ࡱ>  @ <bjbj00 5RbRb)dH>>>RV&V&V&8&d&\R2Z''((((<)V) b)=??????$8Rvc]>?8)<)??c>>((4+F+F+F?8>(>(=+F?=+F+Ffɑp>>ٗ(N' 0e4V&9D~9DL֙0}\ELٗRR>>>>>ٗj)80+F58 j)j)j)ccRR V&F(RRV&ROLE OF CAPITAL IN GROWTH THEORIES: LESSONS FOR CROATIAN ECONOMY Saaa Drezgi University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics I. Filipovia 4, 51 000 Rijeka Phone: ++ <+385 51/ 355129 >; Fax: ++ <+385 51/ 355129 > E-mail: < HYPERLINK "mailto:sdrezgic@efri.hr" sdrezgic@efri.hr > Brian A. Mikelbank Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University 2121 Euclid Ave, UR350 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: ++ <1-216-875-9980 >; Fax: ++ <216-687-9277 > E-mail: < mik@urban.csuohio.edu > Key words: Capital investment, Growth theories, Regional economic growth, Economic development, Croatia, 1. INTRODUCTION From the beginning of 17-th century, when classical economists imposed the question of economic growth, many theories arose. They all had a same goal by determining the crucial factors within the production function, proper economic policy can be established and long-term growth will be assured. Classical economists failed in their attempt to capture the essence of the economic growth and same destiny occurred in the research of their predecessors: Marginalists, Keynesians, neoclassical economists and finally different variations of endogenous models of economic growth. However, the results of their productive research have not been in vain. Although these theories that used structural models have not been able to capture the complexity of the growth process, each theory added a significant contribution to understanding of that complex phenomenon. It is hardly fair to expect that any theory is able to do that but even a rough approximation of macroeconomic reality would be beneficial for the guidelines of government economic policy and development planning. Regional growth theories arose on the basis of theories of economic growth but diverge from them because spaceless growth theories failed to predict trends in regional and local development. They add significant importance to spatial effects on economic growth and location theory in explaining growth patterns of particular areas. Voluminous empirical literature on role of capital accumulation in economic growth gives proof of the complexity of economic growth. The focus of empirical research diverges not only on geographical coverage, but also in using different variables as explanatory variables in the growth equation. These variables influence the production function directly in the form of relations between inputs (like labor, capital, technology, trade etc.) but also indirectly, in the form of conditions in which the process of capital accumulation and formation occurs (rule of law, corruption, effects on aggregate demand, financing of investments, spatial effects, openness, small vs. large countries, etc.) Theoretical and empirical findings provide help in understanding the crucial elements that are the foundation for positive effects of investments on economic growth. This knowledge should be incorporated in policy recommendations. In the first part of the paper theoretical contributions from the classical theories to recent theoretical findings will be examined. In the second part, significant empirical research will be summarized. At the end, some important lessons are drawn for Croatian economic policy. 2. ROLE OF CAPITAL WITHIN THEORIES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH 2.1. Theories of economic growth Adam Smiths (1776) book An Inquiry into the Nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations had a profound impact on the development of economic theory. Important in Smiths view for the modeling of the growth equation is that the production function is not subject to the law of diminishing returns. On the contrary, Smith thought that the real costs of production will tend to diminish due to the existence of external and internal economies as a consequence of increasing market size. Economies of scale will be realized in production and in marketing because of the greater degree of division of labor and general improvements in machinery. Smith denotes crucial meaning of capital accumulation for division and specialization of labor. From Smiths theoretical concepts it can be concluded that capital accumulation is the most important endogenous factor of production. Only in the case when capital accumulation is increasing, is the output of the economy also expanding. Several other important of notions of Smith theory can be stated: greater capital stock leads to greater division of labor and, therefore, higher productivity of labor; output is connected with institutional variable (that observation is in line with contemporary economic thought there are numerous measures on the institutional bases that can be conducted for the growth incentives free trade, deregulation, decentralization of government and other); Smith connects technological progress with the amount of capital invested (that is in line with endogenous theory of growth); defines the rate of investment to be determined by rate of saving, and saving is motivated by acquiring profits; states that marginal product of capital is falling with more and more capital employed, and as profit is decreasing, more and more capital is employed (in order to keep the previous income level) therefore, finally, economy comes to the high-level development equilibrium where additional units of capital would not provide any benefits. It is worthwhile to mention Thomas Malthus who first noted the importance of aggregate demand according to his view effective demand has to grow together with the productive potential in order to sustain desired level of profit (as stimulus for investments). Ricardos model differs from Adam Smiths in the important assumption that the production function is subject to diminishing marginal productivity because of the fact of fixed supply and quality of land. That constraint imposes that the only source of output growth has to be relation of profit, population growth and wage. Rise of wages and population growth decrease profits, and therefore capital accumulation. That dynamic process occurs until the steady state is reached with no profits and capital accumulation and equal demand and supply for labor. Then technological progress increases the productivity of production factors so tendency towards new, higher equilibrium starts. Karl Marx stated that improvements in production techniques are regulated by the gross rate of capital formation in the economy, since any piece of capital equipment actually in operation requires fixed amounts of labor to work on it. The rate of innovation is consequently governed by the gross rate of addition to the capital stock of the economy. Like Smith, he relates technological progress with the amount of investments employed. The difference is that he defines technical progress differently than mainstream economists of that time as the measure of the interaction between techniques of production and the social and economic organization of society. Marx postulated that, generally speaking, technological progress is labor-displacing. In addition, he stated lows of acceleration and centralization of capital which go together as self-sustaining process. Every individual capital is a larger or smaller concentration of means of production, with a corresponding command over a larger or smaller labor army. Every accumulation becomes the means of new accumulation. With the increasing mass of wealth which functions as capital, accumulation increases the concentration of that wealth in the hands of individual capitalists, and thereby widens the basis of production on a large scale and of the specific methods of capitalist production (Marx, 1867, p. 309). However, according to his theory such accumulation of capital will not be beneficial, on contrary; it will lead to the collapse of capitalistic society. Marginalism denotes a period where more attention was devoted to microeconomic phenomena of the economic theory. As far as growth was concerned, attention is devoted to analysis of structural change and equilibrium growth rate. The most distinctive author whose insights significantly marked the path of economic growth theory was Schumpeter. Schumpeters central insight that a significant number of innovations are large, endogenous, discontinuous, and have their initial impact on particular sectors caused a problem for growth theorists. That assertion meant that these innovations affect not only the structure of the economy as a whole but virtually all of its major variables (the rate of growth of output, the demand for credit, the price level, real wages and the profit rate). The Schumpeter problem was bypassed by the following major devices (Rostow, W.W., 1990, p. 336-337): Assume no technical progress and treat growth as a product of an expanding working force and capital stock. Assume technical progress is incremental, exogenous, and a function of the passage of time (disembodied). Assume technical progress is embodied in investment and a function of the rate of investment a kind of return to Smithian incremental technical change in response to the expansion of market. Assume all technical change is endogenous but incremental, induced by factor prices, cumulative experience in production, education and other improvement of human capital, and/or by R&D investment. Keynes caused a dramatic turning point in the economic theory with his book General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It was not just that he reshaped the traditional view on economic theory, but that his theory came as a cure for the crises of economies during the period before the Second World War. It is worth mentioning that all classical economists had not questioned Says law that aggregate supply is automatically matched with aggregate demand. Therefore, they were completely devoted to exploring supply side factors as only sources of economic growth. Keynes focused on the short-run economic equilibrium. For that orientation, equilibrium of the aggregate supply and aggregate demand becomes a matter of issue. He was interested in questioning what way government can raise macroeconomic indicators and employment especially, in the short term. Of course, his efforts were product of economic conditions of that time with high unemployment and worsening macroeconomic indicators. There was a constant shortage of aggregate demand, so he had to introduce some measures to raise it the only subject able to do that was government. Keynes ascribes to the government spending the characteristic of multiplicative effects that are highest for investment. So, in short term, investments raise aggregate demand but in long-term have their effects through the process of multiplication (his conclusions are based on Kahns work). In perspective of the Keynesian economy, long-run growth rate will depend on the dynamic interaction of aggregate supply and demand. Later authors showed the specific details of the growth rate of the Keynesian economy. His major argument is that government has to conduct systematic intervention both to promote investment, and at the same time, to promote consumption, beyond the level generated from to a higher level still (see Keynes, p.325). Long-run dynamics between investments and output growth of the Keynesian economy is determined by the dynamic relationship of aggregate demand and aggregate supply. Latter work of post-Keynesian economists was focused on improving the basic model to fixing some of its flaws that were especially connected with questions of long-term growth rate. The most significant contributors were Harrod (1948) and Domar (1946). Harrod-Domar model introduces the explanation of the long-term growth relationship within the Keynesian economic model. This model can be described as dynamic model of Keynesian static equilibrium. Criticism of Harrod-Domar model stem from the restrictive assumptions (Solow, 2000). Steady-state growth will occur only in the case when the saving rate is the product of capital/output ratio and the rate of growth of the labor force (s = kn). However, numbers s, k and n are independently given facts of nature. The rate of growth of labor supply depends primarily on those demographic factors that influence birth rates and death rates, and on those sociological factors that in the long run influence the choice between participation in the labor force or non-participation. The capital/output ratio is intended to be a technological fact only slightly, if at all, capable of variation in response to economic forces. The saving rate is supposed to describe still another set of facts, attitudes towards consumption and the ownership of wealth. This poses a problem. If s, k, and n are independent constants, then there is no reason at all why it should happen that s=kn. The basic neoclassical growth model was developed in 1956 by Robert Solow and Trevor Swan. The basic model consists of four variables: output (Y), capital (K), labor (L) and knowledge or the effectiveness of labor (A). The production function takes the form:  EMBED Equation.3  where t denotes time. The stated function denotes that output increases over time by increases of quantities of capital and labor. This increase of factors is induced by technical progress. Inputs A and L enter multiplicatively into the equation. The way of entering of factor A will have profound effect on production function. It will determine the function of capital-output ratio. Three possible positions of technological progress (A) create different outcomes: if A is multiplied by L, or  EMBED Equation.3 , technological progress is labor-augmenting (capital-saving) or Harrod-neutral if A is multiplied by K, or  EMBED Equation.3 , technological progress is capital-augmenting (labor-saving) if A is multiplied by K and L, or  EMBED Equation.3 , technological progress is Hicks-neutral It is assumed that capital-output ratios are constant, so A(t) multiplies L(t) which simplifies the model. Solow model is extremely simplified there is only a single good, government is absent, fluctuations in employment are ignored, production is described by an aggregate production function with just three inputs, and the rate of savings, depreciation, population growth, and technological progress are constant (Romer, 1986, p.13). The critical assumption of Solows model is that there are constant returns to scale with regard to capital and effective labor. Apparently, capital investments play one of the crucial roles under the Solow model as well. Within this model certain amounts of investments are always necessary. Sollow-Swan model implied that capital investments are not important for the long-term growth rate (they only raise a level of output because they are necessary for supporting the growth rate of labor). Therefore, the only mechanism that enables long-term growth of the economy would be then growth rate of technological progress. What should government do in order to increase national output? The Solow model points to the saving rate that can be increased by beneficial tax treatment for savings and also borrowing (in case that internal accumulation is not sufficient). But, according to the model, permanent increase in saving rate would produce only temporary rise in output. This is because the additional investments would raise output per unit only to the point where they are sufficient to maintain the higher level of capital per labor unit. That is due to the fact that under the assumptions of the model only the rate of technological progress has growth effects, all other changes have level effects. If the assumption is added that additional capital investment influences the rate of the technological progress, the situation changes. With that possibility, a new chapter of theories is opened this possibility is examined under various endogenous growth models. The goal of the new theories of economic growth was to explain the reasons for increase of productivity per worker that was not revealed by the Solow model. He defined growth of effectiveness of labor as exogenous. Even the meaning of the effectiveness of labor was not explained. There are many possible interpretations of Solow residual (A): the education and skills of the labor force, the strength of the property rights, the quality of infrastructure, cultural attitudes toward the entrepreneurship and work, and others (Romer, 2006, p. 28). The major inspiration of the new growth theory, which relaxes the assumption of diminishing returns to capital and shows that, with constant or increasing returns, there can be no presumption of the convergence of per capita incomes across the world, or of individual countries reaching a long-run steady state growth equilibrium at the natural rate. If there are not diminishing returns to capital, investment is important for long-run growth and growth is endogenous in this sense. In these new models of endogenous growth, pioneered by Arrow (1962), Uzawa (1965), Lucas (1988) and Romer (1986,1990), positive externalities are assumed to be related with human capital formation (for example, education and training) and research and development that prevent the marginal product of capital from falling and the capital-output ratio from rising. An important motivation for new growth models was to understand variations in long-term growth. As a result, early endogenous growth models orientated on constant or increasing returns ascribed to the production function factors, where changes in saving rates and investment on R&D permanently change growth. Jones (1995) points out that in the second half of last century, the fraction of resources devoted to R&D increased tremendously. Therefore, new growth models with constant and increasing returns would imply that growth rates should also increase proportionally. But that was not the case. The explanation for such circumstances would be in decreasing returns on the production function factors (Jones, 2002). With that assumption, empirical findings on the rate of growth would not be surprising. Result of repeated rises in R&D investment would lead to temporary periods of above-normal growth. However, investments in R&D cannot rise indefinitely if their share in output is low substantial period of rapid growth can be expected by their increase. Another explanation of differences in levels of national income was provided by social infrastructure effect (see Hall and Jones, 1997). That term, according to them, denotes institutions and policies that align private and social returns to activities. There is a tremendous range of activities where private and social returns may differ. They fall into two main categories. The first consist of various types of investment. If an individual decides to engage in conventional saving, to acquire education, or to devote resources to R&D, his or her private returns are likely to fall short of the social returns because of taxation, expropriation, crime, externalities and so on. The second category consists of activities intended for individuals current benefit. An individual can attempt to increase his or her current income through either production or diversion. Production refers to activities that increase the economys total output at a point of time. Diversion, (rent-seeking crime, lobbying for tax benefits) refers to activities that merely reallocate that output. The social return to rent-seeking activities is zero by definition, and the social return to productive activities is the amount they contribute to output. As with investment, there are many reasons the private returns to rent-seeking and to production may differ from their social returns. Hall and Jones (1997) conclude that differences in levels of economic success across countries are driven primarily by the institutions and government policies (or infrastructure) that frame the economic environment in which people produce and transact. Societies with secure physical and intellectual property rights that encourage production are successful. Societies in which the economic environment encourages the diversion of output instead of its production produce much less output per worker. Diversion encompasses a wide range of activities, including theft, corruption, litigation, and expropriation. Inability of general growth theories to provide basis for prediction of economic development of countries and regions proved ground for evolution of different regional theories and models. Regional approach to growth issue is shortly described in text below. 2.2. Regional growth theories Until the late 1950s there was little direct analysis of the regional growth phenomenon. Myrdals cumulative causation theory (1957), though loosely formulated, has had a persuasive influence on subsequent developments in regional growth theory. After that, a voluminous literature emerged. The main point of divergence between regional growth theories and neoclassical theory that gained a foothold in the 1960s was the question of convergence of economic development of regions and countries. According to neoclassical theory, based on abstract assumptions (such as perfect competition, Cobb-Douglas production functions, and constant returns to scale), differences in the level of development between regions should disappear in time. However, despite intervention in most advanced economies the economic problem of lagging regions has persisted. Areas suffering from low incomes, high unemployment, low growth rates and productivity performance and high out-migration rates continue to create difficulties for governments committed to full employment, equal opportunities for all citizens and other worthwhile social goals. In descending from national to the regional level it can be expected to find a range of regional values for economic indicators around the national mean. There must always be some regions that are above average and others that are below average (see Richardson, 1973). The problem is twofold: that the coefficients of variation has in many countries been unacceptably high, with per capita income gaps between the poorest and richest region much too wide for social cohesion and stability; second, that the areas at the bottom of the league have remained the same, and at least in the bottom half of regional growth tables rankings have scarcely altered at all over decades. Few important issues related with capital accumulation in the context of economic development of regions have to be mentioned. These are specific regional features of infrastructure investments, spatial component, impact of decentralization process and location theory. There is no argument that infrastructure is a very important (though not the exclusive) potentiality factor for regional development. The following features distinguish infrastructure from other potentiality factors (investment subsidies, tax subsidies, for example) (Nijkamp, 1986, p.4): a high degree of publicness (in contrast with the frequent private goods properties of other resources) a high degree of immobility (meaning that the costs of a spatial mobility of infrastructure facilities are very high) a high degree of indivisibility (implying that the separation costs of such public capital are very high, so that usually problems of over and undercapacity arise) a high degree of non-substitutability (implying high costs for transforming infrastructure capital into alternative or complementary uses); a high degree of monovalence (so that the costs of employing infrastructure in a less specialized way are very high). Therefore, it is apparent that these features of infrastructure make difference in risk between developed and underdeveloped regions, and from that point it is to be expected that capital will naturally be installed in areas with lower risk. Without intervention of government it is likely that differences in growth will diverge. The spatial component of investment is related to the fact that regions do not have firm boundaries and there is much more mobility of production factors than in case of countries. Because of that, some extent of spill over effects is expected in the case of investment. However, the problem is that these effects are country and region specific, and cannot be incorporated in a general model of regional growth. Important for development of investment policy is the decentralization process that emerged worldwide and especially in developing and transition economies from 1990s. That process presents an attempt of these countries to catch up with level of development of advanced Western economies. The traditional standpoint of fiscal policy that there is no room for sub-national governments in stabilization policy was abandoned. It is believed that sub-national level investment activity (either in increasing the quantity of investments or structural shift from current to capital expenditures) can have significant multiplicative effects and raise the growth rate and employment of a particular region. Traditional location theory was focused on rates of return to capital, transport cost advantages, cheap labor costs and other key elements. To the extent that the macro-economic growth rates of regions reflect the influence of thousands of micro-locational decisions, understanding how location decisions are reached is essential to explanations of regional growth. Similarly, this understanding is also necessary in order to devise more effective policy measures. Policy is, in effect, one of the major links between the actions of the individual decision takers and their net impact on inter-regional growth differentials that are the very objects of policy. As far as location theory is concerned, evidence is mounting that such factors as access to metropolitan living, social amenities, environmental preferences, and economies of urban agglomeration are more important determinants of location. If these arguments have substance the appropriate policy implication is not monetary subsidies but more interventionist planning to influence the spatial distribution of resources, population and economic activities within regions, particularly the intra-regional urban pattern. This further implies that regional economic policy and physical planning are not independent but are highly inter-connected (see Richardson, 1973). 3. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS Research on the relationship of capital and economic growth has been intensified by development of neoclassical theory and growth accounting. For the first time it was possible to distinguish the contributions of individual factors of production on economic growth. Previously, relations between inputs in production function were examined by use of input-output techniques, capital-output ratios and short-run multipliers and laid much of the emphasis on the demand side of the economy. The new approach offered possibility of exploring the long-term effects of factors of economic growth and it was supply-side oriented. Evolution of empirical contributions to the relevant issue begins by papers of Abramowitz (1956) and Solow (1957). Empirical findings of Abramowitz (1956) and Solow (1957) disturbed the mainstream of economic thought in this period. There was a deep belief in the importance of capital investments in economic growth. Almost all theories of economic growth supported that opinion. In addition, neoclassical theory had many opponents especially because of the neoclassical concept that capital does not play major role in the long-term growth of the economies. Abramowitz and Solow showed that 80-90 per cent of growth of output per head in the US economy in the first half of the twentieth century could not be accounted for by increases in capital per head. Even allowing for the statistical difficulties of computing a series of capital stock, and the limitations of the function applied to the data (for example, the assumption of constant returns and neutral technical progress, plus the high degree of aggregation), it was difficult to escape from the conclusion that the growth of capital stock was of relatively minor importance in accounting for the growth of total output. After that research, there was a certain period of shortcoming in volume of literature on growth and investments. That period lasted until the year 1989 when Ashauers paper Is Public Infrastructure Productive? was published. On the bases of aggregate production function with Hicks-neutral technical change (data in levels) Ashauer estimated that elasticity of output on public capital is 0.39. That finding disturbed the economists because it offered explanation for recent productivity decline of U.S. economy. However, his paper raised many criticisms. They were especially pronounced because of incredibly high rates of returns of public infrastructure increases. Issues of the validity of econometric techniques are raised as well. That was especially because of use of time series data in levels that are considered to be useful only as a preliminary data analysis. This is due to fact that time series are dominated by trend and therefore do not contain much information about inflection points that denote interdependency between variables. Due to the influence of trend, time-series data that are not processed through various methods such as detrending, differencing and others give good fits and give bias to coefficients. They increase estimators if there is a correlation between variables. Furthermore, critics had pointed out that direction of causality is ambiguous more private output could lead to an increase in the demand for public capital. Possibility of spurious correlation was also accented (see Gramlich, 1994). Ashauers (1990) later paper finds smaller coefficients for public capital, 0.11, but nevertheless criticism of his methods remained. During the 1990s research in this area has risen exponentially. There are several reasons for such developments. First of all, Ashauers paper was launched at the time when economists were trying to explain the reasons for productivity decline in the US, and shortcoming of investments was a plausible and possible reason. In addition, datasets on capital stocks and investments due to improvements of methodology in collecting and processing of data provided much better basis for conducting econometrical examinations. Furthermore, there was a tremendous improvement and development in various econometric techniques. Within the time series analysis techniques many new concepts emerged and that was especially applicable in the area of macroeconomics. Finally, it is not irrelevant that longer time spans of the data helped in better estimation by benefit of larger sample sizes. Of course, it has to be pointed out that the majority of research was conducted for U.S. economy with rare exceptions Netherlands and Spain. European countries still do not have appropriate data sets on capital stocks so therefore it is expected to see a rise of research in that area in EU from the year 2000. Criticisms of the traditional production function approach motivated empirical research to make use of the cost production function approach and the profit function approach. The basic idea of cost function approach is that private firms are assumed to produce a given level of output at minimum cost. In this approach factor prices are exogenous variables while labor input and private capital are endogenous variables to be derived from the firms optimization problem. The cost function model has the advantage over the single-equation production function model in that it uses information about total cost and individual input shares to determine the parameter estimates. This constitutes a major difference to the production function approach where the factors of production are taken as exogenously given. A major difference is that the cost function approach takes output as exogenously given while the profit function approach takes the price of output as given. The profit function model uses information on profit as well as profit ratios to determine parameter estimates and therefore, like the cost function model, should provide more efficient estimates. The profit function model has no a priori advantage over the cost function model (see Vijverberg, 1997, p. 269). Development of Multivariate time-series and introduction of VAR (vector-autoregression) into microeconomics by Sims (1980) opened a new chapter in examination of public-private investment on economic growth. Important contribution was endogeneity of variables that is inherent in the VAR method and the possibility of examination of causality directions between variables. From the 1990s many authors use VAR methodology. The idea of making public capital an endogenous variable in a macro growth system has been pursued by Flores de Frutos and Pereira (1993). They find very high rates of return on public capital, almost as high as those found by Aschauer. Economic models that incorporate spatial effects have gained a foothold in mainstream economic literature. The estimation of these models is commonly carried out using spatial econometric techniques. One of the harshest criticisms of the spatial econometric models is the use of ad hoc spatial weighting matrices. The criticism stems from the lack of empirical justification for any type of weight matrix in particular and that small changes in the spatial weight matrix often result in changes to the model results. It has been suggested that flexibility needs to be incorporated into the specification of the spatial weight matrix. However, flexibility introduces further estimation issues. Over the past ten years a large body of literature has emerged developing methods for the analysis of nonstationary panel models. An extensive treatment of methods for panel data analysis in general can be found in Baltagi (2001) and Hsiao (2003). An interesting result from the panel literature is that in contrast to pure time-series analysis with nonstationary panels many test statistics and estimators have normal limiting distributions. But so far there was little use of nonstationary panel models in the analysis of effects of public capital. However, in spite of these mentioned developments, effects of public investments on output growth are still empirically ambiguous. Extensive reviews of the literature and the different methodological approaches are presented by Kamps (2004) and Sturm (1998). Within the theoretical part of this research, complexity of effects of public and private investments was distinguished. It is clear that simple increase of investment in some sector of economy does not mean that output will increase accordingly. That is not certain even in the case of evident high influence on productivity growth. The reason is in fact that this positive influence can be offset by numerous direct or indirect phenomenas that occur in the process of financing, operating an implementing investment projects. Understanding of these channels is crucial for determining the policy recommendations in particular economy. Therefore, it is useful to isolate specifically topics that were considered important to cover in empirical examinations in field of investment effects. Some major strands of literature can be isolated: Effects of financing public investment these effects are related to the fact that costs of capital in regions and countries diverge (especially between small and large ones, or developed or underdeveloped economies), existence of crowding-out effects (in case of extensive public borrowing and limited capital market it is likely that crowding-out of private investments will occur). Spatial effects of public investments there is growing literature on impact of regional investments on regional inequality. Existence of spillovers during the investment process makes regional planning of investment an important tool of regional policy (optimal location of investments). Question of optimal provision of public investments it is obvious that economies and regions on different level of development demand different levels of capital investments. Keynesian theory advocates strong government intervention in raising investment levels in case of excess capacity of production factors in economy. Structure of investments also changes in transition to more developed economy (see Thirlwall, 2003). Efficiency of public investments more and more attention is devoted to questions of efficiency of investments. That issue is usually connected with existence of corruption. Extensive review of relation of capital accumulation and corruption can be found in Tanzi (1998) and Mauro (1996). Previously mentioned issues that make just some of important factors for positive or negative sign of contribution of capital accumulation to economic development have to be incorporated in government policy. Therefore, effects of capital accumulation are country (and region) specific. In following part, Croatian investment policy is examined. 4. ROLE OF CAPITAL IN CROATIAN ECONOMY Understanding of role of capital in Croatian economy is complex. This is due to many reasons. First of all, Croatia belongs to a group of transition economies that turned to capitalism and at the same time gained sovereignty. In addition, war that ended in year 1998 made substantial direct and indirect damages. From the beginning, privatization of public enterprises started and it is hard to capture public and private ownership on assets in such circumstances. Data on capital accumulation are also doubtful and official capital stock estimates still do not exist. Due to these reasons lack of empirical studies on capital accumulation effects in Croatia is not surprising. The only exception is the study of Lovrin evi et al. (2004) that dealt with efficiency of investments based on incremental capital-output ratio. That study showed substantial differences between efficiency of private and public investments. According to that research public investments in Croatia are much more inefficient in comparison with private investments (however, that is not surprising). As a candidate for EU membership it is interesting to see what trend is present in the ratio of gross fixed capital formation in GDP in Croatia. Figure 1 shows data in period from 1996 to 2004. Apparently, Croatian investment policy did not have same patterns as the majority of EU countries. It is important to mention that impact of EU fiscal rules on shortage in capital accumulation in EU countries is recently heavily criticized as a cause of low growth rates of EU economies (see Blanchard, 2004). However, it is not surprising that the level of investment in Croatia remained on high level. Croatian public debt increased tremendously and privatization revenues were enormous. Sever (2005) estimated that growth rates of economy in case that revenues gained from borrowing and privatization were utilized on investments (and efficiently) much more than actual ones (several times higher). It has to be mentioned that macroeconomic indicators of Croatian economy in period from year 1996 to year 2006 are stabile growth rate moves around 4% on average, low inflation rate around 3% and there is a persistent rate of unemployment (around 20%). According to these data it can be stated that Croatian economy is characterized by low-level equilibrium state (or utilization of resources). These features imply that some kind of Keynesian policy could be successful in terms of efforts toward higher utilization of capacities.  EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s  Figure 1: Ratio of gross fixed capital formation in GDP in Croatia Source: Croatian Central Bureau of Statistics However, closer focus on the institutional aspect of capital accumulation issues reveals much inefficiency. Figure 2 shows interest rates on long-term loans for corporate sector in Croatia in the period from 1996 to 2006. Figure can be good approximation of monetary circumstances in which capital accumulation occurred. It is evident that the cost of capital was extremely high. In addition, Croatia entered into international capital markets in year 1998 with a low credit rating (although, much lower interest rates than in domestic market). However, liquidity problems during 1990s definitely prove the existence of significant crowding out of private sector investments.  EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s  Figure 2: Interest rates on long-term loans for corporative sector in Croatia in period of January, 1996 to September of 2006 based on Kuna (without currency clausule) monthly weighted ponders, in annual percentage Source: Croatian National Bank, http://www.hnb.hr/ (December, 01, 2006.) Uncertainty and risk of investment undertakings was certainly accented by weak enforcements of laws and judiciary system. That institutional weakness and strong government bureaucracy certainly contributed to occurrence of corruption. According to the corruption index estimated by Transparency International, Croatia did not make large improvements in that matter (69th rank among 163 countries). In addition, Croatia does not have consistent development policy. Investment policy is subjected to short-sited political horizons and these decisions are usually discretionary. Therefore, misallocation of investments, either sectorally and/or regionally is to be expected. However, according to theoretical and empirical findings, circumstances of Croatian economy demand high investment levels. Long period of low-level equilibrium growth of Croatian economy (especially high level of unemployment) demands proactive investment policy. It is irrelevant whether that will be made by government directly or private sector (supported by government interventions in loans or subsidies). Contemporary economic doctrine suggests coordination of activities additional investments have to be supported by appropriate institutional surroundings. 5. CONCLUSION Theoretical and empirical research of the effects of capital accumulation on economic growth has not yet arrived to final conclusion. However, voluminous evidence accumulated since 17th century, made clear some general principles. Capital accumulation cannot be beneficial only by itself. It has to be supported with numerous economic and non-economic factors specific to a certain economy or region. In a globalized world, more and more important factors that determine effectiveness of capital investment is social infrastructure. Social infrastructure presents catalyst for and capital accumulation fuel for economic growth. Development and investment policy has to incorporate specificity of particular economic entity. Therefore, Croatian investment policy needs to have in mind that Croatia is on the low-level equilibrium of economic development and large infrastructure needs. In the same time, constraints are imposed due to unfavorable social infrastructure that could eliminate the positive effect of capital accumulation. However, at present moment, capital investments are employed in much better circumstances, and therefore it is likely that effects of these investments will be much more beneficial than those undertaken in recent past. Lack of necessary data presents obstacle to empirical investigation of role of capital in Croatian economy. However, improvement of statistical database on capital investments and stocks in Croatia, and progress of methodology and econometric theory and practice will enable estimation. That should be goal of future papers. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramowitz, M. (1956): Resource and Output Trends in the United States since 1870, A.E.R. Papers and Proceedings 46, p. 5-23. Arrow and Kurz (1970): Public Investment, the Rate of Return and Optimal Fiscal Policy, New York: RFF Press. Arrow, J.K. (1962): Economic Implications of Learning by Doing, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29, No.3.: 155-173. Aschauer, D. A. (1990): Why is Infrastructure Important?, An Overview., in: Proceedings of a Conference Held at Harwich Port, Massachusetts, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 21-50. Ashauer, D. A. (2000): Public Capital and Economic Growth: Issues of Quantity, Finance and Efficiency, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 391-406. Ashauer, D. A. (1989): Does Public Capital Crowd out Private Capital?, Journal of Monetary Economics, North-Holland, 24: 171-188. Ashauer, D. A. (1989): Is Public Expenditure Productive?, Journal of Monetary Economics, North-Holland, 23: 177-200. Baltagi, B. H. (2005): Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third edition, New York: John Wiley&Sons, Ltd. Blanchard, O., Giavazzi, F. (2004): Improving the SGP through a paper accounting of public investment, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 4220. Domar, E.D. (1946), Capital Expansion, Rate of Growth, and Employment, Econometrica, Vol. 14, No. 2: 137-147. Gramlich, E. M. (1994): Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 32: 1176-1196. Hall, R. E., Jones, C. I. (1997): Levels of Economic Activity Across Countries, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87., No. 2.: 173-177. Harrod, R.F. (1948): Toward a Dynamic Economics, London: Macmillan. Hoff, K., Stiglitz, J.(2001): Modern Economic Theory and Development, in Meier G. M. and Stiglitz, J. E. (ed.), Frontiers of Development Economics, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 389-459. Hsiao, C. (2003): Analysis of Panel Data, Second Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press. Kamps, C. (2004): The Dynamic Macroeconomic Effects of Public Capital, Theory and Evidence for OECD countries, New York: Springer. Looney, R., Frederiksen, M. (1981): The Regional Impact of Infrastructure Investment in Mexico, Regional Studies, Vol. 15., No. 4.: 285-296. Lovrin evi, }. et al. (2004): Efikasnost investicija i FDI  stara pri a, nove okolnosti, Ekonomski pregled, 55: 3-44. Lucas, E. R. (2002): Lectures on Economic Growth, London: Harvard University Press. Malthus, T. (1798): An Essay on the Principle of Population, (1993 printing), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marx, K. (1867): Capital, Twenty-sixth Printing (1984), Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica. Mera, K. (1973): Regional production functions and social overhead capital: An analysis of the Japanese case, Regional and Urban Economics, 3: 157-186. Mikelbank, A. B., Jackson, W. R. (2000): The Role of Space in Public Capital Research, International Regional Science Review, 23: 235-258. Munnel, A. H. (1990): How Does Public Infrastructure Affect Regional Performance? An Overview., Proceedings of a Conference Held at Harwich Port, Massachusetts, Massachusetts: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, pp. 69-103. Nijkamp, P. (1986): Infrastructure and Regional Development: A Multidimensional Policy Analysis, Empirical Economics, 11: 1-21. Richardson, H. W. (1973): Regional Growth Theory, New York: The Macmillan Press ltd. Romer, D. (2006): Advanced Macroeconomics, Third Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, Irwin. Romer, P. M. (1986): Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth, The Journal of Political Economy, 94: 1002-1037. Rostow, W.W. (1990): Theorists of Economic Growth from David Hume to the Present, New York: Oxford University Press. Sever, Ivo (2005): Kreirani vanjski javni dug Hrvatske i njegova upotreba, Znanstveni skup: Hrvatska pred vratima EU, Fiskalni aspekti, Zagreb: HAZU, pp. 125-151. Shultz, T.W. (1963): The Economic Value of Education, New York: Columbia University Press. Sims, C. A. (1980): Macroeconomics and Reality, Econometrica, 48: 1-48. Smith, A. (1776): An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, London: Oxford University Press. Sollow, R. M. (2000): Growth Theory an exposition, Second edition, New York: Oxford University Press. Solow R. M. (1957): Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39: 312-320. Sturm, J. E., De Haan J. (1995): Is public expenditure really productive? New evidence for the USA and the Netherlands, Economic Modelling, 12: 60-72. Tanzi, V. (2000): Policies, institutions and the dark side of economics, Massachussetts: Edward Elgar Publiching inc. Ter-Minassian, T. (1997): Decentralization and Macroeconomic Management, Washington D.C.: IMF. Thirlwall, A. P. (2003): Growth and Development with special reference to developing countries, Seventh Edition, New York: Palgrave, MacMillan. Uzawa, H. (1965): Optimum Technical Change in An Aggregative Model of Economic Growth, International Economic Review, 6: 18-31. Vijverberg, W. P. M. et al. (1997), Public Capital and Private Productivity, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79: 267-278.  Another mainstream of theories belong to so called Development theories. These theories are deeply involved in issues of economic development and their focus is not in revealing the theoretical secrets of economic growth but more in practical problems of persistent inequalities in division of national income worldwide. Expression applied on case of developed and underdeveloped countries, regions and localities is often called as North and South problem. However, since these theories are more policy oriented and based on theoretical foundations of growth theory, this issue is not included within this text.  That is, he assumed that the techniques of production become more capital-intensive with the passage of time. As an index of this effect Marx used the ratio of constant (plants and raw materials) to variable capital (wage bill) which he called the organic composition of capital. The rate of change of this ratio (which determines the rate of pace at which the relative displacement of labor in production occurs) depending solely upon the rate of change of technology, which, in turn, depends upon the rate of gross capital formation. So, therefore, organic composition of capital is an increasing function of gross capital formation. The greater the rate of gross investment, the more rapid the increase of the constant capital stock compared with the variable.  The model was called Harrod-Domar because both economists came to the same conclusion on causes of economic growth. However, they used different approach: Harrod tried to resolve a question of income rate necessary for desired growth rate under the condition that investments are equal to savings. Domar asked what rate of growth of investment has to be in order to match aggregate supply and demand growth (at full employment).  If the saving rate exceeds product kn - then if the unemployment rate is somehow held constant, so that employment grows as fast as the labor force, each years saving and investment must be more than enough to provide capital for the annual increment for employment, so the economy must be adding to its excess capacity every year, over and above the normal excess capacity already included in v. alternatively, if the economy insists on using all capacity it creates by investment, it can do so only by increasing employment faster than the labor force grows, so eventually the economy will run out of labor, and revert to the first state of affairs.  Technological progress is said to be Harrod neutral if the marginal product of capital remains undisturbed at a constant capital-output ratio. Hicks neutrality refers to the ratio of the marginal product of capital to the marginal product of labor that remains unchanged at a constant-capital labor ratio. These definitions impose different restrictions that change production function. Hicks idea was that technological progress is neutral if it does not change the relative prices of factors. Harrods notion was that given the interest rate, the capital-labor and capital-output ratio is determined (see Arrow and Kurz, 1970, p.18).  And neutralize effects of capital depreciation.  As Lucas (2002) pointed out, even granted its limitations, the simple neoclassical model has made basic contributions to the theory of economic growth. Qualitatively, it emphasizes a distinction between growth effects changes in parameters that alter growth rates along balanced paths and level effects changes that raise or lower balanced paths without affecting their slope that is fundamental in thinking about policy changes. However, Lucas argues that even sophisticated discussions of economic growth can often be confusing as to what are thought to be level effects and what growth effects. Under classical model one would not expect the removal of inefficient trade barriers to induce sustained increases in growth rates. Removal of trade barriers is, on this theory, a level effect, analogous to the one-time shifting upward in production possibilities, and not a growth effect. Of course, level effects can be drawn out through time through adjustment costs of various kinds, but not so as to produce increases in growth rates that are both large and sustained.  Shultz (1963) introduced importance of the human capital variable.  There are many types of social infrastructure. One group consist of government fiscal policy (tax treatment of investments and marginal tax rates on labor income directly affect relationship between private and social returns); second refers to institutions and policies that make up social infrastructure consist of factors that determine the environment that private decisions are made in (laws, enforcement of laws influence the attractiveness of investment); the final group of institutions and policies that constitute social infrastructure are ones that affect the extent of rent seeking activities by the government itself (corruption within the government) (Romer, 2006, 145-147).  For example, the kind of diversion of resources can have important dynamic concequences for the allocation of talent. Individuals who might otherwise become entrepreneurs will instead devote their energies to rent-seeking or other forms of diversion. The types of skills that an individual accumulates may be those that maximize an individuals chance of securing a position in the government bureaucracy instead of skills that would increase the productive capacity of the economy.  for example, see Terr-Minnassian (1997).  Few studies published in that field had regional scope. For example, Mera (1973) examined effects of public capital on the regional productivity of Japanese regions and found significant positive effects. Looney 2 4       ,  e f g w !! !!$$L'l'n'w'()--666666S8T8;<<<O<ҿʲhE!h h,5h,5B*\phjh,0JU h,6]hh,0JmHsHjh,Ujh,Uhh,mHsH h,;h,h,mH sH  h,5\h,5CJ\aJ64   , w e f g w x y $a$ $`^``a$ $5$7$8$9DH$a$$a$;!!'''+(+++ $ & Fa$gdE!$h^ha$$a$+,--..4353551;2;:<;<Y<o<p<.>/>>$?????fBgB$ & F a$$a$ $ & Fa$gdE!O<P<Q<R<K>L>_>`>a>b>>>>>>>>>F?G?Z?[?\?]?/C0CVFWF3L4LQ)Q4Q5QSQcQyQzQ|QQXXYYڷڨڏڷڷڷځځځڷځڷvh,5B*\phhVj4h,EHUjmH h,CJUVaJjh,EHUjH h,CJUVaJjh,0JUjAh,EHUjH h,CJUVaJh,jh,Ujh,EHUj&H h,CJUVaJ+gBCCmGnGLLQQXXYYYY%[&[aabb?ccddOeee $ & Fa$gdr$a$YY4fBfhhVidiikjkppCq6x7xyy`~d~~~~~ V~op>?ʤԤȥҥ,-./0rshXhX56CJ\aJhXhX6CJaJj h,U-jwNI h,CJUVaJmHnHsHtHjh,Uh6Qh c h,\ h,5\jh,0JUhMZVh,h,B*ph5egghhlkmkppppp&s'swwyyX~Y~UV$h^ha$$a$V~͓̓Or>?švw0s$ & Fa$$h^ha$$a$s CSbf FGKLdefghiB깱Ьug]X h,H*jh,0JUhh,5CJ\aJhh,CJ\aJhh5CJaJhhCJ\aJhh6CJ\aJ h\ h,5jh,U-jNI h,CJUVaJmHnHsHtHjh,Uh h6Q\ h,\h6Qh, h,5\hXh,CJaJ"FGHIJKhiB./fguv^ $ & Fa$gd 0^`0gd$a$$ .a$fuv-/*}~̵͵234JK߶12`bf׷ط߷FHpryz{¸ɷɳͷɳɷɳɯɧhRz\hT5hRz\h>%lh->hT56h->hT5hTh->h;+sh,B*phh Y h,H*h,5B*\ph h,5\hk'h,@^_4{rܹdҺIһۼ;$0^`0a$gdb $0^`0a$$a$¸߸567Teipqr۹ܹAbcdmxɺѺҺ3>GHIjkƻɻлѻһh5khVhT56hVhT5hVh.(hT56h.(hT5h.(h>%lhT56h>%lhT5hrhT56hrhT5hrh>%lhRz\hThRz\hT5694Z\ϼмټڼۼ3:;DMYfս8<\ҾԾLnz+3Re󫣛hAhA5hAhT5hAhlhT56hlhT5hlhNhN5hNhT5hNh/hT56h/hT5h/h5khTh5khT5=eMOkpwxybd?ATZ^_jyz !"Hh TwhT5h Twh Tw56hBZhT5hBZh TwhTfHq h,jJhT56h,jJhT5h,jJhAhT56hAhT5hThA@y` {6*$0^`0a$gd~$0^`0a$gdb $0^`0a$HJjpyz{9;vx*,0456CGH%&^hB,hT56hB,hT5hB,h!)hBhT56hBhT5hB h Tw5h TwhT5h Twh TwhT56hTF "()*;<qs]p +3Z\ hE!hbjhE!hb0JUh,hBLhBLmHsHhBLhT56hBLhBL5hBLhT5hBLhB,hT56hB,hT5hThB,;=,q& 6Q*+ hh]h`h&` $&dPa$ &dP$a$$a$=>,-pqr&' 67 QR%&Ϻ˰˰ˮ˰˰˰Ϫyoio hb0Jjhb0JUhb6CJ]aJmHnHuhb6CJ]aJmHsH#hb6CJ]aJmHnHsHuh!)Ujhb0JU hbCJhrhbmHsHhb hrhbjhrhb0JUhrhbCJaJ!jhrhb0JCJUaJ)and Frederiksen (1981) studied the link between income, productivity and public capital for the Mexican states. Although these papers denoted that public infrastructure has significantly positive impact on economic growth, there was not much attention focused on that findings.  Shortly after his paper, Munell (1990) finds more moderate results for the elasticity of public capital, but still significantly positive.  see Mikelbank and Jackson (2000)  Review of Croatian macroeconomic indicators is given at Annual reports of Croatian Ministry of Finance, available at http://www.mfin.hr/  Ranking list for the year 2006 is available at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html Session Name (Please DO NOT CHANGE THIS TEXT) Seventh International Conference on Enterprise in Transition PAGE 16 PAGE 15 &()*,-34678:;<h,h!)hb hb0Jjhb0JUh!)0JmHnHu +,89:;< $0^`0a$ $hh]h`ha$&`301hP. A!"#$% DyK sdrezgic@efri.hryK 0mailto:sdrezgic@efri.hrzDd L @\  c $A? ?#" `2&U"#wh??o뻧i `!&U"#wh??o뻧ip lxcdd``.ed``baV d,FYzP1n:&|B@?b u 10 UXRY7S?&,e`abM-VK-WMcرsA V0Z/m5 P.P56J` r&?d͈"*֯s|VT#z-F<I#/^ %p{vBvvT{`x&, U%@ Ma`.ux/f:\TN9臦 v0o8121)W2ԡ"b> 1!3X?Vy*zDd L @\  c $A? ?#" `2?JW "9`!?JW "9p lxcdd``.ed``baV d,FYzP1n:&|B@?b u 10 UXRY7S?&,e`abM-VK-WMcرsA V0ZnΕT Tg O+q3+pss`y8߃Ĉ^"F? KdB ܞ`Pm8A|G8Up `DUG`'&+ss⹹V9|O1 2V *)4!5F&&\4 @ ]` "z2t yDd L @\  c $A? ?#" `2Y [6iEHie 'baaM\~h``#RpeqIj. @ ]` bg!0d.zgDd H@\  c $A? ?#" `2V\@Zwx`!V\@Zwܪ@  Yxcdd``ed``baV d,FYzP1n:&&^! KA?H1:20 UXRY7S?&,e`abM-VK-WMcرsA V0ZX0NHq%0 q@^ԁy8p*_E#Dݽ$D@rw؝%p{ @|8U؝p/ _n0 J|%? K83\pnfn\X<8q*F&&\Z @ ]` "z1vp#Dd 0 J  C A? "2&}0ۑga h`!Y&}0ۑgHG:'xXMEgzl\vFĨ8M$;Q3GE^=߄Ohq^aݸdgdL_U@yX|dyaHvwG $RͱlV% m# ޼+IXNϝ&bFscS1eX&c Ɣ62A^Na՘~fc(֣aZdKF'XI,6Q] no~cַVOv)In;xW$_c'&ɗsxhKv\aL(Kv\ DW$_^6Im6Imǝ$m|KYѪW.-k~׮x&G}7:΅:Nc[_#@"dw:">6 cSM1cX.cMƚ5k068$rGS{(&dlyN1vK]blOqwc{;AƎ1v)7JN(?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry' FEe4Data WordDocument&5ObjectPool)0e4Ee4_1222157606F0e40e4Ole CompObjfObjInfo !"#$'*+,./013456789;<=>?@AC FMicrosoft Equation 3.0 DS Equation Equation.39qM]*\ Y(t)=F(K(t),A(t)L(t)) FMicrosoft Equation 3.0 DS EqEquation Native y_1222156728 F0e40e4Ole CompObj fuation Equation.39qM]1 Y(t)=F(K(t),A(t)L(t)) FMicrosoft Equation 3.0 DS Equation Equation.39qObjInfo Equation Native  y_1222156778 F0e40e4Ole  CompObj fObjInfoEquation Native y_1222156909F0e40e4M]p Y(t)=F(A(t)K(t),L(t)) FMicrosoft Equation 3.0 DS Equation Equation.39qMQj Y(t)=AF(K(t),L(t))Ole CompObjfObjInfoEquation Native m_1229852279!F0e40e4Ole CompObjbObjInfo !FMicrosoft Excel ChartBiff8Excel.Chart.89qOh+'0@HTx sEkonomski fakultet RijekacrMicrosoft Excel@(@I3WorkbookKSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8 ,_1229852364!!F0e40e4 0@\pEkonomski fakultet Rijeka Ba=x0& =xxZ9X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1QTahoma1QTahoma1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial#,##0\ "kn";\-#,##0\ "kn"##,##0\ "kn";[Red]\-#,##0\ "kn"$#,##0.00\ "kn";\-#,##0.00\ "kn")$#,##0.00\ "kn";[Red]\-#,##0.00\ "kn">*9_-* #,##0\ "kn"_-;\-* #,##0\ "kn"_-;_-* "-"\ "kn"_-;_-@_->)9_-* #,##0\ _k_n_-;\-* #,##0\ _k_n_-;_-* "-"\ _k_n_-;_-@_-F,A_-* #,##0.00\ "kn"_-;\-* #,##0.00\ "kn"_-;_-* "-"??\ "kn"_-;_-@_-F+A_-* #,##0.00\ _k_n_-;\-* #,##0.00\ _k_n_-;_-* "-"??\ _k_n_-;_-@_-"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)72_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).)_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)61_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)0.0                               `( Chart1Sheet1ISheet2JSheet3`iZR3 A@@  implicitni deflatori stalne cijene stope rastabdp stalne cijene bdp tekuce0koriste se za dobivenje bdp-a u stalnim cijenamainvesticijski deflator moja procjenainvesticije tekuce cijeneinvesticije stalne cijeneinvesticije (1997=100)investicije (2001=100);stalne cijene investicija i bdp-a ali bazna godina 2001=100bdp stalne cijene (2001=100)bdp stalne cijene (1997=100))investicije i bdp u stalnim cijenama 2001 investicijebdp.   0@"`je sta??in3` /< ` /< q3d23 M NM4  3QQ ;(( Q ;'' Q3_ O 3f  MM< 4E4D $% M3O& Q4$% M3O& Q4FA 3OS 3 b#M43*#M! M4523  NM43" 44% M3OQ'44 e0@4@8@<@@@D@H@L@P@e݊$6@ d'<@PI8@mt 7@7m;4@wS6@ܰV8@?@>@e>  0@  dMbP?_*+%MHP Mobile Printing PSS odXXLetterPRIV0''''$\KhC#[$IUPH dLetter [none] [none]Arial4Pd?ADMINISTRATOR<Automatic>dEXCEL.EXE"dXX??U)                           B0@4@8@<@@@D@H@L@P@T@   0|L2!W@<Y@,@ \@@^@_@`@@{@     <Y@Y@@ Z@T@@@_@@    6@V r@{@@@w@z@   %y#q~M@DDd<0:@@0@@APlAxZA AA   Bp/@0:@ AXHA8A88AxA8A A8 A   0|L2!W@<Y@ Z@\@@@_@@m@@    < BA!JA#@@@#@@ @@@@   % ²rg@D Dd% 33333@ D Dd% 0X8@ D Dd% $I$yq@ D Dd% '@ D Dd% _ "@ D Dd% @ D Dd% o½ @ D Dd% o)ҿ@ D D d  y#q~M@ %0|L2!W@ DDd     0|L2!W@<Y@ Z@\@@@_@@m@@  %UhR@DDd%ҌQT@DDd%\\rU@DDd%oV@DDd%vX@DDd%Y@DDd%A+Z@DDd%бnZ@DDd%  "\[@ D Dd% $,4r\@D Dd 0|L2!W@<Y@,@ \@@^@_@`@@{@  %v!}lR@DDd%Cc}hT@DDd%XV@DDd%~hV@DDd%Sr X@DDd%Y@DDd%XY@DDd%SZ@DDd% >4[@ D Dd% n۶m۶\@ D Dd  % Mf@ D Dd%;N@D Dd%yV@D Dd%jR@D Dd%FJ@D Dd%@D Dd%秒@D Dd%C2O@ D Dd% IT9@D D d  %rUADDd%̣ADDd%fuADDd%ffffADDd%j@% D% d(  <XaTdL(    Bbu XPP? i]4@bu `coDY+_ |<}Ekonomski fakultet Rijeka: deflator za 1996 godinu je izracunat na temelju realne stope rasta od 6,8 i tekuce cijene za 1996<|  B4cu XPP? Z]4@4cuh ]R|^@ä/l ]<^Ekonomski fakultet Rijeka: indexi preracunati dijeljenjem svih indexa sa indexom bazne godine<L]   Bcu XPP? `<]4@cu` ڛ&[u]oD^KZy D<EEkonomski fakultet Rijeka: bdp i investicije u stalnim cijenama 2001<Denxp  6NMM?P &]`X  0@"X??3` /<` /< ?p3d23 M NM4  3QQ ;(( Q ;'' Q3_ O 3f  MM< 4E4D $% M3O&Q4$% M3O& Q4FAC 3OSl3 b#M43*#M! M4523  NM43" 44% M3OQ'44 eee % Ekonomski fakultet Rijeka%Ekonomski fakultet Rijeka%Ekonomski fakultet Rijeka>@% %% 7 0@  dMbP?_*+%" ??jeU>@7 0@  dMbP?_*+%"??jeU>@7 ՜.+,0 PXd lt| 1 Sheet1Sheet2Sheet3Chart1  WorksheetsCharts !FMicrosoft Excel ChartBiff8Excel.Chart.89qOle %CompObj #&bObjInfo(Workbook"$Oh+'0@HX| sasafEkonomski fakultet RijekacrMicrosoft Excel@|_@?[3՜.+,0 PXd lt| CSU       !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghi 0@\pEkonomski fakultet Rijeka Ba=ed = %9X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1$Arial1 Arial1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1.Times New Roman1. Times New Roman14Times New Roman CE1PArial1UArial1Arial1Arial#,##0\ "kn";\-#,##0\ "kn"##,##0\ "kn";[Red]\-#,##0\ "kn"$#,##0.00\ "kn";\-#,##0.00\ "kn")$#,##0.00\ "kn";[Red]\-#,##0.00\ "kn">*9_-* #,##0\ "kn"_-;\-* #,##0\ "kn"_-;_-* "-"\ "kn"_-;_-@_->)9_-* #,##0\ _k_n_-;\-* #,##0\ _k_n_-;_-* "-"\ _k_n_-;_-@_-F,A_-* #,##0.00\ "kn"_-;\-* #,##0.00\ "kn"_-;_-* "-"??\ "kn"_-;_-@_-F+A_-* #,##0.00\ _k_n_-;\-* #,##0.00\ _k_n_-;_-* "-"??\ _k_n_-;_-@_-"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)72_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).)_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)61_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)4/_-* #,##0.00_-;\-* #,##0.00_-;_-* "-"??_-;_-@_-,'_-* #,##0_-;\-* #,##0_-;_-* "-"_-;_-@_-FA_-"kn"\ * #,##0.00_-;\-"kn"\ * #,##0.00_-;_-"kn"\ * "-"??_-;_-@_->9_-"kn"\ * #,##0_-;\-"kn"\ * #,##0_-;_-"kn"\ * "-"_-;_-@_-                        a!<  a  i!<  a   a&<  a , @  a ,@ @  a"<  a"<@  i"<  i"<@  i"< @  i"<@ @  i"<  a"<  a ,  a"  a ,"@  a a  a a  a&  a"<@  a#  a#< a#< a#<"@  i"<   Normal_Sheet1` kamatne stope2Sheet1Sheet2Sheet3`i#HMjese ne vagane prosje ne kamatne stope, u postocima na godianjoj raziniGodinaMjesec Trgova kim druatvima1992.prosinac....1993.sije anjvelja ao~ujaktravanjsvibanj lipanjsrpanjkolovozrujanlistopadstudeni1994.1995.I(prema podacima za posljednje izvjeatajno razdoblje obuhvaeno u tablici) Napomena: Zbog promjene metodologije statistike kamatnih stopa od 1. sije nja 2002. doalo je do loma u vremenskoj seriji, ato se posebice odra~ava na kamatne stope prikazane u kolonama 5, 6 i 7. Naime, iz kratkoro nih kredita trgova kim druatvima isklju eni su, izmeu ostaloga, meubankovni krediti, odobravani uz relativno niske kamatne stope. Na porast kamatnih stopa utje e i metodologija ponderiranja, pri emu se za sve komponente koriste iznosi novoodobrenih kredita, uz iznimku okvirnih kredita, za koje se kao ponder koriste knjigovodstvena stanja, 2a iji je relativan udio novim obuhvatom porastao.GTablica G1: Kamatne stope banaka na kunske kredite bez valutne klauzulesvibanj sije anj   Relativna va~nost 1) 1) Relativna va~nost izra unava se kao postotni udio pripadne kategorije kredita u ukupnim kreditima puatenim u te aj u izvjeatajnom mjesecu  2006 (rujan)* LY%2Q^  0@MFhp officejet 7100 series serie!@h߀dXrtBe@4 d Beںںhp officejet 7100 series series,LocalOnly,DrvConvert"dXX??3` 4#` 4#` ` "2:p 3 d  3QQ ;3Qi ;3Q3_4E4D$% M3O&Q4$% M3O&Q4FAwL 3O>,3 b#M-&!  M43*#M&! M4523  NM43" 444e1996                                 ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ ! 2006 (rujan)e ףp=J0@= ףp-@Qx0@p= c0@Q1@Gz)@Hz0@HzG2@Gz%@ (\u%@ (\u0@ Gz&@ -@ Qk+@{G)@RQ*@Q*@Q(@{Gz&@ףp= W*@ ףp= *@R(@= ףp%@(\)@p= ף+@Q-@Q+@(\B)@Hz+@333333-@R.@RQ+@ +@!(\B*@"Q8*@#(\&@$= ףp='@%Q8(@&ףp= &@' ףp= %@(q= ףp.@)ףp= #@*Qk)@+{Gz0@,q= ףp*@-HzG$@.(\&@/Q.@0)\+@1Q.@2(\+@3(\@4Q*@5ffffff&@6\(\@7(\B*@8Gz&@9(\ @:)\('@;HzG#@<Q#@=zGa#@>333333"@?q= ףp#@@ףp= #@AQ#@B= ףp=#@CGz.!@DL"@E(\%@Ffffff&@GQ$@Hp= #%@IzGa!@J(\@KRQ@Lffffff@Mffffff@N\(\@O\(\@Pףp= @Q@R= ףp=@SQ@TQ@U(\@VRQ@W(\@XGz@Y(\@ZRQ@[(\@\Q@]\(\@^)\(@_(\@`p= #!@azG @b@c(\@d(\@e(\@fQ@gQ@hףp= @i(\@j{Gz@k@lQ@mQ@nGz@o333333@pQ@q@rQ@sQ@t ףp= @u(\@vq= ףp@wQ@x(\@y(\@zףp= @{Gz@|ףp= @}333333@~ףp= @p= ף@zG@e> z 0@  dMbP?_*+%"??U       .    ' /  /     !" "#?$@$(@ %%% %  0 &'0 % ' 0 & ' 0& ' 0& ' 0& ' 0& ' 0& ' 0& ' 0& ' 0& ' 0& ' 0( ' 0 &'0 % ' 0& ' 0& ' 0& ' 0& ' 0( ' 0& ' 0Dl&**&&&&&&&&&&&*&&&&& !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>? & ' 0!& !' !0"& "' "0#& #' #0$& $' $0 %&'0 &% &' &0'& '' '0(& (' (0)& )' )0*& *' *0+& +' +0,& ,'~ ,l@-& -'~ -@.& .'~ .@/& /'~ /@0& 0'~ 0@1& 1'~ 1'@ 2&''~ 340@ 3' ~ 3't@4& 4' ~ 41<@5& 5' ~ 51@6& 6' ~ 61@7& 7' ~ 71`@8& 8'~ 8'@9& 9'~ 9'ԙ@:& :'~ :'@;& ;'~ ;'@<& <'~ <'Đ@=& ='~ ='@>& >'~ >'@?% ?' ~ ?'@Dl&&&&&*&&&&&&&&&&&*&&&&&&&&&&&@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_@& @' ~ @'l@A& A' ~ A'L@B& B' ~ B'@C& C' ~ C'T@D& D'~ D'ؒ@E& E'~ E'@F& F'~ F'@G& G'~ G'X@H& H'~ H'd@I& I'~ I'@J& J'~ J'H@K% K' ~ K1@L& L' ~ L1@M& M' ~ M10@N& N' ~ N1@O& O' ~ O'@P& P'~ P'Ж@Q& Q'~ Q'@R& R'~ R'X@S& S'~ S'+@T& T'~ T'@U& U'~ U'|@V& V'~ V'@W% W' ~ W1(@X& X' ~ X1@Y& Y' ~ Y1ؑ@Z& Z' ~ Z1p@[& [' ~ [1ȗ@\& \'~ \1@]& ]'~ ]1ܓ@^& ^'~ ^1@_& _'~ _1@D@l&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~`& `'~ `1@a& a'~ a1<@b' b'~ b1@c% c' ~ c1@d& d' ~ d1(@e& e' ~ e1@f& f' ~ f10@g& g' ~ g1̔@h& h'~ h1@i& i'~ i1@j& j'~ j1@k& k'~ k1@l& l'~ l1@m& m'~ m1@n' n'~ n1 @o% o' ~ o1@p& p' ~ p1H@q& q' ~ q1p@r& r' ~ r1`@s& s' ~ s1@t& t'~ t1@u& u'~ u1@v& v'~ v1؊@w& w'~ w1@x& x'~ x1ؐ@y& y'~ y1@z& z'~ z1p@{% {'~ {1@|' |' ~ |1(@}' }' ~ }2@~' ~' ~ ~2 @' ' ~ 2@D@l&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&' '~ 2؃@' '~ 2`@' '~ 2@' '~ 2h@' '~ 2@' '~ 2@' '~ 2@@% '~ 28@% ' ~ 2@@% ' ~ 2@% ' ~ 2x@% ' ~ 2h@% '~ 2@% '~ 2X@% '~ 2؅@% '~ 2؇@% '~ 2@% '~ 2@% '~ 20@% ' ~ 2Ȋ@% ' ~ 2`@% ' ~ 2@% ' ~ 2h@% '~ 2؀@% '~ 2@% '~ 2@% '~ 2@% '~ 2h@% '~ 2@% '~ 2x@% '~ 2@% ' ~ 2@D@l&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&  % ' ~ 2@% ' ~ 2@% ' ~ 2@% '~ 2(@% '~ 2@% '~ 28@% '~ 2Ѐ@% '~ 2@% '~ 2@% '~ 2ȇ@% '~ 2@@% ' ~ 2P@% ' ~ 2@% ' ~ 2h@% ' ~ 2@% '~ 20@% '~ 2@% '~ 2@% '~ 2@@ &" '~ 2@ %'2 ''2 ) )3dBF @2&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&* *! ++  ++ ,++ ,++ -++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++  ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++Dl +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++Dl      +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++Dl !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>? +++ !+++ "+++ #+++ $+++ %+++ &+++ '+++ (+++ )+++ *+++ ++++ ,+++ -+++ .+++ /+++ 0+++ 1+++ 2+++ 3+++ 4+++ 5+++ 6+++ 7+++ 8+++ 9+++ :+++ ;+++ <+++ =+++ >+++ ?+++Dl@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_ @+++ A+++ B+++ C+++ D+++ E+++ F+++ G+++ H+++ I+++ J+++ K+++ L+++ M+++ N+++ O+++ P+++ Q+++ R+++ S+++ T+++ U+++ V+++ W+++ X+++ Y+++ Z+++ [+++ \+++ ]+++ ^+++ _+++Dl`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ `+++ a+++ b+++ c+++ d+++ e+++ f+++ g+++ h+++ i+++ j+++ k+++ l+++ m+++ n+++ o+++ p+++ q+++ r+++ s+++ t+++ u+++ v+++ w+++ x+++ y+++ z+++ {+++ |+++ }+++ ~+++ +++Dl +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++Dl +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++<>@ 7 0@  dMbP?_*+%"??U>@7 0@  dMbP?_*+%"??U>@ 7 SummaryInformation(%)DocumentSummaryInformation8-41TableSummaryInformation((2Sheet1Sheet2Sheet3kamatne stope  WorksheetsChartsOh+'0 ( D P \ ht|Prof djelatnikNormalEkonomski fakultet Rijeka85Microsoft Word 10.0@h"J  C A? "2,z,BIj[h`!z,BIj[>lS:&xX hUe~޳m̆WLgb9d2YihI0\Jl9Y"f5TI"E "B"1D J!ev{ι|gw |y~C8t{'KRA.1ϼ+ ^zנXG[*{?uY-Lϓ;j.y/ϐ+uS^ ^"2~j#b 3O}{Ea?kȨw+7tuW,꼒znq$P/氤ÒkuXÚ58asX*V ڝLfdĠn~V\ӡL [ƚt&NԱD8Ϸ? v,b̩`۶rB*EEVMm;p D5,܃q/nhChlB<1I0O s"*ݯuQ-S5y٧7M6]4#C 3B_c aP ?`~R~Dsu^׿^+|%qۄ~6mZ 'p-p{tV)S1ƖaV`=:{[&|Lj1`Ͱ-e`-hmx6v`mijjZیV V{;\a|n_sޱ$޳l{pDc>/5ߨQ}N|hvC=o(6g7ʽR 6D{Pa#]R`6Tm 5,WVV FAEIM@BDFHJLNZ &jmRkN*7T\Q9rG%S*T\S9rOՀU6TZQ5jGՐ%USTZS5jOq G(PCq)[(QGq"IG)RKq2i)SOi JF(PCi)J[(QAi"J5F)RjHiRiJ۔)Pޭ3߲5FFѻkFWN7^|RWAs;SWΠJRw6>$$N'޳K j_rrܖH}m nq"amK:,V:akpXV:9apXEiI/=|>+y޵Ӗ6-ztZBOO/<~XQo=?@>Q\xTR-CKu2ekh`YZj,WFQClZ]:%-d5"km!kZU֬㛏47;tWz t;0GmJħ:YgpȘqj;'lG;٣7/fo!n`3@,3@6-z3@I4՜.+,D՜.+,4 hp  efstZa Prof Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAhDocumentSummaryInformation8:CompObjBjvWmailto:sdrezgic@efri.hr  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH H@H Heading 1$$@&a$5\mH sH B@B Heading 2$@&5\mH sH F@F Heading 3 $@&5\^JaJDA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List @&@@ Footnote ReferenceH*6U@6 Hyperlink >*B*ph>@>  Footnote TextCJaJ.)@!. Page Number4 @24 Footer  p#DB@BD Body Text$a$5CJmH sH 4@R4 Header  p#TC@bT Body Text Indent^`mH sH FV@qF FollowedHyperlink >*B* ph<P@< Body Text 2 dx8Q@8 Body Text 3$a$VR@V Body Text Indent 2$0^`0a$B'B Comment ReferenceCJaJ<<  Comment TextCJaJ-S/5/:V=3CyHOib6opozD kk * \ y@(+ ABCP{,wefgwxy    '"("""#$$%%4*5*,,1222:3;3Y3o3p3.5/55$66666f9g9::m>n>CCHHOOPPPP%R&RXXYY?ZZ[[O\\\^^__lbmbggggg&j'jnnppXuYuzzUV~̊͊Or>?‘|}%&ʞ˞̞͞ΞϞkƟpq)*+9:%e`VͰV_BϳG ed9tr-$0@r3V>?mn00000C0C0C0C0C0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 00000000000000000 0 0 000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0x@0@00PC@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00tC/o}O<Ys¸eH&<qvx{}+gBeV^+<rtuwyz|~;s;3O3Q3K5_5a5555F6Z6\6ϞX::::::ovy}!!@  @H 0(  0(  B S  ? OLE_LINK1|=,===l=,===l=,=~=~=l~=,~=}=}=l}=L=L=tL=4L=K=K=tK==Ԃ==T==ԁ==u=lu=,u=f=4=8=$9=d8=8==l=I=L=="="=\=>܉>4>t>>4>>>4>t > > > > >\>>>>l>>>,>l>>>,> >L>>> >L> >!> ">L#>$>%> &>L'>(>)> *>L+>,>-> .>L/>0>1> 2>L3>4>5> 6>L7>8>9> :>L;><>=> >>L ?> @> A> B>L C> D> E> F>L G> H> I> J> K> PP^,,3;A[[ekww[[eVeVggllppTvTv y yDyDyTyTy..OOۜۜ33ss@@..88?..yy ))PPssQQ[[bMMWW` rr||mmx      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>@?ABCEDFGHIJKLNMOPQRSUTVWXYZ[\]^_`bacdefgihjklnmopqrsutvwxyz{Zdd2:@HHdjuubboVoVggllppVvVv$y$yOyOyYyYy55VV:: HH66>II66''66VV{{YYallUU_jj%%zzw||    !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>@?ABCEDFGHIJKLNMOPQRSUTVWXYZ[\]^_`bacdefgihjklnmopqrsutvwxyz{ 8H*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdateBg*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region>i*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PostalCode9j*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState:m*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsStreet;n*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsaddress8x*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=z*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName={*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9|*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstime  1121820066DayHourMinuteMonthYear|{z|x|zzz{|z{{nm|xji|g|x|x|g|g|g|g|g|g|g|g|g|g|g|g|gH |g|j|j|x|j|z{|j|z{|j|g|x|z{|x|x|xj|j|x|j|j|j|z{|x|j|z{|x|z{|j|x|xj|j|xCGHO^d~"+@L#!" "q#y#y------m.y.P/R/55,818[8b8g9m9|@@BBBBWQ_Q*Z1Zccmc~~$-4ch $«ƫelOYow/;V^V\IJNY (*34;eidk9>{~ɹʹιйعٹݹ޹ĺʺ-3(,$1,09B?P/R/-2/2Y3^366XXO\P\u"u}CEyz@Dݶڷܷ"ACRWFK?l333333333333333333333333333R--3Y3͊G?ĺʺ?F?+jf 8>H5ZWs Gxe%/fLb2Z5Bw6؁w{BjOr{D6t/!FZL{G.t,]-Gi*j=z%Hto2I@fM48O]MUj{D/XH^:Xvc]Zb]?ib c7 cyg,iڛ:Hk6Cx*!r]D#{ppR}4XX^X`o(.^`o(..0^`0o(...0^`0o(.... ^`o( ..... 5 5 ^5 `o( ...... 6'`6'^6'``o(....... ,`,^,``o(........ 33^3`o(.........hh^h`OJQJ^Jo(h88^8`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHohHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(h^`B*OJQJ^Jo(phhpp^p`OJQJ^Jo(h@ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(h^`OJQJ^Jo(oh^`OJQJ^Jo(h^`OJQJ^Jo(h^`OJQJ^Jo(ohPP^P`OJQJ^Jo(^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.h`^``o(^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.hhh^h`.h88^8`.hL^`L.h  ^ `.h  ^ `.hxLx^x`L.hHH^H`.h^`.hL^`L. ^` o(. ^` o(..p0p^p`0o(...@ 0@ ^@ `0o(.... xx^x`o( ..... HH^H`o( ...... `^``o(....... P`P^P``o(........ ^`o(.........808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh88^8`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.h88^8`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHohHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHhh^h`o(.hh^h`o(..0^`0o(...0^`0o(.... 88^8`o( ..... 88^8`o( ...... `^``o(....... `^``o(........ ^`o(.........^`o(.^`o(..0^`0o(...0^`0o(.... 88^8`o( ..... 88^8`o( ...... `^``o(....... `^``o(........ ^`o(.........808^8`0o() ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh88^8`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh  ^ `OJQJo(hHh  ^ `OJQJo(hHhxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHohHH^H`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHhh^h`o(.g^`o(^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHhHH^H`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hHPP^P`OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH!!^!`OJQJo(hH$$^$`OJQJ^Jo(hHo`'`'^`'`OJQJo(hH^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`o()^`o(. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.r{D6c{B/!F?ibjfWs {D/X{GMUF?iyg=z%H5:Xe%/@fM]-GpR}x*!r]D#{58Ob80Lb22I0vc]Hk0         x                                  $3                                                              >        ^wX        p"                 N                            #       @?bBZ_  /BL-1t !=#k'W0t=&?oY@A(E,jJN;RDRMZVV YRz\ c5kl>%lr;+s v TwBTE!(kb,66Q~F@pB,b!)8/X7t->rVZY%,.(t0iE09}+0+0Y?m@ǺǺǺǺX@@@@ @UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings#AJF Sf JFUaZaZq24d 3qH(?Prof djelatnikEkonomski fakultet Rijeka