Immediately after the Second World War, Yugoslav communists gave little thought to the reconstruction of the tourism sector. Although the short-lived Kingdom of Yugoslavia had seen significant tourism growth in the 1930s,23tourism was not a priority in the early years of socialist consolidation. After all, its status in the socialist concept of how the economy should be run was ambiguous: its “unproductive”
nature disqualified it as an industry. In socialist Czechoslovakia, for example, tourism remained a lesser concern in national development strategies of the 1950s and 1960s, since it was considered a predomi- nantly social activity.24 However, the Yugoslav government changed its stance around 1950 when the country sought to re-establish links with foreign travel agencies. Although economic policy favored the development of heavy industry—mainly shipbuilding, petrochemicals, and manufacturing—along the Adriatic coast, tourism enterprises also
8 Karin Taylor and Hannes Grandits
22Vukonić (2005, pp. 131–77).
23Blažević (1989); Vukonić (2005, pp. 103–26).
24Williams and Balacz (2000, p. 20).
vied for funding in what was the country’s prime tourism region. In addition, general measures to urbanize and improve the infrastructure of underdeveloped areas of the country benefited the budding tourism resorts. Up until 1945, the Adriatic littoral—especially Dalmatia and Montenegro—was primarily populated by small fishing communities, and economic hardship forced an exodus of labor migrants to the indus- trial centers of Europe and overseas. While labor migration continued under socialism, this time gravitating towards Yugoslavia’s new indus- trial plants and cities, and later to the factories of Central and Northern Europe, tourism increasingly provided employment in hotel construc- tion and traffic infrastructure, as well as seasonal service jobs. Writing on regional tourism development in 1980, tourism expert Neda Andrić noted that the previously impoverished Adriatic communities were now showing favorable prospects for development.25
As a Mediterranean holiday destination catering to low-income tourists, Yugoslavia benefited from the European boom in mass tourism in the 1950s and 1960s. It can be said that tourism put Yugoslavia on the map for other Europeans. The knowledge that tourism brought crucial foreign revenue remained one of the key factors in Yugoslav tourism policy. However, as domestic tourists increasingly travelled the country under their own steam, by bus, by motorcycle, and from the 1960s frequently in their own cars, the government acknowledged their role in developing the tourism industry outside the social tourism program. Although the aim of social tourism was to provide cheap holi- days for all—a goal that was partially achieved but constantly escaped the full grasp of planners—Yugoslav communists never restricted the travel of citizens to the country’s tourism regions. An aggravation to the authorities, “wild tourism” was a popular phenomenon even in the communist bloc countries of Eastern Europe.26 In Yugoslavia, casual domestic holidaymakers spent less money than foreigners but tended to visit the more underdeveloped regions. A report from 1963 noted that
“domestic tourists, then, turn towards our smaller tourism resorts because they are cheaper. [...] But, domestic tourism likewise plays a pioneering role in developing tourism throughout the whole region, enabling first Tourism and the Making of Socialist Yugoslavia 9
25Andrić (1980, p. 51).
26Noack (2006, pp. 281–304); Bren (2002, pp. 123–40); Taylor (2006, pp.
108–13).
10 Karin Taylor and Hannes Grandits
efforts to include individual settlements in tourism.”27 In this way, domestic tourists assumed the function of “useful” consumers, giving consumerism a positive spin. In addition, the Yugoslav tourist as a serendipitous pioneer worked as a suitable metaphor for socialist progress.
By the early 1950s, it was evident that the social tourism program was languishing. Chronic lack of accommodation, weak capacity man- agement, and poor service and supplies were just some of the symp- toms. Numerous domestic tourists preferred private accommodation simply because it was readily available without advance booking or application for a social tourism rebate. As a result, the government introduced measures to modernize existing amenities and construct new social tourism facilities, on the one hand, and to make use of capacities offered by private households, on the other. Parallel to these developments, plans were made to increase and readjust hotel capaci- ties towards more commercialized business. Interaction between the fed- eral and regional administrations, economic and tourism experts, and the holidaymaking population was shaped by shifts in Party think- ing—notably decentralization and the introduction of workers’ self- management in the early 1950s—and the need to accommodate market forces in a practical and advantageous manner.
The remolding of tourism from state-directed to semi-commercial was the result of an ongoing process of negotiation at all levels and was largely accomplished by the early 1960s. In this context, it is important to consider the influence of international economic relations on tourism development. Yugoslavia was not only a holiday destina- tion for foreign tourists but also had close links with international tourism and development agencies. A paradigmatic example is the major UNDP tourism development plan for the Adriatic coast launched in collaboration with the Yugoslav government in 1967. The goal of the grand—and eventually unproductive—two-part scheme Gornji Jadran(Upper Adriatic) and Južni Jadran(Southern Adriatic) implemented between 1967 and 1972 was to draw up plans for large- scale tourism development. Of these blueprints, only one plan was
27Arhiv Srbije i Crne Gore (ASCG), Arhiv Jugoslavije, fond 580, box 29,
“Savezni komitet,” p. 9.
realized, mainly due to the huge size of the projected funds.28Howev- er, international attention to the Yugoslav Adriatic coast, now synony- mous with Yugoslav tourism, as well as the growing number of visi- tors from Western and Eastern Europe triggered euphoric reactions in the country. By the 1970s, Yugoslav marketing experts were eagerly describing the southern Adriatic coast of Montenegro with its warm climate as the “Yugoslav Florida.” Statistics indicated formidable increases in overnight stays and revenue from both foreign and domes- tic tourists.29Foreign tourism surged to over 52 million overnight stays in 1988, while domestic overnights dropped from a peak 59.7 million in 1986 to 55 million in 1988 shortly before the country began to disin- tegrate.30
The apparent success story of tourism in Yugoslavia neither wit- nessed an unwavering upward trajectory, nor was it left unscathed by the many shortcomings that afflicted the system of socialist self-man- agement. However, the tourism sector proved more impervious to the weaknesses and deficits of the Yugoslav economy than other sectors as a result of almost unabated demand. By 1990, hard currency income from tourism reached just over 2.5 billion USD from around 100 mil- lion USD in the mid-1960s.31 In addition, tourism allowed for the deployment of selected commercial principles precisely because it did not fit easily into the socialist matrix of industry. At the local community level—either seaside or Alpine ski resorts—the growing and increas- ingly differentiated tourism sector reinforced pre-socialist ways of making a living and established new ones. Extra income from activities such as renting out accommodation, taking tourists on boat trips, or crafting souvenirs stimulated consumerism and fostered small-scale private business undertakings, which were conveniently albeit imper- fectly integrated into the socialist economic scheme. Tourism seemed to enable and at the same time to be the suitable expression of a mod- est brand of consumer culture, one of the linchpins of Yugoslav social- Tourism and the Making of Socialist Yugoslavia 11
28On the problems of planning premised on infinite growth and disregard for the social needs of the local population, see Mattioni (2003, pp.
62–5).
29Kobašić (1987); Stanković (1990).
30Stanković (1990, p. 280).
31Data released by the National Bank of Yugoslavia (1991, p. 65).
12 Karin Taylor and Hannes Grandits
ism until the economic crisis in the late 1970s severely rocked its posi- tion. Although various concessions to consumer attitudes were made in other socialist countries, too, the more liberal type of consumerism that became widely accessible to ordinary citizens played a key role in shaping Yugoslav society and identity.32As a result, Yugoslavia was famously regarded as a kind of hybrid of socialism and capitalism in both East and West. Within the country, however, this model frequent- ly saw bursts of ardent criticism. The critique—mainly from theo- rists—largely targeted the form consumerism was taking, including a proclivity for Western-style consumer values and luxury in the sphere of holidaymaking and recreation. From an official point of view, tourism was a playground in which both the “good” and the “bad” aspects of contemporary consumer culture were being adopted. Moreover, while the business of tourism boosted living standards and spending power in the resort communities, it also reinforced the existing regional dif- ferences that marked Yugoslav society.
Revenues from tourism cut a line between the Adriatic coast and the inland republics but also between individual resort communities making direct earnings from tourism. Figures for tourism income on the Adriatic between 1961 and 1973 showed that the income of resi- dents in the coastal municipalities was significantly higher than the Yugoslav average.33 As sociologists remarked in the 1980s, this did not further social equality.34 Furthermore, at the federal government level, tourism revenue and funding triggered discontent. Inter-republi- can tensions over infrastructure development were additionally fuelled by dissatisfaction with the federal redistribution of tourism revenue, tainting political relations in the federation.35The republics with high- er tourism revenue expressed grievance at having part of “their” funds allocated to development projects in poorer regions of the country.
Although the socialist government did not treat tourism as a key factor in the economy, the business of tourism touched multiple state nerve cells and individual livelihoods, while its dynamic nature gave rise to
32Pattterson (2001).
33Andrić (1980, p. 50).
34For example, Elaković (1989).
35Ramet (1992, pp. 161–74); Lampe (1996, pp. 300–1).
debate. As a result, official discourses on tourism reflected many of the crucial political conflicts and contesting forces that marked the Yugoslav version of socialism and federalism.