K
Ш
BULLETIN OF THE SERBIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY
2005.
LXXXV -
. 1
YEAR 2005
TOME LXXXV - N 1
UDC 314.7 (497.113)
Ћ
Ш Ћ
Ћ
*Ј
Ј
Ш
:
,- 90- XX .
ђ
.
.
, ,
.
: , , ,
Abstract: The paper deals with the issues of demographic and functional changes in the municipalities of Srem region, which are the consequence of a complex social-political situation during the nineties of the 20th century. The analysis comprises the period between the last two population censes, when the most dynamic demographic and functional changes in this region took place. The introductory part of the paper is related to population growth which occured under the strong influence of forced refugee migrations. Second part of the paper deals with the analysis of active population changes by the activities sectors. It also discusses whether, and to which extent, the mechanical inflow of population influenced the changes of active population in Srem region.
Key words: migrations, population growth,, active population, activities structure
-
.
«
»
,
ђ
,
90-
XX
,
,
,
.
,
(
)
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
*
, “ ” , ,
, “ ” , ,
,
ђ
-
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
ђ
,
ђ
.
X,
(
-
-
-
-
-
,
2.360
km),
105 km,
13%
.
X
-
-70.
,
,
,
.
Ш
,
,
.
ђ
(
-
-
–
,
391 km)
-
-75
.
,
:
,
,
ђ
.
VII,
-
-
1992.
(
).
.
,
,
,
(
., 2004).
,
ђ
.
,
,
XX
.
,
90-,
,
,
.
(
,
,
-
),
,
,
.
Leeove
,
pull
/
push
,
,
push
,
(
., 2005).
,
,
.
,
6
(1991-1996),
1992. 1995
1).
(
II
)
,
.
,
1)
1995. , :
,
.
(
)
.
:
,
,
,
,
.
2001.
21,8%.
.
,
,
,
(
-
,
-
,
)
.
,
(
)
1981-1991.
, 2002.
,
Ш
23,4%,
18,9%,
18,6%
2).
1.
1991-2001 ( , 2005)
1991*.
%
. 2001*.
% .
105 0.7 1.478 9.2
ђ 1.187 2.7 12.983 26.2
169 1.4 3.598 29.2
217 1.0 3.763 17.5
1.277 2.3 13.659 23.0
. 1.149 1.3 15.162 17.7
. 291 3.8 2.072 23.4
1.668 2.9 15.311 22.6
Ш 1.427 3.9 10.896 28.0
7.490 2.2 78.922 21.8
• UNHCR-a
,
,
.
.
,
(52,9%),
(
1).
,
,
.
,
(61,5%),
ђ
(57,4%).
,
121,
119,4
.
,
.
.
,
,
3),
.
2)
, 2002. 11,3%,
11%.
3)
, 2002. , – ,
,
,
.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.
2. ђ
3. 4.
5. . .
6. . .
7. .
8.
9. Ш
1: 2002.
,
.
,
,
ђ
.
(
),
(
2),
.
2: 1991-20023)
1991 2002
02/91
14693 16086 109.5 8.2 0.5 7.7
ђ 42849 49609 115.8 13.2 -2.7 16
11553 12329 106.7 5.9 -4.6 10.5
19865 21506 108.3 7.2 -8.1 15.3
53856 60006 111.4 9.8 -3 12.8
83644 85902 102.7 2.4 -0.5 2.9
7403 8839 119.4 16.1 -1.5 17.6
55871 67576 121 17.2 -2.5 19.7
Ш 35578 38973 109.5 8.2 -2.4 10.6
: 325312 360826 113.5 11.5 -2.4 13.9
* ;
3)
( )
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
Ш
,
,
,
ђ
,
,
,
.
«
»
.
II
(
,
ђ
),
.
ђ
.
127
(
-
)
,
(
),
.
ђ
ђ
,
2002.
13.
,
,
.
ђ
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
.
,
15
.
,
,
(
)
,
,
(
-
-
),
.
,
.
-
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
ђ
,
.
,
,
.
5)
«
ђ
»
.
,
5)
, 37,6
,
40,2
.
20,
ђ
35 40
,
(
.,
2005).
,
,
.
,
«
»
15-64
15-59
.
.
ђ
,
ђ
1991.
9.121 (
5,4%).
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
ђ
.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1991
2002
1.
2. ђ
3. 4. 5.
6. . .
7. . .
8. .
9. Ш
2: 1991-2002
ђ
(
3).
,
II
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
1981-1991,
.
,
.
,
,
ђ
,
.
3. ( %),
1991-2002
. % . % . % . %
%
2002 5626 12.3 55.3 21.5 9.4 1.5
1991 5576 13.6 55.1 15.7 13.4 2
2002 15398 19 31 27 14 9
ђ 1991 16278 24.3 31.4 30 12.5 1.7
2002 3871 38.3 22.5 18.4 15.4 5.4
1991 4464 42.5 26 19.1 11 1.3
2002 7850 44.3 21.4 19 11 4.3
1991 8780 53 22 14.3 8.5 2.2
2002 19576 25.4 32 25 13 4.6
1991 20533 32 34.1 21.1 11.3 1.5
2002 29718 27.5 30 20 16 6.5
.
1991 32822 28.2 37 19.6 13.4 1.8
2002 2968 4.2 33.4 40 17.8 4.6
. 1991 2953 7.11 42.9 21.8 25.7 2.4
2002 22152 13 35 29 13 10
1991 22644 16.2 36.5 31.2 11.9 4.2
2002 12606 36 20 23 12 9
Ш 1991 14836 46.2 24 16.4 10.9 2.4
2002 119765 24.4 31 24.2 14 7
1991 128886 29.8 33 23.2 12 2
,
,
.
(
),
ђ
,
(
., 1993).
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
ђ
2002.
10%.
,
.
54.374, .
18,3%.
11
,
(
)
-5,4%.
,
,
.
.
,
.
а
к а
ц ја ква а
а
3.
2002.
-
1991.
,
ђ
,
.
,
.
ђ
.
,
.
ђ
.
1999.
ђ
910
,
1605.
,
,
6
km
.
,
,
,
,
,
(
., 1999).
(
).
ђ
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
-
.
(
XX
)
.
ђ
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
. (2005): . “
”, , 66, .
., (2000): . , .
., (1993): . , ,
, .41, .
. (2004): – . , .
., ., . (2004): – : .
“ ” , 61, .
Ђ ђ ., . (1999): . , ,
, .
., . (1999): . ,
, , .
., Ђ . (1998): . I, , ,
.
. (1999): . II, , , ..
(2004),
2002, .
, 2002. ,
; ; , , 2004.
2002. ,
DRAGANA MATIJEVIC TOSIC BRANKA LUKIC VESNA
S u m m a r y
INFLUENCE OF MIGRATIONS ON POPULATION AND FUNCTIONAL CHANGES IN SREM MUNICIPALITIES
During the last fifteen years, the Srem county has been one of the most dynamic geographic regions in our country. Between the last two population censes, Srem county had the greatest demographic increase in the whole country, which is a consequence of mechanical inflow of refugee population from the territories of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Territorial distribution of the new-come population is not uniform within Srem. Greatest increase is registered in the centres and suburban settlements, especially in the municipalities in the eastern parts of Srem. This part of Srem is functionally developing under the gravitational influence of great centres.
The greatest demographic and geo-spatial changes between the last two population censes are registered in the suburban settlements, in municipalities Stara Pazova, Indjija, Sremska Mitrovica, thanks to the strong polarization effect of Belgrade, Novi Sad and Sremska Mitrovica. Population growth in the studied period lead to the changes in population structure. The working contingent was not considerably "freshened" with new-come population, because the age structure was not considerably changed. The expected increase of active population did not take place.
