1In Slovenia, an intentional revival of economic development in less developed parts of the republic began to be considered as early as October 1946, by envisaging an establishment of a special fund to promote the development in underdeveloped districts. However, as the republican executive council had to significantly reduce investments and other spending as early as 1955, the first serious attempt to accelerate the economic progress of underdeveloped districts ended “before it even began”.⁵⁵⁸ In the early 1970s, the Act on Measures to Promote the Progress of Less Developed Areas was adopted.⁵⁵⁹ It identified municipalities that were considered less developed and for which special measures were intended. At that time, less developed areas covered 18.9 percent of the total area and 18.2 percent of the population of Slovenia. Subsequently, the criteria, areas and measures to promote regional development changed every five years (in accordance with the planning system at the time). Among other things, in December 1975, the Republic Assembly adopted the Act on the Promotion of Harmonious Regional Development in the Socialist Republic of Slovenia. The Act envisaged the so-called “self-governing association of labour and resources or closer production and business cooperation of work organizations from developed and less developed areas”.⁵⁶⁰ This system brought some results by 1980, but already in 1981, the economic stagnation and the growing economic crisis required a reorganization of development goals and restrictions on all types of spending.⁵⁶¹

2At the end of 1990, the Development Promotion in Demographically Endangered Areas Act⁵⁶² was adopted. It was aimed primarily at solving demographic problems. Based on two demographic criteria - the aging index and the population growth index - it identified homogeneous demographi- cally endangered areas. At the time of the adoption of the Act, demographi- cally endangered areas covered 61 percent of the total area and 24.6 percent of the population of Slovenia, which means that the extent of areas eligible for special funds had increased significantly. In 1999, a new Act on the Promotion of Harmonious Regional Development⁵⁶³ was adopted, which, among other things, introduced indicators for identifying areas with special development problems. On the basis of this Act, secondary legislation was adopted in 2000, which precisely determined the criteria and the municipalities that met these criteria. In the framework of the areas with special development problems, the Act introduced three types of these areas: economically weak areas, areas with structural problems and high unemployment, and development-limited border areas and areas with limited factors. In the field of regional policy, the adoption of the Act in 1999 and the secondary legislation laid the Slovenian regional structural policy in 2000 on new foundations. In 2001, the Regional Development Strategy of Slovenia was adopted, which became the basic strategic document of the state and, in accordance with the Economic Development Strategy and the Spatial Plan of Slovenia, defined regional development goals and determined instruments and policies for achieving these goals.⁵⁶⁴

3In 2011, a new Promotion of Balanced Regional Development Act (ZSRR-2) was adopted, which determined in Article 10, among other things, the tasks of the Public Fund for Regional and Rural Development.⁵⁶⁵ With the transition to a market economy, industrial places and regions that were developed on the basis of industry also experienced an economic crisis. The economic policy of the socialist system did not allow for the timely restructuring of classical industry in accordance with the requirements of the market economy that had been developed in the European space. The regions adapted differently to the new conditions in the market economy, which depended mainly on the level of development and economic structure upon entering the transition process. Different adjustments to the new situation were mainly reflected in the financial results of the economy, losses, exports and the percentage of unemployed in the working age population. Financial results deteriorated in all regions in 1991 and 1992, while in 1993 the situation improved. The regions that had less difficulty in solving the problems of the transition period were Central Slovenia, Coastal-Karst region and Upper Carniola. They entered the transition process with better starting conditions. All three mentioned regions had a rather diverse economic structure, with the Coastal-Karst region and Central Slovenia also having an above-average percentage of employees in tertiary activities. Better educational structure of the population and employees also helped them to overcome the problems of the transition period. The Central Slovenia and Coastal-Karst regions already had an above-average gross value added per capita in the first years of transition. The Upper Carniola region was in a somewhat more challenging situation since it was burdened with the old industrial structure that required rehabilitation. The second group included regions that were moderately developed, but had a fairly promising economic structure and mostly positively assessed development potentials. These were the Savinja, Lower Carniola and Gorizia regions. Among these, it was especially challenging for the Savinja region to adapt to the new economic situation, mainly due to less promising and old industry, which was dominated by large companies that had difficulties finding new markets. The Lower Carniola region had always been the most export-oriented of all Slovenian regions, as, for instance, the share of exports in total revenue in 1993 amounted to 41.1 percent.⁵⁶⁶ The Slovenian average was just over 21 percent. The Gorizia region stood out with the lowest percentage of unemployed people in the working age population (in 1993, 6.9 percent of the unemployed, Slovenia as a whole 10.1 percent). The Mura and Inner Carniola-Karst regions were among the less developed regions, but with a promising economic structure. Despite the underdevelopment of the regions, their economic structure, unencumbered by old industries, helped them adjust to the transition process. Gross value added per capita in the Mura region was among the lowest in Slovenia, but it was increasing the fastest in the period 1990-1993. Both regions also had below-average growth in the number of unemployed between 1990 and 1994. The Drava, Carinthia and Lower Sava regions were among the medium-developed regions with a problematic economic structure and positively assessed development potentials. These were the regions that were the first to face rising unemployment, and they also had an above-average share of losses in total revenue. The economies of these regions were burdened by numerous unpromising industrial companies, and especially the Drava region was severely affected by the war in Iraq and the loss of the Yugoslav market. However, the potential of these regions lied mainly in the development of non-industrial activities. The relatively good educational structure of the population was also in their favour, but it was poorly utilized as evidenced by the high percentage of unemployment. The Central Sava region can be ranked last in terms of both development and potential. This was a distinctly industrial area with a developed energy complex, a poorly developed tertiary sector, and at the same time providing unfavourable natural opportunities for agricultural development. The region was ecologically severely affected as well. Due to all these factors, it had problems adjusting to the transition to a market economy, which was reflected in the poor financial results of the economy, especially in the high share of losses in total revenue and the number of unemployed from 1990 onwards.⁵⁶⁷

4In terms of GDP per capita, the Central Slovenia region was far ahead of all other regions, while the Mura region was the last. GDP per capita in the Central Slovenia region amounted to 17,954 euros in 2003, while only to 8,535 in the Mura region. The difference was therefore extensive and this picture did not change even after the formal end of transition. In 2003, the Central Slovenia region generated a good third (35.7 percent) of the total Slovenian GDP, which is more than the eight regions with the lowest GDP combined (31 percent) - together with the Drava region it generated almost half of the Slovenian GDP (49 percent).⁵⁶⁸ The graph shows that there were significant regional differences in Slovenia in the new millennium and that the transition process itself did not eliminate the disparities.⁵⁶⁹ Even after joining the EU, differences between the regions remained significant. Eastern and Western Slovenia are still below the European Union average in terms of gross domestic product per capita. In 2014, Western Slovenia achieved 98 percent of the European Union average or 113^th place among 276 regions, while Eastern Slovenia achieved 68 percent and was 218^th.⁵⁷⁰

5In 2016, GDP per capita in the Central Slovenia region amounted to EUR 27,644, which was over 40 percent more than the national average, which was EUR 19,576. The only region where GDP per capita was also higher than the Slovenian average was the Coastal-Karst region. Among the remaining regions, the Southeast Slovenia as well as the Savinja and Gorizia regions achieved above 90 percent of the Slovenian average, Upper Carniola, Lower Sava, Drava and Carinthia achieved 80 to 90 percent of the Slovenian average, while the Littoral- Inner Carniola, Mura and Central Sava regions achieved less than 75 percent of the average. Regional differences in GDP per capita thus increased, and it is significant that in 2016, the Central Slovenia region generated 2.6 times higher GDP per capita than the least successful, Central Sava region.⁵⁷¹

6According to most indicators of economic and social development, the Mura region is at the bottom among Slovenian regions. In order to strengthen the development policy in the Mura region and the coordinated action of the state and the region in solving development problems in the region, the Development Support for the Mura Region Act was prepared and implemented on 1 January 2010.⁵⁷² With the adoption of this Act, the institutional and financial framework for the intervention in the Mura region was established (in addition to the Mura Statistical Region, 3 municipalities from the Ormož administrative unit were included in the Act, a total area of 30 municipalities), as among all Slovenian statistical regions the Mura region has been lagging behind in development for decades. The Act specified the following development support measures: The Programme for Promoting Competitiveness of the Mura Region for the period 2010-2015, employment incentives, tax relief for investments and priority treatment of programmes and projects from the Mura region when applying for funds from the national programmes, European cohesion policy programmes and rural development programmes in the areas (establishment of an inter-enterprise education centre, establishment of a regional economic centre, investments in restructuring and raising the competitiveness of agriculture, forestry and food processing industry as well as diversification into nonagricultural activities and investments in drinking water infrastructure). The sixth paragraph of Article 4 of the Development Support for the Mura Region Act stipulated that the planned programme had to be fully implemented by 2015 in the total value of EUR 33 million. In order to ensure the realization of this provision, the government decided to extend the implementation of the Act. At the end of 2014, unrealized funds for the implementation of the Programme amounted to more than 14 million euros.⁵⁷³ For the purpose of creating conditions and encouraging development in the Mura region, the Programme for Promoting the Competitiveness of the Mura Region 2010-2019 (POMURJE 2019) was prepared, among other things. The POMURJE 2019 programme was created on the basis of the Act Amending the Development Support for the Mura Region Act in the period 2010-2017, which was adopted in May 2017.⁵⁷⁴