HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT ! BULGARIA 1996
52
the non-traditional use of the available in-
frastructure of education. What is paradoxi-
cal is that in these municipalities the indi-
ces of class rooms per 100 classes are con-
siderably above the average for the coun-
try.
The unemployment rate in the second
group of municipalities is below the aver-
age for the country in the relatively bigger
municipalities where the urban population
predominates. It is relatively low also in
smaller municipalities with a considerable
share of industry. In the other two-thirds
of the municipalities of this group, the un-
employment rate is above the average for
the country. In 55 of them it is between
12% and 20%; in 18 - between 20% and
30%, and in 3 municipalities it is above
30%.
The distribution of per capita income
in the municipalities of the second group
has considerably worse characteristics in
comparison with the first group of munici-
palities. Only 3 municipalities (Luki,
Doupnitsa and Roudozem) have incomes
higher than the average for the country. At
the same time one-quarter of the munici-
palities have twice lower per capita incomes
than the average.
The rate of income may be assumed
to be in reverse proportion to the unem-
ployment rate.
This is the case in most of
the municipalities in the second group. At
the same time there are also exceptions in
two ways.
First, high unemployment rate and
high incomes. Such a combination is typi-
cal for municipalities where industry or
mining predominate. These municipalities
attract manpower from neighbouring mu-
nicipalities which are usually underdevel-
oped. This, coupled with the significantly
higher remuneration of labour, contributes
to raising the rate of per capita income re-
ceived. At the same time, the distorted eco-
nomic structure fails to provide enough jobs
for women, wherefrom the high unemploy-
ment rate comes. A typical example is
Devnya, the municipality under ¹ 1, as well
as the municipalities of Radomir, Assenov-
grad and Zlatograd. The single-sector
structure of the municipal economy and the
restricted alternative employment oppor-
tunities explain the similar situation in mu-
nicipalities like Chepelare, Luki and oth-
ers, specializing in tourism.
The second case refers to low unem-
ployment rate and low incomes. This com-
bination is most often observed in small
agricultural municipalities (Sitovo, Glavi-
nitsa, Dve Mogili, Ivanovo). The explana-
tion can be found in the fact that people
do not register in the employment offices,
because they do not expect to find jobs
through them. Another reason is the high
rate of incomes in kind in these munici-
palities, where the only employment is in
agriculture. The low unemployment rate
and low incomes are also witnessed in
municipalities with a high share of
shadow economy or higher seasonal em-
ployment for most of the population.
Regional problems of the social infrastructure
The infrastructure and the
housing stock in the settle-
ments to which the flows of mi-
gration are directed, are not in
a position to take on further
loading. The restrictive fiscal
policy pursued results in low
investment activity and re-
stricts the possibilities of keep-
ing up the social infrastructure.
Restitution has proved to be an
additional factor for the close-
down of social welfare institu-
tions. The human potential
both in town and in village
clashes with inadequate and
low-grade conditions for de-
velopment and reproduction.
Box 4.1.
The decreasing number of
settlements and the depopula-
tion of the small villages engen-
der and maintain social prob-
lems. The social infrastructure
available and the housing stock
are not effectively used. Social
welfare facilities like kinder-
gardens, schools and public
health facilities have been
closed down. The provision of
accessible social services, suffi-
cient in volume and quality, is
becoming more difficult. The
dwindling of the infrastructure
actually used, further stimulates
young people to migrate to the
town or to the bigger villages.
53
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIFFERENTIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES
4.4. Municipalities in a critical
socio-economic state
In line with the method adopted in
determining the threshold of relative state
of crisis, the municipalities classified from
165 to 255 in the total classification accord-
ing to their integral evaluation, may be
treated as being in a state of crisis. They
encompass 13.4% of the total population.
There is minimum differentiation in
the state of the municipalities in crisis. A
small group of 9 municipalities at the bot-
tom of the classification
makes an excep-
tion, as they are somewhat different from
the others.
The overall unfavourable assessment
of the socio-economic development of the
third group of municipalities is based on
their low internal potential for development,
their poor economic situation and social in-
frastructure. Only the municipality of Mizia
has potential above the average for the
country. The dynamics of the socio-eco-
nomic processes in municipalities in a state
of crisis is considerably better, but it has
been determined on a low base.
The economic parameters of the mu-
nicipalities in a critical state differentiate
between two basic types:
1. Depressed municipalities as Novi
Pazar, Loukovit, Omourtag, Septemvri,
Roman, Byala Slatina, Mizia, Velingrad.
These municipalities have a relatively high
share of industry, but the industrial com-
panies located there are inefficient and in
an extremely difficult situation. This is evi-
denced by the considerably lower results
in the economic revenues and especially
by the negative indicators of their econo-
mies.
2. Underdeveloped - mountainous, bor-
derline and farming municipalities. They
are characterized by a small share and even
absence of industrial production. As seen
from this point of view, the assessment of
their dynamics is not unambiguous. Eco-
nomic growth
has been registered only in
six municipalities, but the indicator per
capita economic revenues is of insignifi-
cant absolute value. The decline is particu-
larly noticeable in 13 municipalities, which
is an evidence of a break-down of the lo-
cal economy.
The differentiation of the municipali-
ties in a critical state in terms of the per
capita arable land defines two groups. The
first one encompasses 20 municipalities
(about 22% of the total), which possess
arable land around and below the average
for the country. These are mainly munici-
palities in mountainous and hilly regions.
The other municipalities have per capita
arable land significantly above the average
for the country. They are located in the
most fertile regions of the country - the
Danubian Plain, the Dobroudja, and the
Thracian Plain. The combination of back-
wardness while the per capita arable land
indicator is
comparatively good is an evi-
dence of the questionable results of the ag-
ricultural reforms carried through so far.
The financial situation of the munici-
palities under consideration is catastrophic.
The own revenues of only 5 municipalities
exceed 30% of their budgets. The share of
state subsidies for more than half of the
municipalities exceeds 80%. A complete
Third group of municipalities according to the degree
of their socio-economic development
¹ in the
Municipality
¹ in the
Municipality
classification
classification
165
Devin
249
Treklyano
166
Kresna
250
Rouzhintsi
167
Oryahovo
251
Rakitovo
168
Rila
252
Makresh
169
Chiprovtsi
253
Nevestino
170
Avren
254
Nedelino
255
Boinitsa
.....
Last among equals -
depressed and
underdeveloped
municipalities
Table 4.4.