CAUSES FOR DEPOPULATION OF RURAL AREAS IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF PLJEVLJA SUMMARY Development of social division of labour has caused population to move

Development of social division of labour has caused population to move from agriculture to other fields of activities. Rural areas are again becoming the subject of theoretical discussions, and rural areas are becoming increasingly important living alternative and working option in comparison to cities. Depopulation and deagrarisation appeared as the main limiting factors for rural development in Montenegro, and thus for the Municipality of Pljevlja. These phenomena particularly came to the fore after the Second World War. Industrialization has caused migration from rural areas to the administrative and economic centres. This paper analyzes the reasons for depopulation of rural areas in the Municipality of Pljevlja in the period 1948-2011. In the reporting inter-census period, digressive movement of the rural population was present. Factors causing this phenomenon were: peripheral position of rural areas, deagrarisation which arose for rapid industrialization, lack of quality of rural infrastructure and others. Basic indicators of the demographic and socio-economic development of the municipality are shown. Data show that leaving of rural areas in sixties of the last century had taken on the character of the agricultural exodus. In the period from 1921 to 1961, rural population was the majority (76.28%), while the urban was only 23.72% of the total population of Pljevlja. In the later period, the demographic picture had significantly changed, also according to the population Census of 2011; rural population share in the total population of the municipality was 36.69%. There are 158 villages in the Municipality of Pljevlja, and most of them are villages with 10 to 57 inhabitants. The tendency is to concentrate the rural population in several suburban villages.


INTRODUCTION
The term rural appeared in twenties and thirties of the 20th century.Its appearance defined key features of rural society at a time when rural areas experienced a great economic and social transformation under the influence of urbanization and industrialization (Woods, 2005).Changes in lifestyle and in the nature of social relations in rural areas of Montenegro in last sixty years, have taken place under the influence of urban areas.At the end of the fifties, Montenegrin village and rural way of living experienced great changes under the influence of industrial development.During the sixty-year period, the village and the dominant branch of production experienced various reforms, such as agrarian reform, redistribution of land, nationalization, re-privatization of land, unplanned financial investments and etc.Although the rural area is predominantly agricultural area, agriculture is no longer a core business to a significant majority of the rural population, and they earn income from the work in other industries (Štambuk, 1990(Štambuk, , Hodžić, 2000)).One of the main problems of the modern village is a lack of social capital, because younger and educated people emigrate from rural areas (1991).Definitions of the rurality concept can be grouped, taking into account two approaches.According to the first, rurality determines social and geographical characteristics of the area, primarily the population size, density, and/or dominant type of production, especially agriculture.Rural settlements are geographically isolated from major urban centres and they constantly have lower population density than urban areas.Triangle, village-agriculture-area, forms a basis for defining rurality, rural world, rural society, rural area and all other synonyms that indicate areas outside urban agglomerations (Štambuk, 1991).Another dominant scientific approach defines rurality as an exclusively social construct, according to which places are defined as rural not because of structural or environmental characteristics but because of the people who live there and perspective of their life through certain moral and cultural values, marvellous landscape and lifestyles compatible with the organic life of the community (Brown and Schaft, 2011).
According to the OECD methodology, community is considered as rural if the population density is less than 150 people per m2.Taking into account this fact, almost the entire territory of Montenegro can be considered as rural.Looking at the three regions of Montenegro (North, Central and Southern) according to the OECD methodology, Northern region covers 13 municipalities and it belongs to the predominantly rural region (59.7% of the population lives in rural areas), while Coastal (41.7%) and Central (20.4%) are considered as transitional.Municipality of Pljevlja belongs to the Northern area and therefore to a group of predominantly rural areas.Population density in Pljevlja is 23 inhabitants per m2 and it is lower when compared to other municipalities, such as Bijelo Polje (50), Podgorica (129), and Ulcinj (78).Also, the population density is lower than in Montenegro (46), which is among the countries with the lowest population density.On 1km2 in Montenegro, 27.3 inhabitants were in 1948, 42.3 in 1981, 44.5 in 1991(Kalezić, Jovanović, 1997).In comparison with countries in the region, the population density is lower than in Bosnia and Herzegovina (75), Croatia (56.56),Serbia (88.4), Slovenia (102), Macedonia (83), (World Development Indicators, 2014).
In the period after the Second World War, the process of depopulation had been continuously occurring both in Montenegro and in the Municipality of Pljevlja.Firstly, it was particularly emphasized in the rural areas, and then spread to the urban part of the Municipality of Pljevlja.Looking for a "better life", rural population left the village in groups and moved to the city.Later, inhabitants of the city started to move to the southern and central part of Montenegro.Since the main reasons for internal migrations mainly represent factors related to the economic nature, and less political character, this trend of manifested movement was reasonable.Because of economic underdevelopment, Montenegro did not provide satisfactory existential conditions to its population; therefore people were forced to change the place of living, (Kalezić, 1978).
The process of depopulation should be observed in terms of economic and sociological theories.Economic theory, on the basis of quantitative analysis of time series on population and income, tried to explain that the main cause of rural depopulation of villages is a hard work in agriculture with significantly lower income when compared to non-agricultural activities.Modern economic theory points to two important factors.Repulsion factor, which includes low incomes in agriculture together with poor working conditions and other striking factor that attracts farmers in non-agricultural activities (better working conditions, safety in earnings etc.), (Pejanović, 2010).Sociological theory points out that "civilization revolution", brought into the village by industrial revolution, disintegrated rural communities and had influence on cities to start attracting boys and girls from rural areas like a magnet.Enhanced communication with other parts of the world increased social mobility of poorly movable farmers.The creation of employment opportunities in the city (even poorly paid jobs) with better conditions for the education of children are main reasons of mass exodus from the village.
The main objective of this paper is to highlight the causes and forms of depopulation of rural areas of the Municipality of Pljevlja, in the period from 1948 -2012.In addition to the causes, spatial and temporal movement of the population of Pljevlja is shown, as well as the consequences that have arisen in the physical and cultural sense.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
This paper analyzes the causes and forms of depopulation of rural areas of the Municipality of Pljevlja.When preparing this paper, the official data of the Statistical Office of Montenegro (MONSTAT) were used, as well as scientific papers that dealt with this issue.Data of the Census of Agriculture in Montenegro and the Census for the period 1948-2001 were used for the analysis.For displaying data, the statistical tables, as well as line and area chart were used.Share of inhabitants of Pljevlja in the total population of Montenegro is shown through relative numbers of structure, as well as the participation of the rural population in the total population of the Municipality of Pljevlja.A dynamic statistical analysis is applied, precisely, the method of calculation of basic and chain indices, as well as the methods of descriptive statistics.The method of research at the table "desk research" was also used in addition to the comparison method.The paper aims to draw attention to the causes of depopulation in Pljevlja and on its consequences which are still very visible.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The most dynamic element of geospace is population.Russian scientist Mendeleev considers that "it is as a very important area for the state, but the essence of the state's work still refers to the population living on this area." Industrialization and urbanization, created after the Second World War, and especially after sixties, led to the major changes in the development of Montenegrin population and its municipalities.Since the Census of 1981, share of the population of the Southern and Central regions of the total population of Montenegro has been increasing; and share of the population of the Northern region has been declining (Despotović, Jovanović, Joksimović, 2015).This trend resulted in a weaker pace of agricultural development.One of the factors that influenced on the specific position of Pljevlja is its bordering position.Historically, Pljevlja was often a bordering area: near the line that divided the Roman Empire and East and West, on the borders of the Byzantine spirit, property of medieval feudal lords, Ottoman Sanjak.The Balkan wars drew the new boundaries; Pljevlja became a city on the border between Serbia, Montenegro and Austria-Hungary.Formal borders disappeared in Yugoslavia, but it was still recognized as a "city on the border."Republic borders became state's, and Pljevlja was given an opportunity to make history of an area whereby "separating it connects" and it represents an instrument of dialogue.
Pljevlja is situated in a valley with an altitude of 770 m.Pljevlja valley is surrounded by hills of Golubinja, Maljevac, Bogiševac and Balibegovo.The city lies on three rivers: Breznica, Ćehotina and Vezisnica.The climate is temperate continental with features of temperate mountain climate, whose impact is reflected in extremely low temperatures.These are the reasons why Pljevlja is among the coldest places in Montenegro.Pljevlja is a city with the highest cloudiness in Montenegro-about 70% of days in a year are without wind, and about 200 days are foggy.
The main factors that have most influenced on the depopulation of rural areas are: deagrarisation in terms of the rapid development of the industry, bordering position, lack of quality of rural infrastructure and etc.The connection of villages and accession to road, rail and other modes of transport networks reflects on the development of a society, but it also helps the country to get involved in all important life activities (Župančić, 2005).The railway is a bearer to prosperity and modernization, but Pljevlja lacked exactly this particular segment, and unfortunately it does even today.It has caused a change in significance of some elements in the process of demographic regionalization (Spasovski, 1998).City modifies relationships and connections with the near and far areas to the extent appropriate for the needs of its development, only when it is reached a certain level of development that ensures the status of the regional centre (Tošić, 1999).
After the Second World War, rural area of the Municipality of Pljevlja was exposed to socio-economic processes that brought about the social transformation of society.Migrations from rural to urban areas occurred as a result of such transformation.Deagrarisation is a process of abandoning agricultural activities and outflow of the population from agricultural areas (Crkvenčić, 1982).The transition from one activity to another is called social mobility that may or may not result in migration.Reasons for outflow of population from rural areas were psychological, economical and technical.Factors that have a significant impact on population movements towards urban areas were: better prospects for survival, higher wages, promotion opportunities, better housing conditions and etc. Connection between economical and demographic development, and between industrialization-urbanizationpopulation, are reflected in re-organization of the population in spatial terms (which means changes in the spatial structure of the population by concentrating population around the centre of industrialized activities in urban areas), but also through a re-organization of the population by activities (Vojković, 2003).
Region of the Municipality of Pljevlja has recorded a constant decrease of population in the period after the Second World Ward which today takes on negative features.The first official Census in Pljevlja was conducted in 1465, and later in 1516, 1570, 1585 (Mišović, 2006).According to the Census of 1921 the population of a village (rural) consisted a majority -76.28%, while the city (urban) only 23.72% of the total population.The main reasons of such reorganization were: undeveloped urban areas, reliance on agricultural production, industrial underdevelopment, insufficient development of a city as an administrative and cultural centre, insufficient exploitation of coal and other mineral resources.With production development and division of labour, products were being moved from village to the city.For these reasons, city had not been preceded by village: both are results of the process of differentiation of the settlement in a certain area (Hodžić, 2006).Rural and urban are integrated and dialectically connected with each other as two parts of the same whole (Marini and Mooney, 2006).
Significant socio-economic and political changes have influenced the change of the population in urban and rural areas.Factors that mainly influenced the depopulation are: development of the productive forces and relations, geographical location, deagrarisation resulted from urban-based industrialization, as well as the polarized development of Montenegro.Table 1 shows the population of Pljevlja in the period 1921-2011.
The data presented in the table indicate that the number of total population increased each year compared to the base year of 1921, and the largest increase was recorded in 1971 with the of 74%.In the coming years, the population increased, but in percentage it was lower than the increase achieved in 1971.Urban population increased in relation to the base year of 1921 and the highest increase was achieved in 2003 with the value of 223%, while the largest population increase in rural areas was achieved in 1961 and it was 78%.Later that value declined and the largest decline compared to the base year of 1921 was acquired in 2011 -44.74%.Reduction of the rural population was primarily caused by rapid development of urban areas, industry and field of energy.Socio-economic processes resulting in Pljevlja were almost identical to the processes that took place on the territory of the former Yugoslavia.In the period from 1948 to 1953, there was also a decrease in the agricultural population in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, where otherwise the population increased earlier.Rate of relative decrease of agricultural population in the total population was the largest in Slovenia -17.1 per mille, then Croatia -14.6, Bosnia and Herzegovina -13.2 and Montenegro -12.0 per mill.By the absolute increase in the number of agricultural population in that time there was only in Macedonia and Serbia (Livada, 1971).Agrarian exodus was a result of the expansion of social and economic systems in increasing area -from family farms, villages, region, and country.Agrarian exodus contains two contradictory processes: the process of disintegration and destruction of small social and economic unit and process of integration of their parts in a smaller unit (Puljiz, 1974).In the period from 1953 to 1961, an average annual decrease of agricultural population was 129 125, or 13.1 per mille.Rates of decrease in individual areas in this period were as follows: 24.7 per mille in Slovenia, 22.8 per mille in Croatia, 16.5 per mille in Montenegro, 15.8 per mille in Macedonia, 12.8 per mille in Vojvodina, 11.4 per mille in inland of Serbia, total 9.1 per mille in Serbia, and the least in Bosnia -7.4 per mill (Livada 1971).The share of the population of Pljevlja in the total population of Montenegro, in the period 1948-2011, was decreasing, and the lowest level of participation was achieved in 2011 and it was 4.97%.General population movement occurs as a result of natural movement and a form of spatial mobility.The division between the natural and mechanical movement is required because of the need to distinguish two different processes, different both with regard to their guidelines, as well as with regard to the consequences for the overall demographic development of a population (Nejamšić, 2005).
Households represent a significant factor in the population study of Pljevlja.The highest share of households of the Municipality of Pljevlja in the total number of households in Montenegro was recorded in 1961 and it was 8.5%.Contrary to the increase in the number of households, there was a steady decline in the number of household members.The biggest decline of household members was recorded in 1948 and it was 32.70% in 1948, while the largest increase was in 1961 and it was 5.5%.The number of households in rural areas increased by about 74.21% by 1961, and from this period until 2011, it declined (Mišović, 2006).Rural areas are followed by the decrease in the average number of household members, therefore that number of 5-7 members in the period 1921-1931 reduced to 1-2 according to the agricultural Census of 2010.Structural changes in the economy of Pljevlja affected the economic basis of the household and their source of income.Number of households that earn income only in agriculture was drastically reduced, which resulted in the dominance of whose sole source of income was from economic activities.According to the Agricultural Census 2010, households of 1-2ha size make the largest share in the structure of farms of the Municipality of Pljevlja.Size of such household is somewhat more favourable than the households of up to 1ha, but yet it cannot be spoken of lands that can provide parity level of income for its owner (Kalezić, Bulatovic, 1984).Also, households with 1-2 members make the largest share of households.Average farm size in 1960 was 5.32 ha and 4.23 ha in 1969 (Livada, 1971), while Kalezić states that the average farm size in 1969 in Montenegro was 4.31 ha.Average number of farms members in the former Yugoslavia was 4.04 members.Relatively most single-member and two-member households had Slovenia and Croatia, where the proportion of these households was around 30%.Other, relatively less developed Republic (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro) had less than 20% of households with one or two members (Pejanović, 2010).Reduced number of farms is a result of mass transfer of rural people in the industry and non-agricultural activities.That was a basic characteristic of post-war rural mobility.Traditional rural life "was thrown out of joint" everywhere (Bakarić, 1960), especially in the mountainous area.The first wave of industrialization of the sixties was based on the large employment of man force that was not trained for working in the industry.However, the second wave implied that those who left village and agriculture should have finished years of schooling, which initiated a mass secondary and higher education.In this way, young people were not engaged in agricultural business, but in labour force accustomed to industrial-urban way of life.According to the level of connection to the land property; there were three different groups of farmers: the first group was consisted of those farmers who remain to live in village, another group of people who definitely left the village and the third group of those who went to live in other places.All the aforementioned had an impact on the appearance of a high level of deagrarisation in the area of Pljevlja.As in other countries of the former Yugoslavia, deagrarisation was also more present among male than female labour force in Montenegro and Pljevlja.On the one hand, this phenomenon was a result of industrial development which hired more men, and on the other hand there was a distrust of leaving women out of the house.However, in developed countries of Western Europe, women left agriculture more than men, especially in Italy (Puljiz, 1973).However, women affected deagrarisation through marriages.Most village girls got married to a non farmer.It has resulted that in the present moment, in the villages of Pljevlja there are not enough women, because they used to get married outside the village in the past.In the inter-census period 1948-2011, digressive movement of the rural population in the total population of the Municipality of Pljevlja had occurred.Factors causing this phenomenon were: peripheral position of rural areas, deagrarisation which arose as a result of urbanization and facilitated the depopulation of rural areas.The abandoned village homes, villages, abandoned arable land, had testified that the phenomena of abandonment of agricultural area were increasingly evident.This phenomenon was accelerated by emigration of the population in economically developed regions (Vresk, 1972).158 villages are located in the Municipality of Pljevlja, and most of them are with 10 to 57 inhabitants.Their share in the total number is 36.07%.Tendency is to concentrate the rural population in several suburban villages: Židovići, Komini, Kodak and etc.This tendency is explained by the fact that the infrastructure network and various social activities are important prerequisite for quality of life in a particular area.Every inhabitant, whether they lived in the city or in the village, should be provided with at least the minimum social standards, i.e. same conditions of accessible utilities, primary school, medical care, etc. should be available to everyone.(Štambuk, 2002).Small and far villages are in a particularly difficult position, which still cannot count on some urban infrastructures, such as the establishment of certain institutions (schools, clinics, etc.), asphalt roads, shops and etc.Many years of neglect of rural areas resulted in its lag at all levels in relation to the cities, or the unavailability of much elementary content.
According to the Census of 2011, children aged 5-15 accounted only 5.85% of the total rural population, and together with pre-school children and high school students, the percentage of children was around 10% of the total village population in 2011.The average age of the rural population was 46.6 years.
Natural movement of the population of Pljevlja is one of the basic components of the total population movements.However, this does not mean that the natural movement occurs only under the influence of natural phenomena.On the contrary, in fact social-civil, cultural and other factors have an important role (Nejašmić, 2005).Tendencies of natural population movements can be seen in the movement of birth, mortality and natural increase, as well as basic indicators of demographic development of Pljevlja.In the observed ten-year period, a trend of decline in natural population increase in the Municipality of Pljevlja is clearly shown, which was -242 in 2013.The dynamics of natural increase is caused by the movement of birth and death rates.Natural increase rate in the Municipality of Pljevlja recorded a steady decline since 1948.The largest decline was recorded in the period from 1961 to 1971.The trend of declining in natural population increase continued in the last ten years, which directly reflected on the age of the population.Average number of live births in Montenegro was calculated by application of measures of central tendency, with 7,703 in the period 2004-2013.Men account for 52% and women 48%, while the average number of deaths males accounted for 57.67%.In the same period, the average number of live births in Pljevlja was 260.8, of which 50.53% of men, 48.7% of women.Although more male children are being born, there is a greater participation of the female population in total population of Pljevlja, in addition to the national level.The reasons for these phenomena are higher mortality of the male population.Natural increase rate of Pljevlja is lower than the rate in Montenegro.This low birth rate is a result of demographic changes in rural areas, which are primarily related to the abandonment of village by women, which affected the demographic picture of rural areas.The intensive process of demographic aging is reflected in the increasingly unfavourable natural change (Husanović-Pejnović, 2010).Depopulation caused by negative natural increase and emigration of the population has contributed to the unfavourable age structure of the population in Pljevlja.The percentage of illiterate population is significant socioeconomic indicator.Illiteracy rate varies from 2.1% to 2.5% in Pljevlja and was higher than the rate of illiteracy in Montenegro (1.5%), as well as in comparison to the municipality of Herceg Novi and Nikšić (1%).Demographic indicators are presented in Table 4. and show that the demographics of the Municipality of Pljevlja concerning and that this rate of natural increase may lead to the extinction of the population and a further decline in economic activity.It is the occurrence of revitalization, and it resulted in an increase in the number of elderly households, incapable of earning, which are financially poor and socially uninsured.However, there are number of measures to avoid such a situation, and that primarily refer to the revitalization of the village based on integrated farm, and returning of migration of young and working-age population.This is because in recent times, the value of life in the village has being increasingly recognized, such as quieter pace of life, healthy food, wildlife and etc.
Outflow of population of Pljevlja was constant and especially emphasized after the Second World War.At first migrations from villages to cities occurred, and leaving in other areas not only in Montenegro, but also in the region was highlighted later.This resulted in spatial segregation among the rural population.This phenomenon of spatial segregation is several thousand years old, probably as old as a phenomenon of spatial concentration in larger settlements, or old as city itself (Kuti, Gregurović, Božović, 2011).Migration has led to a concentration of population in Pljevlja, and on the other hand there was a depopulation of rural areas.Later, there was a process of emigration from Pljevlja in other parts of Montenegro and the region.This type of emigration was stimulated by various factors, such as peripheral location of the city in relation to the most important communication routes, a small selection of educational institutions, weaker job offers, failure to satisfy cultural needs and etc.The territory of the city is quite isolated from the surrounding areas.According to statistics from 2013, 215 persons moved from Pljevlja, majority of them moved to Podgorica 138, 25 to Bar, 11 to Herceg Novi, 7 to Budva, and etc. Daily and seasonal migrations are distinguished by the intensity of the spatial mobility of population.They have a number of consequences on the demographic development of Pljevlja.Physical development is almost completely devalued years of service of generation in underdeveloped regions, crystallizing it in the real estate, and multiplied it in the perspective of local and regional centres (Puljiz, 2002).CONCLUSIONS Moving of population from agriculture to other activities is a consequence of the development of social division of labour.Commodity money economy created a need for money and additional income.This development has caused a change in attitudes of farmers towards the land.Industry and non-agricultural activities have been given a priority, and farmers realized that they and their descendants are waiting for a better future.About 5.5 million framers changed their fields of activity in the post-war period (Puljiz, 2002).In the beginning, non-agricultural activities were approached directly, and the school became the main channel of rural exodus.The opportunities created in the entire territory of Yugoslavia, were reflected at the micro level, especially in the municipalities.Such occurrences did not bypass the Municipality of Pljevlja, which suffered a real agrarian exodus in the period after the Second World War.Deagrarisation caused many consequences in the village: changed the demographic structure, caused social problems, the village into an unequal position in relation to the prospective settlement.In terms of the mobility of the population increased mortality production units in agriculture, what resulted in the depopulation of rural areas.Processes that led to the aging of the population can be traced back in last 60 years when it has begun to appear a negative migratory balance.The population of Pljevlja had a high birth rate till 1953 (37.65%) since gradually has been declining thereafter.Mortality declined from 1948 to 1971, and then it has been rising again to the present day.Natural increase is steadily decreasing in comparison to Montenegro, and it decreased by about two times.Biological depopulation affected a significant part of the rural areas where the aging process was under way.Insufficient birth and renewal of the population has negative implications for rural development in the Municipality of Pljevlja.
In the future it is necessary to apply a complex, social, demographic and economic policy to the village, which will pay attention that the negative consequences of depopulation do not take on even wider dimensions and cause deeper economic and social processes.The program of rural development should enable opening of micro and small enterprises in the field of processing of agricultural and food products, which would reduce the import of agricultural products.Trade of agricultural-food products is becoming more specific area of Montenegrin economy due to the high participation of trade deficit to GDP ratio, the level of imports in total GDP and total trade deficit (Jovanović, Despotović 2014).It is necessary to foresee measures to prevent negative trends through educational and informational social activities, which will affect the change of values and socio-cultural patterns of biological reproduction.

*
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Montenegro, 2013 Chart 1. Population in Montenegro and the Municipality of Pljevlja, for the period 1948-2011.

*
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Montenegro, 2013 Chart 2. Numbers of the farms in Montenegro and the Municipality of Pljevlja for the period 1948-2011 *Source: Statistical Yearbook of Montenegro, 2013 Chart 3. Number of farms in Montenegro in the Municipality of Pljevlja, according to the Agricultural Census from 1960 to 2010 According to the Agricultural Census of 2010, number of farms in Montenegro decreased in absolute terms by 16,094 farms or about 25%, compared to the number of farms from the Census of 1960.This trend occurred in the Municipality of Pljevlja, where the number of farms decreased in absolute terms to 1,647 households or about 30% compared to the number of farms in 1960.

*
Source: General socio-economic statistics, Secretariat for Economy, Municipality of Pljevlja 2015 Chart 4. Participation of the rural population of the Municipality of Pljevlja in the total population of Pljevlja

Table 1 .
Population of Pljevlja area in 1921 -2011 Source: Mišović, S: Population of Pljevlja area in 20 th century

Table 2 .
Number of villages in the Municipality Pljevlja according to the number of inhabitants *Source: General socio-economic statistics, Secretariat for Economy, Municipality of Pljevlja 2015

Table 3 .
Live births and deaths according-2013ender and natural increase in Montenegro and theMunicipality of Pljevlja in 2004-2013

Table 4 .
Basic demographic indicators in Montenegro and the Municipality of Pljevlja in the period 2008-2013