 2030
EU 6.02 6.04 6.04 6.04 6.05 5.95 5.94
Source: Bertelsmann, 2020; calculations by IMAD. Notes: Scores range from 1 to 10, with higher being better; *for Slovenia, the indicator was calculated for the first 
time in 2014.
Source: Bertelsmann, 2020; calculations by IMAD. Notes: *The top three countries are Sweden, Finland and Denmark. A higher score is better, with the 
highest score being 10.
 Figure: Executive capacity indicator by dimension, 2020
0
2
4
6
8
10
Strategic capacity
Inter-ministerial
cooperation
Regulatory impact
assessment
Societal consultation
Communication
Implementation
Adaptability
Organisational reform
capacity
The three best-performing countries*
EU
Slovenia 2020
Slovenia 2014
1 The main limitation of sustainable governance indicators (SGIs) is the small size of the sample of experts included in the survey in individual countries. 
2 The survey was conducted in the first half of 2020 and published in September 2020, which means that the impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on the executive 
capacity of the countries surveyed is largely ignored.
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 211Development report 2022
labour rights indicators). On the other hand, it lags most 
behind the EU average in criminal justice, with indicators 
in this area reflecting mistrust in the justice system, 
particularly in its independence. The weaknesses in 
adherence to the rule of law are also indicated by the low 
indicator values in the areas of responsibility and powers 
of government policy (e.g. the sanctions for official 
misconduct indicator, compliance with legislation and 
respect for the judiciary by the government) and the 
absence of corruption (e.g. the risk of corruption in the 
executive branch and in the legislature). According to 
Eurobarometer (2021d), respondents in Slovenia are 
less well informed about the rule of law in Slovenia than 
the EU average, and a high proportion of respondents 
believe that the EU’s fundamental values (human rights, 
the rule of law and democracy) are not sufficiently 
protected (Slovenia: 62%; EU: 32%). 
Slovenia ranks in the lower half of EU Member States 
on the Rule of Law Index; its ranking has not changed 
significantly since 2012.1 The rule of law highlights the 
principle of equality before the law and emphasises the 
inviolability of the authority of the law and rules. This 
means that the Government itself respects the law, that 
the functioning of government bodies is bound by law, 
and that fundamental human rights and freedoms are 
ensured. By being ranked in the lower half of EU Member 
States on the Rule of Law Index, which has not improved 
in the long term (2012–2021), Slovenia lags behind 
the SDS target. Slovenia scores best in the category of 
order and safety, where it is close to the top-ranking 
Scandinavian countries. The only other category where it 
also ranks close to the EU average is fundamental rights 
(where it scores well on the right to life and security and 
The Rule of Law Index 5.3 
 Table: Rule of Law Index, Slovenia and the EU
2012–13 2014 2015 2016 2017–18 2019 2020 2021 SDS 2030 target
Ranking among EU Member States
Slovenia 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 18*
Ranking in the top 
half of EU Member 
States
Score
Slovenia 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.69 0.68
EU* 0.72 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73
Source: World Justice Project (2021). Notes: Scores range from 0 to 10, with higher being better; data for the overall index are available from 2012 onwards; *data for 
2012–2020 was available only for 20 EU Member States; for 2021, data was available for all Member States, which affected the absolute ranking.
 Figure: Rule of Law Index by sub-component, 2021
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Constraints on government
Absence of corruption
Open government
Fundamental rights
Order and security
Regulatory enforcement
Civil justice
Criminal justice
The three best-performing countries*
EU 2020
Slovenia
Slovenia 2012–2013
powers
Source: World Justice Project (2021). Notes: Scores range from 0 to 1, higher being better; the three best-performing countries are Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
1 The deterioration in 2021 is the result of a methodological change, i.e. an increase in the number of countries included in the survey (20 EU Member States were 
included in 2020 and 27 in 2021). Taking into account only the countries from previous years, Slovenia’s rank did not change in 2021 (13th place). 
Indicators of Slovenia’s development212 Development report 2022
The efficiency of the justice system has improved 
in recent years. The average time needed to resolve 
a case shortened, though the time needed to 
resolve major cases has lengthened slightly.3 The 
average time needed to resolve a case has shortened 
significantly over the past few years, to 1 month in 2021. 
Up to 2016, the time needed to resolve a major case 
was also rapidly decreasing, largely as a consequence 
of a smaller incoming caseload and greater efficiency 
on the part of the courts. This amount of time has not 
changed significantly since 2016 and has lengthened 
somewhat in the last two years. This can be attributed, 
among other things, to new competences given to the 
courts by legislative amendments, although the courts 
still resolved more cases than came in in most years.4 The 
limited functioning of the courts due to the COVID-19 
epidemic affected caseload and efficiency indicators in 
2020,4 but in 2021 the courts again resolved more cases 
than came in (0.4% of major cases and 1.5% of all cases). 
The share of pending major cases in the total number of 
unresolved cases has thus increased (by 46.9% in 2016 
and 67% in 2021).  
The expected time needed to resolve litigious civil and 
commercial cases1 shortened significantly in 2008–
2019, but it remains longer than the EU average. In 
2008–2014, Slovenia saw a shortening of the expected 
time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial 
cases by more than 40%, in large part due to the project 
to eliminate court backlogs and other structural reforms 
(e.g. insolvency legislation). Since 2014, the time needed 
to resolve these cases has increased slightly (to 281 days 
in 2019), moving away from the SDS 2030 target (200 
days). This can be attributed mainly to new competences 
given to the courts and a larger number of major cases. 
The gap with the EU average also widened in this period. 
Court proceedings related to money laundering take 
the longest compared to other countries.2 Meanwhile, 
the expected length of second- and third-instance 
proceedings – where Slovenia has been among the best-
performing countries in recent years – is shortening. 
However, owing to the different data and methodology 
used in the calculation, the expected disposition time 
differs from the time actually taken to resolve a case. 
The expected time needed to resolve litigious civil and 
commercial cases
5.4 
1 The expected length of proceedings indicates the estimated time (in days) needed to resolve a case in court, i.e. the time taken by the court to reach a decision at the 
first instance.
2 Court proceedings related to money laundering take longer only in Malta. 
3 Major cases, which account for around 15% of the total caseload, are all cases defined as such in the methodology for recording statistical data, which is published 
at: https://podatki.gov.si/dataset/sodna-statistika-bilten/ 
4 The ratio of the number of resolved cases to the number of incoming cases in the last 12 months was above 100% in 2016–2021, except in 2020, when the functioning 
of courts was restricted due to the epidemic.
5 In 2020, the courts resolved 5% fewer major cases than came in (there were 0.2% fewer cases overall).
 Table: Time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at the first instance, in days
2008 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 460 315 318 301 270 277 280 292 283 281 200 days
EU 299 288 278 300 253 244 252 242 250 258
Source: EC (2021v).
Source: Supreme Court (2022).
 Figure: Major cases at courts, Slovenia
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
N
um
be
r o
f m
on
th
s
N
um
be
r o
f c
as
es
Incoming Resolved Unresolved Average disposition time (right axis)
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 213Development report 2022
The already relatively high perception of corruption 
in Slovenia further increased over the past year.1 
The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is based on 
the rate of public sector corruption as perceived by 
businesspeople, experts and analysts. In 2012–2020, 
Slovenia made no significant progress in the corruption 
perception ranking. Its ranking even slightly worsened in 
the last measurement and the gap with the EU average 
widened. Slovenia is among the EU Member States (with 
Cyprus, Hungary, Spain and Malta) where the index has 
fallen the most since 2012, reflecting a higher perception 
of corruption, but it is faring better than most countries 
that joined the EU after 2003. The last two years were 
marked by the COVID-19 epidemic and ensuing crisis, 
which exposed a number of corruption risks, as the 
number of corruption cases reported to the Commission 
for the Prevention of Corruption was higher in both years 
than in 2019. According to Eurobarometer (2020b), 87% 
of persons asked think that corruption is widespread 
in Slovenia, but at the same time, a large majority of 
respondents have no personal experience of corruption. 
The high perception of corruption in Slovenia can to a 
great extent be attributed to respondents believing 
that high-profile and major cases of corruption are not 
adequately sanctioned.
The Corruption Perception Index 5.5
 Table: The Corruption Perception Index
2005 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Slovenia 61(15)
67
(11)
66
(10)
64
(12)
61
(15)
57
(16)
58
(16)
60
(15)
61
(14)
61
(13)
60
(13)
60
(14)
60
(14)
57
(16)
EU 62.4 63.6 59.9 61.5 62.6 62.8 63.7 65.0 64.0 65.0 64.1 63.9 63.7 63.7
Source: Transparency international (2022). Note: The index scale ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 means that a country is perceived as being highly corrupt and 100 
means that a country is perceived as being “very clean”. The figure in brackets shows Slovenia’s rank among the EU Member States.
1 Most of the sources for compiling the Corruption Perception Index are based on research and surveys from 2020 or the first half of 2021.
Source: Transparency International (2022). Note: The index scale ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 means that a country is perceived as being highly corrupt and 100 
means that a country is perceived as being “very clean”. The figure in brackets shows Slovenia’s rank among the EU Member States.
 Figure: The Corruption Perception Index
64 57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
D
en
m
ar
k
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
G
er
m
an
y
A
us
tr
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Ire
la
nd
Be
lg
iu
m
Fr
an
ce EU
Po
rt
ug
al
Sp
ai
n
Li
th
ua
ni
a
La
tv
ia
Sl
ov
en
ia
Po
la
nd
Ita
ly
Cz
ec
h 
R.
M
al
ta
Cy
pr
us
Sl
ov
ak
ia
G
re
ec
e
Cr
oa
tia
Ro
m
an
ia
H
un
ga
ry
Bu
lg
ar
ia
%
 o
f r
es
po
nd
en
ts
2021 2020 2012
Indicators of Slovenia’s development214 Development report 2022
likelihood of violent demonstrations.3 Compared with 
other countries, Slovenia nevertheless ranks relatively 
high in these areas, but these scores indicate certain 
shortcomings, albeit ones that do not significantly affect 
the assessment of peace in the country. According to 
the Global Peace Index for 2021, Europe was the most 
peaceful region in the world and was home to eight 
of the ten most peaceful countries in the world (six of 
which are EU Member States). The Middle East and 
North Africa (MENA) was the least peaceful region in the 
world and Afghanistan was the least peaceful country 
in the world. Globally, the number of armed conflicts 
and wars did not change significantly in the years until 
2021 and remained high (Strand and Havard, 2021), but 
the COVID-19 pandemic has created new tensions and 
insecurities that are manifesting themselves primarily in 
political and social unrest, but also in feelings of being 
threatened and interpersonal violence (IEP, 2021a).4
According to the World Peace Index,1 Slovenia was 
once again one of the most peaceful countries in the 
world in 2021 and improved its rank compared to the 
previous year, remaining within the SDS 2030 target. 
In 2021, it ranked 5th out of 163 countries in the world 
and 3rd among EU Member States, which is in line with 
the SDS target. Only Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark and 
Portugal were ahead of Slovenia. Slovenia is among the 
ten best performing countries in the area of militarisation 
(2nd) and societal safety and security (7th). In both areas, 
it made slight progress compared to the previous year. 
It scores lower in the area of domestic and international 
conflict (50th), which is mainly due to the still slightly 
worse assessment of relations with neighbouring 
countries and the intensity of organised internal conflicts. 
It has also scored slightly lower over the past decade 
with regard to the indicators of the number of internal 
security officers and police per 100,000 people2 and the 
The Global Peace Index 5.6
1 The Global Peace Index, which is produced each year in cooperation with the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), evaluates countries according to their level of 
peacefulness. It includes 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators on a scale from 1 to 5, grouped into three thematic domains: militarisation (7 indicators), societal 
safety and security (10 indicators), and ongoing domestic and international conflict (6 indicators). The calculation of the Index for 2020 includes data from 2015 to 
March 2021.
2 According to Eurostat (2022) data on the number of police officers per 100,000 inhabitants, Slovenia also ranked in the bottom half of EU Member States in 2019 (the 
latest available data).
3 The two indicators fall under the area of societal safety and security.
4 Between January 2020 and April 2021, more than 5,000 violent incidents related to the pandemic occurred in at least 158 countries, ranging from violent 
demonstrations and riots to physical attacks on people of Asian descent.
Table: Global Peace Index, Slovenia
2008 2010 2011 2012 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SDS 2030 target
Rank among 163 countries To be ranked 
among the top 
10 countries in 
the world and 
the top 5 in 
the EU.
Global Peace Index 8 7 4 8 10 8 7 7 6 10 5
Score
Global Peace Index 1.381 1.383 1.378 1.419 1.387 1.353 1.346 1.364 1.329 1.349 1.315
Militarisation 1.20 1.18 1.25 1.43 1.37 1.25 1.18 1.26 1.18 1.17 1.13
Societal security and safety 1.46 1.48 1.43 1.42 1.39 1.37 1.39 1.39 1.35 1.41 1.35
Domestic and international conflict 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.40 1.40 1.40
Source: IEP (2021b). Note: Scores range from 1 to 5, with a lower score being better.
Source: IEP (2021b). Note: Scores range from 1 to 5, with a lower score being better.
 Table: Global Peace Index, Slovenia
3 4 5
6 8 9
13 15 17 17
19 20 21
24 25 26
27
30 31 32
35 37
55
61
66
0
15
30
45
60
75
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
D
en
m
ar
k
Po
rt
ug
al
Sl
ov
en
ia
A
us
tr
ia
Ire
la
nd
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Fi
nl
an
d
Sw
ed
en
Cr
oa
tia
G
er
m
an
y
H
un
ga
ry
Be
lg
iu
m
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Po
la
nd
Ro
m
an
ia
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Es
to
ni
a
Sp
ai
n
Ita
ly
La
tv
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Fr
an
ce
Cy
pr
us
G
re
ec
e
Ra
nk
Sc
or
e
Global Peace Index Rank among 163 countries (right axis)
Indicators of Slovenia’s development 215Development report 2022
contribute to a reduction in crime are a better quality 
of life for families in the community (the prevention 
and reduction of poverty and social exclusion), high-
quality implementation of educational work in schools, 
and more comprehensive organisation of social life and 
surveillance in the local community (Meško and Sotlar, 
2012).
Slovenia is a safe country, which has a positive impact 
on the quality of life. The results of the European Social 
Survey suggest that the share of respondents who 
have had personal experience of burglary or physical 
assault after 2010 hoovered between 9% and 11% and, 
according to the 2018 data, was lower than the average 
for countries included in the survey (15%)3 (ESS-ERIC, 
2020). In 2020,4 10.2% of respondents reported such 
experience, which is slightly less than in 2018 (CJMMK, 
2022). In addition to the personal experience of crime, 
people’s quality of life is also affected by the feeling of 
being threatened in the immediate environment, which 
was consistently lower in Slovenia than the average of 
the countries participating in the survey. In 2020, 94% 
of respondents felt safe when walking alone in their 
neighbourhood at night, which is the same as in 2018 
(EU-17: 83%).
The share of people1 reporting problems with crime, 
vandalism or violence in the local area in 20202 was 
the lowest in the last 15 years and in line with the 
SDS target. It was 7.3%, slightly lower than the previous 
year, as in most other EU Member States, which may be 
partly due to the measures taken to contain the spread 
of COVID-19. In the last decade, it has constantly been 
below the EU average. The incidence of crime is mostly 
affected by socio-economic factors and social climate, 
and crime is also more common in urban environments. 
The proportion of households reporting problems 
with crime in their local environment decreased in 
most regions in 2020, with the smallest decrease in the 
Koroška region (SURS, 2022b). Jugovzhodna Slovenija 
continued to stand out on this indicator with the highest 
share, exceeding the Slovenian average by three-
quarters. Despite the decrease in 2020, it grew the most 
in this area compared to 2010. In 2020, the Slovenian 
average was exceeded by the Obalno-kraška, Posavska 
and Osrednjeslovenska regions. In the last, the share of 
households reporting problems with crime decreased 
the most compared to 2010, but it was still above the 
Slovenian average in 2020. The Osrednjeslovenska 
region has the most urbanised areas in Slovenia, which 
increases the potential for crime. Important factors that 
Share of households reporting problems with crime,   
vandalism or violence in the local area
5.7
1 The unit described in the Living Conditions Survey (EU-SILC) is private households and the persons living in these households. Eurostat data refer to persons 
(household-level data are attributed to all persons in the household), while SURS data (regional survey) refer to households.
2 In 2020, the survey was conducted in two periods due to the epidemic (January–March and May–September), so the data for 2020 are not fully comparable with the 
data from previous years (Stare et al., 2021).
3 The chart shows the total average result of the selected countries regardless of the size of the national samples or the size of the country (Austria, Belgium, the Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Hungary, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom).
4 Due to the epidemic, data for 2020 were obtained in two periods: from 18 September to 19 October 2020 and from 1 June to 31 August 2021.
 Table: Reported crime, vandalism or violence in the local area, in %
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 SDS 2030 target
Slovenia 9.3 8.6 8.1 9.1 10.1 9.2 8.5 8.0 7.9 8.0 7.3 < 10 %
EU 13.1 13.2 12.8 14.1 13.6 13.2 12.5 11.5 11.5 11.0 N/A
Source: Eurostat (2022).
Source: Eurostat (2022). Note: Data for Italy and Poland are not available.
Figure: Reported crime, vandalism or violence in the local area, 2020
7.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Cr
oa
tia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Sl
ov
ak
ia
H
un
ga
ry
La
tv
ia
Es
to
ni
a
A
us
tr
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Po
rt
ug
al
Fi
nl
an
d
D
en
m
ar
k
Sl
ov
en
ia
G
er
m
an
y
Ro
m
an
ia
Cy
pr
us
Be
lg
iu
m
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
M
al
ta
Ire
la
nd
Sw
ed
en
Sp
ai
n
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
Fr
an
ce
G
re
ec
e
Bu
lg
ar
ia
In
 %
Indicators of Slovenia’s development216 Development report 2022
In 2020, expenditure on official development 
assistance remained significantly lower than 
international commitments.1 Official development 
assistance is defined as aid provided by advanced 
countries in support of sustainable development in 
developing countries. Compared to the previous year, 
17 EU Member States increased their funds for official 
development assistance in 2020 to support partner 
countries in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic 
(EC, 2021k). Slovenia allocated EUR 79.61 million 
for development assistance, 2% more than in 2019, 
thus maintaining the share of GNI2 dedicated for this 
purpose, though this remained significantly below 
the EU average.3 Expenditure on official development 
assistance (0.17% of GNI) falls considerably short of 
international commitments, according to which Slovenia 
should strive to increase the share of GNI for this purpose 
to 0.33% by 2030.
The structure of assistance in 2020 was affected by 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Development assistance is 
the sum of multilateral assistance (funding provided 
for the regular development activities of international 
organisations) and bilateral assistance.4 To help partner 
countries address the health, economic and social 
challenges of the COVID-19 crisis, funding for bilateral 
humanitarian aid was significantly increased in 2020. 
Most of this aid was intended for emergency relief 
and was mainly financed by earmarked contributions 
to international organisations. Due to the situation, 
assistance focused on specific projects, which has 
accounted for a relatively large share of bilateral aid in 
recent years, saw the sharpest decline (by 65%) in 2020. 
Support for the operation of institutions increased the 
most (by 56%), but it remains relatively low in terms of 
funding (about 1.6% of all bilateral assistance). In recent 
years, Slovenia has used most of its aid to pay tuition fees 
and scholarships, which further increased in 2020 (by 
19%) and the cost of caring for refugees and migrants 
also increased again (by 18%)5. In 2020, Slovenia again 
dedicated most of its bilateral aid6 to Western Balkan 
countries, 76% in total, which is more than ever before. 
Most of this aid was again allocated to quality education 
projects (funds for paying tuition fees and scholarships). 
The volume of multilateral aid also increased, with 
the largest share (86%) of aid going to development 
cooperation programmes within the EU. Together with 
humanitarian aid, this has contributed to a relatively 
small increase in funding for official development 
assistance in 2020 (MZZ, 2022a).
Expenditure on official development assistance 5.8
Table: Official development assistance as a share of GNI, in %
2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Slovenia 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17
EU 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.42 0.49 0.47 0.43 0.41 0.50
Source: Eurostat (2022).
1 In 2015, the EU and Member States renewed their commitment to spend 0.7% of total GNI on official development assistance by 2030. The target for Member States that 
joined the EU before 2002 is to spend 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance, while the target for Member States that joined the EU after 2002 is 33% of GNI.
2 The share of GNI for official development assistance in 2019 was corrected from 0.16% to 0.17% (see MZZ, 2022a).
3 In most EU Member States, the share of GNI for official development assistance increased in 2020 or remained unchanged. Among the countries that joined the EU 
after 2002, Slovenia ranks third, behind Malta and Hungary, which increased their share of GNI for official development assistance most significantly (see Figure).
4 In 2020, EUR 26.49 million was allocated for bilateral assistance. Bilateral assistance is the sum of disposable bilateral assistance (EUR 23.89 million) and administrative 
costs (EUR 2.61 million). In 2020, after a short period of growth, both administrative costs and available bilateral aid decreased (MZZ, 2022a).
5 They were highest in 2015 and 2016 due to migration trends, mainly related to the situation in the Middle East, which was reflected in a disproportionate increase in 
the volume of development assistance.
6 The priority development regions being (i) the Western Balkans (Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, and Albania), (ii) the 
European neighbourhood and (iii) Sub-Saharan Africa.
Source: Eurostat (2022).
 Figure: Official development assistance as a % of GNI in the EU Member States in 2020
0.17
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Cy
pr
us
La
tv
ia
Li
th
ua
ni
a
Ro
m
an
ia
Bu
lg
ar
ia
Cz
ec
h 
R.
Sl
ov
ak
ia
Po
la
nd
Cr
oa
tia
Es
to
ni
a
Sl
ov
en
ia
H
un
ga
ry
M
al
ta
G
re
ec
e
Po
rt
ug
al
Ita
ly
Sp
ai
n
A
us
tr
ia
Ire
la
nd
Fi
nl
an
d
Be
lg
iu
m
Fr
an
ce
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
G
er
m
an
y
D
en
m
ar
k
Lu
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Sw
ed
en
A
s 
a 
%
 o
f G
N
I
2020 EU commitment until 2030
0.33
0.7
Bibliography and sources 217Development report 2022
ACEA. (2022). Fuel types of new cars: battery electric 9.1%, hybrid 19.6% and 
petrol 40.0% market share full-year 2021. Brussels. Retrieved from https://
www.acea.auto/fuel-pc/fuel-types-of-new-cars-battery-electric-9-1-
hybrid-19-6-and-petrol-40-0-market-share-full-year-2021/
Advocate of the Principle of Equality. (2017). Javnomnenjska raziskava o 
percepciji diskriminacije v Sloveniji, 2017 (Raziskovalno poročilo) (Public 
opinion survey on the perception of discrimination in Slovenia, 2017 
(Research report)). Ljubljana: Advocate of the Principle of Equality. 
Retrieved from https://www.zagovornik.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/
Raziskovalno-poro%C4%8Dilo-_-Javnomnenjska-raziskava-Percepcija-
diskriminacije-v-RS-2017.pdf
Advocate of the Principle of Equality. (2021a). Ocena diskriminatornosti 
šolanja na daljavo (Assessment of discrimination in distance  education). 
Ljubljana: Advocate of the Principle of Equality. Retrieved from http://www.
zagovornik.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Ocena-diskriminatornosti-
solanje-na-daljavo.pdf
Advocate of the Principle of Equality. (2021b). Razmere v domovih za starejše 
v prvem valu epidemije Covida-19. Poročilo o raziskavi Zagovornika načela 
enakosti (Conditions in homes for the elderly during the first wave of the 
Covid-19 epidemic. Research report of the Advocate of the Principle of 
Equality). Ljubljana: Advocate of the Principle of Equality. Retrieved from 
https://www.zagovornik.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Razmere-v-
domovih-za-starejse-v-prvem-valu-epidemije-Covida-19.pdf
Advocate of the Principle of Equality. (2021c). Redno letno poročilo za leto 
2020 – prvi del (Annual report for 2020 – first part). Ljubljana: Advocate of 
the Principle of Equality. Retrieved from https://www.zagovornik.si/letno-
porocilo-2/
AJPES. (n.d.). Statistical data from balance sheets and profit and loss 
statements of companies. Ljubljana: Agency for Public Legal Records and 
Related Services.
Aristovnik, A., Kovač, P., Ravšelj, D., Tomaževič, N. and Umek, L. (2020). Vpliv 
epidemije covid-19 na učinkovitost javne uprave: primer splošnih 
teritorialnih upravnih okrajev (UE) v Sloveniji (The impact of the covid-19 
epidemic on the efficiency of public administration: the case of general 
territorial administrative regions in Slovenia). Ljubljana: Faculty of 
Administration. Retrieved from http://www.covidsoclab.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/09/Covid-19_UE_Slovenija_DelovnoPorociloRaziskave-
AristovnikEtAl_jul20.pdf
ARRS. (2021). Data on young researchers [unpublished data]. Ljubljana: 
Slovenian Research Agency.
ARSO. (2022a). GHG emissions by source categories – preliminary data.
ARSO. (2022b). Environmental indicators in Slovenia. Retrieved from http://
kazalci.arso.gov.si/en/content/environmental-indicators-slovenia
Asociacija. (2021). Certifikat Kulturno podjetje (Cultural company certificate). 
Retrieved from http://www.asociacija.si/si/2019/11/05/certifikat-kulturno-
podjetje/
Asylum Work Group and Counselling Office for Workers. (2021). Poročilo: vpliv 
sprememb zakona o tujcih in zakona o mednarodni zaščiti na bivanjske 
razmere tujih državljanov (Report: the impact of amendments to the 
Foreigners Act and the International Protection Act on the living conditions 
of foreign citizens). Ljubljana: Asylum Work Group and Counselling Office for 
Workers. Retrieved from http://www.delavskasvetovalnica.si/wp-content/
uploads/2021/11/POROC%CC%8CILO-VPLIV-SPREMEMB-ZAKONA-O-
TUJCIH-IN-ZAKONA-O-MEDNARODNI-ZAS%CC%8CC%CC%8CITI-NA-
BIVANJSKE-RAZMERE-TUJIH-DRZ%CC%8CAVLJANOV.pdf
AVP. (2021). Pregled stanja varnosti v cestnem prometu za leto 2020 
(Overview of the state of road safety in 2020). Ljubljana: Slovenian 
Traffic Safety Agency. Retrieved from https://www.avp-rs.si/wp-content/
uploads/2021/03/analiza-in-pregled-stanja-varnosti-cestnega-prometa-v-
letu-2020.pdf
AVP. (2022). Prometne nesreče in posledice – mesečni prikaz (Traffic 
accidents and consequences – monthly report). Ljubljana: Slovenian 
Traffic Safety Agency. Retrieved from https://www.avp-rs.si/wp-content/
uploads/2021/07/tedenski-vpis-26-8-2021.pdf
BAMC. (2019). BAMC business strategy 2019–2022. Ljubljana: Bank Assets 
Management Company. Retrieved from http://www.dutb.eu/SiteAssets/
BAMC%20Business%20strategy%202016-2022%20with%20Business%20
plan%20summary.pdf
BAMC. (2021a). Letno poročilo DUTB 2020 (BAMC annual report 2020). 
Ljubljana: Bank Assets Management Company. Retrieved from https://dutb.
eu/app/uploads/2021/04/letno-porocilo-DUTB-2020.pdf
BAMC. (2021b). Polletno poročilo DUTB 2021 (BAMC half-year report 2021). 
Ljubljana: Bank Assets Management Company. Retrieved from https://dutb.
eu/app/uploads/2021/09/Polletno-porocilo-DUTB-2021.pdf
Barbutovski, D., Bucik, M. and Lange, S. (2017). Prispevek k razpravi o prihodnosti 
EU in vlogi Slovenije: Priporočila Zavoda Evropa misli (Contribution to the 
debate on the future of EU and Slovenia's role: Reccommendations of 
Zavod Evropa misli). Ljubljana: Zavod Evropa misli.
Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based 
approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations (Barca 
Report). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-
document/agenda-reformed-cohesion-policy-place-based-approach-
meeting-european-union_en
Bertelsmann. (2020). Sustainable governance indicators. Gütersloh: 
Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved from https://www.sgi-network.org/2020/.
BoS. (2022a). Bulletin of the Bank of Slovenia, various volumes. Ljubljana: Bank 
of Slovenia.
BoS. (2022b). Data series – Bank of Slovenia [database]. Ljubljana: Bank of 
Slovenia. Retrieved from https://px.bsi.si/pxweb/sl/serije_slo/
Breznik, K., Šušteršič, J., Lesjak, D., Šušteršič, S., Hauptman Komotar, M., Jevšek 
Pezdir, A. and Skrbinjek, V. (2021). Sistemi dodeljevanja štipendij za posebne 
dosežke – mednarodna primerjava in predlogi izboljšav za Slovenijo 
(Scholarships for Special Achievements – International Comparison and 
Improvement Proposals for Slovenia). Celje, Ljubljana: International School 
for Social and Business Studies and RE-FORMA. Retrieved from https://
mfdps.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/V5-1935_zakljucno-porocilo_
Sistemi-dodeljevanja-stipendij.pdf
Bučar, M. and Verdesoto González, E. (2017). RIO country report 2016: Slovenia. 
JRC Science for policy report. Brussels: European Commission.
Cankar, G. (2020). Pravične možnosti izobraževanja v Sloveniji (Fair educational 
opportunities in Slovenia). Ljubljana: National Examinations Centre.
Cazes, S., Hijzen, A. and Saint-Martin, A. (2016). Measuring and Assessing Job 
Quality: The OECD Job Quality Framework, OECD Social, Employment 
and Migration Working Papers, 174. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/measuring-and-assessing-job-
quality_5jrp02kjw1mr-en
CCIS. (2021). Dan inovativnosti 2020 (Innovation day 2020). Retrieved from 
https://daninovativnosti.gzs.si/program-2020/
CCIS. (2022). ISO14001. Retrieved 26 January 2022 from https://www.gzs.
si/skupne_naloge/varstvo_okolja/vsebina/Odpadki-in-snovni-tokovi/
Sistemi-in-orodja/ISO14001
Chiaiutta, A. (2007). Paradigma konkurenčnosti držav in analiza Slovenije 
po sistemih WEF in IMD za leto 2006, 7/2007 (The paradigm of state 
competitiveness and analysis of Slovenia for 2006 according to the WEF 
and IMD systems, 7/2007). Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis 
and Development. Retrieved from https://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/
user_upload/publikacije/dz/2007/dz07-07.pdf
Chopra, V., Flanders, S. A., O’Malley, M. and Prescott, H. C. (2021). Sixty-Day 
Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19. Annals of Intern 
Medicine, 174(4), 576–578. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-
5661
Chu, Y., Yang, J., Shi, J., Zhang, P. and Wang, X. (2020). Obesity is associated with 
increased severity of disease in COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review 
and meta-analysis. European Journal of Medical Research, 25(1), 64. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40001-020-00464-9
CJMMK. (2022). SJM 2020 – European Social Survey (ESS) [internal data]. 
Ljubljana: Public Opinion and Mass Communications Research Centre, 
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana.
CJVT. (2022). CJVT – Centre for language resources and technologies. Retrieved 
from https://www.cjvt.si/en
CLARIN. (2021). CLARIN Slovenija – Common Language Resources and 
Technology Infrastructure, Slovenia. Retrieved from http://www.clarin.si/
info/about/
Bibliography and sources
Bibliography and sources Development report 2022218
Demertzis, M., Domínguez-Jiménez, M. and Lusardi, A. (2020). The financial 
fragility of European households in the time of COVID-19. Bruegel Policy 
Contribution, 15. Retrieved from https://www.bruegel.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/07/PC-15-2020-final.pdf
DKOM. (2021). Poročilo o delu Državne revizijske komisije za leto 2020 (Report 
on the work of the National Audit Commission for 2020). Ljubljana: National 
Review Commission for Reviewing Public Procurement Procedures.
DVK. (2022). Referendums. Ljubljana: National Electoral Commission. Retrieved 
from https://www.dvk-rs.si/volitve-in-referendumi/referendumi/arhiv-
referendumov/
EAFO. (2022). Growth AF vehicles fleet (2020). Brussels. Retrieved from https://
www.eafo.eu/countries/european-union/23640/summary
EAPN. (2021). Poročilo o spremljanju revščine in socialne izključenosti v 
Sloveniji (Report on monitoring poverty and social exclusion in Slovenia). 
Ljubljana: European anti-poverty network. Retrieved from https://
www.cnvos.si/media/filer_public/d3/df/d3dfeacb-7a31-4e78-a2e5-
9704c34f3738/poverty_watch_slovenia_slo.pdf
EBA. (2022). EBA Dashboard – Q3 2021. Retrieved 12 January 2022 from 
https://www.eba.europa.eu/sites/default/documents/files/document_
library/Risk%20Analysis%20and%20Data/Risk%20dashboard/Q3%20
2021/1025829/EBA%20Dashboard%20-%20Q3%202021%20v2.
pdf?retry=1
EC. (2016). State-owned enterprises in the EU: Lessons learnt and ways forward 
in a post-crisis context. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 
Union. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2765/99224
EC. (2020a). Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. Retrieved 15 December 
2020 from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emas_registrations/
statistics_graphs_en.htm
EC. (2020b). Energy prices and costs in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office 
of the European Union. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.
html?uri=cellar:8a32875d-0e03-11eb-bc07-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/
DOC_3&format=PDF
EC. (2020c). 2020 European Semester: Country Reports – Slovenia 2020. 
Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/
publications/2020-european-semester-country-reports_en
EC. (2020d). Labour market and wage developments in Europe, Annual review 
2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EC. (2020e). Next Generation EU. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved 
from https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-plan-europe_
en#nextgenerationeu
EC. (2020f ). Critical Raw Materials Resilience: Charting a Path towards greater 
Security and Sustainability. COM(2020) 474 final. Brussels: European 
Commission. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0474&from=EN
EC. (2020g). Rule of Law Report. The rule of law situation in the European 
Union. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1602579986149&uri=CELEX%3A5
2020SC0323
EC. (2020h). European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, 
social fairness and resilience. Brussels: European Commission. 
Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0274&
EC. (2020i). 2019 road safety statistics: what is behind the figures? Brussels: 
European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/
presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_1004
EC. (2020j). EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives. 
COM(2020) 380 final. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.
html?uri=cellar:a3c806a6-9ab3-11ea-9d2d-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/
DOC_1&format=PDF
EC. (2020k). Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European 
transport on track for the future. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0789&from=EN
EC. (2020l). The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/economy-works-
people/jobs-growth-and-investment/european-pillar-social-rights/
european-pillar-social-rights-action-plan_en
EC. (2020m). Data protection as a pillar of citizens’ empowerment and the EU’s 
approach to the digital transition - two years of application of the General 
Data Protection Regulation. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved 
from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:520
20DC0264&from=EN
Codogno, L. and van den Noord, P. (2020). Assessing Next Generation EU, 
Working Paper 9. Rome: Luiss SEP. Retrieved from https://www.lse.
ac.uk/european-institute/Assets/Documents/LEQS-Discussion-Papers/
LEQSPaper166.pdf
CoE. (2022). War in Ukraine. Strassbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/war-in-ukraine
Constitutional Court. Decision U-I-83/20. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.
us-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/U-I-83-20-Odlo%C4%8Dba.pdf
Council of the EU. (2018). Council recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key 
competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)&from=EN
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. (2019). Skrb za tiste, ki zaradi starosti, 
duševne ali telesne prizadetosti potrebujejo pomoč drugih (Care for the 
elderly and those with physical or mental disabilities who are in need of 
assistance). Ljubljana: Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved 
from https://www.rs-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Datoteke/Revizije/2019/
KAM/KAM-2_RSP_RevizijskoP.pdf
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. (2020). Audit report. Reading 
literacy in children in the Republic of Slovenia. Ljubljana: Court of Audit of 
the Republic of Slovenia.
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. (2021a). Nabava zdravil v lekarnah v 
letu 2020. Zbirno poročilo (Purchasing of medicines in pharmacies in 2020. 
Summary report). Ljubljana: Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. 
Retrieved from https://www.rs-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Datoteke/
Revizije/2021/Nabava-zdravil-lekarne/NabavaZdravil2_ZP_ZbirnoP.pdf
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. (2021b). Revizijsko poročilo: Skrb za 
učinkovit vstop zdravnikov na trg dela (Audit report. Enabling the efficient 
entry of medical doctors to the labour market). Ljubljana: Court of Audit of 
the Republic of Slovenia.
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. (2021c). Revizijsko poročilo: 
Uspešnost doseganja ciljev na področju zmanjševanja izpustov 
toplogrednih plinov (Audit report. Effectiveness of meeting the targets 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions). Ljubljana: Court of Audit of the 
Republic of Slovenia.
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. (2021d). Revizijsko poročilo: 
Uspešnost zmanjševanja revščine (Audit report: Effectiveness in reducing 
poverty), p. 90. Ljubljana: Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. 
Retrieved from https://www.rs-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Datoteke/
Revizije/2021/MDDSZ/MDDSZ_SP17-20_RevizijskoP.pdf
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. (2021e). Sistem dela z nadarjenimi 
in sistem šolskih tekmovanj. Revizijsko poročilo (The system of work with 
talented children and the system of school competitions. Audit report). 
Ljubljana: Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://
www.rs-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/Datoteke/Revizije/2020/Nadarjeni/
Nadarjeni_SP17_RevizijskoP.pdf
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. (2022). Revizijsko poročilo - 
Prenehanje obstoja DUTB (Audit report – Termination of the Bank Assets 
Management Company's operation). Ljubljana: Court of Audit of the 
Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.rs-rs.si/fileadmin/user_
upload/Datoteke/Revizije/2021/DUTBprenehanje/DUTBprenehanje_RSP_
RevizijskoP.pdf
Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia. (2021). Revizijsko poročilo. 
Zagotavljanje prehranske varnosti s pomočjo prehranske samooskrbe 
(Audit report. Providing food safety in terms of food self-sufficiency). 
Ljubljana. Retrieved from https://www.rs-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/
Datoteke/Revizije/2021/Samooskrba/Samooskrba_RSP_RevizijskoP.pdf
CPC. (2021). Letno poročilo 2020 (Annual report 2020). Ljubljana: Commission 
for the prevention of corruption. Retrieved from https://www.kpk-rs.si/kpk/
wp-content/uploads/2021/06/LP2020K.pdf
Cukrarna. (2021). Cukrarna – About us. Retrieved from https://cukrarna.art/en/
about-us/
Čakarević, V. and Stanojević, A. (2021). Purchasing power parities and gross 
domestic product per capita in purchasing power standards, European 
countries, 2018–2020. Retrieved from https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/
News/Index/10006
Dalli, H. (2021). Nediskriminacija, organi za enakost in delo Evropske 
komisije (Nondiscrimination, equality bodies and work of the European 
Commission). Presented at the 5th regional conference of equality 
bodies in South-Eastern Europe, Ljubljana. Retrieved from https://www.
zagovornik.si/peta-regionalna-konferenca-zagovornikov-nacela-enakosti-
iz-jugovzhodne-evrope/
Bibliography and sources 219Development report 2022
EC. (2021t). Road safety: European Commission rewards effective initiatives 
and publishes 2020 figures on road fatalities. Retrieved from https://
transport.ec.europa.eu/news/road-safety-european-commission-rewards-
effective-initiatives-and-publishes-2020-figures-road-2021-11-18_en
EC. (2021u). The 2021 Ageing Report: Economic and Budgetary Projections for 
the EU Member States (2019–2070). Retrieved 31 March 2022 from https://
ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2021-ageing-report-economic-and-
budgetary-projections-eu-member-states-2019-2070_en
EC. (2021v). The 2021 EU justice scoreboard. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/
doi/10.2838/67330
EC. (2021w). The 2021 Rule of Law Report. Brussels: European 
Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/
justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/rule-law-
mechanism/2021-rule-law-report_en
EC. (2021x). The Eco-Innovation Scoreboard and the Eco-Innovation Index. 
Retrieved 31 January 2022 from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/
indicators/index_en
EC. (2021y). Fiscal policy guidance for 2023. Brussels: European Commission. 
Retrieved from https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/economic-and-
fiscalgovernance/stability-and-growth-pact/fiscal-policy-guidance-2023_en
EC. (2021z July). New EU Forest Strategy for 2030. Retrieved from https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:0d918e07-e610-11eb-a1a5-
01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
EC. (2022a). Digital Economy and Society Index. Brussels: European 
Commission. Retrieved from https://digital-agenda-data.eu/datasets/desi/
visualizations
EC. (2022b). Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. Retrieved 26 January 
2022 from https://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emas_registrations/
statistics_graphs_en.htm
EC and ESPAS. (2019). Global trends to 2030: Challenges and choices for 
Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved 
from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2872/074526
EC/EACEA/Eurydice. (2019a). Digital Education at School in Europe. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d7834ad0-ddac-
11e9-9c4e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-105790537
EC/EACEA/Eurydice. (2019b). Key data on early childhood education and 
care in Europe. Brussels: European Commission, Education, Audiovisual 
and Culture Executive Agency. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/
doi/10.2797/894279
ECB. (2020). ECB Households Finance and Consumption Survey. Frankfurt: 
European Central Bank. Retrieved from https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/
economic-research/research-networks/html/researcher_hfcn.en.html
ECB. (2022). ECB Statistical Data Warehouse [database]. Frankfurt: European 
Central Bank. Retrieved from https://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/
ECDC. (2022a). Data on the daily number of new reported COVID-19 cases 
and deaths by EU/EEA country. European Centre for Disease Prevention 
and Control. Retrieved from https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-
data/data-daily-new-cases-covid-19-eueea-country
ECDC. (2022b). Full COVID-19 vaccination uptake in Europe 2022. Retrieved 22 
March 2022 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1218676/full-covid-
19-vaccination-uptake-in-europe/
Eco Fund. (2020). Letno poročilo Eko sklada, Slovenskega okoljskega javnega 
sklada, za leto 2019 (Annual report of Eco Fund, Slovenian Environmental 
Public Fund, for 2019). Ljubljana: Eco Fund. Retrieved from https://www.
ekosklad.si/informacije/o-skladu/letna-porocila/letno-porocilo-2019
Eco Fund. (2021). Zero500. Retrieved 23 December 2021 from https://zero500.
ekosklad.si
ECRI. (2021). Annual report on ECRI’s activities covering the period from 1 
January to 31 December 2020. Strasbourg: European Commission against 
Racism and Intolerance. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-
on-ecri-s-activities-for-2020/1680a1cd59
Educational Research Institute. (2012). Povzetki rezultatov Evropske raziskave 
o jezikovnih kompetencah (ESLC 2011) (Summaries of the results of the 
European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC 2011)). Ljubljana: 
Educational Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.pei.si/wp-
content/uploads/2018/12/povzetki-rezultatov_ESLC-2011.pdf
Educational Research Institute. (2016). Mednarodna raziskava bralne 
pismenosti PIRLS 2016. Povzetek rezultatov raziskave (Progress in 
EC. (2021a). 2021 Report on Gender Equality in the EU. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://
ec.europa.eu/info/files/2021-report-on-gender-equality-in-the-eu_en
EC. (2021b). 2021 SPC Annual review of the Social Protection Performance 
Monitor and developments in social protection policies. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from doi: 
10.2767/606395
EC. (2021c). The European Pillar of Social Rights Action Plan. Brussels: European 
Commission. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=COM%3A2021%3A102%3AFIN
EC. (2021d). Communication from the Commission to the European Parlament 
and the Council. Sustainable Carbon Cycles. COM(2021) 800 final. Brussels: 
European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/system/
files/2021-12/com_2021_800_en_0.pdf
EC. (2021e). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
The Council, and The European Central Bank on the 2022 Draft Budgetary 
Plans: Overall Assessment. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved 
from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-finance/draft_
budgetary_plans_2022_-_overall_assessment.pdf
EC. (2021f ). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
The Council, the European Central Bank, The European Economic and Social 
Committee of the Regions: The EU economy after COVID-19: implications 
for economic governance. Strasbourg: European Commission. Retrieved 
from https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/economic-governance-review-
communication_en
EC. (2021g). Digital Economy and Society Index 2021 Slovenia. Brussels: 
European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/
dae/redirection/document/80491
EC. (2021h). Digital Single Market – mHealth. Retrieved 4 February 2022 from 
https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20181222034809/https://ec.europa.
eu/digital-single-market/en/mhealth
EC. (2021i). 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade, 
COM(2021) 118 final. Brussels: European Commission.
EC. (2021j). eGovernment Benchmark. Brussels: European Commission. 
Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/
a9c1ef4e-4370-11ec-89db-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
EC. (2021k). Team Europe increased Official Development Assistance to €66.8 
billion as the world's leading donor in 2020. Press release. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1701
EC. (2021l). Employment and Social developments in Europe. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.
eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8383&furtherPubs=yes; 
see also analysis of updated data http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/
employment_analysis/quarterly/quarterly_updated_charts.xlsx
EC. (2021m). European Economic Forecast, Autumn 2021, Institutional Paper 
160. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved 
from https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/economic-
performance-and-forecasts/economic-forecasts/autumn-2021-economic-
forecast_en#documents
EC. (2021n). European Innovation Scoreboard 2021. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/
research-and-innovation/statistics/performance-indicators/european-
innovation-scoreboard_en
EC. (2021o). European Innovation Scoreboard 2021 [database]. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://
ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/46934
EC. (2021p). Fit for 55. The EU’s plan for a green transition. Retrieved from 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/eu-plan-for-a-
green-transition/
EC. (2021q). International Women's Day 2021: COVID-19 pandemic is a major 
challenge for gender equality. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/
commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1011
EC. (2021r). Report from the Commission to the Council and the European 
Parliament on the implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC 
concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates 
from agricultural sources based on Member State reports for the period 
2016–2019. COM(2021) 1000 final. Brussels. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:1000:FIN
EC. (2021s). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on adequate minimum wages in the European Union. Brussels: 
European Commission. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52020PC0682
Bibliography and sources Development report 2022220
ESC. (2021). Pismo članom ESS_poziv k obuditvi socianega dialoga (Letter to 
ESC members – call to revive social dialogue). Economic and Social Council. 
Retrieved from http://www.ess.si/ess/ess-si.nsf/c7c1db093afdbbffc1257
8020059cc52/7cbed2e1f1219618c12578aa0030b481/$FILE/Pismo%20
%C4%8Dlanom%20ESS_poziv%20k%20obuditvi%20socianega%20
dialoga.docx
ESPON. (2020a). Policy Brief: Structural change in coal phase-out regions. 
Luxembourg: ESPON. Retrieved from https://www.espon.eu/structural-
change
ESPON. (2020b). Technological Transformation & Transitioning of Regional 
Economies. Luxembourg: ESPON. Retrieved from https://www.espon.eu/
transregecon
ESS. (2014). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2014/I (Employment Forecast 2014/I). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/6185/Napovednik_zaposlovanja_2014_1.pdf
ESS. (2015a). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2014/II (Employment Forecast 2014/
II). Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/6732/napovednik_zaposlovanja_2014_2.pdf
ESS. (2015b). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2015/I (Employment Forecast 2015/I). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/7137/Nap_Zap_2015_I.pdf
ESS. (2016). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2015/II (Employment Forecast 2015/II). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/7919/Nap_Zap_2015_II.pdf
ESS. (2017a). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2016/II (Employment Forecast 2016/
II). Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/9382/NAP-ZAP_2016_II.pdf
ESS. (2017b). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2017/I (Employment Forecast 2017/I). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/10054/NAP-ZAP_2017_I.pdf
ESS. (2018a). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2018/I (Employment Forecast 2018/I). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/11238/Analiza_Napovednik_zaposlovanja_2018_I.pdf
ESS. (2018b). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2018/II (Employment Forecast 2018/
II). Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/11785/Porocilo_napovednik_zaposlovanja_2018_II.pdf
ESS. (2019a). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2019/I (Employment Forecast 2019/I). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/12351/Analiza_napovednik_zaposlovanja_pomlad_2019.
pdf
ESS. (2019b). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2019/II (Employment Forecast 2019/
II). Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/12351/Analiza_napovednik_zaposlovanja_pomlad_2019.
pdf
ESS. (2020a). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2020/I (Employment Forecast 2020/I). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/13433/Porocilo_Napovednik_zaposlovanja_2020_I.pdf
ESS. (2020b). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2020/II (Employment Forecast 2020/
II). Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/13433/Porocilo_Napovednik_zaposlovanja_2020_I.pdf
ESS. (2020c). Rezultati Poklicnega barometra 2020 (Occupational barometer 
results 2020). Retrieved from https://www.ess.gov.si/obvestila/obvestilo/
rezultati-poklicnega-barometra-2020-1
ESS. (2021a). Katerih kadrov bo primanjkovalo prihodnje leto? (Which staff 
will be lacking next year?) Retrieved from https://www.ess.gov.si/obvestila/
obvestilo/katerih-kadrov-bo-primanjkovalo-prihodnje-leto
ESS. (2021b). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2021/I (Employment Forecast 2021/I). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.ess.
gov.si/_files/14181/Porocilo_Napovednik_zaposlovanja_2021_pomlad.pdf
ESS. (2021c). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2021/II (Employment forecast 2021/II). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/14807/Porocilo_Napovednik_zaposlovanja_2021_jesen.
pdf
ESS. (2021d). Napovednik zaposlovanja 2021/I (Employment forecast 2021/I). 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
ess.gov.si/_files/12836/Porocilo_napovednik_zaposlovanja_2019_II.pdf
ESS. (2022). Employers participating in intervention measures [internal data]. 
Ljubljana: Employment Service of Slovenia
ESS-ERIC. (2020). European Social Survey Cumulative File, ESS 1-9 [data 
file edition 1.0]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data: Data Archive 
International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2016. Summary of study 
results). Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute. Retrieved from https://
www.pei.si/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/PIRLS_povzetek.pdf
Educational Research Institute. (2020). Zaostajanje Slovenije v uporabi 
IKT za poučevanje (Slovenia lags behind in the use of ICT for teaching). 
Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.pei.
si/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Zaostajanje-Slovenije-v-uporabi-IKT-za-
poucevanje.pdf
EEA. (2021a). A framework for enabling circular business models in Europe. 
Copenhagen. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/a-
framework-for-enabling-circular/a-framework-for-enabling-circular
EEA. (2021b). Plastics, the circular economy and Europe's environment – A 
priority for action. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Retrieved 
from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/plastics-the-circular-
economy-and/
EEAS. (2022). Strategic compass. Brussels: European External Action Service 
(EEAS). Retrieved from https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/
documents/2022-03-21_strategic_compass-factsheet.pdf
EESC. (2021). Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 
on ‘Challenges of teleworking: organisation of working time, work life 
balance and the right to disconnect’. Exploratory opinion at the request 
of the Portuguese Presidency. Brussels: European Economic and Social 
Committee.
EIB. (2020). EIB Investment Survey. Luxembourg: European Investment Bank. 
Retrieved from https://data.eib.org/eibis/graph
EIGE. (2021a). Gender Equality Index 2021: Health. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://eige.europa.eu/
publications/gender-equality-index-2021-health
EIGE. (2021b). Gender Equality Index 2021: Slovenia. Vilnius: European Institute 
for Gender Equality. Retrieved from https://eige.europa.eu/gender-
equality-index
EIGE. (2021c). Gender Statistics Database. Vilnius: European Institute for 
Gender Equality. Retrieved from https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/
dgs/indicator/index_data__index_scores/datatable
EIT Climate-KIC. (2020). Slovenia adopts EIT Climate-KIC Circular, Regenerative 
Economies Deep Demonstration. Retrieved from https://www.climate-
kic.org/news/slovenia-adopts-circular-regenerative-economies-deep-
demonstration/
EIU. (2021). Industries in 2022. Retrieved from https://www.eiu.com/n/
campaigns/industries-in-2022/
EIU. (2022). Democracy index 2021: The China Challenge. London: Economist 
Intelligence Unit. Retrieved from https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/
democracy-index-2021
Ekipa Učitelj sem! Učiteljica sem! (2021). Poučevanje na daljavo. Dobre prakse 
na dlani (Remote teaching. Good practices). Retrieved from https://
amcham.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Poucevanje-na-daljavo.pdf
Energy Industry Chamber of Slovenia. (2021). Za skoraj 4 mrd EUR načrtovanih 
zelenih energetskih naložb (Planned green energy investments worth 
almost EUR 4 billion). Retrieved from https://ezs.si/za-skoraj-4-mrd-eur-
nacrtovanih-zelenih-energetskih-nalozb/
EP. (2021a). Understanding Covid-19's impact on women (infographics). 
Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/
society/20210225STO98702/understanding-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-
women-infographics
EP. (2021b). European Parliament resolution of 6 October 2021 on the impact 
of intimate partner violence and custody rights on women and children 
(2019/2166(INI)). Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/
document/TA-9-2021-0406_EN.html
EP. (2021c). European Parliament resolution of 16 September 2021 with 
recommendations to the Commission on identifying gender-based 
violence as a new area of crime listed in Article 83(1) TFEU (2021/2035(INL)). 
Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-
2021-0388_EN.html
EP. (2021d). European Parliament resolution of 21 January 2021 with 
recommendations to the Commission on the right to disconnect 
(2019/2181(INL)). Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/
document/TA-9-2021-0021_EN.html
ECHR. (2022). Analysis of statistics 2021. Strassbourg: European Court of 
Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_
analysis_2021_ENG.pdf
Bibliography and sources 221Development report 2022
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_
ef_document/ef18065en.pdf
Eurofound. (2020a). Living, working and COVID-19 (Covid-19 series). 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from 
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2020/living-
working-and-covid-19
Eurofound. (2020b). Living, working and COVID-19 (dataset). Retrieved from 
http://eurofound.link/covid19data
Eurofound. (2021a). Financial situation and security during COVID-19 
(Database). Retrieved from https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/
covid-19/financial-situation
Eurofound. (2021b). Quality of life during COVID-19. Dublin: Eurofound. 
Retrieved from https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/covid-19/quality-
of-life
Eurofound. (2021c). Living and working in Europe 2020. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://
www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_
document/ef21055en.pdf
Eurofound. (2021d). Living, working and COVID-19 data. Retrieved from 
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/covid-19
Eurofound. (2021e). Living, working and COVID-19 (update April 2021): 
Mental health and trust decline across EU as pandemic enters another 
year. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved 
from https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/
field_ef_document/ef21064en.pdf
Eurofound. (2021f ). Minimum wages in 2021: Annual review, Minimum 
wages in the EU series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 
Union. Retrieved from https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/
report/2021/minimum-wages-in-2021-annual-review
Eurofound. (2021g). Wealth distribution and social mobility. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://
www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_
document/ef20034en.pdf
European Cancer Information System. (2022). Retrieved 13 March 2022 from 
https://ecis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Europeana. (2022). ENUMERATE results. The Hague: Europeana. Retrieved from 
https://pro.europeana.eu/page/results
Eurostat. (2021a). Methodological guidelines and description of EU-Silc target 
variables, Version 4_09/12/2020. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Retrieved from 
https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/f8853fb3-58b3-43ce-b4c6-a81fe68f2e50/
Methodological%20guidelines%202021%20operation%20v4%20
09.12.2020.pdf
Eurostat. (2021b). Statistics explained: Severe housing deprivation rate. 
Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.
php?title=Glossary:Severe_housing_deprivation_rate
Eurostat. (2021c). The European Health Interview Survey [database]. Retrieved 
from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/health/data/database
Eurostat. (2022). Eurostat [database]. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/data/database
Expo 2020 Dubai. (2021). Expo 2020 Dubai. Retrieved 13 December 2021 from 
https://www.expo2020dubai.com/
Faculty of Arts. (2021). Evidenca funkcionalno razvrednotenih območij 
(Records of functionally degraded areas). Ljubljana: Department of 
Geography, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana
Faculty of Sport. (2021). Še večji upad gibalne učinkovitosti in še več predebelih 
otrok (An even greater decline in motor skills and even more overweight 
children). Ljubljana: Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana. Retrieved 
from https://www.slofit.org/Portals/0/Vsebina/Poro%C4%8Dilo%20za%20
javnost%20SLOfit%202021.pdf?ver=2021-06-21-203705-910
Fana, M., Milasi, S., Napierala, J., Fernandez Macias, E., Gonzalez Vazquez, I., 
NAPIERALA Joanna, … GONZALEZ VAZQUEZ Ignacio. (2020). Telework, 
work organization and job quality during the Covid-19 crisis: a qualitatuve 
study. Seville: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC). Retrieved 
from https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc122591.pdf
FC. (2021a). Fulfilment of conditions for the existence of exceptional 
circumstances in 2022. Ljubljana: Fiscal Council. Retrieved from https://
www.fs-rs.si/assessment-by-the-fiscal-council-fulfilment-of-conditions-for-
the-existence-of-exceptional-circumstances-in-2022-2/
FC. (2021b). Assessment of budgetary documents for 2022 and 2023. Ljubljana: 
Fiscal Council.
and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC. Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.21338/NSD-ESS-CUMULATIVE
Eurobarometer. (2008). Special Eurobarometer 296 – Discrimination in 
the European Union: Perceptions, Experiences and Attitudes. Brussels: 
European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/
surveys/detail/656
Eurobarometer. (2009). Special Eurobarometer 317 – Discrimination in the EU 
in 2009. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/
eurobarometer/surveys/detail/773
Eurobarometer. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 393 – Discrimination in the EU 
in 2012. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/
eurobarometer/surveys/detail/1043
Eurobarometer. (2015). Special Eurobarometer 437 – Discrimination in the EU 
in 2015. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/
eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2077
Eurobarometer. (2018a). Flash Eurobarometer 470 – Work-life balance. Brussels: 
European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/
surveys/detail/2185
Eurobarometer. (2018b). Special Eurobarometer 466 – Cultural heritage. 
Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/
eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2150
Eurobarometer. (2018c). Special Eurobarometer 471 – Fairness, inequality and 
inter-generational mobility. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved 
from https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2166
Eurobarometer. (2018d). Special Eurobarometer 472 – Sport and physical 
activity – March 2018. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from 
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2164
Eurobarometer. (2019). Special Eurobarometer 493 – Discrimination in the 
European Union. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://
europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2251
Eurobarometer. (2020a). Special Eurobarometer 501 – Attitudes of Europeans 
towards the Environment. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from 
https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2257
Eurobarometer. (2020b). Special Eurobarometer 502 – Corruption. Brussels: 
European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/
surveys/detail/2247
Eurobarometer. (2021a). Flash Eurobarometer 489: Perceived independence of 
the national justice systems in the EU among the general public. Brussels: 
European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/
surveys/detail/2272
Eurobarometer. (2021b). Flash Eurobarometer 490: Perceived independence 
of the national justice systems in the EU among companies. Brussels: 
European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/
surveys/detail/2272
Eurobarometer. (2021c). Special Eurobarometer 513 – Climate Change. 
Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/
eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2273
Eurobarometer. (2021d). Special Eurobarometer 514 – Justice, Rights and 
Values. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/
eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2269
Eurobarometer. (2021e). Standard Eurobarometer – research in 2004–2021. 
Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/
data/datasets?query=standard%20eurobarometer&locale=en
Eurobarometer. (2021f ). Standard Eurobarometer 94 – Winter 2020–2021. 
Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/
eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2355
Eurofound. (2016). European quality of life survey – Data visualisation. 
Retrieved from https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/en/data/european-
quality-of-life-survey
Eurofound. (2018a). Measuring varieties of industrial relations in Europe: A 
quantitative analysis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 
Union. Retrieved from https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/
files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef18033en.pdf
Eurofound. (2018b). Societal change and trust in institutions. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://
www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_
document/ef18036en.pdf
Eurofound. (2018c). Striking a balance: Reconciling work and life in the EU. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from 
Bibliography and sources Development report 2022222
Government of the RS. (2022b). Drugi paket ukrepov strateškega sveta za 
digitalizacijo. (The second package of measures of the Strategic Council for 
Digitization).
Grom, A. H., Čolaković, A. B., Rehberger, M., Lavtar, D., Korošec, A. and Frič, A. 
(2021). Pandemija covid-19 v Sloveniji. Izsledki spletne raziskave o vplivu 
pandemije na življenje (SI-PANDA) (COVID-19 pandemic in Slovenia. Results 
of web survey on the impact of the pandemic on life (SI-PANDA)), 18. val. 
Ljubljana: NIJZ.
Guio, A.-C., Marlier, E. and Nolan, B. (ed). (2021). Improving the understanding 
of poverty and social exclusion in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office 
of the European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
documents/3888793/13572235/KS-02-21-459-EN-N.pdf/7ea44bc6-4b1b-
fc5c-e6c9-ed8bc42a4f0c?t=1634563482314
HIIS. (2021). Letno poročilo ZZZS 2020 (HIIS annual report 2020). Ljubljana: 
Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia.
HIIS. (2022). Letno poročilo ZZZS 2021 (HIIS annual report 2021). Ljubljana: 
Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia.
HIIS, Konfederacija sindikatov javnega sektorja Slovenije, KSSS Pergam, 
Konfederacija sindikatov 90 Slovenije and KNSS Neodvisnost. (2021). Letter 
to the European Commission on the state of social dialogue in Slovenia. The 
representative trade union headquarters. Retrieved from https://www.zsss.
si/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/EK_English_social-dialogue-in-Slovenia.
pdf
Hoong, C. W. S., Hussain, I., Aravamudan, V. M., Phyu, E. E., Lin, J. H. X. and Koh, 
H. (2021). Obesity is Associated with Poor Covid-19 Outcomes: A Systematic 
Review and Meta-Analysis. Hormone and Metabolic Research = Hormon- 
Und Stoffwechselforschung = Hormones Et Metabolisme, 53(2), 85–93. 
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1326-2125
Hopkinson, N. S., Rossi, N., El-Sayed_Moustafa, J., Laverty, A. A., Quint, J. K., 
Freidin, M., … Falchi, M. (2021). Current smoking and COVID-19 risk: results 
from a population symptom app in over 2.4 million people. Thorax, 76(7), 
714–722. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-216422
Human Rights Ombudsman (2021). Letno poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic 
Republike Slovenije za leto 2020 (Report of the Ombudsman of the Republic 
of Slovenia for 2020), p. 622. Ljubljana: Human Rights Ombudsman. 
Retrieved from https://www.varuh-rs.si/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/lp/
LP_2020/Letno_porocilo2020_-_pop.pdf
Humer, Ž., Poje, A., Frelih, M. and Štamfelj, I. (2016). Ukrepi za usklajevanje 
plačanega dela in družine (Measures for reconciling work and family life). 
Ljubljana: Peace Institute – Institute for Contemporary Social and Political 
Studies. Retrieved from https://www.zsss.si/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/
prirocnik_OcetjeDelodajalciVAkciji_ODA_Projekt.pdf
IARC. (2022). Latest global cancer data. GLOBOCAN database 2020. Lyon: 
International Agency for Research of Cancer. Retrieved from https://gco.
iarc.fr/
IEP. (2021a). Global Peace Index 2021: Measuring Peace in a Complex World. 
Sydney: Institute for Economics & Peace. Retrieved from https://www.
visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/GPI-2021-web-1.pdf
IEP. (2021b). The Global Peace Index 2021: overall scores and domains 2008–
2021. Institute for Economics and Peace. Retrieved from https://www.
visionofhumanity.org/public-release-data/
IMAD. (2019a). Economic issues 2019.
IMAD. (2019b). Autumn forecast of economic trends 2019. Ljubljana: 
Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Retrieved from 
https://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/napovedi/jesen/2019/
JNGG_2019-objava.pdf
IMAD. (2019c). Spring forecast of economic trends 2019 2019. Ljubljana: 
Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Retrieved from 
https://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/napovedi/pomlad/
pomladanska_2019/pPN_2019.pdf
IMAD. (2019d). Productivity report 2019. Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic 
Analysis and Development. Retrieved from https://www.umar.gov.si/
publikacije/porocilo-o-produktivnosti/
IMAD. (2019e). Development report 2019. Ljubljana: Institute of 
Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Retrieved from https://www.
umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/razvoj_slovenije/2019/Porocilo_o_
razvoju_2019.pdf
IMAD. (2020a). Productivity report 2020. Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic 
Analysis and Development. Retrieved from https://www.umar.gov.si/
fileadmin/user_upload/publikacije/Porocilo_o_produktivnosti/2020/
slovenski/PoP_2020_splet.pdf
FC. (2022a). Financing climate transition in Slovenia: Current trends and 
estimated future needs. Ljubljana: Fiscal Council. Retrieved from https://
www.fs-rs.si/financing-climate-transition-in-slovenia-current-trends-and-
estimated-future-needs/
FC. (2022b). Public finance and macroeconomic developments. Ljubljana: Fiscal 
Council. Retrieved from https://www.fs-rs.si/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/
JMG_2022_01_ang.pdf
FESE. (2022). FESE Monthly statistics. Retrieved 20 December 2021 from 
https://www.fese.eu/statistics/
Forbici, G., Divjak, T., Kronegger, S. and Škrl Marega, M. (2015). Vključevanje 
javnosti v pripravo predpisov. Priročnik za načrtovanje in izvajanje 
posvetovalnih procesov (Involvement of the public in the preparation 
of regulations. Manual for planning and implementing consultation 
processes). Ljubljana: Ministry of Public Administration. Retrieved from 
https://www.stopbirokraciji.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/mju/Boljsi_
predpisi/Vkljucevanje_javnosti/Prirocnik-vkljucevanje_javnosti.pdf
FRA. (2014). Violence against Women: An EU-wide survey – Main results. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2014-vaw-survey-
main-results-apr14_en.pdf
FRA. (2020). Fundamental rights survey 2019 [data explorer]. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://fra.
europa.eu/en/data-and-maps/2021/frs
FRA. (2021). Crime, safety and victims’ rights – Fundamental Rights Survey. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from 
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2021-crime-safety-
victims-rights_en.pdf
FURS. (2021). Intervention measures by NACE classification [internal data]. 
Ljubljana: Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia.
Gabrovec, B., Selak, Š., Crnkovič, N. and Cesar, K. (2021). Raziskava o doživljanju 
epidemije covid-19 med študenti (Survey on the perception of covid-19 
among students). Ljubljana: NIJZ.
GEM. (2021). GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. London: Global 
entrepreneurship research association. Retrieved from https://www.
gemconsortium.org/data/key-aps
Geyer, R., Jambeckand, J.R., Lavender Law, K. (2017). Production, use, and fate 
of all plastics ever made. ScienceAdvances. Retrieved from https://www.
science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Glauber, J. and Laborde, D. (2022). How will Russia’s invasion of Ukraine affect 
global food security? | IFPRI : International Food Policy Research Institute. 
Washington, DC: International food policy and research institute. Retrieved 
from https://www.ifpri.org/blog/how-will-russias-invasion-ukraine-affect-
global-food-security
Global Footprint Network. (2022). Ecological Footprint Data. Retrieved from 
https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?utm_campaign=2021%20NFA%20
Launch&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=205647516&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_
qU1iKsEvNtTO7CfF_yY4Wg4FbxT_et4LI-ueBjf9dphfAsOK1_0ISFvsHhvhp
0FVR5B4Xetkz9D-61ubnp2NeNqUw7w&utm_content=205647516&utm_
source=hs_email#/
GO! 2025. (2022). European capital of culture 2025 Nova Gorica – Gorizia. 
Retrieved 14 January 2022 from https://www.go2025.eu/en
Government Office for National Minorities. (2019). Poročilo o izvedbi načrta 
ukrepov Vlade Republike Slovenije za izvajanje predpisov na področju 
dvojezičnosti 2015–2018 za leto 2018 (Report on the implementation 
of the action plan of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia for the 
implementation of regulations in the field of bilingualism 2015–2018 for 
2018). Ljubljana: Government Office for National Minorities. Retrieved from 
https://www.gov.si/teme/italijanska-in-madzarska-narodna-skupnost/
Government Office for National Minorities. (2021). Osmo poročilo Vlade 
Republike Slovenije o položaju romske skupnosti v Sloveniji (Eighth Report 
of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia on the Situation of the 
Roma Community in Slovenia). Ljubljana: Government Office for National 
Minorities. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/teme/romska-skupnost/
Government of the RS. (2020). Celoviti nacionalni energetski in podnebni 
načrt Republike Slovenije (Integrated National Energy and Climate 
Plan). Ljubljana: Government of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from 
https://www.energetika-portal.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/publikacije/nepn/
dokumenti/nepn_5.0_final_feb-2020.pdf
Government of the RS. (2022a). Akcijski načrt za leti 2022 in 2023 za izvajanje 
Resolucije o nacionalnem programu duševnega zdravja 2018-2028 (Action 
plan for 2022 and 2023 for the implementation of the Resolution on the 
National Mental Health Programme 2018−2028). Ljubljana: Government of 
the Republic of Slovenia.
Bibliography and sources 223Development report 2022
IMAD. (2020b). Development report 2020. Ljubljana: Institute of 
Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Retrieved from https://www.
umar.gov.si/razvoj-slovenije/
IMAD. (2021a). Evropski steber socialnih pravic, Slovenija 2000–2020 
(European pillar of social rights, Slovenia 2000–2020). Ljubljana: Institute of 
Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Retrieved from https://www.
umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/publikacije/ESSP/2021/ESSP_splet.pdf
IMAD. (2021b). Autumn forecast of economic trends 2021. Ljubljana: 
Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Retrieved from 
https://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/napovedi/jesen/2021/
JNGG_2021_splet.pdf
IMAD. (2021c). Development report 2021. Ljubljana: Institute of 
Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Retrieved from https://www.
umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/razvoj_slovenije/2021/slovenski/
POR2021_skupaj.pdf
IMAD. (2022). Productivity report 2021. Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic 
Analysis and Development. Retrieved from https://www.umar.gov.si/
publikacije/porocilo-o-produktivnosti/
IMF. (2020). The IMD World Talent Ranking [data portal]. Lausanne: International 
Monetary Fund. Retrieved from https://worldcompetitiveness.imd.org/
rankings/talent
IMF. (2021). The IMD World Competitiveness Ranking [data portal]. Lausanne: 
International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from https://worldcompetitiveness.
imd.org/rankings/wcy
IMF. (2020). The Global Social Mobility Report 2020. Equality, Opportunity and 
a New Economic Imperative. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrieved 
from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.pdf
Inglič, R. T., Intihar, S. and Stare, M. (2022). Material capabilities of households 
improved. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved 
from https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/10138
Inglič, T., Intihar, S. and Stare, M. (2021). Material capabilities of households in 
2020. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from 
https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/news/Index/9364
International Resource Panel. (2019). Global Resources Outlook 2019. 
Natural Resources for the Future We Want. Retrieved from https://www.
resourcepanel.org/sites/default/files/documents/document/media/
unep_252_global_resource_outlook_2019_web.pdf
Intihar, S. (2020). Methodological explanation. Income, poverty and social 
exclusion indicators. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. 
Retrieved from https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/File/DocSysFile/8270
IRSSV. (2021). Zaključno poročilo o izvajanju in doseganju ciljev Resolucije o 
nacionalnem programu socialnega varstva za obdobje 2013–2020 (Final 
report on the implementation and achievement of the objectives of the 
Resolution on the National Social assistance Programme 2013–2020). 
Ljubljana: Social Protection Institute of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved 
from https://www.irssv.si/upload2/ReNPSV%202013-2020_zakljucno%20
porocilo_IRSSV.pdf
ISO. (2020). ISO Survey of certifications to management system standards 2019 
[database]. Geneva. Retrieved from https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?fu
nc=ll&objId=18808772&objAction=browse&viewType=1
ISO. (2022). ISO Survey of certifications to management system standards 2020 
[database]. Geneva. Retrieved from https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?fu
nc=ll&objId=18808772&objAction=browse&viewType=1
Jager, J., Japelj Pavešić, B., Mervic, T., Režek, M. and Zgonec, P. (2021). Raziskava 
o vzgojno-izobraževalnem procesu v predšolski vzgoji in njegovih učinkih 
v času epidemije bolezni covid-19 (Research on the educational process 
in preschool education and its effects during the covid-19 epidemic). 
Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Retrieved from http://www.korakzakorakom.
si/storage/app/files/projekti/Raziskava%20covid/Kon%C4%8Dno%20
poro%C4%8Dilo%20o%20rezultatih%20raziskave_Covid19.pdf
JAK. (2021a). Slovenia – Guest of Honour at the Bologna Children's Book 
Fair 2024. Retrieved 13 December 2021 from https://www.jakrs.si/en/
international-cooperation/slovenia-guest-of-honour-country-at-the-2022-
bologna-childrens-book-fair
JAK. (2021b). Slovenia – Guest of Honour at the Frankfurt Book Fair 2023. Retrieved 
26 October 2021 from https://www.jakrs.si/en/international-cooperation/
slovenia-guest-of-honour-country-at-the-frankfurt-book-fair-2023
Jaklič, A., Koleša, I. and Knez, K. (2018). Tuji investitorji o slovenskem poslovnem 
okolju 2018 (Foreign investors on Slovenian business environment). 
Ljubljana: Centre of International Relations, Faculty of Social Sciences, 
University of Ljubljana.
Jamšek, P., Novak, T., Bahovec, A., Kobal Tomc, B., Gerl, N. A. and Vojnovič, L. 
(2015). Zrcalo prostovoljstva in vloga države pri njegovem razvoju (The 
mirror of volunteerism and the role of the state in its development). 
Ljubljana: Slovene Philanthropy.
Janežič, A. (2021). Ocena izvajanja določil zaščitne zakonodaje: opažene težave 
in morebitne pomanjkljivosti (Assessment of the implementation of the 
provisions of the protective legislation: observed problems and possible 
shortcomings). 7–17. Trieste: Slovene Research Institute. Retrieved from 
https://www.consiglio.regione.fvg.it/cms/export/sites/consiglio/home/.
allegati/Terza-conferenza-lingua-slovena-2021/Porocila-SLORI_VSA.pdf
Jeriček Klanšček, H., Roskar, M., Pucelj, V., Zupanic, T., Koprivnikar, H., Drev, 
A., … Peternelj, V. (2021). Neenakosti v zdravju in z zdravjem povezanimi 
vedenji med mladostniki v času pandemije covida-19 (Health inequalities 
and health-related behavior among adolescents during the covid-19 
pandemic). Ljubljana: National Institute of Public Health.
Jež, S. S., Nagode, M., Jacović, A. and Dominkuš, D. (2016). Analiza kadra v 
dolgotrajni oskrbi (Analysis of long-term care staff). Ljubljana: Socail 
protection institute of the Republic of Slovenia
JSI. (2020). LIFE Podnebna pot 2050. Podnebno ogledalo, Ukrep v središču - 
Zelena javnofinančna reforma (LIFE climate path 2050. Climate Action Mirror, 
Measure in focus – Green public finance reform). Ljubljana: Jožef Stefan 
Institute with partners. Retrieved from https://www.podnebnapot2050.si/
wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Podnebno_Ogledalo_2020_Zvezek8_US_
Reforma_Koncno.pdf
JSI-CEU. (2021). Climate Action Mirror 2021. Retrieved from https://
podnebnapot2050.si/rezultati-slovenije/letno-podnebno-ogledalo/
JSKD. (2021). Cultural associations [unpublished]. Ljubljana: Republic of 
Slovenia public fund for cultural activities.
Kajzer, A. (2021). Prilagajanje trga dela v državah EU v covid-19 krizi (Adaptation 
of the labour market in EU Member States during the COVID-19 crisis). 
Ljubljana: IMAD. Retrieved from https://www.umar.gov.si/publikacije/
kratke-analize/publikacija/news/prllagajanje-trga-dela-v-drzavah-eu-v-
covid-19-krizi/?tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Ba
ction%5D=detail&cHash=6db4f898585c9f53ae5b590960437773
Kastelic, Š. (2022). Statistics of building permits, December 2021. Ljubljana: 
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/10071
Katz, M. H. (2021). Regardless of Age, Obesity and Hypertension Increase 
Risks With COVID-19. JAMA Internal Medicine, 181(3), 381. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.5415
Kaufmann, D. and Kraay, A. (2021). Worldwide Governance Indicators project 
(WGI) [data portal]. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Retrieved from 
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/
Kavčič, L. (2021). Zelo netočno avstrijsko poročilo o varstvu manjšin (A very 
inaccurate Austrian report on the protection of minorities). XXVI(33), 44–45. 
Retrieved from https://www.nsks.at/images/downloads/502/demokracija_
vouk.pdf
Kerneža, M. (2021). Učinki dela na daljavo na zmožnost branja in pisanja učencev 
v 1. vzgojno-izobraževalnem obdobju (The effects of distance education 
on students' ability to read and write in the 1st educational period). In: I. 
Žagar and A. Mlekuz (ed.), Raziskovanje v vzgoji in izobraževanju: učenje 
in poučevanje na daljavo: izkušnje, problemi, perspektive (Research in 
education: distance learning: experiences, problems, perspectives). Book 
of abstracts at the 6th national scientific conference, Ljubljana, 22 and 23 
September 2021 (pp. 49–50). Ljubljana. Retrieved from https://www.pei.si/
wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Zbornik_povzetkov_2021.pdf
Kinoteka. (2022). Kinoteka – novice (Kinoteka – news). Retrieved from http://
www.kinoteka.si/si/454/Domov.aspx
Klemenčič, E., Mirazchiyski, P. V. and Novak, J. (2019). Državljanska vzgoja v 
Sloveniji (Civic education in Slovenia). Ljubljana: Educational research 
centre. Retrieved from https://www.pei.si/ISBN/978-961-270-301-1.pdf
Kogovšek, N. and Petković, B. (2007). O diskriminaciji: priročnik za novinarke 
in novinarje (On discrimination: a handbook for journalists). Ljubljana: 
The Peace Institute. Retrieved from https://www.mirovni-institut.si/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/Prirocnik-o-diskriminaciji-final-all.pdf
Koštomaj, U. (2021). Splošno počutje učencev OŠ Dobje, njihovih staršev in 
staršev otrok v vrtcu v času epidemije in šole na daljavo v šolskem letu 
2020/2021 (General well-being of Dobje Primary School pupils, their 
parents and parents of kindergarten children during the epidemic and 
remote schooling in the 2020/2021 academic year). In: I. Žagar and A. 
Mlekuž (ed.), Raziskovanje v vzgoji in izobrazevanju: ucenje in poucevanje 
na daljavo: izkušnje, problemi, perspektive (Research in education: distance 
Bibliography and sources Development report 2022224
learning: experiences, problems, perspectives). Book of abstracts at the 
6th national scientific conference, Ljubljana, 22 and 23 September 2021 
(p. 64–65). Ljubljana. Retrieved from https://www.pei.si/wp-content/
uploads/2021/09/Zbornik_povzetkov_2021.pdf
Kovač, M. (2020). Izpusti toplogrednih plinov v Sloveniji in EU v luči 
spremljanja prizadevanj za njihovo zmanjševanje (GHG emissions in 
Slovenia and the EU in the light of monitoring efforts for their reduction). 
Ljubljana: IMAD. Retrieved from https://www.umar.gov.si/publikacije/
kratke-analize/publikacija/news/izpusti-toplogrednih-plinov-v-sloveniji-
in-eu-v-luci-spremljanja-prizadevanj-za-njihovo-zmanjsevanje/?tx_news_
pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&cHash
=a1a5e1f46e478712a9250fd44b8089b9
Kovač, N. and Piciga, D. (2020). Ekološki odtis Slovenije Analiza, projekcije, 
scenariji za izbrane ukrepe do leta 2030 (Ecological footprint of Slovenia. 
Analysis, projections, scenarios for selected measures until 2030). Retrieved 
from http://nfp-si.eionet.europa.eu/publikacije/Datoteke/Ekoloski%20
odtis/Ekoloski%20odtis.pdf
Kresal, B. (2020). Delo prek spletnih platform (Work via web platforms). 
In: K. Kresal Šoltes, G. Strban and P. Domadenik (ed.). Prekarno delo: 
Multidisciplinarna analiza (Precarious work: Multidisciplinary analysis) (pp. 
105–128). Ljubljana: Založba Maksima. Retrieved from https://www.pf.uni-
lj.si/media/prekarno.delo.pdf
Kresal, B. and Kresal Šoltes, K. (2016). Usklajevanje dela in družine: primeri 
dobrih praks v kolektivnih pogodbah (Work-life balance: examples of good 
practices in collective agreements). Ljubljana: Institute for Labour Law at 
the Faculty of Law. Retrieved from https://kp-zsss.si/media/uploads/links/
fXBuahSd63UqRy4.pdf
Kuhar, M., Gabrovec, B. and Albreht, T. (2021). Polletno poročilo DP8-DN: »Vpliv 
epidemije covid-19 na zagotavljanje pravočasne zdravstvene obravnave 
in zdravstvenega varstva« (Semi-annual report DP8-DN: The impact of 
the covid-19 epidemic on the provision of timely medical treatment 
and healthcare). Ljubljana: NIJZ. Retrieved from https://www.nijz.si/
sites/www.nijz.si/files/publikacije-datoteke/polletno_poro_ilo_projekt_
covid_19_2021-1-1.pdf
Lange, S. and Bobotsi, C. (2022). Maastricht and beyond: EU in the world at 
CoFoE. Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration. Retrieved 
from https://www.eipa.eu/publications/briefing/maastricht-and-beyond-
eu-in-the-world-at-cofoe/
Lavrič, M., Deželan, T., Klanjšek, R., Lahe, D., Naterer, A., Radovan, M., … 
Prešeren, J. (2021). Mladina 2020. Položaj mladih v Sloveniji (Youth 2020. 
The situation of young people in Slovenia). Maribor; Ljubljana: University of 
Maribor, University press: Ljubljana university press.
Lenarčič, B. and Smrdelj, R. (2020). Družabnost, fizična distanca in 
informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije v obdobju epidemije SARS-
COV-2. Družboslovne razprave (Social life, physical distance and information 
and communication technologies during the SARS-COV-2 epidemic. Social 
studies discussions), 36(94/95), 125–148. Retrieved from https://www.
sociolosko-drustvo.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/DR94-95-WEB1.pdf
Lin, D., Galli, A., Murthy, A., Wackernagel, M. and Stritih, J. J. (2020). Ekološki 
odtis Slovenije. Analiza, projekcije, scenariji za izbrane ukrepe do leta 
2030 (Ecological footprint of Slovenia. Analysis, projections, scenarios for 
selected measures until 2030). Ministry of the Environment and Spatial 
Planning, Slovenian Environment Agency. Retrieved from http://nfp-si.
eionet.europa.eu/publikacije/Datoteke/Ekoloski%20odtis/Ekoloski%20
odtis.pdf
Ljubljana Stock Exchange. (2022). Annual trading report. Ljubljana: 
Ljubljana Stock Exchange. Retrieved from https://ljse.si/en/
monthly/60?period=annual
Ljubljana Stock Exchange and Slovenian Directors' Association. (2021a). 
Poročilo o analizi skladnosti s slovenskim kodeksom upravljanja 
javnih delniških družb v obdobju 2017–2019 (Report on the analysis 
of compliance with the Slovenian Corporate Governance Code for 
Listed Companies 2017–2019). Ljubljana: Ljubljana Stock Exchange. 
Retrieved from https://ljse.si/UserDocsImages/datoteke/Pravila,%20
Navodila,%20Priro%C4%8Dniki/141_Priponka3_Porocilo%20o%20
analizi%20skladnosti%20s%20Kodeksom%202017%20-%202019%20final.
pdf?vel=782819
Ljubljana Stock Exchange and Slovenian Directors' Association. (2021b). 
Slovenski kodeks upravljanja javnih delniških družb (Slovenian Corporate 
Governance Code for Listed Companies). Ljubljana: Slovenian Directors' 
Association. Retrieved from https://www.zdruzenje-ns.si/library/1838
Lopez-Garcia, P. and Szorfi, B. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 
labour productivity growth. ECB Economic Bulletin, 7/2021. Retrieved from 
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/focus/2021/html/ecb.
ebbox202107_04~c9050e1d70.en.html
Marouda, M. D. (2021). Covid-19, diskriminacija in rasa (Covid-19, discrimination 
and race). Presented at the 5th regional conference of equality bodies in 
South-Eastern Europe, Ljubljana. Retrieved from https://www.zagovornik.
si/peta-regionalna-konferenca-zagovornikov-nacela-enakosti-iz-
jugovzhodne-evrope/
MDDSZ. (2020). Program za otroke 2020–2025 (Programme for children 
2020–2025). Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and 
Equal Opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/assets/
ministrstva/MDDSZ/druzina/Programi-v-podporo-druzini/Program-za-
otroke-2020-2025.pdf
MDDSZ. (2021a). Letno poročilo o izvajanju ukrepov države na trgu dela 2020 
(Annual report on the implementation of government measures on the 
labor market 2020). Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and 
Equal Opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/teme/aktivna-
politika-zaposlovanja/
MDDSZ. (2021b). Personal assistance – budget funds [personal 
correspondence]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and 
Equal Opportunities.
MDDSZ. (2021c). Poročilo o izvajanju izvedbenega načrta Jamstva za mlade 
2016–2020 (Report on the implementation of the implementation plan 
of the Youth Guarantee 2016–2020). Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family, 
Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.
MDDSZ. (2021d). Social transfers [interal material]. Ljubljana: Ministry of 
Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.
MDDSZ. (2022a). Personal assistance in 2019, 2020, 2021 [personal 
correspondence]. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za delo, družino, socialne zadeve 
in enake možnosti.
MDDSZ. (2022b). Predlog Resolucije o nacionalnem programu socialnega 
varstva za obdobje 2021–2030 (Motion for a Resolution on the national 
social protection programme for 2021–2030) – draft for discussion. 
Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. 
Retrieved from https://e-uprava.gov.si/drzava-in-druzba/e-demokracija/
predlogi-predpisov/predlog-predpisa.html?id=13038
Melitz, M. J. and Polanec, S. (2015). Dynamic Olley-Pakes productivity 
decomposition with entry and exit. The RAND Journal of Economics, 46(2), 
362–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/1756-2171.12088
Meško, G. and Sotlar, A. (2012). Preprečevanje kriminalitete v lokalnih 
skupnostih – med ad hoc pristopi in na znanju temelječih preventivnih 
dejavnostih. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo (Crime 
prevention in local communities – between ad hoc approaches and 
knowledge-based preventive activities. Journal of Criminal science and 
Criminology), 63(3). Retrieved from https://www.policija.si/images/
stories/Publikacije/RKK/PDF/2012/03/RKK2012-03_Mesko_Sotlar_
PreprecevanjeKriminaliteteVLokalnihSkupnostih.pdf
MF. (2019). Zelena proračunska reforma: Okoljski in javnofinančni vidiki 
spodbud v Sloveniji (Green budgetary reform: Environmental and fiscal 
aspects of incentives in Slovenia). Ljubljana: Ministry of Finance. Retrieved 
from https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MF/Davcni-direktorat/
DOKUMENTI/Zelena-proracunska-reforma-Okoljski-in-javnofinancni-vidik-
spodbud-v-Sloveniji.pdf
MF. (2020). Poročilo o upravljanju z javnim dolgom Republike Slovenije 2020 
(Report on the management of the public debt of the Republic of Slovenia 
for 2020). Ljubljana: Ministry of Finance.
MF. (2021). State budget expenditure for mitigation of COVID-19 consequences 
[internal data]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Finance.
MF. (2022a). Letna odmera dohodnine (Annual income tax assessment). 
Retrieved from https://www.fu.gov.si/davki_in_druge_dajatve/podrocja/
dohodnina/letna_odmera_dohodnine/#c4618
MF. (2022b). Odhodki državnega proračuna za blaženje posledic covida-19 
(State budget expenditure to mitigate the consequences of COVID-19). 
Ljubljana: Ministry of Finance.
MF. (2022c). Data on R&D tax allowances in 2020 [internal data]. Ljubljana: 
Ministry of Finance.
MI. (2021). Evropski teden mobilnosti (European mobility week). Retrieved 
from https://www.tedenmobilnosti.si/evropski-teden-mobilnosti
Midões, C. (2020). Risking their health to pay the bills: 100 million Europeans 
cannot afford two months without income. The Bruegel Newsletter. 
Retrieved from https://www.bruegel.org/2020/05/two-months-before-
the-cliff-millions-of-europeans-cannot-afford-food-and-lodging-after-two-
months-without-income/
Bibliography and sources 225Development report 2022
MK. (2017). Javni razpis za (so)financiranje projektov, namenjenih promociji in 
uveljavljanju slovenskega jezika na področju jezikovnih virov, tehnologij in 
digitalizacije v letih 2018 in 2019 (Public call for (co)financing of projects 
aimed at promoting and enforcing the Slovenian language in the field 
of language resources, technologies and digitization in 2018 and 2019). 
Ljubljana: Ministry of Culture.
MK. (2021a). Javni razpis za izbor operacij Spodbujanje kreativnih kulturnih 
industrij – Center za kreativnost 2022 (Public call for the selection of 
operations Promotion of creative cultural industries - Center for Creativity 
2022) |. Ljubljana: Ministry of Culture. Retrieved from https://www.gov.
si/zbirke/javne-objave/javni-razpis-za-izbor-operacij-spodbujanje-
kreativnih-kulturnih-industrij/
MK. (2021b). Leto 2022 razglašeno za leto Jožeta Plečnika in Giuseppeja 
Tartinija (2022 declared to be the year of Jože Plečnik and Giuseppe 
Tartini). Ljubljana: Ministry of Culture. Retrieved from https://www.gov.
si/novice/2021-12-31-leto-2022-razglaseno-za-leto-jozeta-plecnika-in-
giuseppeja-tartinija/
MK. (2022). Finančne podpore kulturni raznolikosti (Financial support for 
cultural diversity). Ljubljana: Ministry of Culture. Retrieved from https://
www.gov.si/teme/financna-podpora-kulturnim-projektom/
MKGP. (2021a). Akcijski načrt za razvoj ekološkega kmetijstva do leta 2027 
(Action plan for the development of organic farming until 2027.). Ljubljana: 
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. Retrieved from https://skp.si/
novice/akcijski-nacrt-za-razvoj-ekolskega-kmetijstva-do-leta-2027
MKGP. (2021b). Poročilo o stanju kmetijstva, živilstva, gozdarstva in ribištva v 
letu 2020 (Report on the state of agriculture, food, forestry and fisheries 
in 2020). Ljubljana. Retrieved from http://www.ds-rs.si/sites/default/files/
dokumenti/procilo_o_stanju_kmetijstva.2020.pdf
MKGP. (2021c). Strateški načrt skupne kmetijske politike 2023–2027 za 
Slovenijo (Strategic plan of the common agricultural policy 2023–2027 
for Slovenia). Ljubljana: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food. 
Retrieved from https://skp.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Predlog_SN_
SKP_22.12.2021_koncna_cista.pdf
MKO, MGRT. (2012 June). Akcijski načrt za povečevanje konkurenčnosti 
gozdno-lesne verige do leta 2020 „Les je lep“ (Action plan for increasing 
the competitiveness of the forest-timber chain until 2020 "Wood is 
beautiful".). Retrieved from https://docplayer.net/23865180-Akcijski-nacrt-
za-povecanje-konkurencnosti-gozdno-lesne-verige-v-sloveniji-do-leta-
2020-les-je-lep.html
MO. (2021). Letno poročilo Ministrstva za obrambo za leto 2020 (Annual 
report of the Ministry of defence for 2020). Ljubljana: Ministry of Defence. 
Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MO/Dokumenti/
Letno_porocilo_MO_2020.pdf
MOP. (2017). Poročilo o okolju v Republiki Sloveniji 2017 (Report on the 
environment in the Republic of Slovenia 2017). Ljubljana. Retrieved from 
https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MOP/Dokumenti/porocilo_o_
okolju_2017.pdf
MOP. (2020a). Strategija prostorskega razvoja Slovenije 2050 (Spatial planning 
strategy of Slovenia 2050). Ljubljana: Ministry of the Environment and 
Spatial Planning. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/
MOP/Dokumenti/Prostorski-razvoj/SPRS/SPRS-2050_gradivo-za-javno-
razpravo.pdf
MOP. (2020b). Vključitev v sistem EMAS (Inclusion in the EMAS system). 
Retrieved 26 January 2022 from https://www.gov.si/zbirke/storitve/
vkljucitev-v-sistem-emas/
Možina, T. (2022). Izobraževanje odraslih in svetovanje na daljavo med 
pandemijo (Adult education and counselling at a distance during the 
pandemic). Ljubljana: Slovenian Institute for Adult Education. Retrieved 
from https://www.acs.si/digitalna-bralnica/izobrazevanje-odraslih-in-
svetovanje-na-daljavo-med-pandemijo/
Mrak, M., Bučar, M. and Kamnar, H. (2007). Mednarodno razvojno sodelovanje 
Republike Slovenije (International development cooperation of the 
Republic of Slovenia), vol. 41, No 3/4. Ljubljana: Institute of Macroeconomic 
Analysis and Development.
Murovec, N., Kavaš, D., Bartolj, T. and Celik, M. (2020). Statistična analiza 
stanja kulturnega in kreativnega sektorja v Sloveniji 2008–2017 (Statistical 
analysis of the state of the cultural and creative sector in Slovenia 2008–
2017). Ljubljana: Museum of Architecture and Design, Centre for Creativity.
MZ. (2021). Explanatory statement of the Long-term Care Act [government 
files]. Ljubljana: Ministry of Health.
MZ. (2022a). Cilj digitalizacije slovenskega zdravstva je trajnost, odpornost in 
boljša pripravljenost (The aim of the digitization of Slovenian healthcare 
Miklič, E. (2019). Dwellings, Slovenia, 1 January 2018. Ljubljana: Statistical 
Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.stat.si/
StatWeb/news/Index/8160
MIZŠ. (2021a). Pogled na izzive slovenske vzgoje in izobraževanja (A look at 
the challenges of Slovenian education). Ljubljana: Ministry of Education, 
Science and Sport. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/podrocja/
izobrazevanje-znanost-in-sport/razvoj-in-kakovost-izobrazevanja/
MIZŠ. (2021b). Poročilo o uresničevanju Resolucije o raziskovalni in inovacijski 
strategiji Slovenije 2011–2020 do leta 2020 (Report on the implementation 
of the Resolution on the National Research and Innovation Strategy 
2011–2020 until 2020). Ljubljana: Ministry of Education, Science and Sport. 
Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/
ZNANOST/Strategije/Porocilo-RISS-2020-sprejeto.pdf
MIZŠ. (2022a). Analize prijav za vpis (Analyses of enrollment applications) – 
EVŠ – web portal. Retrieved 1 February 2022 from https://portal.evs.gov.
si/analize-prijav-za-vpis
MIZŠ. (2022b). Sprejeti strateški dokumenti s področja visokega šolstva, 
znanstvenoraziskovalne in inovacijske dejavnosti ter izobraževanja odraslih 
(Adopted strategic documents in the field of higher education, scientific 
research and innovation activities, and adult education) | Eurydice. 
Retrieved from https://www.eurydice.si/novice/zadnje-novice/sprejeti-
strateski-dokumenti-s-podrocja-visokega-solstva-znanstvenoraziskovalne-
in-inovacijske-dejavnosti-ter-izobrazevanja-odraslih/
MJU. (2018). Poročilo o zadovoljstvu uporabnikov javnih storitev za obdobje 
od 17. januarja do 30. junija 2018. Pilotni projekt (Report on the satisfaction 
of users of public services for the period from January 17 to June 30 2018. 
Pilot project). Retrieved 17 January 2022 from https://www.gov.si/assets/
ministrstva/MJU/Kakovost-in-inovativnost-v-javni-upravi/Merjenje-
zadovoljstva-strank/Porocilo_merjenje-zadovoljstva-strank_1_6_2018.pdf
MJU. (2019a). Akcijski načrt za izboljšanje postopka načrtovanja, priprave, 
sprejemanja in vrednotenja učinkov zakonodaje 2019–2022 (Action plan 
to improve the process of planning, preparation, adoption and evaluation 
of the effects of legislation 2019–2022.). Ljubljana: Ministry of Public 
Administration.
MJU. (2019b). Poročilo o izvajanju Resolucije o normativni dejavnosti v letih 
2017, 2018, 2019 (Report on the implementation of the Resolution on 
Legislative Regulation in 2017, 2018 and 2019). Ljubljana: Ministry of Public 
Administration.
MJU. (2020a). Delo v državni upravi v času izrednih razmer covid-19. Rezultati 
raziskave (Work in the public sector during the covid-19 emergency. Survey 
results). Ljubljana: Ministry of Public Administration.
MJU. (2020b). Končno poročilo o izvajanju programa vlade Republike Slovenije 
za krepitev integritete in transparentnosti 2017–2019 (Final report on the 
implementation of the Programme of the Government for strengthening 
Integrity and Transparency 2017–2019). Ljubljana: Ministry of Public 
Administration.
MJU. (2021a). 13. poročilo o realizaciji ukrepov iz enotne zbirke ukrepov za 
boljše zakonodajno in poslovno okolje ter dvig konkurenčnosti (13th 
report on the implementation of measures from the Single Document 
to Ensure Better Regulatory and Business Environment and Increase in 
Competitiveness). Ljubljana: Ministry of Public Administration.
MJU. (2021b). Letno poročilo o izvedbi ukrepov Strategije razvoja javne uprave 
2015–2020 v letu 2020. Stanje na dan 31. 12. 2020 (Annual report on the 
implementation of measures of the Public Administration Development 
Strategy 2015–2020 in 2020. Situation on 31. December 2020). Ljubljana: 
Ministry of Public Administration.
MJU. (2021c). Poročilo o izvedbi rednega postopka CAF EPI 2021 (Report on 
the implementation of the regular procedure CAF EPI 2021). Ljubljana: 
Ministry of Public Administration.
MJU. (2021d). Prostovoljstvo je vzajemni proces prejemanja in dajanja – 5. 
december je mednarodni dan prostovoljstva (Volunteering is a two-way 
process of receiving and giving – December 5, International Volunteer 
Day). Retrieved 17 January 2022 from https://www.gov.si/novice/2021-12-
05-prostovoljstvo-je-vzajemni-proces-prejemanja-in-dajanja-5-december-
je-mednarodni-dan-prostovoljstva/
MJU. (2021e). Statistično poročilo o javnih naročilih, oddanih v letu 2020 
(Statistical report on public contracts awarded in 2020). Ljubljana: Ministry 
of Public Administration.
MJU. (2022). Enotna zbirka ukrepov za boljše zakonodajno in poslovno okolje 
(A unified collection of measures for the realization of a better regulatory 
and business environment). Retrieved from https://enotnazbirkaukrepov.
gov.si/
Bibliography and sources Development report 2022226
NIJZ. (2019a). 10. oktober Svetovni dan duševnega zdravja – Krepitev 
duševnega zdravja za preprečevanje samomora (10 October, World Mental 
Health Day – Strengthening mental health to prevent suicide). Ljubljana: 
National Institute of Public Health. Retrieved from https://www.nijz.si/sl/10-
oktober-svetovni-dan-dusevnega-zdravja-krepitev-dusevnega-zdravja-za-
preprecevanje-samomora
NIJZ. (2019b). Zdravstveni statistični letopis Slovenije 2019 (Health Statistical 
Yearbook of Slovenia 2019). National Institute of Public Health, 28. Retrieved 
from https://www.nijz.si/sites/www.nijz.si/files/uploaded/publikacije/
letopisi/2019/2.6_bs_2019.pdf
NIJZ. (2020). Skrb za duševno zdravje v času širjenja novega koronavirusa 
SARS-CoV-2 (Mental health care during the spread of the novel coronavirus 
SARS-CoV-2). Ljubljana: National Institute of Public Health. Retrieved from 
https://www.nijz.si/sl/koronavirus-dusevno-zdravje
NIJZ. (2021). Inequalities in healthcare – Inequalities in health future challenges 
for intersectoral cooperation. Ljubljana: National Institute of Public Health. 
Retrieved from https://www.nijz.si/sites/www.nijz.si/files/publikacije-
datoteke/neen_strokovna_monografija_eng_e-verzija_5_7_21_obl_1.pdf
NIJZ. (2022a). Dnevno spremljanje okužb s SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) (Daily 
monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infections). Retrieved from https://
www.nijz.si/sl/dnevno-spremljanje-okuzb-s-sars-cov-2-covid-19
NIJZ. (2022b). NIJZ Data portal. Ljubljana: National Institute of Public Health. 
Retrieved from https://podatki.nijz.si/pxweb/sl/NIJZ%20podatkovni%20
portal?px_language=sl&px_db=NIJZ+podatkovni+portal&rxid=75b79f1c-
cf54-4dc2-8d78-fce6cfe5bb3d
NIJZ. (2022c). Projekt Dvig zdravstvene pismenosti v Sloveniji (ZaPiS) (The 
project Raising Health Literacy in Slovenia (ZaPiS)). Ljubljana: National 
Institute of Public Health. Retrieved from https://www.nijz.si/sl/projekt-
zapis-dvig-zdravstvene-pismenosti-v-sloveniji
NUK. (2021). Knjige in brošure. Statistika (Books and brochures. Statistics). 
Ljubljana: National and University Library. Retrieved from https://zalozniki.
nuk.si/Zalozniki/StatistikaKnjigeInBrosureTiskane
NUK. (2022a). Slovenska založniška produkcija (Slovenian publishing 
production). Ljubljana: National and University Library. Retrieved from 
https://zalozniki.nuk.si/Zalozniki/Statistika
NUK. (2022b). Statistical data on libraries. Ljubljana: National and University 
Library. Retrieved from http://cezar.nuk.uni-lj.si/statistika/index.php
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No 48/18. (2018). Uredba o 
nacionalnih zgornjih mejah emisij onesnaževal zunanjega zraka (Decree 
on national emission ceilings for atmospheric pollutants). Retrieved from 
http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=URED7668
OdSUKND – Odlok o strategiji upravljanja kapitalskih naložb države (Ordinance 
on state-owned assets management strategy). (2015). Official Gazette of 
the Republic of Slovenia No. 53/15. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=STRA66
OECD. (2008). Education at a Glance 2008. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
OECD. (2009). Education at a Glance 2009. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
OECD. (2010). Education at a Glance 2010. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
OECD. (2011). Education at a Glance 2011. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
OECD. (2012). Education at a Glance 2012. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
OECD. (2013a). Education at a Glance 2013. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en
OECD. (2013b). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013: 
Innovation for Growth. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-
technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard-2013_sti_
scoreboard-2013-en
OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
OECD. (2015a). Education at a Glance 2015. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2015b). Slovenia Policy Brief: Corporate governance. Paris: Organisation 
for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.
oecd.org/policy-briefs/slovenia-ensuring-effective-management-and-
privatization-of-state-owned-enterprises.pdf
is sustainability, resilience and better preparedness). Ljubljana: Ministry 
of Health. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/novice/2021-08-30-cilj-
digitalizacije-slovenskega-zdravstva-je-trajnost-odpornost-in-boljsa-
pripravljenost/
MZ. (2022b). Wage allowances paid from the state budget [personal 
correspondence]. Ljubljana: Ministrstvo za zdravje.
MZ. (2022c). Objavljen je javni razpis za sofinanciranje investicij na primarni 
ravni zdravstvenega varstva (A public call for co-financing of investments 
at the primary level of healthcare has been published). Ljubljana: Ministry 
of Health. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/novice/2022-01-19-
objavljen-je-javni-razpis-za-sofinanciranje-investicij-na-primarni-ravni-
zdravstvenega-varstva/
MZ. (2022d). ZaPiS – Dvig zdravstvene pismenosti (ZaPis – improving 
healthcare literacy). Ljubljana: Ministry of Health. Retrieved from https://
www.gov.si/zbirke/projekti-in-programi/dvig-zdravstvene-pismenosti/
MzI. (2021). Vizija 2050+. Razvoj slovenskega železniškega omrežja (Vision 
2050+. Development of Slovenian railway network). Ljubljana: Ministry of 
Infrastructure. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/assets/organi-v-sestavi/
DRSI/Dokumenti-DRSI/Zeleznice/Vizija-2050+-oktober-2021.pdf
MZZ. (2018). Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid Strategy of the 
Republic of Slovenia until 2030. Ljubljana: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MZZ. (2020a). Poročilo Ministrstva za zunanje zadeve Republike Slovenije 2019 
(Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia 2019). 
Ljubljana: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/
assets/ministrstva/MZZ/Dokumenti/javne-objave/letna-porocila/Porocilo_
MZZ_2019.pdf
MZZ. (2020b). Posebni vladni projekt. Predsedovanje Republike Slovenije Svetu 
Evropske Unije 2021. Revidirana projektna naloga (A special government 
project. Presidency of the Republic of Slovenia at the Council of the 
European Union 2021. Revised project assignment) Ljubljana: Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs.
MZZ. (2021a). Candidature of the Republic of Slovenia for a non-permanent 
seat on the UN Security Council for 2024–2025. Ljubljana: Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/en/news/2021-12-09-
candidature-of-the-republic-of-slovenia-for-a-non-permanent-seat-on-
the-un-security-council-for-20242025/
MZZ. (2021b). Poročilo Ministrstva za zunanje zadeve Republike Slovenije 
2020 (Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia 
2020). Ljubljana: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.
gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MZZ/Dokumenti/javne-objave/letna-porocila/
porocilo2020.pdf
MZZ. (2021c). Priorities of the Republic of Slovenia at the 75th session of the 
UN General Assembly. Ljubljana: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from 
https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MZZ/Dokumenti/multilaterala/
OZN/Prioritete-RS-UNGA75-za-splet-ANG-popravljeno.docx
MZZ. (2021d). Slovenia: Safe, successful, globally respected. Foreign policy of 
the Republic of Slovenia. Ljubljana: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 
from https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MZZ/Dokumenti/stiki-z-
javnostmi/Foreign-Policy-Strategy-of-the-Republic-of-Slovenia.pdf
MZZ. (2022a). Poročilo o mednarodnem razvojnem sodelovanju Republike 
Slovenije za leto 2020 (Report on international development cooperation 
of the Republic of Slovenia for 2020). Ljubljana: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MZZ. (2022b). Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the European 
union 2021. Retrieved 4 March 2022 from https://wayback.archive-it.
org/12090/20220404080557/https://slovenian-presidency.consilium.
europa.eu/en/
Nagode, M., Zver, E., Marn, S., Jacovic, A. and Dominkus, D. (2014). Dolgotrajna 
oskrba – uporaba mednarodne definicije v Sloveniji (Long-term care – 
the use of the international definition in Slovenia). Ljubljana: Institute of 
Macroeconomic Analysis and Development. Retrieved from http://www.
umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/publikacije/dz/2014/DZ_02_14p.pdf
Nared, J., Repolusk, P., Černič Istenič, M., Trobec, A., Zavodnik Lamovšek, A., 
Drobne, S., … Krušec, K. (2019). Celovita demografska analiza s projekcijami 
za podeželska in urbana območja (Comprehensive demographic analysis 
with projections for rural and urban areas). Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, Anton Melik 
Geographical Institute, University of Ljubljana. Faculty of Civil and Geodetic 
Engineering. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MOP/
Dokumenti/Prostorski-razvoj/SPRS/Celovita_demografska_analiza_
podezelska_urbana_obmocja.pdf
Neubert, A., Baji, P., Tambor, M., Groot, W., Gulacsi, L. and Pavlova, M. (2019). 
Long-term care financing in Europe: An overview. Zdrowie Publiczne, 17(3), 
131–145. https://doi.org/10.4467/20842627OZ.19.015.11972
Bibliography and sources 227Development report 2022
OECD. (2020b). Declining Business Dynamism, OECD STI Policy Papers No 94. 
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2020c). Education at a Glance 2020. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2020d). PISA 2018 Results (Volume VI): Are Students Ready to Thrive in 
an Interconnected World? Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development.
OECD. (2020e). Slovenia Mid-term Review. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/assets/
ministrstva/MZZ/Dokumenti/multilaterala/razvojno-sodelovanje/OECD-
DAC-2020-v-anglescini.pdf
OECD. (2020f ). The territorial impact of COVID-19: Managing the crisis across 
levels of government. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-
responses/the-territorial-impact-of-covid-19-managing-the-crisis-across-
levels-of-government-d3e314e1/
OECD. (2021a). Assessing the Economic Impacts of Environmental Policies: 
Evidence from a Decade of OECD Research. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.
org/environment/assessing-the-economic-impacts-of-environmental-
policies_bf2fb156-en
OECD. (2021b). Education at a Glance 2021. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2021c). Forward Looking Scenarios for Regional Development. Paris: 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2021d). Government at a glance 2021. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2021e). Income inequality. Paris: Organizacija za gospodarsko 
sodelovanje in razvoj. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/inequality/
income-inequality.htm
OECD. (2021f ). Investing in Youth: Slovenia. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.
org/sites/c3df2833-en/1/3/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/
c3df2833-en&_csp_=3c37de1962becea765b5f73ca42c21f2&itemIGO=oec
d&itemContentType=book
OECD. (2021g). Live data from OECD.AI partners. Paris: Organisation for 
Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://oecd.ai/
en/data-from-partners
OECD. (2021h). OECD Employment Outlook 2021: Navigating the COVID-19 
Crisis and Recovery, p. 401. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
employment/oecd-employment-outlook-2021_5a700c4b-en
OECD. (2021i). OECD Health at Glance 2021: OECD indicators. Paris: 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 
from https://www.oecd.org/health/health-at-a-glance/CD Health at Glance 
2021: OECD indicators
OECD. (2021j). OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021. Paris: Organisation for 
Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2021k). OECD Skills For Jobs. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.
oecdskillsforjobsdatabase.org
OECD. (2021l). Road Safety Report 2020 – Slovenia. Paris: ITF/OECD. Retrieved 
from https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/slovenia-road-safety.pdf
OECD. (2021m). Slovenia – Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 
2021. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 
Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/slovenia-
country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
OECD. (2021n). The future of remote work: Opportunities and policy options for 
Trentino. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/35f78ced-en
OECD. (2022a). Focus on resilient healthcare. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/
coronavirus/en/themes/resilient-healthcare
OECD. (2022b). OECD Statistics. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation 
and Development. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org/
OECD. (2022c). OECD.Stat database: Adequacy of Guaranteed Minimum Income 
benefits. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 
Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=IA
OECD. (2022d). Trade in Value Added (TiVA) 2021 ed: Principal Indicators 
[database]. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
OECD. (2016a). Education at a Glance 2016. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. 
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2016c). Skills Matter: Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills. 
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2017a). Education at a Glance 2017. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2017b). Health at a Glance 2017. OECD Indicators. Paris: Organisation 
for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/
health_glance-2017-en
OECD. (2017c). OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: Slovenia 2017. Paris: 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://doi.
org/10.1787/9789264287709-en
OECD. (2018a). A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility. Paris: 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from 
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en
OECD. (2018b). Education at a Glance 2018. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2018c). Indicators of Product Market Regulation. Paris: Organisation for 
Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.
oecd.org/economy/reform/indicators-of-product-market-regulation/
OECD. (2018d). Inequalities in household wealth across OECD countries: 
Evidence from the OECD Wealth Distribution Database. Paris: Organisation 
for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://
www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=SDD/
DOC(2018)1&docLanguage=En
OECD. (2018e). Regulatory policy in Slovenia – Oversight matters. Paris: 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2019a). Education at a Glance 2019. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2019b). Environment at a Glance Indicators. Paris: Organisation for 
Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.
oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/environment-at-a-glance-indicators_
ac4b8b89-en
OECD. (2019c). Getting Skills Right: Future – Ready Adult Learning Systems. 
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://
doi.org/10.1787/9789264311756-en
OECD. (2019d). Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060 Economic Drivers 
and Environmental Consequences. Paris. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.
org/env/global-material-resources-outlook-to-2060-9789264307452-en.
htm
OECD. (2019e). Government at a glance 2019. Paris: Organisation for Economic 
Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.
org/governance/government-at-a-glance-2019_8ccf5c38-en
OECD. (2019f ). Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. Paris: Organisation 
for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-
2019_4dd50c09-en
OECD. (2019g). OECD Future of education and skills 2030. OECD Learning 
Compass 2030. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-
project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_
Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf
OECD. (2019h). OECD Skills Strategy 2019: Skills to Shape a Better Future. Paris: 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved 
from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264313835-en/index.
html?itemId=/content/publication/9789264313835-en
OECD. (2019i). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. 
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2019j). PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed. 
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD. (2019k). The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention. 
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 
Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-
health/the-heavy-burden-of-obesity_67450d67-en
OECD. (2020a). COVID-19: Protecting people and societies. Paris: Organisation 
for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://read.
oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=126_126985-nv145m3l96&title=COVID-19-
Protecting-people-and-societies
Bibliography and sources Development report 2022228
ReNPK22–29 – Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za kulturo 2022–2029 
(Resolution on the 2022–2029 National Programme for Culture). (2022). 
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 29/22.
ReNPVO20–30 – Resolucija o Nacionalnem programu varstva okolja za 
obdobje 2020–2030 (Resolution on the National Environmental Action 
Programme 2020–2030). (2020). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia 
No. 31/20. Retrieved from http://pisrs.si
ReRIS11-20 – Resolucija o raziskovalni in inovacijski strategiji Slovenije 2011–
2020 (Resolution on the National Research and Development Programme 
2011–2015). (2011). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 43/11. 
Retrieved from http://pisrs.si
RGZC and ZDSS. (2018). Poročilo analize stanja na področju socialnega dialoga 
v Sloveniji in tujini ter pregled dobrih praks doma in v tujini (Report 
on the analysis of the situation in the field of social dialogue in Slovenia 
and abroad and a review of good practices at home and abroad). The 
Association of Workers Trade Unions of Slovenia SOLIDARITY and Celje 
Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Retrieved from https://rgzc.gzs.si/
Portals/rgzc-gzs/Analiza%20socialni%20dialog.pdf
RIC. (2019). Nacionalno preverjanje znanja. Letno poročilo o izvedbi v šolskem 
letu 2018/2019 (National examination. Annual report on implementation 
in the 2018/2019 academic year). Ljubljana: National Examinations Centre. 
Retrieved from https://www.ric.si/mma/Letno%20poro%20%20ilo%20
NPZ%202019/2019120913232271/
RIC. (2021). Nacionalno preverjanje znanja. Letno poročilo o izvedbi v šolskem 
letu 2020/2021 (National examination. Annual report on implementation 
in the 2020/2021 academic year). Ljubljana: National Examinations Centre. 
Retrieved from https://www.ric.si/mma/Letno%20poro%C4%8Dilo%20
NPZ%202021_Objava.pdf/2021120120381236/
Rupnik Vec, T., Slivar, B., Zupanc Grom, R., Deutsch, T., Ivanuš-Grmek, M., 
Mithans, M., … Lipovec, A. (2020). Analiza izobraževanja na daljavo v casu 
prvega vala epidemije covida-19 v Sloveniji (Analysis of distance education 
during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in Slovenia). Ljubljana: 
National Education Institute. Retrieved from http://www.zrss.si/pdf/
izobrazevanje_na_daljavo_covid19.pdf
Sachs, J., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G. and Woelm, F. (2021). Sustainable 
Development Report 2021, 1st edition. Cambridge University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1017/9781009106559
Sambt, J., Istenič, T., Farčnik, D. and Viršček, A. (2021). Overestimated excess 
mortality for Slovenia in 2020. In: Proceedings of the 24th International 
Multiconference: Information society – IS 2021, volume F. Ljubljana. 
Retrieved from https://is.ijs.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/IS2021_
Volume_F-TEMP-2.pdf
Sandbag. (n.d.). Tracking the European Union Emissions Trading System 
carbon market price day-by-day. Retrieved 23 September 2021 from 
https://sandbag.be/index.php/carbon-price-viewer/
Santomauro, D. F., Mantilla Herrera, A. M., Shadid, J., Zheng, P., Ashbaugh, 
C., Pigott, D. M., … Ferrari, A. J. (2021). Global prevalence and burden of 
depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet, 398(10312), 1700–1712. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02143-7
SFC. (2021). Data on feature film activity [unpublished data]. Ljubljana: 
Slovenian Film Centre
SIAE. (2021). Poročilo o uresničevanju Resolucije o Nacionalnem programu 
izobraževanja odraslih v Republiki Sloveniji za obdobje 2013–2020 (Report 
on the implementation of the Resolution on the National Programme 
of Adult Education in the Republic of Slovenia 2022–2030) (ReNPIO 
2013–2020). Ljubljana: Slovenian Institute for Adult Education. Retrieved 
from https://www.acs.si/digitalna-bralnica/porocilo-o-uresnicevanju-
renpio-2013-2020/
SIAE. (n.d.). Izobraževanje za trajnostni razvoj (Education for sustainable 
development). Retrieved from https://www.acs.si/projekti/domaci/
izobrazevanje-za-trajnostni-razvoj/
SiDG. (2022). Slovenski državni gozdovi. Kočevje (Slovenian state forests. 
Kočevje). Retrieved from https://sidg.si/index.php/
Decision to the ZIUPGT – Sklep o podaljšanju veljavnosti bonov za izboljšanje 
gospodarskega položaja na področju potrošnje v gostinstvu, turizmu, 
športu in kulturi (Conclusion extending the vouchers provided for in the 
law on intervention measures to assist the economy and tourism in the 
event of mitigation due to the COVID-19 epidemic). (2021). Official Gazette 
of the Republic of Slovenia No. 190/21. Retrieved from http://pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=SKLE12585
SLOGI. (2021). Slovenian theatre institute (SLOGI). Retrieved from https://www.
slogi.si/en/
Development. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org/Index.
aspx?DataSetCode=TIVA_2021_C1
OECD and CEDEFOP. (2014). Greener Skills and Jobs. Green Growth Studies. 
Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/
industry-and-services/greener-skills-and-jobs_9789264208704-en#page1
OECD and EU. (2018). Health at a Glance. Europe 2018. State of Health in the 
EU Cycle. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 
https://doi.org/10.1787/health_glance_eur-2018-en
OECD and EU. (2020). Health at a Glance. Europe 2020. State of Health in the 
EU Cycle. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 
https://doi.org/10.1787/82129230-en
OECD/EOHSP. (2021a). Slovenia: Country Health Profile 2021, State of Health in 
the EU. Paris: OECD Publishing/European Observatory on Health Systems 
and Policies.
OECD/EOHSP. (2021b). State of Health in the EU: Companion Report 2021. Paris: 
OECD Publishing/European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. 
Retrieved from https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/publications/m/
state-of-health-in-the-eu-companion-report-2021
Ogrin, M. (2017). Komentar h kazalcem o kakovosti zraka (Comments on air 
quality indicators). For internal use. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, 
Faculty of Arts, Department of Geography.
Peng, Y., Wu, P., Schartup, A. T. and Zhang, Y. (2021). Plastic waste release caused 
by COVID-19 and its fate in the global ocean. Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved from 
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/47/e2111530118
Petrišič, N. (2020). Kako naj delodajalci zaposlenim zagotavljajo ustrezno in 
varno delovno okolje? (How should employers provide employees with 
an appropriate and safe working environment?) Ljubljana: Lexpera GV 
Založba.
PlasticsEurope. (2020). Plastics – the Facts 2020 An analysis of European 
plastics production, demand and waste data. Retrieved from https://
plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2020/
Police. (2021a). Ilegalne migracije na območju Republike Slovenije (Illegal 
migrations in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia). Ljubljana: 
Police. Retrieved from https://www.policija.si/images/stories/Statistika/
MejnaProblematika/IlegalneMigracije/2021/December2021.pdf
Police. (2021b). Annual report on the work of the police 2020. Ljubljana: 
Ministry of Internal Affairs, Police, Service of Director General of the 
Police. Retrieved from https://www.policija.si/images/stories/Statistics/
Annual%20Reports/AnnualReport2020.pdf
Police. (2021c). Pregled dela policije za prvo polletje 2021 (Overview of the 
Work of the Police for the First Half of 2021). Ljubljana: Ministry of Internal 
Affairs, Police, Service of Director General of the Police. Retrieved from 
https://www.policija.si/images/stories/Statistika/LetnaPorocila/PDF/
PorociloZaPrvoPolletje2021.pdf
Police. (2021d). Statistical data on violence [internal data]. Ljubljana: General 
Police Directorate, Criminal Police Directorate.
Police. (2022). Statistical data on violence [internal data]. Ljubljana: General 
Police Directorate, Criminal Police Directorate.
Rakar, I. and Kovač, P. (2019). Boljši predpisi kot horizontalna politika razvoja 
slovenske javne uprave: med cilji in realnostjo (Regulations are better than 
a horizontal policy for the development of Slovenian public administration: 
between goals and reality). Ljubljana: Faculty of Administration.
Rakinić, K., Komljen, I. and Semen, E. (2021). Učinki izobraževanja na daljavo 
v šolskem letu 2020/2021 (Effects of distance education in the 2020/2021 
academic year). Ljubljana: National Examinations Centre.
ReDPS50 – Resolucija o Dolgoročni podnebni strategiji Slovenije do leta 2050 
(Resolution on the Slovenian climate long-term strategy 2050). (2021). 
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 119.
Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 
June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and 
amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European 
Climate Law’). (2021). OJ EU L 243/1. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R1119&from=EN
ReNDej – Resolucija o normativni dejavnosti (Resolution on Legislative 
Regulation). (2009). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 95/09. 
Retrieved from http://pisrs.si
ReNPJP21–25 – Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za jezikovno politiko 
2021–2025 (Resolution on the National Programme for Language Policy 
2021–2025). (2021). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 94/21.
Bibliography and sources 229Development report 2022
SURS. (2021d). Research on wage structure [micro data]. Ljubljana: Statistical 
Office of the Republic of Slovenia.
SURS. (2021e). This merry day of culture, 2021. Retrieved from https://www.
stat.si/StatWeb/File/DocSysFile/11662/ang-ta-veseli-dan-kulture-2021.pdf
SURS. (2022a). Consumer opinion survey [internal monthly data]. Ljubljana: 
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia.
SURS. (2022b). SI-STAT [database]. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of 
Slovenia. Retrieved from https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStat/sl
SURS. (2022c). Main Aggregates of the General Government. Ljubljana: 
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://pxweb.
stat.si/SiStat/en/Podrocja/Index/56/bdp-in-nacionalni-racuni
SVRK. (2017). Strategija razvoja Slovenije 2030 (Slovenia's Development 
Strategy 2030). Ljubljana: Government Office for Development and 
Cohesion Policy.
SVRK. (2021a). Načrt za okrevanje in odpornost (Recovery and Resilience 
Plan). Ljubljana: Government Office for Development and Cohesion 
Policy. Retrieved from https://www.eu-skladi.si/sl/dokumenti/rrf/01_si-
rrp_23-7-2021_lekt.pdf
SVRK. (2021b). Predstavitev Načrta za okrevanje in odpornost (Presentation 
of the Recovery and Resilience Plan). Ljubljana: Government Office for 
Development and Cohesion Policy. Retrieved from https://www.eu-skladi.
si/sl/po-2020/nacrt-za-okrevanje-in-krepitev-odpornosti
SVRK. (2021c). Sporazum o partnerstvu med Slovenijo in Evropsko komisijo 
za obdobje 2021–2027 (Partnership Agreement between Slovenia and the 
European Commission for the period 2021–2027). Ljubljana: Government 
Office for Development and Cohesion Policy. Retrieved from https://www.
eu-skladi.si/sl/dokumenti/pa-2021-2027/ps-za-ek-22-1-2021.pdf
SVRK. (2021d). Za nakup sodobne informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije 
za vzgojno-izobraževalne zavode 13,6 milijona evrov nepovratnih sredstev 
pobude React-EU (EUR 13.6 million in React-EU funding for modern ICT in 
educational institutions). Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/novice/2021-
08-17-za-nakup-sodobne-informacijsko-komunikacijske-tehnologije-za-
vzgojno-izobrazevalne-zavode-136-milijona-evrov-nepovratnih-sredstev-
pobude-react-eu/
Swiss re. (2021). SIGMA: World insurance. Retrieved 20 December 2021 
from https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:ca792993-80ce-49d7-9e4f-
7e298e399815/swiss-re-institute-sigma-3-2021-en.pdf
Šimonović Einwalter, T. (2021). 5th regional conference of equality bodies 
in South-Eastern Europe – opening speech. Presented at 5th regional 
conference of equality bodies in South-Eastern Europe, Ljubljana. 
Retrieved from https://www.zagovornik.si/peta-regionalna-konferenca-
zagovornikov-nacela-enakosti-iz-jugovzhodne-evrope/
ŠOS. (2021). Izgubljeno leto študija naj se nadomesti prihodnje leto (The lost 
year of study should be compensated next year). Retrieved 19 January 
2022 from https://www.studentska-org.si/izgubljeno-leto-studija-naj-se-
nadomesti-prihodnje-leto/
ŠOS. (2022). Javni poziv k prilagoditvi opravljanja izpitnih obveznosti (Public 
call for adjustment of the examination obligations). Retrieved from https://
www.studentska-org.si/javni-poziv-k-prilagoditvi-opravljanja-izpitnih-
obveznosti/
Šter, D. (2020). Deaths. Methodological explanation. Ljubljana: Statistical office 
of the Repubilc of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/
File/DocSysFile/9514
TA. (2020). Territorial Agenda 2030. Brussels: European Union. Retrieved from 
https://territorialagenda.eu:443/ta2030/
Taquet, M., Luciano, S., Geddes, J. R. and Harrison, P. J. (2021). Bidirectional 
associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: retrospective 
cohort studies of 62 354 COVID-19 cases in the USA. The Lancet Psychiatry, 
8(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30462-4
Tariff rates – Tarifne postavke za omrežnine elektrooperaterjev za regulativno 
obdobje od 1. januarja 2022 do 31. decembra 2022 (Tariff rates – Tariff rates 
for network charges for electricity operators for the period from 1 January 
2022 to 31 December 2022). (2021). Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Slovenia No. 202/2021. Retrieved from https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-
uradni-list-rs/vsebina/2021-01-4132/tarifne-postavke-za-omreznine-
elektrooperaterjev-za-regulativno-obdobje-od-1--januarja-2022-do-31--
decembra-2022?h=zakon%20o%20dedovanju
Toš, N. (ed.). (2021). Vrednote v prehodu XIII. Slovenija v mednarodnih in 
medčasovnih primerjavah ISSP 2017–2019 (Values in transition XIII. 
Slovenia in international and intertemporal comparisons of ISSP 2017–
2019), ESS 2018, SJM 2018–2020. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty 
of Social Sciences, IDV, CJMMK.
Slovene Philanthropy. (2021). Mednarodni dan prostovoljstva 2021 
(International volunteering day 2021). Retrieved 17 January 2022 
from https://www.filantropija.org/2021/12/02/mednarodni-dan-
prostovoljstva-2021/
Slovenian Soil Partnership. (2018). Onesnaženost tal – skrita nevarnost (Soil 
pollution – a hidden danger). Retrieved from https://www.kis.si/f/docs/
Mednarodno_leto_tal_Svetovni_dan_tal/Plakat_Onesnazenost_tal_A3.pdf
Slovenian Insurance Association. (2021). Statistical Insurance Bulletin 2020. 
Retrieved 6 January 2022 from http://szb.zav-zdruzenje.si/szb-2021.
html#SZB
SSH. (2020). Annual report of SSH group and SSH for 2019. Ljubljana: Slovenian 
Sovereign Holding. Retrieved from https://www.sdh.si/Data/Documents/
Financiall%20Reports/2019/Annual%20Report%20SSH%20Group%20
and%20SSH%202019.pdf
SSH. (2021a). Letni načrt upravljanja kapitalskih naložb za leto 2022 (Annual 
capital investment management plan for 2022). Ljubljana: Slovenian 
Sovereign Holding. Retrieved from https://www.sdh.si/Data/Documents/
pravni-akti/LNU%202022_splo%C5%A1ni%20del_25.11.2021.pdf
SSH. (2021b). Annual report of SSH group and SSH for 2020. Ljubljana: 
Slovenian Sovereign Holding. Retrieved from https://www.sdh.si/Data/
Documents/upravljanje-nalozb/Letno%20poro%C4%8Dilo%20o%20
upravljanju%20kapitalskih%20nalo%C5%BEb%20RS%20in%20SDH%20
za%20leto%202020_final.pdf
Stanojević, A. and Čakarević, V. (2021). Purchasing power parities and gross 
domestic product in purchasing power standards. Methodological 
explanation. Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from 
https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/File/DocSysFile/8358
Starc, G., Strel, J., Kovač, M., Leskošek, B., Sorić, M. and Jurak, G. (2020). SLOfit 
2020 Poročilo o telesnem in gibalnem razvoju otrok in mladine v šolskem 
letu 2019/20 (Annual report of the SLOfit – Slovenian national surveillance 
system for somatic and motor development of children and youth). 
Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sports. Retrieved from https://
zenodo.org/record/4318835
Stare, M., Inglič, R. T. and Kebe, N. (2021). Methodological explanation. Living 
conditions. Ljubljana: SURS. Retrieved from https://www.stat.si/statweb/
File/DocSysFile/8108/08-236-ME.pdf
Strand, H. and Havard, H. (2021). Trends in Armed Conflicts, 1946–2020. 
Oslo: Peace Research Institute Oslo. Retrieved from https://www.prio.org/
publications/12756
Stritih. (2018). Okoljski odtis Slovenije – izračun projekcij in scenarijev 
zmanjšanja okoljskega odtisa za izbrane ukrepe (The environmental 
footprint of Slovenia – calculation of projections and scenarios of 
environmental footprint reduction for selected measures). Final report. 
Bovec. Retrieved from http://nfp-si.eionet.europa.eu/publikacije/
Datoteke/Ekoloski%20odtis%20-%20projekcije%20in%20scenariji%20
za%20Slovenijo%20do%20leta%202030/Ekoloskiodtis_projekcije%20
in%20scenariji.pdf
Supreme Court. (2021). Otvoritev sodnega leta 2021 (Opening of the Judicial 
Year 2021). Ljubljana: Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.sodisce.
si/mma_bin.php?static_id=2021021709564790
Supreme Court. (2022). Otvoritev sodnega leta 2022 (Opening of the Judicial 
Year 2022). Ljubljana: Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.sodisce.
si/mma_bin.php?static_id=2021021709564790
Supreme Court, Čolaković, A. B., Rehberger, M., Lavtar, D., Korošec, A. and Frič, 
A. (2021). Letno poročilo o učinkovitosti in uspešnosti sodišč 2020 (Annual 
report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts 2020). Ljubljana: 
Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.sodisce.si/mma_bin.
php?static_id=2021050412351310
SURS. (2019). Zapisnik 8. seje za statistiko zdravja (Minutes of the 8th session 
on health statistics). Retrieved 18 January 2022 from https://www.stat.si/
doc/sosvet/Sosvet_26/SosvetSeja8_272195.pdf
SURS. (2020). Income, poverty and social exclusion indicators, p. 24. Retrieved 
from https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/File/DocSysFile/8270
SURS. (2021a). Health expenditure and sources of funding, Slovenia, 2019. 
Retrieved 30 March 2022 from https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/
Index/9634
SURS. (2021b). Health expenditure and sources of funding, Slovenia, 2019. 
Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from 
https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/9634
SURS. (2021c). Research on ative and inactive population [micro data]. 
Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia.
Bibliography and sources Development report 2022230
www.nijz.si/sl/publikacije/prvi-val-epidemije-covida-19-skozi-prizmo-
zdravstvene-statistike
Vogrinc, J. (2021, August). Dosežki učencev na nacionalnem preverjanju znanja 
2021 (Students' achievements based on national examination results 
2021). Presented at the press conference on national examination. MIZŠ, 
Ljubljana. Retrieved from https://www.gov.si/novice/2021-06-28-rezultati-
npz-2021-spodbudni/
Vozel, T. (2021). Merjenje uporabe sekundarnih surovin v krožnem gospodarstvu 
(Measuring the use of secondary raw materials in the circular economy). 
EOL, 2021(164–165). Retrieved from https://www.zelenaslovenija.si/EOL/
Clanek/3427/embalaza-okolje-logistika-st-164-165/merjenje-uporabe-
sekundarnih-surovin-v-kroznem-gospodarstvu-eol-164-165
Vršnik Perše, T., Schmidt Krajnc, B., Čagran, B., Košir, K., Hmelak, M., Bratina, T., 
… Lorbek, T. (2016). Evalvacija različnih oblik dodatne strokovne pomoči, ki 
je otrokom dodeljena v skladu z Zakonom o usmerjanju otrok s posebnimi 
potrebami (Evaluation of various forms of additional professional assistance 
provided to children in accordance with the Placement of Children with 
Special Needs Act). Maribor: Faculty of Education.
Warringa, G. (2021). Waste Incineration under the EU ETS – An assessment 
of climate benefits. CE Delft, Zero Waste Europe. Retrieved from https://
zerowasteeurope.eu/library/waste-incineration-under-the-eu-ets-an-
assessment-of-climate-benefits/
WB. (2020). Doing Business 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.
org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1440-2
WB. (2021). World Bank Commodity Statistics [data portal]. Washington, DC: 
World Bank. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/
commodity-markets
WEF. (2019). Global Competitiveness Report 2019. World Economic Forum. 
Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-
report-2019/
WHO. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on mental, neurological and 
substance use services: Results of a rapid assessment. Geneva: World 
Health Organization. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/i/
item/978924012455
WHO. (2022). WHO European health information at your fingertips. Retrieved 
20 January 2022 from https://gateway.euro.who.int/en/indicators/hfa_411-
2700-absenteeism-from-work-due-to-illness-days-per-employee-per-year/
World Justice Project. (2021). Rule of law index 2021. Washington, DC: World 
Justice Project. Retrieved from https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/
default/files/documents/WJP-INDEX-21.pdf
WTO. (2022). WTO Data [database]. Geneva: World Trade Organisation. 
Retrieved from https://data.wto.org/
Wuppertal Institute. (2021). Green Recovery Tracker: how green is recovery 
spending in different sectors. Wuppertal Institut. Retrieved from https://
assets.website-files.com/602e4a891047f739eaf5dfad/61c1c72f2784e84b3
2f53998_GRT_2021_FACTSHEET_20211221.pdf
Zavod Big and Centre for Creativity. (2021). Kreativni barometer 2021 (Creative 
barometer 2021). Ljubljana: Zavod Big, Centre for Creativity. Retrieved from 
https://czk.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/kreativni-barometer-2021-1.pdf
ZDeb – Zakon o debirokratizaciji (Debureaucratisation Act). (2022). Official 
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 3/22. Retrieved from http://www.
pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8346
ZDOsk – Zakon o dolgotrajni oskrbi (Long Term Care Act). (2021). Official 
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 196/21. Retrieved from http://www.
pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7621
ZDUOP – Zakon o dodatnih ukrepih za omilitev posledic COVID-19 (Additional 
Measures to Mitigate the Consequences of COVID-19 Act). (2021). Official 
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia Nos 15/21 and 112/21. Retrieved from 
http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8321
ZDUPŠOP – Zakon o dodatnih ukrepih za preprečevanje širjenja, omilitev, 
obvladovanje, okrevanje in odpravo posledic COVID-19 (Act on Additional 
Measures to Stop Spreading and Mitigate, Control, Recover and 
Eliminate the Consequences of COVID-19) (2021). Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Slovenia No. 206/21. Retrieved from http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8506
ZGS. (2021). Poročilo Zavoda za gozdove Slovenije o gozdovih za leto 2020 
(Slovenian Forest Service Report on Slovenian Forests for 2020). Ljubljana: 
Slovenian Forest Service. Retrieved from http://www.zgs.si/fileadmin/zgs/
main/img/PDF/LETNA_POROCILA/2020_Porocilo_o_gozdovih.pdf
ZIntPK-C – Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o integriteti in 
preprečevanju korupcije (Act Amending the Integrity and Prevention 
Transparency International, Welby, B. and Chauvet, L. (2022). Corruption 
Perceptions Index 2021. Berlin: Transparency International. Retrieved from 
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021
Trobec, T. (2017). Poraba vode in vodna produktivnost (Water consumption 
and water productivity). [internal report]. Ljubljana: Faculty of Arts, 
Department of Geography.
Trol, D. (2022). Methodological explanation: Research and development 
activity by performers. Ljubljana: Statistical Office of the Republic of 
Slovenia.
UIRS. (2021). Poročilo o prostorskem razvoju 2021 (Report on spatial 
development 2021). Ljubljana: Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of 
Slovenia. Retrieved from http://www.pis.gov.si/doc/POROCILO_2021.pdf
UKOM. (2021). Kulturni in promocijski program – Slovensko predsedovanje 
Svetu EU 2021 (Cultural and promotional programme – Slovenian 
Presidency of the Council of the EU 2021). Retrieved 12 January 2022 
from https://slovenian-presidency.consilium.europa.eu/sl/predsedovanje/
kulturni-in-promocijski-program/
UN. (2022). General Assembly resolution demands end to Russian offensive in 
Ukraine. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/en/
story/2022/03/1113152
UN Comtrade. (2022). UN Comtrade Database [database]. New York: United 
Nations Statistics Division. Retrieved from https://comtrade.un.org/data/
UNCTAD. (2021). UNCTADstat [database]. Geneva: United Nations Conference 
on Trade and Development. Retrieved from https://unctadstat.unctad.org/
wds/
UNFCCC. (2022). Glasgow Climate Change Conference – October-November 
2021. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/conference/glasgow-climate-
change-conference-october-november-2021
UNOCHA. (2022). Ukraine: Humanitarian Impact. Situation Report. 25 March 
2022. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Retrieved 
from https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/ukraine-humanitarian-impact-
situation-report-1200-pm-eet-25-march-2022
Uredba o določitvi cen določenih naftnih derivatov (Decree on setting prices 
for certain petroleum products). (2022). Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Slovenia No. 36/22. Retrieved from https://zakonodaja.ulinfotok.si/glasilo-
uradni-list-rs/vsebina/2022-01-0709/uredba-o-dolocitvi-cen-dolocenih-
naftnih-derivatov?h=
Uredba o načinu unovčitve bona za izboljšanje gospodarskega položaja – 
Uredba o načinu unovčitve bona za izboljšanje gospodarskega položaja 
na področju potrošnje v gostinstvu, turizmu, športu in kulturi, povračilu 
sredstev preko informacijskega sistema Finančne uprave Republike 
Slovenije ter načinu vodenja in upravljanja evidence bonov (Decree on 
the method of redeeming vouchers for the improvement of the economic 
situation in the field of tourism consumption, reimbursement of funds 
through the information system of the Financial Administration of the 
Republic of Slovenia and keeping and managing voucher record). (2021). 
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 114/21. Retrieved from 
http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=URED8114
Uredba o spremembi in dopolnitvah Uredbe o določitvi cen določenih naftnih 
derivatov (Decree amending the Decree on setting the prices for certain 
petroleum products). (2022). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 
46/2022. Retrieved from https://zakonodaja.ulinfotok.si/glasilo-uradni-list-
rs/vsebina/2022-01-0920/uredba-o-spremembi-in-dopolnitvah-uredbe-o-
dolocitvi-cen-dolocenih-naftnih-derivatov
URSZR. (2022). Ogroženost Slovenije (Slovenia’s threat assessment). Retrieved 
3 February 2022 from https://www.gov.si/podrocja/obramba-varnost-
in-javni-red/varstvo-pred-naravnimi-in-drugimi-nesrecami/ogrozenost-
slovenije/
UZ62a – Ustavni zakon o dopolnitvi II. poglavja Ustave Republike Slovenije 
(Constitutional Act Amending Chapter II of the Constitution of the Republic 
of Slovenia). (2021). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 92/21.
Vidau, Z. (2021). Ocena stanja izvajanja določil iz 10. člena Zaščitnega zakona 
št. 38/2001 o krajevnih imenih in javnih napisih (Assessment of the state 
of implementation of the provisions of Article 10 of the Protection Act no. 
38/2001 on local names and public signs), pp. 41–74. Trieste. Retrieved from 
https://www.consiglio.regione.fvg.it/cms/export/sites/consiglio/home/.
allegati/Terza-conferenza-lingua-slovena-2021/Porocila-SLORI_VSA.pdf
Vinko, M. and Pribaković Brinovec, R. (ed.). (2021). Vpliv epidemije covida-19 
na vedenjski slog prebivalstva (The impact of the covid-19 epidemic on 
behavior of the population). In: Prvi val epidemije covida-19 skozi prizmo 
zdravstvene statistike (The first wave of the covid-19 epidemic through the 
prism of health statistics) (pp. 1–30). Ljubljana: NIJZ. Retrieved from https://
Bibliography and sources 231Development report 2022
189/20 – ZFRO and 196/21 – ZDOsk. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO869
ZSVarPre – Zakon o socialnovarstvenih prejemkih (Social Assistance 
Payments Act). (2012). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia Nos 
61/10, 40/11, 14/13, 99/13, 90/15, 88/16, 31/18, 73/18 and 196/21 – ZDOsk. 
Retrieved from http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5609
ZSVI – Zakon o socialnem vključevanju invalidov (Social Inclusion of Disabled 
Persons Act). (2019). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia Nos 30/18, 
196/21 – ZDOsk and 206/21 – ZDUPŠOP. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.
si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7808
ZTuj-2F – Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o tujcih (Act 
Amending the Foreigners Act). (2021). Official Gazette of the Republic 
of Slovenia No. 57. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7776
ZUJF – Zakon za uravnoteženje javnih financ (Fiscal Balance Act). (2012). 
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia Nos 40/12, 96/12 – ZPIZ-2, 
104/12 – ZIPRS1314 and 105/12. Retrieved from http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO6388
ZUOPDCE – Zakon o ukrepih za omilitev posledic dviga cen energentov 
v gospodarstvu in kmetijstvu (Act Determining the Measures to 
Mitigate the Consequences of Rising Energy Prices in the Economy and 
Agriculture). (2022). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 
29/22. Retrieved from https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/
vsebina/2022-01-0554/zakon-o-ukrepih-za-omilitev-posledic-dviga-
cen-energentov-v-gospodarstvu-in-kmetijstvu-zuopdce
ZUOPP-1 – Zakon o usmerjanju otrok s posebnimi potrebami (Placement of 
Children with Special Needs Act). (2011). Official Gazette of the Republic 
of Slovenia No. 58/2011. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5896
ZUOPVCE – Zakon o nujnih ukrepih za omilitev posledic zaradi vpliva visokih 
cen energentov (The Act Determining Emergency Measures to Mitigate 
the Consequences of High Energy Commodity Prices). (2022). Official 
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 29/22. Retrieved from https://
www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina?urlid=202229&stevil
ka=553
Zupanc, L., Čertanec, B. and Savičić Krstevski, B. (2018). Methodological 
explanation. Business tendency and consumer surveys. Ljubljana: 
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. Retrieved from https://www.
stat.si/StatWeb/File/DocSysFile/8063
ZUPJS – Zakon o uveljavljanju pravic iz javnih sredstev (Exercise of 
Rights from Public Funds Act). (2010). Official Gazette of the Republic 
of Slovenia No. 62/10. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO4780
ZUreP-3 – Zakon o urejanju prostora (Spatial Management Act). (2021). 
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 199/21. Retrieved from 
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/2021-01-
3971?sop=2021-01-3971
ZUTD-E – Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o urejanju trga dela 
(Act Amending the Labour Market Regulation Act) (ZUTD-E). (2019). 
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 75/2019.
ZViS-K – Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o visokem šolstvu 
(Act Amending the Higher Education Act). (2016). Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Slovenia No. 75/16. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO6817
ZVojI – Zakon o vojnih invalidih (War Disability Act). (1996). Official Gazette of 
the Republic of Slovenia Nos 63/95, 2/97 – Constitutional Court Decision, 
19/97, 21/97 – corr.75/97, 11/06 – Constitutional Court Decision, 61/06 
– ZDru-1, 114/06 – ZUTPG, 40/12 – ZUJF, 19/14, 21/18 – ZNOrg, 174/20 
– ZIPRS2122 and 159/21. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO961
ZVV – Zakon o vojnih veteranih (War Veterans Act). (2003). Official Gazette 
of the Republic of Slovenia No. 110/03. Retrieved from http://pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO3819
ZZdrS-I – Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o zdravniški službi 
(Act Amending the Medical Services Act). (2022). Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Slovenia No. 199/21. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8455
ZZSDNPK – Zakon o zagotavljanju sredstev za določene nujne programe 
Republike Slovenije v kulturi (Act Providing Funds for Certain Urgent 
Cultural Programmes in the Republic of Slovenia). (2019). Official Gazette 
of the Republic of Slovenia No. 73/19. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/
Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7908
of Corruption Act). (2020). Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Slovenia No. 158/20. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7930
ZISS. (2021). Teden izobraževanja za trajnostni razvoj 2021 (Sustainable 
Development Education Week 2021). Retrieved from https://www.ziss.si/
ziss/novice-13482/teden-izobra-evanja-za-trajnostni-razvoj-2021/
ZIUPGT – Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za pomoč gospodarstvu in turizmu 
pri omilitvi posledic epidemije COVID-19 (Act on Intervention Measures 
to Assist the Economy and Tourism Sector). (2021). Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Slovenia No. 112/21. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8389
ZIUPOPDVE – Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za pomoč pri omilitvi posledic 
drugega vala epidemije COVID-19 (Act Determining Intervention Measures 
to Assist in Mitigating the Consequences of the Second Wave of COVID-19 
Epidemic). (2020). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia Nos 203/20, 
15/21 – ZDUOP, 82/21 – ZNB-C and 112/21 – ZNUPZ and 206/21 – ZDUPŠOP. 
Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8304
ZIUZEOP – Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za zajezitev epidemije COVID-19 in 
omilitev njenih posledic za državljane in gospodarstvo (Act Determining 
the Intervention Measures to Contain the COVID-19 Epidemic and Mitigate 
its Consequences for Citizens and the Economy). (2020). Official Gazette 
of the Republic of Slovenia Nos 49/20, 61/20, 152/20 – ZZUOOP, 175/20 – 
ZIUOPDVE, 15/21 – ZDUOP and 206/21 – ZDUPŠOP. Retrieved from http://
www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8190
ZJN-3B – Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o javnem naročanju 
(Act Amending the Public Procurement Act). (2022). Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Slovenia No. 121/21. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8151
ZLUS. (2021). Trajnostni razvoj in učenje sta del našega vsakdana, naš življenjski 
projekt (Sustainable development and learning are part of our daily lives, 
our life project). Ljubljana: Association of Folk High Schools. Retrieved from 
https://www.zlus.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/TRAJNOSTNI-RAZVOJ-
IN-UCENJE-STA-DEL-NASEGA-VSAKDANA-1.pdf
ZMinP – Zakon o minimalni plači (Minimum Wage Act). (2018). Official Gazette 
of the Republic of Slovenia Nos 13/10, 92/15 and 83/18. Retrieved from 
http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5861
ZNUPZ – Zakon o nujnih ukrepih na področju zdravstva (Healthcare 
Intervention Measures Act). (2021). Official Gazette of the Republic 
of Slovenia No. 112/21. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8360
ZOA – Zakon o osebni asistenci (Personal Assistance Act). (2019). Official 
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia Nos 10/17, 31/18 and 172/21. Retrieved 
from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7568
ZPIZ. (2021). Mesečni statistični pregled (Monthly Statistical Review). 
June 2021. Ljubljana: ZPIZ. Retrieved from https://www.zpiz.si/cms/
content2019/meseni-statistini-pregled-2022
ZPIZ. (2022). Mesečni statistični pregled (Monthly Statistical Review). 
February 2022. Ljubljana: ZPIZ. Retrieved from https://www.zpiz.si/cms/
content2019/meseni-statistini-pregled-2022
ZPIZ-2 – Zakon o pokojninskem in invalidskem zavarovanju – 2 (Pension and 
Disability Insurance Act – 2). (2013). Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Slovenia Nos 96/12, 39/13, 99/13 ZSVarPre-C, 101/13 – ZIPRS1415, 44/14 
– ORZPIZ206, 85/14 – ZUJF- B, 95/14 – ZUJF- C, 90/15 – ZIUPTD, 102/15, 
23/17, 40/17, 65/17, 28/19, 75/19, 139/20, 189/20 – ZFRO, 51/21, 121/21, 
162/21, 196/21 – ZDOsk and 10/22. Retrieved from http://pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO6280
ZPIZ-2L – Zakon o dopolnitvi Zakona o pokojninskem in invalidskem 
zavarovanju (Act Amending the Pension and Disability Insurance Act). 
(2022). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 10/2022. Retrieved 
from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8388
ZSDP-1 – Zakon o starševskem varstvu in družinskih prejemkih (Parental 
Protection and Family Benefits Act). (2014). Official Gazette of the 
Republic of Slovenia Nos 26/14, 90/15, 75/17 – ZUPJS-G, 14/18, 
81/19, 158/20 and 92/21. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO6688
ZSDV – Zakon o spodbujanju digitalne vključenosti (Promotion of Digital 
Inclusion Act). (2022). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 35/22. 
Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO8516
ZSV – Zakon o socialnem varstvu (Social Assistance Act). (1992). Official 
Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 3/07 – official consolidated text, 
23/07 – popr.41/07 – 61/10 – ZSVarPre, 62/10 – ZUPJS, 57/12, 39/16, 52/16 
– ZPPreb-1, 15/17 – DZ, 29/17, 54/17, 21/18 – ZNOrg, 31/18 – ZOA-A, 28/19, 
Bibliography and sources Development report 2022232
ZZSISZ – Zakon o zagotavljanju finančnih sredstev za investicije v slovensko 
zdravstvo v letih 2021 do 2031 (Act on Provision of Funds for Investments 
in Slovenian Healthcare in the Years 2021 to 2031). (2021). Retrieved from 
https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/2021-01-3096/
zakon-o-zagotavljanju-financnih-sredstev-za-investicije-v-slovensko-
zdravstvo-v-letih-od-2021-do-2031-zzsisz
ZZUOOP – Zakon o začasnih ukrepih za omilitev in odpravo posledic COVID-19 
(Act Determining Temporary Measures to Mitigate and Remedy the 
Consequences of COVID-19). (2020). Official Gazette of the Republic of 
Slovenia Nos 152/20, 175/20 – ZIUOPDVE, 82/21 – ZNB-C, 112/21 – ZNUPZ, 
167/21 – Constitutional Court Decision and 206/21 – ZDUPŠOP. Retrieved 
from http://pisrs.si
ZZVZZ – Zakon o zdravstvenem varstvu in zdravstvenem zavarovanju (Health 
Care and Health Insurance Act). (1992). Official Gazette of the Republic 
of Slovenia No. 72/06 – official consolidated text, 114/06 – ZUTPG, 91/07, 
76/08, 62/10 – ZUPJS, 87/11, 40/12 – ZUJF, 21/13 – ZUTD-A, 91/13, 99/13 
– ZUPJS-C, 99/13 – ZSVarPre-C, 111/13 – ZMEPIZ-1, 95/14 – ZUJF- C, 47/15 
– ZZSDT, 61/17 – ZUPŠ, 64/17 – ZZDej- K, 36/19, 189/20 – ZFRO, 51/21, 
159/21, 196/21 – ZDOsk and 15/22. Retrieved from http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO213#
Abbreviations 233Development report 2022
AEP active employment policy
AIC actual individual consumption 
AJPES Agency for Public Legal Records and Related Services
ARSO  Slovenian Environment Agency
ARRS Slovenian Research Agency
AVP Slovenian Traffic Safety Agency
BAMC Bank Assets Management Company
GMI guaranteed minimum income
BE Belgium
BHI basic health insurance
BoS Bank of Slovenia
CAF Common Assessment Framework
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CCIS Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia
Cedefop European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
CEE 4 Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia
CEPEJ European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
CER Center of Energy Efficient Solutions
CEUVIZ Central Register of Participants in Education 
CH4 methane
CJMMK Public Opinion and Mass Communications Research Centre
CKZ Health promotion centre
CLARIN Slovene national consortium of the European research infrastructure CLARIN
CMEPIUS Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and European Educational and Training Programmes
CO2 carbon dioxide 
CoE Council of Europe
COP26 26th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
CPC Commission for the Prevention of Corruption
CPI Consumer Price Index
CŠOD Centre for Curricular and Extracurricular Activities
CZ The Czech Republic
DARS Motorway Company of the Republic of Slovenia
DESI Digital Economy and Society Index
DG SANTE The Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety
DIH Digital innovation hub Slovenia
DK Denmark
DRSI Slovenian Infrastructure Agency
DVK State Election Commission
EACEA European Education and Culture Executive Agency
Abbreviations
Abbreviations234 Development report 2022
EAPN European Anti-Poverty Network
EBITDA Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization
EC European Commission
ECB European Central Bank
ECDC European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
ECHR European Court of Human Rights
EDI Equivalised disposable income
EEA European Environment Agency
EEAS European External Action Service 
EFB European Fiscal Board
EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management
EHIS European Health Interview Survey 
EIB European Investment Bank
EII European Innovation Index
EJQI European Job Quality Index
EIPA European Institute for Public Administration
EMU Economic and Monetary Union
EPO European Patent Office
ESC Economic and Social Council
ESI economic sentiment indicator
ESLC European Survey on Language Competences
ESM European Stability Mechanism
ESPON European Spatial Planning Observation Network
ESS Employment Service of Slovenia
ESSPROS European System of integrated Social PROtection Statistics
ET 2020 Education and Training 2020
ETS Emissions Trading System
EU European Union
EUA European University Association
EUIPO European Union Intellectual Property Office 
EUR euro
EUROAC The Academic Profession in Europe: Responses to Societal Challenges
EUROSTAT The Statistical Office of the European Union 
EUSAIR European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region
EU-SILC The EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions
eVŠ web portal for higher education
FC Fiscal council
FDA Functionally degraded areas
FDI foreign direct investment
FEAD Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived
FEANTSA European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless
FI Finland
Abbreviations 235Development report 2022
FRA European Union agency for fundamental rights
FURS Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia
GDP gross domestic product
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
GERD Gross domestic expenditure on R&D
GEI Gender Equality Index
GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
GFN Global Footprint Network
Gg gigagram (1000 tonnes)
GHG greenhouse gases
GNP gross national product
GRECO The Group of States against Corruption
ha hectare
HBS Household Budget Survey
HBSC Health Behaviour in School-aged Children
HD housing deprivation
HICP Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
HIIS Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia
HU Hungary
IAEs innovation-active enterprises
ICT information and communication technology
ICTWSS Institutional Characteristics of Trade Unions, Wage Setting, State Intervention and Social Pacts 
IDEA International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
IEA ICCS International Civic and Citizenship Education Study
IEE innovative environment entities
IER Institute for Economic Research
IIBA The International Institute of Business Analysis
IMAD Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development
IMD Institute for Management Development
IMF International Monetary Fund
ISCO International Standard Classification of Occupations
ITR implicit tax rate (on labour, capital, consumption and energy)
JAK Slovenian book agency
JSI Jožef Stefan Institute
JTF Just Transition Fund
KIS Agricultural Institute of Slovenia
KONS Platform for Contemporary Investigative Art
LE life expectancy
LFS Labour Force Survey
LTC long-term care
MDDSZ Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
Abbreviations236 Development report 2022
MF Ministry of Finance
MFF multiannual financial framework
MGRT Ministry of Economic Development and Technology
MIZŠ Ministry of Education, Science and Sport
MJU Ministry of Public Administration
MK Ministry of Culture
MKGP Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food
MNZ Ministry of the Interior
MO Ministry of Defence
MOP Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning
MP Ministry of Justice
MRA Master Restructuring Agreement
MTO Medium-Term Objective
MzI Ministry of Infrastructure
MZZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs
N2O nitrous oxide
NA National Assembly
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NECP National Energy and Climate Plan
NEET not in employment, education or training
NEIG non-energy industrial goods
NIJZ National Institute of Public Health
NKMB Nova kreditna banka Maribor
NLB Nova Ljubljanska banka
NLO Nobody Left Outside
NPK fertilisers mineral fertilisers containing nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
NUK National and University Library
NUTS classification the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OHIM Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market 
OP ETID Operational Programme for Environmental and Transport Infrastructure Development
OP GHG Operational Programme for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PA personal assistance
PIAAC OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competences
PIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
PKP PISA – Programme for International Student Assessment
PKP anti-coronavirus legislative package
PL Poland
PM particulate matter
PMR product market regulation
Abbreviations 237Development report 2022
PO policy objective
p.p. percentage point
PPP purchasing power parity 
PPS purchasing power standard
RCH residential care home
REACT EU Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe
REER ULC real effective exchange rate based on unit labour cost
ReNPIO 2022–2030 Resolution on the National Programme of Adult Education in the Republic of Slovenia 2022–2030
ReNPK22–29 Resolution on the 2022–2029 National Programme for Culture
ReNPVO20–30 Resolution on the National Environmental Action Programme 2020–2030
RES renewable energy sources
RGZC Celje Regional Chamber of Commerce
RIA Regulatory Impact Assessment
RIC National Examinations Centre
RISS Research and Innovation Strategy of Slovenia 
ROA return on assets
ROE return on equity
R&D research and development activity
RRP Recovery and Resilience Plan 
RS Republic of Slovenia
RUK Network of Centres for Research Arts and Culture
RULC real unit labour costs
S4 Slovenia’s Smart Specialisation Strategy
SDS Slovenia's Development Strategy
SE Sweden
SEF the Slovene Enterprise Fund
SFC Slovenian Film Centre
SHA System of Health Accounts 
SHARE Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe
SHD severe housing deprivation
SHI supplementary health insurance 
SI Slovenia
SIAE Slovenian Institute for Adult Education
SID Slovenian Export Corporation
SiDG Slovenski državni gozdovi, d. o. o., company for the management of state-owned forests
SILC Survey on income and living conditions
SI-PASS 
single point for verifying identity of various entities (citizens, business entities, public officials) and electronic signature of 
applications and other documents
SJM Slovenian Public Opinion
SK Slovakia
SKD Standard Classification of Activities
SLOGI Slovenian theatre institute
Abbreviations238 Development report 2022
SMARS Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia
SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises
SPIRIT  Public Agency for Entrepreneurship, Internationalisation, Foreign Investments and Technology
SPOT the Slovenian Business Point
SRIPs Strategic Research and Innovation Partnerships
SSH Slovenian Sovereign Holding
SVRK Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy
SURE Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency
SURS Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
ŠOS Slovenian Students’ Union
TA teritorial agenda
TALIS Teaching and Learning Survey
TAXUD Taxation and Customs Union Directorate
TEA total early-stage entrepreneurial activity
TEŠ the Šoštanj Thermal Power Plant
TFP total factor productivity
tkm tonne-kilometre
UAA utilised agricultural area 
UIL Slovenian Intellectual Property Office 
UKC University Medical Centre
UKOM Government communication office
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
UNSC United Nations Security Council
URSZR Administration of the Republic of Slovenia for Civil Protection and Relief
USD US Dollar 
UTŽ Slovenian Third Age University
VAT value added tax
WEF the World Economic Forum
WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization
ZaPiS Improvement of Health Literacy in Slovenia
ZGS Slovenia Forest Service
ZJF Public Finance Act
ZLUS People's Universities Association of Slovenia
ZOA Personal Assistance Act
ZPIZ Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia
ZRSŠ The National Education Institute
ZISS Association of Education and Counselling centres of Slovenia
ZSSS Association of Free Trade Unions of Slovenia
Abbreviations 239Development report 2022
ZSV Social Assistance Act
ZUOPP-1 Placement of Children with Special Needs Act
ZUreP-3 Spatial Management Act
ZZSDNPK Act Providing Funds for Certain Urgent Cultural Programmes in the Republic of Slovenia
ZZVZZ Health Care and Health Insurance Act
Abbreviations of the Standard Classification of Activities (NACE): A – Agriculture, B – Mining and quarrying, C – Manufacturing, D – Electricity, gas, steam and air 
conditioning supply, E – Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities, F – Construction, G – Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles 
and motorcycles, H – Transportation and storage, I – Accommodation and food service activities, J – Information and communication, K – Financial and insurance 
activities, L – Real estate activities, M – Professional, scientific and technical activities, N – Administrative and support service activities, O – Public administration, P – 
Education, Q – Human health and social work activities, R – arts, entertainment and recreation, S – Other service activities, and T – Activities of households.
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t r
ep
or
t 2
01
0
d
ev
el
op
m
en
t 
re
p
or
t 
20
10
development report 2022