Slovakia’s starting position at the beginning of the transfor-mation process was marked by a whole range of material and system-based differences compared to the developed countries of the EU. The material differences were mainly associated with the low level of competitiveness of individual regions and towns, with their unsuitable sectoral structure, an insuff icient capacity for innovation, a mono-structural economic base, as well as a differentiated quality in terms of human potential and the bad transport accessibility of certain regions as a result of a lack of suff icient infrastructure facilities. System-based differences were mainly associated with the absence of value criteria when conceiving development programmes for individual areas, with the lack of complexity and ineff iciency of the use of sources of development within the region, as well as with the slow creation of management institutions both at town and regional level.
(Tvrdoň, 2005)
In the development of Slovakia from 1990 onwards, newly-aris-ing and re-emergnewly-aris-ing differential dimensions related to the post-totalitarian and post-industrial transformation of society com-bined to bring about changes in the social stratif ication and value focuses of the population, as well as uneven territorial impacts.
The result of the spatially selective action of the transformation processes was a newly-shaped socio-spatial differentiation of soci-ety at different spatial levels. We can identify it among regions, among urban and rural population centres, as well as among popu -lation centres within these types of popu-lation centres (Gajdoš–
Pašiak, 2006).
In the 1990s in particular, and later too, changes took place which also contributed to making qualitative changes in popula-tion centres more dynamic. A reform in public administrapopula-tion at local level (1991) was introduced, later at regional level (1996 and 2001), and competencies shifted to a local and regional level (2002-2004).2 Slovakia gained a new territorial and administra-tion structure (1996), thus creating territorial condiadministra-tions for more effective population centre-based and region-based development, although more at a macro-regional level than at sub-regional or micro-regional level.
These changes led to the development of a new hierarchy of population centres and regional structures, and above all to the polarisation and heightening of disparities at a local and regional level. On the one hand, this strengthened intra-regional and inter-regional relations within the urban network, the need for mutual cooperation and integration by using joint planning activities; on the other hand, it contributed to widening disparities at the level
2It was beginning to implement the reform of public administration in the early 90s, which should be completed in 2020. The reform is divided into several stages, within which are being developed systematic steps towards forming a rational form of government. It is an important part of the reform of govern-ment relations and local self-governgovern-ment. Part of the previously completed phases of this reform was the restoration of self-government municipalities, the legal personality of communities (municipalities gained autonomous status in deciding on local issues), the new territorial-administrative organisation of the country (spatial organisation of public administration), the decentralisation of state powers to local authorities (municipalities and autonomous regions), the f iscal decentralisation, the modernisation and computerisation of public administration.
of regions and their parts, ref lected in a deepening of their eco-nomic, social and cultural differences.
Slovakia’s regional development from 1990 to 2006 was condi-tioned above all by four groups of “factors”: 1)post-communist transformation (the democratisation of society and the arrival of market economy), 2) the arrival of the post-industrial stage in the development of society, 3) endogenic factors “typical” of all post-communist countries, particularly those belonging to the Visegrad Four (hierarchy of built-up areas, macro-position attraction, and the economic specialisation of regions) and 4) exogenic factors (including globalisation, manifested in the localisation of direct foreign investments).(Korec, 2010)
As a result of this whole set of interconnected changes, there was both a gradual change in the position of individual regions from the point of view of the attained level of social and econo mic development, and also an unequal territorial distribution of “new”
phenomena such as unemployment, foreign investments, the growing tertiary sector etc. (Blažek, 2001)Development problems were experienced more signif icantly in those regions which had inherited from the period of central planning a markedly unsuit-able structure for the local economy, in particular regions with a high proportion of heavy industr y and mining, where the unfavourable economic structure was also combined with social and environmental problems, as a result of which these areas had a negative image, which inf luenced the decisions of potential investors, as well as the migratory behaviour of the population.
Mainly rural regions, or regions which were on the periphery com-pared to economic centres, or in locations on the outskirts found themselves in an unfavourable position for development.
Development at the level of builtup areas was relatively dyna -mic during the transformation period; it had a different impact, however, in urban and rural population centres. The economic and social differentiation deepened not only between urban and rural population centres but also within these types of population centres. Differences in access to jobs, the quality of human poten-tial as well as in living conditions and the infrastructure facilities deepened between the urban and rural environments. At town level, differentiations grew mainly between Bratislava and other towns, as well as between larger (regional) towns and other towns (for example – GDP, number of jobs, the proportion of foreign
investment, the quality of human capital, a high proportion of ter-tiary and quaternary sector, scientific and research potential, etc).
In the countryside, this took place between large and small vil-lages; mainly smaller villages found themselves in a more diff icult social and economic situation. The inf luence of regional identity (particularly in the case of little-developed regions) is also strong-ly felt, together with the impact of spatial localisation in relation to the main urban/ economic centres.
The period of transformation can be divided into two specif ic stages, which differ by their course, by the factors involved and by their impacts on each socio-spatial level of society.
During the f irst stage of transformation (1990-2001), which pri-oritised a rapid “shock” strategy of reform for the economy, Slovakia – still part of Czechoslovakia – experienced a rapid and deep economic collapse. The quick privatisation of state property, the closure of ineffective factories, the limitation of the govern-ment’s intervention in the economy, the liberalisation of prices and the job market, the reliance on the market’s self-regulatory function and further characteristics of this stage of transforma-tion caused problems in Slovakia resulting from the disadvanta-geous structure of its industry, its technological backwardness and low level of competitiveness. The problem was not really the uni-lateral preference for economic factors but rather the excessive emphasis on rapid economic change which heightened social and socio-economic disparities. These disparities mainly affected par-ticular social segments and social groups and were concentrated in certain territories and built-up areas (Bunčák et al, 2013).
Those who were most dependent on the state, relying most on social guarantees provided by the state, on the system of institu-tional care were often the poor. Seasonal workers in industry, unqualif ied workers, as well as a large part of the Roma popula-tion were the ones most reliant on socialism’s social safety net.
They were the very people who under these new conditions were pushed out of the off icial job market and became dependent for the most part on occasional and badly paid work. They were joined by agricultural workers who ended up without an income from work after the privatisation of state property and the break-up of former agricultural cooperative farms (Danglová, 1997).
Particularly in rural areas, there are social groups in the popula-tion who more and more often and markedly f ind themselves in a
position of social exclusion, among whom an unstable career, low social status, unhealthy consumer habits, low individual and group aspirations, poor access to education, limited social con-tacts etc. are common characteristics.
Perhaps the most characteristic accompanying feature of trans-formation in this period was the rapid growth in regional socio-economic disparities. Individual regions with varying primary and locational potential and with a differentiated level of use of the latter, differing quality of economic and human potential, differ-ing ability to react to the new conditions of market economy and to the heterogeneity of social processes, developed in differentiat-ed ways. The development positions of each region dependdifferentiat-ed not only on the quality and development accessibility of their poten-tials, but also on their different “starting positions” from which they entered the transformation process. During the transforma-tion period, built-up areas also experienced signif icant changes in their human, or social potentials, in the conditions of their popu-lation centres and in their overall development background.
Processes associated with globalisation and the uneven socio-econo mic development of individual areas and regions in Slovakia were linked to the increasing openness of the economy; its supra-national integration put more demand on the competitiveness of businesses and regions. A characteristic trait was the polarisation between dynamic growth in metropolitan areas and slow develop-ment or stagnation, even regression, in peripheral areas and regions with low potential for growth. It is possible to earmark areas integrated into the global economy and places which remain outside the main f low of economic change. It was mainly the tra-ditional metropolitan areas of Bratislava and Košice, together with Žilina and Trnava, where important economic activity from foreign capital was localised, that can be considered successfully integrated into the new economic relationships. Peripheral rural areas, in contrast, are not suff iciently equipped and competitive enough. The differentiation in development potential is also ref lected in the selective localisation of foreign investments and in the concentration of progressive economic activities.
The majority of investments which support the development of infrastructure, or its maintenance, goes into urban areas, and has a positive impact on solving a whole range of their transformation problems. This also applies to the allocation of foreign capital,
whose greatest proportion was placed in Bratislava and the Bratislava region, representing in 1993 56.1% and in 1996 66% of its total volume in the Slovak economy. This trend continues today, and up to 70% of direct foreign investments went to the Bratislava region in 2012. The second region with the largest proportion of foreign capital is the Košice region (6.3%), followed by the Žilina region with 6%. The Žilina region (Kia Slovakia), together with the Bratislava region (Volkswagen Slovakia) and the Trnava region (PSA Peugeot Citroën) naturally profit the most from the growth of the automotive industry in Slovakia.(Statistical office of the SR)
One of the signif icant and most negative characteristics of the development of the job market in Slovakia was unemployment, which appeared soon after the beginning of the economic trans-formation as a result of the application of the “shock” transfor-mation of the economy not only in industry, but also in agricul-ture; in 1991, there were around 300,000 registered unemployed people in Slovakia. The unemployment rate in Slovakia from the beginning of the 1990s continued to rise, and by 1999 had reached 19.2%; in 2006 it fell to 13.3%, falling to 12.7% in 2010 and 12.3% in 2014. (Statistical office of the SR)The region with the lowest unemployment has long been the Bratislava region. In contrast, the highest unemployment rate has long been found in the two eastern regions, the Prešov and Košice regions, and also the Banská Bystrica region. These three regions have 55% of all the unemployed in Slovakia. Unemployment in Slovakia began to fall signif icantly and systematically after 2005, but it is a f luctu-ating trend, which was unfavourably affected by the crisis after 2008. The situation for the short-term unemployed is better; the long-term unemployed are in a worse situation. The long-term unemployed (those who have been unemployed for longer than one year), however, make up the larger part of our unemploy-ment statistics.
The number of long-term unemployed who have not worked for more than four years rose in all Slovakia’s regions from March 2012 to March 2015. The most marked growth during this period was in the Prešov region, increasing by 6,400 people to 20,900.
This was followed by the Košice region, where the number of long-term unemployed increased by 4,100 to 18,100 people. The third worst off is the Banská Bystrica region, where the number of long-term unemployed rose by 3,300 to over 18,200 jobseekers. As the
length of the period of unemployment grows, so does the ethnic make-up of the unemployed change; over half of all long-term unemployed people are Roma. (Registered unemployment, The Natio -nal Labour Office, 1999)
The dramatic nature of the changes during the period of trans-formation can be seen in the area of housing. The starting-point at the beginning of the 1990s was a period when there was an important reduction in housing construction and the real estate market was not functioning. Compared to the level in 1989 (33,000 homes completed), there was a marked fall in construc-tion (around 6,000 homes annually) at the beginning of the 1990s. The housing problem was accentuated mainly in towns, where it was also associated with the loss of housing, mainly as a result of the transformation of homes into other premises, parti -cularly for commercial use.
The restitution of housing also affected the development of the housing situation, and a wide-scale privatisation of housing (based on an Act from 1993) was launched in the 1990s. From 1991 to 1995, there was a net growth of only around 20,000 homes in Slovakia. In 1995, only 1.15 homes per 1,000 inhabitants were built. The situation in the second half of the 1990s did not change signif icantly, and in 1997, for example, only 7,172 homes were completed. In 2001, 10,321 homes were completed in Slovakia and 18,834 in 2009, when the construction of 20,325 Table 4: The unemployment rate (from registered unemployed) in Slovakia
(1996–2014) (%)
Source: Statistical office of SR
1996 10,8 2007 8,1
2000 17,5 2008 8,4
2001 17,5 2009 12,9
2002 16,5 2010 13,0
2003 15,3 2011 14,4
2004 13,0 2012 15,3
2005 11,3 2013 14,4
2006 9,2 2014 13,6
homes began. (Housing construction in SR) Completed housing included a large number of houses (47.9%), most of which were individual homes built in suburban population centres in the rural Map 3: Unemployment rate from registered unemployed in districts of Slovakia (in 2014)
Source: The author’s own edition based on data of the Statistical office of the SR
hinterland of towns. A total of one third of the homes built in 2009 were to be found in the Bratislava region, whereas eastern Slovakia had only 13.5% of the total of homes completed in the Slovak Republic. In 2012, 15,255 homes were completed, of which 30% were in the Bratislava region, but three little-developed regions (Banská Bystrica, Prešov and Košice) had only 22.9% of homes. (Statistical office of the SR) The most intensive construction of homes took place both in large towns (Bratislava, Košice), in the context of their status as their region’s natural economic cen-tre with important investor activity, and most of all in the hinter-land of large Slovak towns, which is related to the process of sub-urbanisation. The lowest growth in housing was recorded by towns in southern and western Slovakia.
Since 1990, when the market began to play an active role, this was also ref lected in the migratory movement of the population, where changes in the population’s main directions of migration appeared. In the 1990s, there was also an important change in the population’s migration trends; there was a fall in people moving larger distances, limiting migration to the district level, a reduction in the concentration of the population in towns, a relative increase in commuting (to work and for other reasons) which can be consi d e red as a boom in the process of suburbanisation.
From the point of view of internal migration, the new conditions in the 1990s had an effect mainly on the spatial stabilisation of the population. However, the question of housing most probably play -ed a decisive role, together with the lack of a properly functioning housing market, unaffordable housing particularly in the urban en -vi ronment and in Slovakia’s economic centres, and also the marked collapse of housing construction. Intensified internal migration after 2000 was linked to the growth in the construction of homes and the opportunities for obtaining the funds needed to buy homes, the partially improved affordability of homes and the shaping of market conditions in the sector of home ownership and sales.
At the same time, the dominance of moving short distances increased (from municipality to municipality within the district), as well as to important economic centres. The turnover in internal migration in 2013 indicates that 75% of those moving did not cross the borders of the region. Almost half of all migrants moved with-in the district (46.2%). (Statistical office of the SR) So far, the hypo -thesis that Slovakia’s population will move from areas with high
unemployment, a low number of jobs and a lower average wage to regions with the opposite characteristics has only partially been confirmed. (Podolák, 2006) An important role in this process is probably played by migration abroad for work.(Bahna, 2011)
Opportunities for moving are inf luenced by the price of hou se ing, which is often not affordable for potential migrants (parti -cularly from little-developed regions). These people then deal with the situation by commuting to work, even over longer dis-tances. This is a well-used formula in Slovakia. From the point of view of the destinations of migration within Slovakia, the Bratislava region has the greatest power of attraction, and the Prešov and Košice the lowest attraction. Among the ten districts with the largest losses of population due to internal migration, there are eight districts from eastern Slovakia (Office of Statistics of the SR).
A fundamental characteristic of the first stage of transformation was the intensification of the differentiation and polarisation of Slovak society based on location, settlement and social space.
Society became polarised both horizontally, as shown in the eco-nomic, social and infrastructural differentiation between regions and types of population centres (socio-spatial differentiation) and at the same time vertically (socio-economic polarisation), which was expressed in the differentiation between economic and social subjects and social groups. Vertical differentiation is also apparent in the social and demographic structure, in the unemployment rate and in conditions for social dynamics (of the individual or family), as well as in the population migration brought about by these changes. Vertical polarisation has a strong impact on the social stratification of society, creating a new social layer of wealthy peo-ple and also one of the poor and unemployed. (Gajdoš, 2001)
Korec points out that during the period after 1989, remedial steps were taken as part of the transformation in Slovakia to correct the “industrial” regional structure deformed during the socia -list period. At the same time, there is a gradual implementation of new post-industrial processes in the development of society. This means that both sets of processes “aided” differentiated regional development, or signif icant regional divergence. Since 1998, glo -balisation has joined these two sets of processes, multiplying the growth in regional differences with one of its basic manifestations, direct foreign investments (Korec, 2010).