Civil Servants in the Serbian and Yugoslav Social Context: Report by the Belgrade City Administration About Improper Conduct of Junior Civil Servants (1901) and Law on Civil Servants and Other Civil Public Employees of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) (1923)

1. Report by the Belgrade City Administration about improper conduct of junior civil servants (1901) Belgrade, 2 September 1901 Belgrade City Administration to the Head of the Quarter Confidential Sir: It came to my attention, and I have noticed the same to some extent myself, that junior civil servants of certain Quarters and Sections do not come to office on time and leave it before the end of office hours, are often absent from duty under various unjustified and sometimes false excuses [...]

Civil Servants in the Serbian and Yugoslav Social Context: Report by the Belgrade City Administration About Improper Conduct of Junior Civil Servants (1901) and Law on Civil Servants and Other Civil Public Employees of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) (1923)[1]


Report by the Belgrade City Administration about improper conduct of junior civil servants (1901)

  •  Belgrade, 2 September 1901

  • Belgrade City Administration to the Head of the Quarter


  • Sir:

    It came to my attention, and I have noticed the same to some extent myself, that junior civil servants of certain Quarters and Sections do not come to office on time and leave it before the end of office hours, are often absent from duty under various unjustified and sometimes false excuses, loaf in the offices and spend time in futile conversation instead of working as they are obliged to work, in their communication with gendarmes behave too familiarly, and are unhelpful and often arrogant toward public, while Quarter heads do not pay sufficient attention to all this, because if they did, things like that could not happen.

    For the first and the last time I hereby issue this order, which you will take note of seriously and communicate it to all civil servants who will certify with their signature that they have been notified thereof, as follows:

    If I notice any civil servant outside the office and idle during office hours, I will punish strictly both that civil servant and his chief officer, unless the latter has not already taken measures against this misconduct of his subordinate employee.

    Quarter and Section heads must not grant their employees absence from duty for irrelevant reasons, but only in case of justified and urgent needs, and then only if they cannot be dealt with outside office hours. In case of absence due to illness, the chief officer will have to verify this through the Quarter physician, who will report what illness is the employee concerned suffering from and whether that illness indeed prevents him from coming to work. […]

    During the working hours, employees must not only work, but prove with their results that they have actually worked, which shall be the subject of everyday control by their superiors. If they truly work, there will be no backlogs as there are now, and if they persist, that shall be clear evidence that neither the employees worked diligently, nor their superiors adequately supervised their work. […]

    I regret having to instruct civil servants that in their communication with gendarmes they should behave with dignity and superiority, because that is so self-evident and necessary that they should understand it without my notice. Their intimacy with gendarmes is appalling and disgusting. It harms the reputation of a civil servant and I shall not refrain from adequate punishment of such behaviour.

    Likewise, unaccommodating and arrogant behaviour of civil servants to the public should not be allowed. Civil servants should generally in their service behave appropriately for a noble citizen, and nobility is incompatible with unaccommodating attitude, and especially with arrogance. A civil servant’s reputation will not be harmed if he receives and listens to everyone kindly, while maintaining the appropriate formal attitude, because that is the best way to prove that he is a worthy member of authority, and will thus raise his reputation.

    Communicating you the foregoing, I expect from you, Sir, as the chief officer, to wholeheartedly accept these advices and remarks of mine and do your best that they do not remain a dead letter, because that is required by the interests of service.


    Chief of the City Administration


    Excerpts from the Law on Civil Servants and other Civil Public Employees of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) from 1923

    Chapter 1

    Principal provisions

    Article 1

    A civil servant […] is a person admitted to government’s civil service according to the provisions of the law. […]

    Article 2

    All titles in all branches of civil service are equally accessible, under legal provisions, to all citizens, both by birth and […] naturalized, who are of Serbian/Croatian/Slovenian nationality. Other naturalized citizens may enter civil service only after they are residents of the KINGDOM for at least ten years, and pursuant to special authorisation of the State Council, upon the justified proposal of the competent minister. Foreign nationals may be admitted […] to civil service only as contract employees. […]

    A judge shall take the following oath: “I, [name and surname], swear by Almighty God that I will be loyal to the ruling King [name], that I will discharge my duty correctly and conscientiously, and that I will only observe the law, irrespective of the person, when pronouncing judgments […]. So help me God”. […]

    Article 89

    A civil servant shall be required to observe the Constitution and the laws; to discharge his duty conscientiously, diligently, fairly and unselfishly, having in view only general public interests and avoiding anything that may harm the duty conferred upon him.

    Article 90

    A civil servant shall be required to execute orders of his superiors, if they are issued within the framework of the law.

    When required by the official interest, a civil servant shall, upon the invitation of his superior, perform official duties that fall outside the scope of his work.

    […] A junior civil servant shall never perform at the order of a senior official only those acts prohibited and punishable by penal code and shall be required to report such an order to his superiors. […]

    Article 92

    A civil servant shall, in the service and outside it, safeguard his reputation and reputation of his superiors and shall avoid anything that may harm the reputation and trust entailed by his position. A retired civil servant shall be equally required to adjust his behaviour to the position he occupied.

    In the official communication with the public, a civil servant shall be helpful and courteous. […]

    Article 94

    A civil servant shall not be allowed to have any auxiliary employment, in addition to his civil service, unless authorised by the minister. He may not occupy any other position that would be contrary to the dignity and honour of his occupation or which would hamper the discharge of his regular official duties.

    Article 95

    Use of authority and position by civil servants for partisan purposes, as well as any influence of senior officials on civil servants in this aim, shall be punishable as misconduct according to Article 165, section 2, 3 or 4 hereof, and in serious cases by dismissal from service. If there is abuse of authority as provided for by the criminal code, its provisions shall apply, either in response to a claim of a private individual or ex officio.

    A civil servant who according to Article 73 of the Constitution is not entitled to stand as a candidate for member of the Parliament, or who is not entitled to stand as a candidate in the electoral district of his territorial jurisdiction, shall not […] convene public partisan and political gatherings, or be an official thereof, or stand as a candidate. He may not organise or represent political parties and groups. If he acts contrary, he shall be punished for misconduct, and if he stands as a candidate – by dismissal from service. […]

    Article 96

    A civil servant shall not be allowed to be a member of an association whose objectives are contrary to the interests of the State, or contrary to state laws.

    Likewise, he shall not be allowed to participate in movements that would be aimed at obstructing or stopping the work in the service.

    A civil servant may not belong to a foreign company, regardless of where it is headquartered, without consent of the competent minister.

    Article 97

    Civil servants shall not be parties in public procurement contracts […].

    Civil servants may not be members of managing or supervisory boards of business companies or mutual co-operatives, if by their position in civil service they are in charge of supervising such institutions or deciding and giving opinions in matters in which any of such institutions is a stakeholder. […]

    Article 98

    A civil servant may not receive, either indirectly or directly, any gift in money or value, nor any profit aimed at influencing his decision-making in official capacity. He shall be punished for such an act according to the penal code. […]

    [1] Živeti u Beogradu 1890–1949. Dokumenti Uprave grada Beograda [Living in Belgrade 1890–1940. Doccuments of the Belgrade City Administration], vol. 6, Istorijski arhiv Beograda, Belgrade 2008, doc. 24, pp. 62–64; Narodna Skupština Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca. Zakon o cinovnicima i ostalim državnim službenicima gradanskog reda [Peoples’ Parliament of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Law on Civil Servants and Other Civil Public Employees], Belgrade 1923. A printed version of the source is published in: Isabella Löhr, Matthias Middell, Hannes Siegrist (Hgg.): Kultur und Beruf in Europa, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag 2012, S. 248–251, Band 2 der Schriftenreihe Europäische Geschichte in Quellen und Essays.

  • In the Government’s Service and in the Shadow of the State: Civil Servants in the Serbian and Yugoslav Social Context in the 19th and 20th Centuries[1]

    By Milan Ristovic

    Critique of bureaucratic careerism of senior and junior civil servants was among the frequent topics in comedies of character written by the most famous Serbian writer Branislav Nušic (1864–1938). In their effort to “earn the rank” they stopped at nothing to get a promotion, like some of his characters whose greatest desire, regardless of abilities and education, was to succeed in getting into civil service. Throughout the nineteenth century, from the gradual expansion of the autonomy of the Principality of Serbia, as an Ottoman vassal, to an independent Principality (1878) and the Kingdom of Serbia (since 1882), the Serbian society, predominantly rural, was slowly changing its structure, experiencing all “birth pangs” of modernisation. Rudimentary administration of the autonomous Principality of Serbia rested on a few literate domestic clerks as well as educated Serbs and other immigrants from the Habsburg Monarchy. Since the 1840s the state started to send an increasing number of students to study at foreign universities with state scholarships. After returning to the country, in addition to the Belgrade Higher School (founded in 1863, since 1905 the University of Belgrade), they largely filled the ranks of civil servants as the state administration expanded. High schools, both lower and higher, and teacher’s schools produced the more numerous, poorly paid echelon of civil servants. The “European experience” of the Serbian political and intellectual elite until 1914, with many among them having diplomas from European universities, was extremely important in shaping the Serbian variant of middle-class culture, modernisation of society and state, and development of institutions. However, this experience was not strong enough to set an example for the change of attitude toward practical skills and professions associated with them. After all, even Nikola Pašic (1845–1926), the patriarch of Serbian politics at the turn of the century, with a diploma from the Zurich Polytechnic, did not choose to pursue his career as a civil engineer but opted for politics and civil service.

    Commonplace in the request of all opposition parties at the end of the nineteenth century, particularly populist radicals, was the reduction in the number of civil servants, who were seen as incarnations of an alienating and – for the rural majority – hostile state. Laza Pacu (1855–1915), Radical Party ideologue, wrote in 1881 in his book Bourgeois Society about “contradiction between a bureaucrat and people” which, in an undeveloped and socially non-stratified society, leads “ultimately to contradiction between the state and the people”. By idealising rural municipality and demanding its self-government, which would restrict the right of government bureaucracy and the “state”, another prominent radical, Pera Todorovic (1852–1907), stressed its democratic and anti-bureaucratic significance.

    In a poor, economically backward state as Serbia, which it had been for a long time, civil service and the position of a government employee – in addition to (relative) material security, further “reinforced” by corruption that, nevertheless, was not the main motive for choosing it – also brought about the sense of belonging to a “higher” social status of “authority” and the “state”. This explains the long-standing attraction of civil servant’s calling, even if only as a scribe in a remote small provincial town surrounded by countless villages. According to the 1890 census, among Serbia’s two million inhabitants at the time, only 4.7 percent belonged with regards to their social status to the educated and diverse stratum composed of employees in government administration, justice, education, as well as officers, medical doctors in state-run hospitals, journalists. Ten years later, less than 2 percent of the population were employed in public services.

    The middle-class lifestyle model, including the concept of privacy, as well as the relationship between the public and private, continued to strengthen among young Serbian bourgeoisie during the last third of the nineteenth century. The bourgeoisie had been accepted in the society and had increasingly spread in the numerous stratum of educated people, members of the civil servants’ and officers’ ranks, a new generation of merchants and the first entrepreneurs in the national manufacturing. Since the time of the second reign of Prince Mihailo (1860–1868), and particularly during the reign of King Milan (1872–1889), their model was based on the court, whose internal rules of conduct, interior decoration, customs imported from abroad – combined with certain local specifics – were comparable with the standard and lifestyle of (Central) European bourgeoisie.

    In areas beyond the borders of the Principality/Kingdom of Serbia, Serbian rich middle class, landowners, military, nobility, merchants and intellectuals in the Dual Monarchy were the promoters of this lifestyle and cultural pattern, which became increasingly influential and were imitated, depending on material capabilities, among the lower classes of urban population. This included further processes of nationalisation, in line with the penetration of national ideology and greater politicisation of the Serbian population in the Habsburg Monarchy. In the complex discourse and plurality of the forms of Serbian culture among the middle-class and civil servants’ circles, both within and outside of Serbia, family continued to be equally sacralised as a part of a specific nation in miniature.

    Social modernization of the Serbian society at the end of the nineteenth century had a strong adversary in the populism of the radicals, who claimed to be acting in “defence of the people” against what was perceived as “foreign influences” and accused the Progressive Party for spreading such influences. The radicals’ demagoguery encouraged animosity among the lower urban strata and peasants for anything that bore the “Schwabian” mark (as sublimation of negative foreign influence) – including police uniforms, bourgeois attire, tailcoats, and top hats – and fuelled fear against the big Austrian neighbour. The critique of social order in an increasingly stratified Serbian society at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, launched by the first socialists, proceeded from a more complex analysis of the unfavourable situation in which the lower social strata lived, which resulted from a combination between the capital and police-bureaucratic state system. However, when they assumed power, radicals in practice departed from their verbal anti-civil-servant vocabulary, continuing with further bureaucratisation of the state with their “cadres”.

    Expansion of the civil servant apparatus and state administration in Serbia, with the high school diploma opening up the opportunities of finding a livelihood in government employment, caused at the end of the nineteenth century not only political resistance but also criticism that the obsolete educational system cannot respond to the needs of social modernisation, particularly in the economy. Increasing interest among the lower social strata to continue education in high schools was, in the opinion of one contemporary critique, the sign of “tendency for gentility”. This argumentation was support by claims that acquiring a high school diploma served this purpose as well as was a means to finally break away from the village, even from the family.

    Many new high schools opened after World War I and the creation of the Yugoslav state in many smaller towns in Serbia, often in inadequate conditions, were symptomatic of this situation. High schools were opened after the Balkan Wars in towns in Kosovo and Macedonia. In the 1930s there were fifteen state high schools in the territory of Vojvodina. There was also an increasing number of female children who attended and graduated from high schools. Having in view the limited possibilities for their employment, the increasing number of young women continuing their education and obtaining a high school diploma was seen as a part of an “emancipating package”. Insistence on education of their daughters was also the result of the parents’ awareness of the importance of the education of women as well as, among other things, a compulsory element of social identification of young urban women. Their entry into the labour market provoked numerous and hostile reactions that criticised the situation as “unfair competition” to unemployed men and alleged that women enjoyed “preference” in recruitment, particularly in the civil service. Proposals presented during the 1930s how to deal with this “problem” – as their authors perceived it – was to substantially reduce salaries of married women in civil service or by dismissing married employed women whose husbands worked.

    Toward the 1920s this situation resulted in the saturation of this educational profile and caused problems in their employment, prompting debates about the need for change in the educational system. This led to a gradual modification of parents’ attitude and discouraged them from the obsessive effort to ensure for their children, at any cost, a future in civil service, having been regarded as the only “worthy” occupation as opposed to practical occupations in the economy, trade or crafts. Instead of enrolling female children in high schools, their parents were advised to enrol them in public secondary schools, which provided them with more practical skills necessary for them to be “good mothers and homemakers” on whom “the home would rest” one day, rather than employees in civil service. The lack of attraction of economic occupations was noticed after World War I as a “national problem” in ethnically mixed communities in Vojvodina. Critiques, such as politician Vasa Stajic (1878–1947) or philosopher and ethnologist Vladimir Dvornikovic (1888–1956), blamed the parents for “hypertrophy of high schools” as a social anomaly. Attention has also been drawn to the fact that the economic bourgeoisie was becoming increasingly composed of members of non-Yugoslav minority nations, Germans and Hungarians, while Yugoslavs predominantly belonged to “civil-service proletariat”.

    The Civil Service Laws of 1923 and 1931 established in detail the conditions for entering civil service in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (SCS)/Yugoslavia.[2] The political profile of the civil servant, i.e. unreserved loyalty to the present order, was of crucial importance, therefore the candidate was required to produce a certificate of good conduct to this end. Entering civil service, in addition to status and material aspect, imposed a limitation of freedom and complete submission, including waiving of certain political rights, i.e. membership in political parties. If the needs of the service required, civil servants were obliged to accept reassignment to another post, even to the most remote areas. They were required to safeguard “their reputation and reputation of their superiors”, both “in service and outside it”, to avoid everything “that may harm the reputation and trust entailed by this position”. This obligation also extended following retirement, which was granted at the age of 70. Service could be terminated in case of the deprivation of civil rights, conscription, illness, three consecutive negative evaluations out of six evaluations, as well as when the competent authorities decided on the termination of service.

    Civil servants were prohibited from engaging in any other activity, particularly trade, crafts, and manufacturing. They were subject to continuous supervision, arbitrary dismissal, often toward the very end of their career, and coercion. Except for those on the top and senior positions (numbering some 20.000 in Yugoslavia in the mid-1930s) – which entailed significant material benefits and influence on the career of subordinated lower-level civil servants – earnings of middle and lower ranks of civil servants, classified into grades based on education and position, did not ensure significant material security. Teachers, also a specific part of the civil servant army, had the hardest time to make ends meet, as they were poorly paid and were under close scrutiny of the community, which assumed the role of moral judges. They often were transferred to different areas as a form of punishment, forced to live a very meagre existence, which caused great problems in their private lives.

    Authorities often resorted to political pressure and coercion against civil servants, including judges. Official documents ordered that civil servants, which became particularly numerous after the mid-1930s, should join the ruling party and vote for it under the threat of transfer or dismissal from service. The general characteristic of the situation in this heterogeneous, disunited stratum was inefficiency, insufficient motivation and inclination to corruption.

    The number of students in law schools and similar faculties and colleges, both in the Kingdom of SCS/Yugoslavia and in the post-war period, was continuously rising, which the socialist state also filled the ranks of its burgeoning “army” of civil servants with. After 1945 and the establishment of the communist system, the term used to refer to civil servants was službenici (officials) instead of cinovnici (officers). Nevertheless, the attitude did not change much toward these occupations that offered the “security of office” in the government or party bureaucracy and far less toward desirable ones in factory plants or construction sites, irrespective if they were managerial positions.

    The new stratum of civil servants, predominantly originating from rural communities or small towns, with a secondary education, since the early 1960s, in “mature self-management socialism” (increasingly with junior college or university diplomas), replaced their “déclassé” predecessors in socialist Yugoslavia, although accepted the same behavioural pattern, attitude to work, and opinion about the importance of being a member of an oversized and inefficient bureaucratic mechanism, even as its smallest screw. A part of the old bureaucratic apparatus, nevertheless, survived the ideological “purge”, particularly middle- and lower-rank civil servants, which were absorbed into the new system. Dependency and submission to “higher instances” and Communist Party membership as a prerequisite for further promotion, with a modest average salary and long waiting time to solve one’s housing problem, was the framework within which the active life of civil servants in socialism took place. They were, however, the most numerous part of the socialist “middle class”, as well as were promoters of the new socialist consumerism, accepting and copying the western provincial rather than the bourgeois model of privacy and private life in housing culture, clothing, entertainment and leisure, while incorporating their legacy, which was still visible in family relations. In smaller communities they were members of the “local elite”, who had pronounced influence on social life, where they introduced new customs and fashions as well as set standards, even in the organization of privacy.

    In all states and systems that changed in the Serbian territory in the past two centuries the officers’ corps was a closed professional group, with great political leverage, which was also a very specific social group of “civil servants” in respect to its lifestyle, family relations and connections. The state took early care of education of military elite. In societies, such as in Serbia and Yugoslavia, the elite assumed a part of tasks that in other more developed societies were assigned to separate, professionally and socially distinct strata. Officers played many roles in politics, diplomacy, cultural life, and economy, including the role of the military in the social modernisation of the Serbian society. Sending the most talented young officers to foreign military academies was a part of a practice that contributed, on the eve of the Balkan Wars, to the Serbian army’s modernisation and capacity to fulfil ambitious national-political tasks. Among the officers in active service in 1912, 160 were educated outside of Serbia in 11 European countries, while 235 attended advanced professional training, spent internships at foreign academies or studied foreign languages.

    Research of the social background of generals in Serbia and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia has shown that two out of three generals came from urban communities and that their fathers were mainly in civil service. The military profession, which typically ran through several generations of the same family, in the predominant peasant society in Serbia was a form of substitution for a non-existent “informal nobility”. This particularly refers to high-ranking officers originating from families of vojvode (war lords) from the early nineteenth-century uprisings (the Cincar-Markovics, the Colak-Antics, the Dokics, the Dimitrijevics, the Uzun-Mirkovics, etc.). In the officers’ corps of the Austro-Hungarian army, particularly among the lower- and middle-ranking officers, there were traditionally many officers of Serbian origin, mainly having completed lower-ranking cadet schools. Advancement toward higher and top ranks, reserved for the members of nobility, entailed for them many obstacles, including the requirement to convert from Orthodox Christianity into Catholicism (like in the case of Field Marshal Borojevic).

    Immediately after the end of war, the officers’ corps in socialist Yugoslavia, regardless of major ideological and other differences compared with the “old Yugoslavia”, in addition to most officers who were members of the wartime partisan command cadres, accepted into its ranks former officers and members of enemy formations at war (Independent State of Croatia’s Domobrani (Home Guard), the Royalist Chetnik movement, German Wehrmacht, and the Italian and Bulgarian armies). When social background of the top Yugoslav Peoples’ Army command cadre until 1980 is concerned, data indicate that there was a significant shift in the later period toward lower social classes and visible reduction of those who originated from middle-class families. Benefits afforded by free education in military schools – along with the coverage of all material costs for a cadet (accommodation, food, clothing, teaching aids), the attraction that this profession retained in rural communities, and the declining interest for “epaulets” among urban male population – caused changes in the social background of officers’ cadre in the last decades of the existence of the Yugoslav state. In addition, regional differences and traditions caused uneven ethnic representation, despite the “national key” (Montenegrins, Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, lower participation of Serbs from Serbia, particularly from Vojvodina, same as Slovenes and national minorities).

    Creation of a tight-knit network of family and in-law relations within this professional and social milieu, through several generations of marriages with young women originating from officer’s families, made the generals’ ranks in the period 1918–1941 a closed, extremely compact group, whose widespread influence “covered” a good part of the political scene, in addition to being well-connected with the business sector. Marriages of Serbian and Yugoslav royal officers, with their rigid conventions, were to some extent a part of the “planned elite creation”. Social engineering included direct interference of the state in the professional segment of their life as well as interference in and supervision of their privacy, decisions on under what circumstances they can marry and whom they can marry, and an unstable residence with continuous movement. Territorial mobility, particularly after 1945, resulted, among other things, in a higher percentage of ethnically mixed marriages, which were concluded with less (at least visible) interference of military authorities, except in the case of top-ranking military commanders. This brought about more pronounced “Yugoslavianisation” of the officers’ ranks, in line with the declared policy in the Communist Party and army.

    Reputation enjoyed by the members of the military profession in the Yugoslav and Serbian societies did not always have an adequate reflection of their earnings. In addition to salary, there were special benefits (for family, movement, heating fuel) at different times. Nevertheless, the life of officers with families, particularly younger ones, who often moved from one garrison to another, where they lived in rented quarters, was far from the privileges enjoyed by colonels or generals. In the meagre reality of average Yugoslavs in the 1960s, these privileges, such as official cars, the opportunity to spend vacations in numerous exclusive tourist resorts, luxurious apartments and villas, access to exclusive stores where goods were sold at privileged prices, were another reflection of stratification within a declaratively egalitarian system.

    As an important part of state-party nomenclature, high military representatives also had a fundamental role in other public segments of society, including in sports clubs and different social organisations, and were trusted pillars of Tito’s personal power. Military personnel and members of their families were provided medical care in hospitals and clinics built specially for them, with the best medical staff and equipment; compared with the civilian part of society, military personnel enjoyed legal autonomy and were exempt from the authority of civil courts and law enforcement authorities.

    In the post-war period, military professionals were a part of Yugoslav society, which, in addition to their special status, by their characteristics bore all the marks in many ways of the controversial process of accelerated urbanisation-ruralisation and modernisation, as the result of the predominant non-urban origin of those who chose this profession. Officers’ corps in socialist Yugoslavia were often criticised for their ideological hard-line orthodoxy and as a (extremely expensive) conservative obstacle to faster development. On the other hand, with their education they, particularly those belonging to technical branches or medical corps, provided significant contribution to technological and professional progress of the society. Despite their specifics and the role in the Yugoslav state, this part of the power structure both in 1941 and during the 1990s has demonstrated all inherent weaknesses, splitting primarily at its “national seams”.

    [1] Essay on the source: Civil Servants in the Serbian and Yugoslav Social Context: Report by the Belgrade City Administration about Improper Conduct of Junior Civil Servants (1901) and Law on Civil Servants and Other Civil Public Employees of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) (1923). A printed version of the essay is published in: Isabella Löhr, Matthias Middell, Hannes Siegrist (Hgg.): Kultur und Beruf in Europa, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag 2012, S. 241–248, Band 2 der Schriftenreihe Europäische Geschichte in Quellen und Essays.

    [2] See, Narodna Skupština Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca. Zakon o cinovnicima i ostalim državnim službenicima gradanskog reda [Peoples’ Parliament of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Law on Civil Servants and Other Civil Public Employees], Belgrade 1923.


    • Bjelajac, Mile, Military Elites-Continuity and Discontinuities: The Case of Yugoslavia, 1918–1980, in: Höpken, Wolfgang; Sundhaussen, Holm (eds.), Eliten in Südosteuropa. Rolle, Kontinuitäten, Brüche in Geschichten und Gegenwart, München 1998, pp. 229–241.
    • Dimic, Ljubodrag, Kulturna politika Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1918–1941 [Cultural Policy of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia 1918–1941], vol. 1–3, Belgrade 1997.
    • Dobrivojevic, Ivana, Pod budnim okom države. Državni cinovnici u Kraljevini Jugoslaviji [Under a Wathchful Eye. Civil Servants in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia], in: Ristovic, Milan (ed.) Privatni život kod Srba u dvedesetom veku [Private Life of the Serbs in the 20th Century], Belgrade 2007, pp. 479&ndash504.
    • Perovic, Latinka (ed.), Srbija u modernizacijskim procesima (XIX i) XX vek. Uloga elita [Serbia in Modernization Processes. The Role of Elites], Belgrade 2003.
    • Sundhausen, Holm, Historische Statistik Serbiens 1834–1980.

    Quelle zum Essay
    In the Government's Service and in the Shadow of the State: Civil Servants in the Serbian and Yugoslav Social Context in the 19th and 20th Centuries
    ( 2013 )
    Civil Servants in the Serbian and Yugoslav Social Context: Report by the Belgrade City Administration About Improper Conduct of Junior Civil Servants (1901) and Law on Civil Servants and Other Civil Public Employees of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) (1923), in: Themenportal Europäische Geschichte, 2013, <>.