This chapter provides an overview of the major regional development issues in Slovenia. It highlights economic disparities, trends in social inequalities and structural challenges associated with global transitions, including energy and demographic change. It finds that economic activity remains concentrated in and around Ljubljana, while many other regions face persistent obstacles to economic growth and competitiveness. The chapter offers policy recommendations to help guide and enhance strategic planning at the national and regional levels, reduce regional inequality and continue generating growth.
Building More Competitive Regions in Slovenia
Abstract
Factors affecting territorial growth, competitiveness and productivity in Slovenia
Since 2014, Slovenia’s economic growth has outpaced most other OECD Member countries, averaging 2.9% real gross domestic product (GDP) growth per year, but this activity is concentrated in the capital region, Osrednjeslovenska. Between 2003 and 2023 only 2 of Slovenia’s 12 regions increased their GDP per capita relative to the national average. In 2023, Osrednjeslovenska’s GDP was more than EUR 25 billion (euros), 25 times larger than Zasavska, Slovenia’s smallest regional economy. It also accounted for 58.9% of all foreign direct investment and over half of national goods exports, far exceeding any other development region. Furthermore, tertiary-level educational attainment ranges from 28% in Osrednjeslovenska to 17% in Pomurska, and workers in the least productive regions generate only 84% of the national average output per worker. Maintaining growth and reducing territorial disparities will depend on boosting international competitiveness, closing labour-productivity gaps and boosting skills throughout all regions of Slovenia, so that economic activity can spread more evenly across the territory.
Building regional attractiveness could help limit the number of people working outside their statistical region of residence. Currently, 22.5% of all workers commute to a workplace located in another region. In addition, a further group of Slovenian residents – equal to about 1.6% of the entire workforce – are employed in a neighbouring country. Addressing regional attractiveness issues, whether through labour-market interventions, improving connectivity or housing, or better supporting innovation and entrepreneurship, could help reduce the number of people who cross either development-region or national borders to work each day.
While quality of life in Slovenia is generally high, addressing regional variations in specific well-being indicators, such as social exclusion and health, could contribute to ensuring more performant regions. Residents living outside the capital region are considerably more at risk of poverty, have lower levels of trust in others and report lower overall life satisfaction, but these inter-regional differences are mostly small compared with other OECD countries. While only 8% of Slovenian residents are experiencing bad or very bad health, regional health disparities are more concentrated in some regions – such as Koroška and Pomurska – than others.
Slovenia’s regions are grappling with multiple transition challenges. Some regions face faster rates of demographic change and larger infrastructure gaps, and will likely bear a larger share of net-zero transition costs. Rural and eastern regions are ageing the fastest and face higher transition costs, while population growth and the arrival of skilled workers remains concentrated around Ljubljana. Transport infrastructure, housing supply and broadband access are also uneven across regions. Environmental costs, for example those related to the transition away from fossil fuels, pose particular challenges to specific communities and industries (e.g. coal mining, electricity generation). These challenges can undermine regional development by limiting regional attractiveness, and perpetuating the concentration of economic activity around Ljubljana.
Since 2014, the Slovenian economy has been growing faster than that of most OECD Member countries, averaging 2.9% real GDP growth per year (OECD, 2024[1]). Over the same period, regional inequality has worsened slightly, as GDP per capita in most development regions has declined relative to the national average. Overall well-being for the average Slovenian resident – as reflected in such measures as subjective well-being, life expectancy, educational attainment and the risk of poverty – has improved considerably, though regional variations exist in each of these areas. These regional disparities, however, are not uniform, with some areas underperforming on some indicators but doing well on others. This heterogeneity among Slovenian regions, each with distinct challenges and natural endowments, underlines the importance of each region pursuing an economic strategy that is place-based and aligns with territorial specificities.
Slovenia’s unique economic and social geography is partially contributing to the uneven levels of regional development. Osrednjeslovenska (Central Slovenia), the area directly surrounding the capital Ljubljana, is not only more productive than all other regions, but is also the location of most major cultural, political, educational and economic institutions, and attracts thousands of daily commuters from other regions. Slovenia’s proximity to and economic integration with neighbouring countries is equally notable, with 10 out of 12 regions possessing a large international border which many Slovenians cross every day for work. The result is a significant disparity in GDP per capita compared to the national average between Slovenia’s border (84%) and non-border regions (139%) in 2023 (SiStat, 2023[2]). Socially and economically, Slovenia could be conceptualised as a “reverse doughnut”,1 defined by a thriving centre and a less dynamic, low-productivity periphery, made possible by the country’s small geographic size and modern road network.
Slovenia is among a group of OECD Member countries which experienced rapid income growth overall (i.e. converging to OECD averages in GDP per capita), but are simultaneously experiencing a rise in regional inequalities (OECD, 2023[3]). In addition, where one lives can make a difference – among OECD regional economies, metropolitan areas often outperform midsized metropolitan and rural areas as their economies grow in size and sophistication (OECD, 2024[4]) (OECD, 2023[3]). Ljubljana, as Slovenia’s only major metropolitan area, is well-placed to leverage its economies of agglomeration to enhance its high levels of attractiveness for workers, businesses and investors. Although the growth and development of the capital region is positive for Slovenia overall, the large and growing pull of Ljubljana has the potential to absorb the skilled workers, investment and entrepreneurs that are needed to support the development of Slovenia’s other regions.
In the context of the strong gravitational pull towards the country’s centre and the considerable employment opportunities available outside the nation’s borders, a specific set of development challenges emerge in three broad areas: (i) economic disparities; (ii) social inequalities; and (iii) structural and transition challenges. This chapter examines the challenges in these three areas. Economic disparities, for example in rates of foreign investment, research and development (R&D) and labour productivity – key drivers of economic growth – are undermining the material well-being of some regions. Social inequalities, measured by lower rates of life expectancy, trust in others and life satisfaction, not only undermine regional attractiveness for prospective residents and investors, but also threaten to reduce the social cohesion and collaboration required to implement effective regional policies. Structural and transition challenges, including demographic change, spatial-planning constraints and the transition to net zero, are affecting all of Slovenia, but are imposing greater costs on some specific regions and limiting their economic potential.
Strategic planning, at both the national and regional levels, can help pinpoint opportunities for development and public investment and highlight the unique assets of each place, thereby guiding a stronger place-based approach. It is therefore an important tool that can help governments prepare for and overcome these economic, social and structural challenges to regional development. The analysis in this chapter has been organised with this objective in mind – to inform and assist future strategic planning in Slovenia at both the national and subnational levels. Due to Slovenia’s small territorial size, significant cross-border economic linkages and location on major transport corridors, strategic planning should also take into account the economic, social and structural conditions of neighbouring regions and countries.
Overview of regional trends in OECD countries
There is significant diversity in relation to regional development trends and outcomes among OECD Member countries. Several countries, including France, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, have seen a widening gap in economic performance between their top- and bottom-performing regions over the past two decades. Others, including Finland, Germany, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain, have seen their regional inequalities decrease over the same period. In many OECD Member countries, including Slovenia, regional inequality has grown, largely driven by the agglomeration effects of large metropolitan regions (OECD, 2023[3]).
Demographic patterns display a similar diversity, with several OECD Members such as Italy, Japan and Spain experiencing rapid population declines between 2003 and 2023 in some regions, but significant growth in others. By contrast, in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland, population shares across regions remained relatively steady over the same period (OECD, 2024[4]). In Slovenia, the national population has remained broadly stable, with only small and gradual changes in regional population shares over the last decade (SiStat, 2025[5]). One demographic trend that has been consistent across most OECD Member countries, including Slovenia, is an increase in the relative share of the population living in metropolitan areas (OECD, 2025[6]). Further, in 16 OECD Member countries, the rural population has shrunk in absolute terms since 2000. These shifts are not independent of the above-average economic performance of large metropolitan areas, with economic opportunities comprising one of the most influential factors for inter-regional migration. However, the cultural, educational and social opportunities available in large cities have also played an important role in attracting new residents (OECD, 2023[3]) (IOM, 2015[7]).
Large differences in regional productivity are also present in most OECD Member economies, including Slovenia. For example, throughout the 2010s, labour productivity was approximately twice as high on average in the most productive region of OECD countries compared to the least productive region (OECD, 2024[4]). These productivity differences were partially caused by different sectoral compositions, specifically by regions producing tradeable goods and services exhibiting higher average labour productivity. Yet large productivity differences were also evident within sectors, suggesting that significant barriers to education, technology, infrastructure and other essential inputs were limiting the efficiency of production in some regions. To help contextualise Slovenia’s development challenges, a collection of benchmark countries has been used throughout this chapter to provide international comparisons (Box 2.1).
The analysis of economic, social and structural development challenges in Slovenia includes comparisons – where available – with a consistent selection of 14 benchmark countries. These include countries that share a land border with Slovenia (Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Italy), countries of comparable geographic and economic size (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), those with similar levels of GDP per capita (Czechia, Portugal, Slovak Republic) and several larger economies (France, Germany, Poland, Spain).
Overview of Slovenia’s governance and territorial administrative structure
Since achieving independence in 1991, Slovenia’s government structure has remained largely unaltered. It is led by the prime minister, as head of government, and an elected president, as head of state. Its parliamentary system is bicameral, composed of 90 deputies elected by proportional representation for four-year terms and a 40-member national council representing – and elected by – municipal bodies, employer organisations, labour unions and other professional associations (Republic of Slovenia, 2025[8]).
Slovenia’s unitary system of government has also remained generally unchanged, with political authority mostly concentrated at the national level. However, a single tier of subnational government, consisting of 212 municipalities, is firmly established. A clear demonstration of the permanence and importance of the municipalities is the inclusion of the principle of local self-government in the constitution, and the clear stipulation of the roles and responsibilities of Slovenian municipalities in the Local Self-Government Act (Republic of Slovenia, 1993[9]). These include the provision of local healthcare, education, transport, public order, social welfare, and environmental protection services.
Overlaying the municipalities are Slovenia’s 12 development regions (Box 2.2). Unlike the municipalities, the development regions are not self-governing and have no legal personality or direct administrative powers. Despite their limited formal powers, development regions play an important role in Slovenia’s regional development. For example, regional-level strategic planning and most funding frameworks in place to support regional development generally utilise development-region boundaries. Slovenia’s 12 regional development agencies (RDAs), which are responsible for designing and implementing subnational plans and interventions, are also organised to specifically support development regions. At a more practical level, most subnational statistics are currently not published below the level of the development regions, further underscoring their importance as measures of regional development trends and disparities.
The origins of Slovenia’s development regions date back to the 1970s, when 12 areas of intermunicipal co-operation were first proposed, mostly for analytical purposes, and based on functional linkages such as labour-market flows and access to public services. Official use of this division began in 1995, when the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia formally adopted this regional breakdown to develop aggregated data at the regional level following the expansion of municipalities from 62 to 147. These newly adopted statistical regions mirrored the boundaries of the 12 areas of intermunicipal co-operation.
Note: Regions in dark blue form part of Cohesion Region Zahodna Slovenija (Western Slovenia). Regions in light blue form part of Cohesion Region Vzhodna Slovenija (Eastern Slovenia).
Source: Based on data from (Eurostat, 2025[10]).
In 2000, Slovenia adopted a regulation on the standard classification of territorial units, aligning the statistical regions with municipal boundaries. This was followed by the adoption of the Promotion of Balanced Regional Development Act in 2011, marking a shift in the focus of territorial policy from the municipal to the regional level. This legislation formalised the 12 statistical regions as development regions (Figure 2.1), establishing them for the first time as the primary territorial units for regional policy planning and the implementation of regional development tasks. The law also established RDAs to support each of the 12 regions, signalling a move towards more proactive planning and development support. Since 2000, the boundaries of the 12 development regions have remained largely stable, with 4 municipalities being reallocated in 2015 (Škocjan, Litija, Radeče, Bistrica ob Sotli) and 2 of the regions being renamed. Article 143 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia allows for the establishment of self-governing provinces (pokrajine) if supported by a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, but there are currently no official plans to explore this option.
The size, shape and distribution of Slovenia’s regions are broadly consistent, with no extreme outliers in their general characteristics other than Osrednjeslovenska’s high population share and density due to the presence of the capital Ljubljana (Table 2.1). The territorial size of each region, with the exception of Zasavska (485 square kilometres [km²]), is broadly in line with the country’s regional average of 1 689 km². The regional boundaries are also configured in a similar pattern, with each containing a mix of residential settlements, agricultural land, mountainous terrain and preserved areas. Due to their broad comparability and more practical sample size, this chapter will focus primarily on development regions as opposed to municipalities when analysing subnational indicators. A comprehensive overview of the regions and indicators used throughout this chapter has been included in the regional profiles (Annex 2.A).
In addition to the 12 development regions, Slovenia is also divided into 2 cohesion regions – Cohesion Region Vzhodna Slovenija (Eastern Slovenia) and Cohesion Region Zahodna Slovenija (Western Slovenia) – for which some additional statistical indictors are available that are not collected for the development regions. These regions were used for the first time in the 2014-2020 EU programming period to co-ordinate the distribution of EU Cohesion Policy funds (Republic of Slovenia, 2025[16]). Vzhodna Slovenija has a population of approximately 1.1 million and consists of eight development regions. Zahodna Slovenija has a population of approximately 1 million and contains four development regions, as well as the capital Ljubljana. These territorial boundaries are useful for the analysis of differences between east and west Slovenia but have limited analytical applications owing to their large size, which can obscure regional trends and variation.
Slovenian regions face several large economic challenges, including stagnating international competitiveness, skills gaps that are undermining productivity and a growing concentration of economic activity around Ljubljana. These challenges have already contributed to economic disparities among Slovenian regions. If unchecked, their impact will potentially grow. Central to overcoming these challenges is recognition that the underlying conditions needed to support economic activity are not identical for all development regions, necessitating a place-based approach. For example, the economy of Osrednjeslovenska – which is shaped significantly by Ljubljana – is larger, has a deeper labour market and attracts a far higher share of foreign investment than its peers. The forthcoming national regional development strategy should be considered a tool to help the Slovenian government and regional development actors address these challenges in a coherent, objective-driven manner.
Economic growth and concentration in central Slovenia
In terms of their economic development, measured by total GDP, GDP per capita and the number of large firms, Slovenia’s 12 development regions show significant differences. Most strikingly, the quantity and complexity of Osrednjeslovenska’s economic activity greatly exceeds that of all other regions. Osrednjeslovenska’s GDP per capita in 2023 was the country’s highest at EUR 44 567, compared to the Slovenian average of EUR 30 158 (SiStat, 2023[2]). Not only is Osrednjeslovenska by far the best-performing regional economy, it is also the only development region to exceed the national average in GDP per capita (Figure 2.2). Conversely, the GDP per capita of three regions, Pomurska (EUR 20 360), Primorsko-notranjska (EUR 19 720) and Zasavska (EUR 16 456), is considerably below the national average.
Note: GDP per capita levels on left axis in 2023, average GDP per capita growth on right axis for 2014-2023. National average growth rate represents growth in average Slovenian GDP per capita for 2014-2023.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[17]).
Over the past decade, there has been little evidence of convergence (i.e. faster growth for less-developed regions) in Slovenia. Between 2014 and 2023, GDP per capita growth in all regions was near the Slovenian average of 5.9%, with Posavska (7.3%) the only notable outlier (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[17]). Also over 2014-2023, Osrednjeslovenska’s GDP per capita grew by 6.2%, further reinforcing its position as the dominant regional economy.
Greater economic concentration in central Slovenia can also be inferred from recent OECD research that suggests that between 2000 and 2020, Slovenia experienced a modest increase in regional inequalities measured as GDP per capita (OECD, 2023[3]). During this period, Slovenia was one of 15 OECD Member countries (out of 27 with available data) where regional inequality, measured at the territorial level 3 (TL3 level), increased. These include Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and the Slovak Republic, all of which have also witnessed growing economic concentration in their capital regions (OECD, 2023[3]).
Further evidence of increasing regional inequality in Slovenia can be seen by comparing the GDP per capita of each region with the national average over time. Between 2003 and 2023, the GDP per capita of only two regions, Posavska and Osrednjeslovenska, increased as a percentage of the Slovenian average (Figure 2.3). The GDP per capita of the other ten regions fell – slightly to significantly – relative to the national average. For example, Primorsko-notranjska’s regional GDP in 2003 was equal to 76% of the Slovenian average, but fell to 71% in 2013 and fell further to 65% in 2023, suggesting that the gap in living standards between this region and the country as whole was widening. It can therefore be concluded that regional inequalities are, on balance, worsening over time, and that the relative concentration of the country’s productive activities around Ljubljana is growing.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2023[2]).
Similar long-term growth trends have been observed among OECD Member countries, many of which have experienced an increase in regional inequalities over the past two decades (OECD, 2023[3]). This is especially true for countries that have been catching up to the average GDP per capita among OECD countries, such as Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic. As in Slovenia, where the gap between the capital region of Osrednjeslovenska and most other regions has widened over the last two decades, the main driver for growing regional inequalities in most OECD countries is above-average growth in metropolitan regions (OECD, 2023[3]).
In addition to GDP per capita, there is also a striking difference in the overall size and sophistication of Slovenia’s regional economies. In 2023, Osrednjeslovenska’s GDP was more than EUR 25 billion, 25 times larger than Zasavska, Slovenia’s smallest regional economy (Figure 2.4). Compared with other regional economies, Osrednjeslovenska’s GDP is comparable to that of Zagreb City (Croatia), Marne (France), and Pest (Hungary), and approximately equal to the total GDP of Iceland. As a share of the Slovenian economy, Osrednjeslovenska’s is equal to 39.3% of total GDP, with only two other regions, Podravska and Savinjska, exceeding a 10% share (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[17]). By contrast, the three smallest regions by economic size, Zasavska, Primorsko-notranjska, and Koroška, each represented between 1.5% and 2.5% of national GDP.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2023[2]).
The complexity and sophistication of Slovenia’s regional economies, measured by the number and diversity of businesses, industries and employment opportunities, also differ substantially between Osrednjeslovenska and the other regions. A lack of complexity is a particularly difficult challenge for regional economies, with only a small number of firms having more than one employee. For example, these firms have a narrow set of skills to draw upon, limiting their potential to expand, and individuals living in the territory have a lower chance of finding employment that aligns with their skills and experience, limiting their productivity. Further, in regions with a limited number of competitors, suppliers, skilled workers and entrepreneurs, business creation and innovation are more difficult to achieve. Primorsko-notranjska, Slovenia’s second-smallest regional economy, clearly demonstrates the limitations for prospective investors, (potential) residents and business owners. For example, only 175 (4.3%) of the 4 076 businesses operating in the region employ more than 9 employees (SiSat, 2023[18]). The labour pool is also shallow, with a total of only 25 000 people employed,2 and its gross value added is concentrated in non-service industries such as manufacturing and transport, offering few opportunities for those with tertiary qualifications. By contrast, Osrednjeslovenska has over 68 000 firms and over 261 000 employed persons working in a wide range of industries. Further evidence of its diversity and dynamism can be seen from the 7 746 new firms, equal to 36.7% of the national total, that were created in Osrednjeslovenska in 2023 (SiSat, 2023[18]).
Commuting and international borders may be affecting measures of economic concentration
Despite the disparities in total GDP and GDP per capita, and significant differences in the industrial mix of regional economies, the degree of variation in per capita disposable income between Slovenian regions is less pronounced (Figure 2.5). For example, the region with the lowest net disposable income in 2023 was Pomurska, equal to 89% of the national average. In Osrednjeslovenska, where it was the highest, net disposable household income per capita was 104.6% of the national average (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2024[19]). The gap in GDP per capita between the most productive and least productive region, however, was significantly wider, at 148% in Osrednjeslovenska compared to 55% in Zasavska.
Note: Net household disposable income.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2023[20]) and (SiStat, 2023[2]).
For most large countries and regions, the aggregate amount of disposable income earned and GDP produced is in direct proportion, as most individuals and businesses within the territory undertake most of their economic activities within its borders. Further, the number of businesses that partially operate across borders, and the number of workers who commute to workplaces beyond administrative boundaries, is in many cases offset by a similar number travelling in the opposite direction. In Slovenia, however, there is a large discrepancy between workplaces and employee residences.3 More specifically, the attraction of workers to Ljubljana and across international borders is suppressing regional GDP, which is calculated based upon the location of production but does not consider employees’ home addresses. To some extent, this phenomenon occurs in all countries with statistical regions. In Slovenia, however, where road infrastructure is of relatively high quality and the land area of regions is generally small, commuting across regional boundaries is possible for a large proportion of the population. This is especially true for those wishing to commute to Ljubljana, which is situated near the centre of the country and the motorway network (Ministry of Cohesion and Regional Development, 2023[21]).
One insight into the frequency of commuting behaviour is the ratio of employment to working-age residents. In Osrednjeslovenska, where GDP per capita is highest, there were more people in employment than the resident population that could potentially be working (Ministry of Cohesion and Regional Development, 2023[21]). Taking into consideration unemployment, those enrolled at educational facilities and those unable or choosing not to work for other reasons, there is evidently a large number of individuals working in the region and contributing to annual GDP but residing elsewhere.
Daily commuting patterns to and from Ljubljana, the largest functional urban area in Slovenia (Box 2.3), further demonstrate the contribution of non-resident employees. In 2024, net labour migration into the Osrednjeslovenska region was approximately 82 000, with the largest share of commuting workers arriving from neighbouring Gorenjska, Savinjska and Jugovzhodna Slovenija (Institute of Economic Research, 2025[22]). Further evidence of the high rate of commuting is that for Slovenia as a whole, approximately 22.5% of all employed persons live and work in a different development region (SiSat, 2024[23]). However, the rate is higher in smaller regional economies close to Ljubljana, such as Zasavska (53.5%) and Primorsko-notranjska (44.6%).
In 2012, the European Union and the OECD jointly developed a methodology to define functional urban areas (FUAs). FUAs are estimates of the economic and territorial extent of cities, encompassing both an urban core and its surrounding commuting zone. This method relies on a population-density grid system to first establish urban centres, defined as contiguous high-density cells of at least 1 500 inhabitants per km2 with a minimum total population of 50 000. From this urban centre, a city – comprised of one or more administrative units that have 50% or more of their population residing in the urban centre – can be identified. Commuting zones are then defined as adjoining municipalities where at least 15% of the employed residents commute to the city. Together, the city and its commuting zone of contiguous municipalities form an FUA which often exceeds the city’s administrative boundaries.
Applying the EU-OECD methodology to Slovenia, only two FUAs are identified: Ljubljana and Maribor. Between 2000 and 2015, Ljubljana significantly expanded its area of influence to include an additional 16% of the country’s territory and 15% of the total population – partly by extending into other development regions – while the size of the Maribor FUA has remained largely unchanged (-0.8% of the total population). The increasing gravitational pull exerted by the Slovenian capital on its surrounding areas, and other regions, has important implications for strategic planning and demonstrates the need to ensure that development initiatives are targeted at the appropriate scale. The growth of the Ljubljana FUA also demonstrates that existing demographic, land-use, transport and other socio-economic patterns can change and evolve quickly, and that the use of municipal and regional boundaries as the preferred unit of analysis may need to be complemented by analysis using alternative territorial scales.
In addition to large numbers of daily commuters to Ljubljana, about 2% of Slovenian workers commute daily to neighbouring countries, such as Austria and Italy (Pečar, 2020[26]), generating economic activity that does not contribute to regional GDP but boosts household income. In 2024, it was estimated that around 14 000 Slovenian residents derived their main source of income working in Austria, and around 1 800 in Italy (FURS, 2024[27]). Since 2015, the number of Slovenian residents working in Austria each day has increased by around 77%, but the number of workers commuting into Italy has grown less rapidly (7%). By contrast, only 67 Austrian residents and 911 Italian residents are estimated to travel into Slovenia each day for employment.
This cross-border labour-force movement directly affects border communities in Slovenia by depriving their economies of valuable skills and experience. It is also commonly recognised that cross-border regions can face additional challenges in service delivery – especially of education, healthcare and public transport – which can affect regional development (OECD, 2024[28]). In Slovenia, however, the available TL3 level data (e.g. GDP per capita, unemployment rates and productivity) show that border-region performance is not uniformly lower. It is in fact mixed, and there are also good-practice examples of cross-border public service delivery (Box 2.4). Thus, while it is clear that labour opportunities draw many Slovenian residents to work across international borders, regional disparities cannot easily be attributed to the border status of a given development region. To make such an attribution, community-level labour-migration data would be required to support intra-regional comparisons at a micro level.
Cross-border territories tend to underperform non-border regions on regional development indicators such as GDP per capita, productivity, unemployment and population density. In Slovenia, however, the performance of border versus non-border regions is mixed, and is likely linked to 10 out of 12 of Slovenia’s development regions being border territories. For example, GDP per capita as a percentage of the national average in Slovenia’s non-border regions was 139% in 2023, versus 84% in its border regions. In terms of population density, Slovenia’s non-border regions are more densely populated (220 people per km²) in 2023 than its border regions (86 people per km²). For both these indicators, the trend in Slovenia follows that of most EU Member States, potentially affecting local public-service delivery and development capacity more broadly. However, for other development indicators where border regions tend to underperform, border regions in Slovenia perform quite well. Importantly, the unemployment rate for 15-74 year olds in 2023 was the same (3.7%) in both non-border and border regions. In addition, on a diverse range of measures including life expectancy, labour-force participation and internet access, the differences in the performance of border and non-border regions are small.
Slovenia is also frequently cited for its efforts to advance cross-border services, specifically in public transport. For example, the European Grouping of Territorial Communities covering Gorizia (Italy), Nova Gorica (Slovenia) and Šempeter-Vrtojba (Slovenia) mobilised local, regional and national level actors to establish a single urban system that enabled transport operators to set up cross-border bus lines, facilitating commuter and commercial passenger flows.
Sources: (OECD, 2024[28]), (SiStat, 2023[2]).
Promoting economic activity in less-developed regional economies will be fundamental if Slovenia is to reduce existing territorial inequalities. Based on available indicators, current levels of material well-being are unequally distributed across regions and risk widening further as productive activities continue to concentrate around Ljubljana. Although GDP provides the clearest measure of regional economic vitality, complementary metrics and benchmarks of material well-being should also considered as evidence when preparing strategies and interventions. These metrics could include gross and net household disposable income, as well as indicators that take into consideration Slovenia’s FUAs, regional boundaries and international borders.
Maintaining international competitiveness
Due to the small size of its economy and population, Slovenia is likely to require additional capital, labour and technology to support the next phase of its economic development. At the regional level, this challenge is threefold. First, regions can benefit enormously from attracting new talent, investment and entrepreneurs, but are beholden to national policies and international trends beyond their control. Second, the competitive advantages of Slovenian regions are not equal, with some (such as Osrednjeslovenska) receiving the bulk of investment and research spending. Third, regions are interconnected, and a decline in the relative attractiveness of neighbouring regions can have substantial development impact across a wider territory. A reduction in foreign investment in one location, for example in the automotive manufacturing industry, could negatively affect suppliers in the same industry based in neighbouring regions. It should therefore be a high priority for Slovenia to build up its regional appeal and seek to remove barriers at the subnational level that might impede its international competitiveness.
A further challenge for Slovenian regions is their participation in the European single market. Overall, such participation is extremely beneficial, minimising trade barriers, smoothing the flow of capital and boosting worker mobility. However, European productivity growth has stalled in recent years, and weaknesses in the current EU policy settings have been identified as harming international competitiveness (Box 2.5). In this context, Slovenia’s international competitiveness, and that of its regions, is affected by broader developments over which they have limited control. At the same time, a clear articulation of the major barriers affecting international competitiveness in Europe can provide a valuable guide for the types of issues likely to be hampering Slovenian companies and industries.
Slovenia’s international competitiveness is linked with broader European challenges
The Future of European Competitiveness (European Commission, 2024[29]) highlights the challenges, opportunities and risks for European economies. The report notes that high energy costs, excessive regulations, fragmented industrial policies and imperfect competition in some sectors is holding back innovation, investment and economic growth throughout Europe. These Europe-wide challenges are not only a forecast but are identified as important factors behind the relative fall in real disposable income per capita since 2000. The report highlights how focusing on three priority areas could help reignite economic growth. First, European countries should actively encourage innovation and the adoption of new technologies, for example through greater spending on R&D. Second, better co-ordination is needed to manage decarbonisation and ensure reliable, affordable and secure energy supplies for Europe-based companies. Third, the report recommends enhanced efforts to boost European security and reduce the risks of geopolitical shocks, as these have the potential to increase the prices of raw materials and other inputs, making European products internationally uncompetitive.
Source: Based on (European Commission, 2024[29]).
Foreign direct investment is critical for small countries and regions
Investment from international sources is an important driver of economic growth in all countries but is particularly important for economies with limited domestic savings and investment capacity. Despite a very high domestic savings rate, the capital market in Slovenia is small and relatively illiquid, with few new listings on the Ljubljana Stock Exchange. Foreign sources of investment are therefore often essential to fund investments in many new businesses, expand the productive output of existing enterprises and support the construction of new infrastructure. The limits of domestic investment in Slovenia are fundamentally a function of scale, as a small population equates to low levels of savings in absolute terms which can be channelled into new investment. Despite these limits, the aggregate stock of foreign direct investment in Slovenia was equal to only 34.6% of GDP in 2023, significantly lower than in several other benchmark countries with a comparable population size (Figure 2.6).
Note: Total stock of foreign direct investment.
Source: Based on data from (Eurostat, 2025[30]).
A comprehensive survey of businesses operating in Slovenia in 2024 found that the main barriers to investment were the availability of skilled labour (cited by 84% of all firms), uncertainty about the future (78%) and high energy costs (75%). These results broadly align with the EU average of firms reporting skilled labour (77%), uncertainty about the future (79%) and energy costs (77%) as major obstacles to investment (European Investment Bank, 2025[31]). Notably, Slovenian firms cite the availability of finance less often as an investment barrier than their EU counterparts. Nevertheless, the ratio of business investment to GDP in Slovenia averaged 1.8 percentage points below the EU average between 2013 and 2023 (European Commission, 2025[32]).
Despite extensive efforts in recent years to reduce administrative burden, obstacles regarding the business environment remain. Excessive regulation, particularly barriers in the professional services sector, and an unfavourable tax regime (e.g. social protection spending equal to 23.1% of GDP), as well as frequent policy changes are other barriers to doing business in Slovenia that may be deterring foreign investment (Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, 2024[33]). In addition, trust in the functioning of the government and other state institutions is among the lowest in the European Union (Eurostat, 2025[34]). While streamlining administrative demands on businesses and a reform of the tax regime are outside the scope of a national regional development strategy, integrated development strategies can help provide policy coherence and reduce uncertainty, which in turn can increase trust in state institutions. Further, a variety of organisations – such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia, the Chamber of Crafts and RDAs – could contribute to reducing the administrative burdens on businesses, for example by providing high-level information, contacts with expert advisors and clarity on the division of responsibilities within government to help businesses comply with relevant laws and regulations.
Of the EUR 22.1 billion stock of foreign direct investment recorded in 2023, the majority was concentrated in and around Ljubljana (Figure 2.7). Osrednjeslovenska received 58.9%, compared to only 0.4% in Koroška, and no other regional economy received more than 10% of the national total. This suggests not only that efforts to remove barriers to foreign investment and increase the appeal of Slovenia overall are required at the national level, but that individual regions and firms outside the capital region must proactively cater to the needs of foreign investors.
Note: Foreign direct investment stock. Excludes investment that could not be regionally allocated.
Source: Based on data from (Banka Slovenije, 2025[35]).
In contrast to annual measures of foreign direct investment, Slovenia’s export performance suggests an internationally competitive and dynamic economy. In 2024, goods exports were equal to 63% of GDP, significantly higher than in most benchmark countries except the Slovak Republic (Figure 2.8). Austria, Croatia, Germany, Italy and Switzerland were the destination for about 65% of Slovenia’s exports, with all of its top ten export markets located in Europe. Remarkably, 96% of Slovenian goods exports were produced by the manufacturing industry, suggesting a competitive and relatively technologically advanced industrial base (SiSat, 2025[36]). Further, Slovenia’s outstanding success as an exporter of manufactured goods is evidence of good transport infrastructure and broadly suitable trade policies at the national level. Exports of services in Slovenia (equal to 18.4% of GDP) are around the median in comparison with benchmark countries, and well below Estonia (31.6%) and Lithuania (28.5%) (Eurostat, 2024[37]).
Source: Based on data from (Eurostat, 2024[37]).
From a subnational perspective, however, the capacity to export local products internationally varies widely. In addition to attracting over half of the country’s foreign direct investment, Osrednjeslovenska also produced 51.2% of its exports in 2023 (excluding the 9.5% unable to be allocated) (SiStat, 2025[38]). Jugovzhodna Slovenija (9.1%), Savinjska (8.6%) and Podravska (7.7%) were the next three most successful exporters.
Regional disparities in international competitiveness are more clearly evident when exports are displayed in per capita terms (Table 2.2). Osrednjeslovenska, which produced the highest volume of exports in absolute terms, was also the most successful region by this measure with annual goods exports equal to EUR 45 375 per inhabitant. By contrast, in Zasavska, only EUR 8 206 of exports were produced per person, the lowest of all 12 development regions. Several factors are likely to be contributing to the wide range of export outcomes at the regional level. Zasavska’s limited land area available for industrial development and imperfect access to the highway network, for example, are structural barriers to the manufacture of some types of goods (e.g. automobiles) that could be potentially exported.
Note: Exports of unknown origin excluded from share of exports.
Source: Based on data from (SiSat, 2025[36]) and (SiStat, 2025[5]).
A further indicator of Slovenia’s integrated trade networks is that 84% of Slovenian firms engaged in international trade in 2024, compared to the EU average of 63% (OECD, 2025[39]). This export orientation has potentially enormous productivity benefits for Slovenian business – directly through the scaling up of operations to meet increased demand from overseas customers, and indirectly, through exposure to international competition.
Over the past decade, Slovenia’s export integration in global value chains (measured as share of domestic value added contained in foreign exports) also increased, both in absolute terms and compared to the EU average, rising from approximately 66% to 68.4% (Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, 2024[33]). A major factor behind this integration has been the success of the Slovenian automotive industry, comprising 279 companies in 2023, and representing approximately 20% of total Slovenian exports, (Slovenia Business, 2025[40]; Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, 2025[41]).
The overall success of the Slovenian manufacturing industry, but also its downside risks, are regionally concentrated and could therefore potentially exacerbate economic disparities. For example, regions that generate a very large share of their GVA from manufacturing, such as Jugovzhodna Slovenija (43.9%), Koroška (36.7%), or Gorenjska (31.7%), are at a higher risk to external shocks such as geopolitical tension, new tariff policies or shortages of raw materials. Osrednjeslovenska, by contrast, accounts for the overall largest share of manufacturing GVA, but has a proportionally smaller share of its regional GVA stemming from manufacturing (14.2%) (SiSat, 2023[42]).
In addition to attracting the highest quantity of foreign direct investment, Osrednjeslovenska has the highest share of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure (58.4% in 2023), which is another important driver of international attractiveness (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2023[43]). This concentration of R&D, and the absence of major universities and research centres outside Ljubljana, is a major barrier to foreign investment for all regions except Osrednjeslovenska. Other factors that are reducing international competitiveness for Slovenia’s regions, such as relatively high tax rates, cumbersome spatial planning laws, high electricity prices, complex labour regulations, and perceived political instability (International Trade Administration, 2024[44]) are the same or very similar throughout Slovenia.
The small land area of Slovenia, the relative consistency of its climate and the extensive motorway network which connects much, but not all, of the country’s major population centres, further obscures the explanation behind the uneven performance of its development regions. Rather, the highly divergent outcomes of international trade and investment underlines the need for in-depth qualitative assessments of the major barriers to international competitiveness. For example, RDAs, with assistance from the SPIRIT Slovenia Agency, could identify and rank the most influential regional barriers that are preventing international businesses from investing and operating in their region. This could include barriers such as insufficient infrastructure, skills mismatches or gaps, or limited appropriately zoned land, and would help inform the prioritisation of development needs within each region. Analysis of this kind should therefore be explicitly encouraged and reinforced by the national regional development strategy.
Boosting skills and labour productivity
A further challenge to long-term economic growth and consistent development for all Slovenian regions is labour productivity. A decline in output by the average worker, all else being equal, would lead to a loss of GDP at the national level and a fall in material living standards for many residents. Moreover, a long period of low or negligible labour-productivity growth would be likely to lead to similar, but more gradual, erosion of living standards, due to population ageing and the anticipated reduction in the share of working-age inhabitants.
Labour productivity is influenced by numerous factors, many of which are difficult to influence directly through government action. For example, workers’ access to new technology, managerial capacities within private firms and longstanding norms that dictate employee behaviours cannot be easily shaped through policy interventions. However, the choices made by policymakers related to other determinants, such as education funding and employment law, can greatly enhance labour productivity. In essence, government’s role is to ensure a well-functioning labour market, where sufficient employment opportunities are generated and employers can find the skills they need.
For a regional economy, low rates of labour productivity and skills gaps have several additional consequences beyond reduced living standards. First, they can compound regional inequality. Low-performing regional labour markets are less likely to attract new investment, firms or entrepreneurs, potentially creating a cycle of below-average growth that deepens regional disparities. Second, insufficient skills impose considerable costs. For employers seeking new workers, residents accessing professional services and local governments desiring expert advice, a lack of skills and widespread low productivity are barriers to important economic, social and policy functions. Finally, low productivity and skills mismatches can affect well-being. Individuals who cannot find employment matching their skills are not only less productive, but also less likely to derive satisfaction from their work.
At a national level, Slovenia’s productivity per hour is competitive with many of its international peers, but well below the productivity rates recorded in Germany, Austria and France (Figure 2.9). In 2022, Slovenian workers produced EUR 32.70 worth of output per hour, almost half the EUR 64.60 produced by German workers. Labour productivity per hour was higher in the west, with the output per hour of workers in Zahodna Slovenija (EUR 35.3) standing at 19.3% higher than in Vzhodna Slovenija (EUR 29.6). In 2014, the productivity gap between Zahodna Slovenija and Vzhodna Slovenija was almost identical, standing at around 19.4%.
Source: Based on data from (Eurostat, 2025[45]).
At the level of development regions, productivity data are only available per worker, providing fewer insights than per-hour measures given the possibility of variation in total hours worked.4 Nonetheless, labour productivity on this measure increased in all regions between 2014 and 2022 (Figure 2.10). Despite this improvement, there is a significant gap between the annual output per worker in Osrednjeslovenska (EUR 65 400), the highest-ranking region, and Primorsko-notranjska (EUR 49 000), the lowest-ranking region. These estimates imply that the average worker in Primorsko-notranjska is only producing 84.3% that of a typical Slovenian employee, reducing the competitiveness of the region’s businesses and acting as a potential deterrent for future investors. Further, it aligns with Slovenia’s broader patterns of economic geography, with workers in the capital region and the western parts of Slovenia achieving the highest levels of output.
Source: Based on data from (Eurostat, 2025[46]).
The formal education of employees, the training they receive, their access to technology, the capacities of management and organisational culture all contribute to the labour-productivity performance of each region. Nonetheless, access to higher education is one important factor that policymakers can influence, with one study concluding that individuals with a tertiary education had an average marginal productivity that was two to three times higher than those lacking tertiary qualifications (Eklund and Pettersson, 2019[47]). Furthermore, there is a strong association in Slovenia between the rates of tertiary education and productivity at the regional level (Figure 2.11).
Note: Tertiary education as a share of total population.
Source: Based on data from (Eurostat, 2025[46]) and (SiStat, 2025[48]).
Compared with neighbouring countries, the share of Slovenian residents of working age with a tertiary qualification is around the median, equal to 30.5%. This is comparable to the national average of Germany (29.8%), but well below the averages of Lithuania (41.7%) and France (38.4%), the two highest-performing benchmark countries. Among the development regions, measured as a share of total population, Pomurska (17.0%) and Zasavska (18.2%) had the lowest rates of tertiary qualifications, with Osrednjeslovenska the highest (28.2%). However, these rates are expected to increase over time as around half of young people aged 19-24 are enrolled in tertiary education (European Commision, 2025[49]).
Partially offsetting the variation in tertiary educational attainment are higher rates of vocational qualifications. Generally, in development regions with below-average rates of tertiary education, per capita vocational education attainment is above average (Figure 2.12). This suggests that the overall skills gap among regions may be slightly smaller than it initially appears. However, it is very difficult to quantify vocational education in Slovenia due to the mismatch between vocational education qualifications, which follow the 10-level Slovenian Qualifications Framework (Slovenian Qualifications Framework, 2025[50]), and the current approach to data collection. The Statistical Office of Slovenia, for example, combines “short-term vocational upper secondary” and “vocational upper secondary” in its estimate of the share of the population that hold a vocational qualification, and may therefore include individuals who have completed short courses only.
Note: Vocational refers to short-term vocational upper secondary and vocational upper secondary.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2025[48]).
Although the unique characteristics of vocational education systems complicate international comparisons, 47.1% of working-age Slovenian residents in 2024 held a vocational qualification, compared to 28.1% in France, 31.4% in Italy, 39.6% in Austria and 45.9% in Germany (Eurostat, 2024[51]). The outcomes, based on qualitative assessments of the vocational education system and the capabilities of recent graduates, also indicate a broadly well-functioning system. For example, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training highlights the variety of course offerings available in Slovenia, the high degree of flexibility based on learner needs and aptitude, and low drop-out rates (Cedefop, 2021[52]). In addition, on the European Skills Index, Slovenia is ranked sixth on skills matching and ninth on skills activation, out of 31 European countries (Cedefop, 2024[53]). Taken together, Slovenia’s high uptake and strong performance in vocational education suggest a deep and versatile pool of skilled workers who can adapt to evolving business needs and support the creation of new industries.
An additional consideration in the measurement of regional education disparities is the uptake of digital skills,5 which can complement formal tertiary and vocational qualifications and boost productivity. For Slovenia overall, only 18.9% of individuals aged 16-74 recorded digital skills beyond a basic level (SiStat, 2023[54]). In some regions, the share of the adult population with well-developed digital skills was even further behind (for example, only 9.2% of the adult population in both Posavska and Primorsko-notranjska had well-developed digital skills), limiting the employability of their residents. In Osrednjeslovenska, by contrast, digital literacy was the highest, with 22.7% of the population reporting above-average digital skills.
Despite the good quality of the vocational education system overall and the high rates of vocational qualifications, inconsistent unemployment rates point to a mismatch between the skills of regional workers and the needs of regional businesses. Although the unemployment rate has declined rapidly over the past decade, with all regions benefiting from improved labour-market conditions, regional variations in unemployment are still evident (Figure 2.13). Although this variation may be partly explained by region-specific causes, including social disadvantage for certain groups, above-average unemployment is also indicative of a population that lacks sufficient skills, particularly as demand for labour is high and the inability to fill vacancies in various industries has been widely reported in recent years (Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, 2024[33]). For Slovenia as a whole, unemployment was 3.7% in 2024, the equal-lowest year on record (with 2023) since 2007 (SiSat, 2025[55]). Unemployment was even lower in Obalno-kraška (only 2.3%), with Podravska (5.4%) the region with the highest unemployment.
Source: Based on data from (SiSat, 2025[55]) and (SiStat, 2024[56]).
Although not very large, the variations in unemployment rates among regions are particularly difficult to explain considering the small geographic size of Slovenia and the fact that many residents live within commuting distance of other regions and countries. A better understanding of the actual skills possessed by regional residents and the specific needs of regional businesses could help determine whether these uneven employment outcomes can be addressed through better training, or whether they stem from other factors, such as the recent closure of a large employer. The regional skill-anticipation exercise undertaken in Germany, in which central government agencies are responsible for developing and publishing regional skills data, is an example that Slovenia could replicate in the future to better understand regional skills needs (Box 2.6).
Skills anticipation, consisting of forecasts of future labour needs and supported by employer and employee surveys, plays a key role in the German vocational education and training system. It includes national-level analysis and projections of the German labour market. It also incorporates regional-level analysis such as the “skilled workers radar”, which provides information on occupational groups affected by skills shortages broken down by professions and regions. Additional analysis of regional skills and skills shortages is provided by the labour-market monitor, which contains data on occupations, industries and demographics, broken down by region. The monitor is run by the regional offices of the Federal Employment Agency, which also provides career and vocational guidance services.
A wide range of national, regional and local actors are involved in the German skills-anticipation process. These include federal and regional ministries, research institutes and municipalities. To support this cross-government exercise, the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training and the Institute for Employment Research are legally mandated to provide labour-market data and research. These include regional qualification and occupation projections of labour-market trends among the federal states (Länder) up to 2040, and are freely accessible in an open-data portal. More tailored forecasts to support specific projects and strategic planning can also be commissioned directly by Länder governments and municipalities, as well as by chambers of industry at the regional level.
Source: Based on (CEDEFOP, 2023[57]).
Addressing the evident variation in regional skills and educational attainment should be a high development priority for several reasons. First, there are mismatches in the overall level of skills and the most in-demand competencies at the national level (Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, 2025[58]). These form a barrier to innovation, new business creation and the utilisation of new technologies, all key drivers of long-term economic growth. Second, there is the potential for perpetuating regional inequalities as high-skilled individuals – motivated by employment, educational and social opportunities – are drawn to locations where other highly educated people are already concentrated. Finally, at an individual level, uneven educational outcomes reflect a potential barrier to upward mobility. In other words, the opportunities for some residents of Slovenia may be partly limited by where they live.
Although an increase in the overall level of educational attainment is a broadly defensible regional development goal, actual regional needs are also an important consideration. Each region has its own major employers, industries, demographic and skills profiles, and competitive advantages, all of which shape its specific labour-market needs. Future analysis of national skills needs undertaken by the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities should therefore provide more extensive regional breakdowns, insights and statistics. In addition, each region could undertake a comprehensive assessment of its specific skill-related assets and shortages. These assessments could look beyond qualifications to the actual skills possessed by regional residents and should include qualitative evidence from local businesses, unions and industry associations.
Regional development, in addition to economic conditions and the material standard of living, should be equally focused on the happiness and well-being of people. Poor health and the presence of poverty, crime or a damaged natural environment can undermine how a region’s residents perceive themselves, their region and their overall life satisfaction. A further consideration is the regional distribution of well-being outcomes. Inequities in social indicators can build resentment and mistrust, and reduce social cohesion just as effectively as wide gaps in employment rates or GDP per capita. In Slovenia, quality of life is generally high, but several regional disparities relating to life satisfaction, loneliness and health are also evident, albeit on a less pronounced scale than in many other countries. Addressing inequalities in health, social exclusion and life satisfaction would not only benefit affected individuals, but could also reduce the country’s orientation towards Ljubljana and help less developed regions catch up.
Health and healthcare disparities are a drag on regional productivity
Poor health and inequities in access to healthcare services are potential barriers to regional development in Slovenia which can be partially offset by place-based policies. Overall, health outcomes and access to healthcare services across Slovenian regions have improved markedly in recent decades, but remain moderately uneven. This unevenness not only affects the quality of life for individuals in some regions compared to others, but can also hinder labour-market participation and productivity in a region as a whole. While all Slovenian regions face some degree of health-related challenges, the north-east appears to be the furthest behind, with lower average life expectancy, lower rates of self-reported good health and higher rates of disability. These health outcomes pose a barrier to regional development, by limiting workforce participation, imposing greater burdens on municipal services and increasing absenteeism among workers, which in turn reduces productivity.
Compared to benchmark countries, Slovenia ranks high on average life expectancy6 (men and women combined), equal to 82.3 years in 2024. This is 2 years less than Spain’s total average life expectancy (84 years) but higher than others, including Lithuania (77.6 years), Hungary (77.0 years) and Latvia (76.7 years). However, there is significant variation in life expectancy at birth at the regional level (Figure 2.14). Men in Obalno-kraška can expect to live a total of 80.8 years – 4.1 more than those living in Pomurska, where life expectancy is the lowest (76.7 years). For women, the gap is less pronounced but still significant. Female residents of Osrednjeslovenska, the region with the highest life expectancy, can expect to live 85.1 years, approximately 2.7 years longer on average than female residents in Pomurska (82.4 years). For both men and women, life expectancy is significantly higher in regions to the west of the country.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2025[59]).
While only about 8% of Slovenian residents are experiencing bad or very bad health, regional health disparities are also more concentrated in some regions (such as Koroška and Pomurska) than others (Table 2.3) (SiStat, 2025[60]). These regional concentrations are likely to place additional pressure on primary health service expenditures in certain regions in the short-term and reduce productivity over the medium-term. For example, the need for additional medical care in regions with higher morbidity imposes an immediate financial cost on municipalities, while at the same time reducing the productivity of workers that are not fully able to participate in the labour market.
Note: Net good is very good and good, minus bad and very bad. All residents aged 16 and over.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2025[60]).
Several other indicators provide further evidence of uneven regional health outcomes that are imposing additional fiscal and productivity costs on some regions. The national rate of disability, for example, has improved markedly over the past decade, falling from 6.6% of the working-age population in 2015 to 3.4% in 2024. Although a regional breakdown is not directly available, the distribution of households with a member suffering from a long-term illness, disability or old age provides a good indication of how some regions are more affected. For example, the rate is 9% of households in Posavska, compared to only 3% in Primorsko-notranjska.
The prevalence of depression is similarly skewed, with some regions – such as Savinjska (9.4%) – greatly exceeding others, such as Posavska (4%), in 2024. Obesity is a further indicator of population health and, like disability and mental health, varies across development regions. In Zasavska, for example, 62.7% of the population were recorded as overweight or obese in 2024, compared to 52.4% in Osrednjeslovenska. All these metrics, taken in aggregate, demonstrate health inequities across regions. It can therefore be inferred that the well-being of residents – at least in terms of health – is unequal.
Based on the available subnational health data, explanations for the variation in health outcomes are not easily identifiable. The frequency of harmful behaviours such as tobacco consumption, for example, may be contributing to poorer health outcomes, but smoking rates do not have a distinct regional pattern. Rather, Zasavska (25.4%, centre), Posavska (24.6%, east) and Obalno-kraška (22.5%, west) recorded the highest regional smoking rates (NIJZ, 2023[61]). Alcohol consumption, by contrast, is generally slightly higher in eastern regions, but consistently high throughout Slovenia overall. In fact, mortality attributable to alcohol in Slovenia is significantly above the World Health Organization European Region average, with no measurable improvement (i.e. reduction) since 2014 (NIJZ, 2024[62]).
Workplace injuries and long-term occupational hazards, which are more likely to affect those working in primary industries and manufacturing compared to those employed in services, may also play a small role in shaping inter-regional health disparities. In Koroška, which recorded 19.9 injuries per 1 000 employees, the frequency of workplace accidents is significantly higher than in Obalno-kraška (12.1), which has the lowest ratio in Slovenia. Furthermore, the overall levels of absenteeism differ greatly, ranging from 23.6 days per employee in Pomurska to only 13.3 days per employee in Osrednjeslovenska (NIJZ, 2023[63]). Broader, more granular and centrally located subnational data of this kind could provide further insights into which regional determinants are contributing to the below-average health outcomes experienced by residents in some regions (Box 2.7).
Better health and lifestyle data can support regional strategic planning
The online statistical platform Kolada aggregates dozens of medical, lifestyle, occupational, environmental and population statistics that enable a more complete understanding of regional health in Sweden. These data include measures of individual behaviours, such as smoking rates, alcohol consumption, diet and physical activity, that may help to explain health outcomes in a particular region or municipality. Other data, including the incidence of falls, mental health disorders and workplace accidents, can provide further evidence of specific or exceptional health issues that may warrant prioritisation and additional government investment. Responses to health-related questions from the annual citizen survey, conducted by Statistics Sweden, are also published on Kolada. These responses provide an assessment of the quality, ease of access and affordability of healthcare facilities, highlighting potential barriers to good health that are not easily identifiable. In addition to high-quality regional health data on specific localities, Kolada also enables convenient comparisons among regions and municipalities, facilitating benchmarking, and supporting monitoring and evaluation.
Source: Based on (Kolada, 2025[64]).
The clear evidence of disparities in regional health outcomes has several important implications for regional development. The first is the clear relationship between health and productivity. In Slovenia, regions with high GDP per capita are also less affected by morbidity and have higher life expectancy. For the most part, this is because good health allows a higher rate of labour-force participation, leads to fewer days lost for health reasons, and allows individuals greater mobility and freedom to pursue new economic opportunities that can optimise their output. However, additional health indicators at the subnational level more generally, and improved data collection on the links between personal health, employment and productivity, would greatly assist efforts to boost regional health and development.
Social exclusion and trust
The inclusiveness and equity of Slovenian society at the regional level is another important consideration for regional development. Inclusive regions can more effectively utilise all available human resources, attract more potential workers and investors, and support deeper collaboration between different stakeholders and groups. On national-level indicators, such as the risk of poverty or social exclusion, Slovenia often outperforms neighbouring economies. From an international perspective, Slovenia’s risk of poverty or social exclusion (14.4% in 2024) is relatively low compared to Spain (25.8%), Latvia (24.3%) or Italy (23.1%) (Eurostat, 2024[65]). However, poverty, crime, overcrowded housing and other social hardships do have a regional pattern, and these are barriers to regional development that will require a place-based approach to overcome.
The most striking social disparity among Slovenian regions is the risk of poverty.7 In Osrednjeslovenska, the most economically developed region by GDP per capita, only 8.8% of the population is at risk of poverty (SiStat, 2025[66]). Residents living outside the capital region, however, are considerably more at risk. In Obalno-kraška, despite the region’s status as the fourth-ranking regional economy based on GDP per capita, the risk of poverty rises to 19.5%.
Overcrowded housing is a further social issue with a severe regional dimension. In 2024, the region of Posavska recorded the highest percentage (17%) of persons living in dwellings with insufficient rooms8 (SiStat, 2024[67]). In the region of Pomurska, only 6.6% of persons lived in dwellings with insufficient rooms, the lowest percentage in Slovenia. The distribution of overcrowding follows no coherent pattern, underlining the need for a place-based approach. Further, although housing and poverty are often interlinked conceptually, the incidence of overcrowdedness does not clearly align with risk-of-poverty trends (Figure 2.15). The distribution of poverty and overcrowdedness points to more complicated underlying causes, beyond GDP per capita or geography. Rather, it suggests that region-specific factors, such as the quality of the housing stock, the number of semi-permanent residents such as university students and jobseekers, and the concentration of social issues may also be influential.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2025[66]) and (SiStat, 2025[68]).
The low frequency of contacts with family and friends are additional indicators of the social inclusiveness of Slovenian regions. Further, regions with strong social bonds will be more successful at retaining and attracting skilled labour. In Gorenjska, for example, social life appears to be very strong, with 75% of residents reporting they meet up with relatives frequently, i.e. daily, weekly or several times per month (SiStat, 2025[69]). In Koroška, by contrast, only 64% of residents report frequent familial interaction. The frequency of meeting with friends follows a similar regional pattern. In Pomurska and Gorenjska, 78% have regular meetings with friends; this percentage is significantly higher than the 57% of respondents in Koroška (SiStat, 2022[70]).
Exposure to crime, violence and vandalism can also limit a region’s attractiveness to prospective workers and investors. Although crime is low in Slovenia overall (Eurostat, 2023[71]), the frequency of crime varies widely across regions. For example, in Primorsko-notranjska, only 1% of all households reported an occurrence of criminal activity in their area compared to 12% of households in Jugovzhodna Slovenija, suggesting a very different lived experience for two adjacent regions with similar population densities. Unlike crime and poverty rates, on which Slovenia has generally scored well in comparison with OECD countries, the level of trust in others is lower than in many other comparison countries (Box 2.8).
Slovenia has low levels of trust in in public institutions
A 2024 study based on 30 OECD Member countries found significant international variation in the levels of trust in public institutions and concluded that trust was declining slightly overall. For example, 44% of all respondents had no or low trust in their country’s national government, and only 44.4% had sufficient trust in their national civil service. Throughout the OECD, the police (62.9%) and the judicial system (54.1%) were the most trusted institutions. National parliament (36.5%) and political parties (24.2%) were the least trusted. In comparison with other OECD countries, Slovenia stood at below average on most measures. Only 26% of Slovenians believed that the national parliament was holding the national government accountable (compared to 38.4% throughout the OECD) and only 27.9% trusted the national government overall (compared to the OECD average of 39.3%). Slovenian perceptions of non-political institutions were also negative, with only 26.3% trusting the news media (compared to the OECD average of 38.9%) and only 24.1% believing that a public employee would refuse a bribe (vs. the OECD average of 36.1%). Scored on a scale of 1 to 10, Slovenians aged over 16 only rated their trust in others as 4.6 on average, compared to the EU average of 5.8.
Slovenian regions have low levels of trust in others
At the subnational level, all 12 development regions displayed low levels of trust in others. However, the degree of trust differed significantly between Pomurska (4 out of 10), the lowest-scoring, and Osrednjeslovenska (4.9), the highest. These differences show an important distinction in the severity of mistrust throughout Slovenia. Although increasing the level of trust is a potential development objective for the whole country, helping to support social cohesion; enhancing compliance with public policies; removing barriers to social and economic collaborations; and reducing the disparity between regions would also help offset the gravitational pull of Ljubljana.
Source: (OECD, 2023[72]) and (Eurostat, 2025[34]).
Overall, it is evident that social challenges are not uniform across Slovenia, and a place-based approach is required to minimise the differences in social conditions between the capital and other regions to better support regional development. Economic growth can undoubtedly help reduce poverty, overcrowding and crime, most directly by boosting household incomes, but also indirectly by producing additional resources for local government through higher tax receipts. However, broader policy interventions may also be required to complement and take advantage of recent improvements in regional economic performance. Strategic planning at the regional level can assist this process by identifying and working with underperforming localities and the most affected groups, linking these places and people with opportunities and programmes that can generate growth. Further, a national regional development strategy can help guide the process to ensure that a broad definition of inclusiveness is included in the analysis of regional development outcomes, with clear guidance on some of the metrics that might be useful for goal and priority setting, monitoring and evaluation.
Life satisfaction is experienced differently across regions
In addition to a healthy and inclusive society, the happiness and personal well-being of a region’s residents are critical for long-term development. This approach aligns explicitly with the most recent national strategy, the Slovenian Development Strategy 2030, published in 2017 (Republic of Slovenia, 2017[73]). The strategy states that its primary objective is to provide a “high quality of life for all”. Although the measurement of life satisfaction is inherently subjective, numerous studies, surveys and indices have been developed at the national and subnational levels. These demonstrate that quality of life in Slovenia is generally high but some Slovenian regions are experiencing a lower quality of life overall – a disparity that may further accelerate the concentration of development in Ljubljana if left unaddressed.
To contextualise regional well-being it is important to emphasise that Slovenia ranks highly on several international comparisons of overall life satisfaction. In a 2024 comparison of European countries, Slovenia scored 7.7 out of 10 nationally and was ranked third-highest out of 29 countries (Eurostat, 2024[74]). Further evidence from OECD research confirms that Slovenia’s residents generally experience a good quality of life overall, with self-reported satisfaction approximately equal to the average of OECD countries (Box 2.9). The OECD Better Life Index provides an alternative measure of life satisfaction by assessing several of the component factors that determine overall satisfaction. It includes an analysis of 11 dimensions, including housing, environmental quality, health and work-life balance. In Slovenia, scores on most dimensions were slightly above the OECD median. Safety, social connections, and knowledge and skills were the best-performing indicators, with income and civic engagement scoring relatively poorly (OECD, 2025[75]).
When asked to rate their general satisfaction with life on a scale from 0 to 10, people in Slovenia participating in a global survey of 150 countries averaged 6.7, equal to the OECD average. In this survey, life satisfaction is a measure of how people evaluate their lives as a whole. It asks respondents to imagine an 11-rung ladder where the bottom (0) represents the worst possible life, and the top (10) represents the best possible life. Respondents are then asked on what step of the ladder they currently stand. In 2021-22, the residents of Finland, Israel, Denmark and Iceland were the most satisfied with their lives among OECD countries, scoring 7.5 or higher; Türkiye, Greece and Colombia were the least satisfied, all scoring lower than 6. Although life satisfaction is broadly similar among men and women, younger people, individuals employed full-time, those with a tertiary qualification, those with higher incomes and residents living in urban areas all reported higher life satisfaction on average. Regional variation on these indicators throughout Slovenia may therefore be a partial explanation for the differences observed in life satisfaction among regions.
Source: (OECD, 2024[76]).
Based on inter-regional survey data and other indicators, there is some evidence of a small but significant regional divide in life satisfaction among Slovenian regions (Table 2.4). Koroška, with an average satisfaction of 7.3, was the lowest-scoring region; Gorenjska and Osrednjeslovenska were the highest-scoring regions, both with 7.8. Interestingly, satisfaction with financial situation received the lowest rating in all regions in comparison with job satisfaction, the quality of personal relationships and available leisure time, suggesting that improved economic conditions in their region would be a high priority for many individual respondents.
Note: Average, scale of 1 to 10, all persons aged 16 and above. Leisure time 2022. Job satisfaction 2023.
Source: Based on data from (SiSat, 2024[77]).
An east-west divide is also evident on other aggregate measures of well-being. The OECD Regional Well-Being Index, which scores a range of indicators such as the quality of education, jobs and housing on a scale from 0 to 10, is only available at the territorial level 2 (TL2) level. It reveals a wide gulf between Zahodna (Western) Slovenija and Vzhodna (Eastern) Slovenija (OECD, 2025[78]). For example, Zahodna Slovenija scores higher in life satisfaction (6.2 vs. 5.4), access to services (6.7 vs. 6.0) and civic engagement (2.5 vs. 1.6). Out of the 11 topics covered, Vzhodna Slovenija scores better only in community, albeit very slightly (8.8. vs. 8.6).
These insights demonstrate that life satisfaction is high overall, but appears to be somewhat unequal on several measures among Slovenian regions. Further, there is no consistent narrative of disadvantage, with some locations performing poorly on some indicators, but better on others. Generally, western regions display higher life satisfaction than eastern regions, but all parts of Slovenia have areas for potential improvement that should be incorporated into future regional strategic plans.
The health and life satisfaction of regional residents, and regions’ overall inclusiveness, differ considerably throughout Slovenia. Reducing these disparities should be a key focus of the national regional development strategy. In addition to addressing inter-regional differences, actions at the regional level can also help achieve national goals such as increasing trust, reducing loneliness, eliminating poverty and improving physical health. These are important priority areas, not only because they affect a large number of people, but also because they are undermining the catch-up of non-capital regions – especially in eastern Slovenia. Improved data collection, and a better understanding of the region-specific causes that are contributing to reduced well-being, are two practical steps that could greatly improve the efficacy of national initiatives to boost well-being.
In addition to economic and well-being challenges, several structural and transition challenges are also negatively affecting the development of Slovenian regions. In particular, the non-capital regions are experiencing faster rates of demographic change, face significant infrastructure gaps and are expected to bear a larger share of the costs that will accompany the transition to net zero. These challenges are not only a direct barrier to regional development, but are perpetuating the already significant concentration of economic activity around Ljubljana and the cross-border movement of Slovenian workers. Proactive strategic planning is therefore essential to help smooth out potential shocks, boost regional attractiveness and prepare each region for change by developing long-term strategic plans such as regional development programmes to deal with structural disadvantages.
Demographic challenges may deepen regional inequality
Slovenia’s demographic trends are likely to aggravate existing labour shortages, with the number of people aged 65 or over expected to rise from 22.1% in 2025 to around 30% by 2060 (OECD, 2024[79]). This will not only affect the available labour force, but will also entail additional ageing-related costs as a higher proportion of the population qualifies for pensions and requires more intensive healthcare services. Although all of Slovenia is anticipated to be affected by demographic change, its regions are likely to experience ageing unevenly, and will require unique infrastructure and investments in public services to manage the transition effectively. However, ageing is not the only demographic consideration for Slovenian regions. Immigration, urbanisation and population-density patterns are also affecting regions in a non-linear way. All of these demographic changes, as well as those that are not yet in evidence but may emerge in the coming decades, will require a place-based approach to development planning and significant adjustments to government operations.
Slovenia’s population is stable, but expected to age unevenly
As in many OECD countries, Slovenia’s population is anticipated to become gradually older, on average, by 2060 – a process that has already begun. This forecast is premised on two existing long-term trends in Slovenian demography: growth in life expectancy and a decline in the fertility rate. In 1990, Slovenia’s elderly resident population represented 10.6% of the total population. In the subsequent decades, the number has steadily grown in absolute terms, while the overall population has remained broadly stable. Residents aged 65 or older represented 13.9% of the total population in 2000, 16.5% in 2010, 20.2% in 2020 and 22.1% in 2025.
Despite a slowdown in the fertility rate, Slovenia is yet to experience significant population decline and averaged 0.4% growth between 2015-2024. Among development regions, however, population growth has been more varied (Figure 2.16). Taking into consideration both natural increases and net migration, Osrednjeslovenska and Obalno-kraška were the fastest-growing regions, achieving an average annual rate of 0.7% (SiStat, 2025[5]). Zasavska, Koroška and Pomurska, by contrast, experienced a modest fall in overall population over the same period. Although varied, the absolute gains and losses in population over the last decade have been small, but preparation for future population decline should be undertaken at the regional level.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2025[5]).
The most pressing implication of ageing for Slovenian regions is the financial and practical pressures that will be placed on national and municipal services. A higher share of elderly residents would most likely result in additional demand for social security payments, health services and aged care, all of which could reduce the amount of government funding available for other priorities. A further consideration is the uneven spread – and financial impact – that an ageing population might impose on some regions, and how these may exacerbate existing regional inequalities.
Migration patterns also suggest some regions are more favoured than others
A related challenge is that of immigration, which can both compound and potentially alleviate demographic change. The emigration of Slovenian residents to other countries, for example, has grown in recent years from 0.7% of the total population per year in 2014 to 1.0% in 2024. This outmigration has predominantly been directed towards EU Member States (46.6%) and former members of Yugoslavia (39.4%), with approximately 84% of international emigrants being of working age. Interestingly, the departure of Slovenian nationals to other countries does not have a strong subnational pattern, as the number of emigrants from each region is broadly in proportion with its total population.
The arrival of new residents in Slovenia is occurring in tandem with recent growth in emigration. In 2014, 13 846 immigrants from abroad were received, equal to 0.7% of the population (SiStat, 2025[80]). By 2024, the number of immigrants had grown to 33 023 (1.6%). Although the absolute numbers are small, some regional trends are clear. Relative to its population, the coastal region of Obalno-kraška received the highest number of international migrants, with 1 new migrant for every 44.5 of population, around three times more than in Pomurska (1 new migrant for every 131.9 of population).
In combination, the combined number of new residents arriving in each Slovenian region from other countries exceeded the number of international departures. This can be best understood through the net migration rate per 1 000 residents, which shows the overall migration movements of each region in relation to the existing population. In 2024, Slovenia overall recorded a net arrival of 5.4 migrants (Figure 2.17). By contrast, regions such as Pomurska and Primorsko-notranjska, on aggregate, attracted fewer new residents and lost a higher share of their current population. These trends are reinforcing the concentration of development in Osrednjeslovenska and the hollowing out of cross-border towns and localities.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2025[80]).
A broad range of factors are likely to have influenced the flow of international migrants and their distribution among the 12 development regions. These include economic opportunities, the affordability of housing, and the availability of high-quality health and education services, alongside personal considerations such as familial and social connections to a particular area. In aggregate, however, there exists strong evidence to suggest that international migrants are primarily drawn to locations that meet specific criteria (Annex 2.A). Several of these criteria – such as economic performance – are easy to measure using metrics such as unemployment rates, GDP per capita and disposable household income. Others, such as the availability and quality of transport services (essential to reach places of employment or schools) are more difficult to obtain and analyse. Nonetheless, a place-based approach recognising the strength and assets of each development region could help identify interventions and investments that could help offset ageing and outward migration in the regions most at risk of demographic decline.
Inter-regional migration is another factor driving demographic change in Slovenia. Unlike international migration, inter-regional movements are predominantly driven by individuals seeking new educational or employment opportunities. Family connections, housing affordability and lifestyle considerations are factors that may influence households moving from one development region to another. For most development regions over the last decade, the number of annual arrivals has closely matched the number of departures. The primary exceptions are Osrednjeslovenska, which has consistently attracted greater numbers of residents from other regions than it has lost, and Gorenjska, where net departures to other regions have been exceptionally high, amounting approximately to 2.6% of the population in 2014.
Taken together, the inward and outward flows of population suggest a second current of demographic change that sits above the deeper, long-term ageing that is occurring more consistently across the country. Further, migrants are less likely to relocate to eastern regions, strengthening the gravitational pull of Ljubljana. For instance, the loss of the existing population to emigration may exacerbate ageing in some regions, while population growth from migration may add pressure to public services and infrastructure in others.
Changing demographics have implications for national and regional strategic planning
Regions can play a critical role in managing demographic challenges and should align their actions as much as possible with long-term national demographic objectives. These could include boosting participation to maintain a productive workforce, reallocating infrastructure and public services, and attracting skilled labour from other countries.
Demographic trends also pose a serious challenge to regional development, influencing investment priorities, limiting workforce availability and shaping long-term growth potential. Most immediately, they may exacerbate the concentration of economic activity and population around Ljubljana, further weakening the capacity of non-capital regions to catch-up. However, the severity and immediacy of demographic change varies widely across development regions and municipalities, requiring tailored, region-specific strategies that are rooted in both national objectives and local realities. High-level demographic projections and goals could therefore be reflected in future regional strategic plans when relevant, alongside regional interventions aimed at supporting – or at least aligning with – national efforts to adapt to shifting population structures and changing social demands.
Infrastructure, housing and spatial challenges are barriers to regional development
Slovenia’s spatial environment is a constant and influential factor on its regional development. Each development region has its own unique geographic challenges, land-use patterns, infrastructure and international borders, all of which support some economic activities but may be a barrier to others. In addition to individual regional circumstances, each locality in Slovenia is also part of a broader pattern of land-use and economic activity which gravitates towards the centre and has strong international interactions in border regions. These spatial characteristics, many of which are the culmination of past policy decisions, can limit the development potential of specific regions and the country overall. Recognising these challenges, and incorporating them into strategic planning, could therefore help mitigate their impact (Box 2.10).
Overlaying the unique spatial characteristics of each region is Slovenia’s national spatial-planning system, which functions consistently in all regions. Although the legal framework and decision-making responsibilities are clearly defined, the effort required to obtain development approvals can be an impediment to investment, productivity and housing supply (Ministry of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning, 2025[81]). For example, the average time taken to obtain a construction permit for residential buildings in Slovenia is typically around 4-5 months and 1.5-2 years for industrial developments. However, it should be noted that delays and administrative complexity are evident among the spatial-planning systems of most OECD countries (OECD, 2017[82]).
Spatial planning rules and processes in Slovenia provide limited flexibility for development proposals to diverge from the types of activities explicitly permitted when implementing spatial plans9 (Dražić, 2021[83]). In most cases, changing land use on a specific plot would require updating the relevant spatial plan itself. This approach contrasts with some other OECD Member countries, such as the United Kingdom, that have a more discretionary system where spatial plans act as a guide for local authorities and allows proposals to be assessed case by case (O’Brien, 2021[84]). Although the merits of each proposal are also individually assessed in Slovenia, construction permits can only be granted for purposes that have been explicitly permitted in the relevant spatial plan.
The impact of spatial planning on strategic planning and regional development
In general, spatial-planning legislation, regulations, strategies and other mechanisms to guide land-use play an influential role in strategic planning for regional development in OECD Member countries. For example, spatial plans provide clear limits on what type of development can take place. They also provide valuable guidance on future development scenarios and challenges, such as population growth or decline. In addition, the implementation of strategic plans, and the support of specific regional development initiatives and projects, will often require adherence to and interaction with spatial plans and policies to ascertain the requisite legal approvals. Despite these important linkages, strategic planning for regional development is a distinct activity with its own set of objectives and processes. It provides a long-term framework for future investment and decision-making which incorporates a much broader range of policy areas and actors than spatial planning alone.
Slovenia’s national and regional spatial plans are distinct from strategic planning documents
The Spatial Development Strategy of Slovenia 2050 specifies five long-term strategic objectives that focus directly on improving spatial efficiency, quality and identity. Among the objectives are supporting the transition to carbon neutrality and improving the resilience of space to change. All five objectives have important regional implications. To support the strategy’s implementation, regional spatial plans are currently being prepared and are scheduled for adoption in 2027. However, the strategy and its supporting regional plans focus explicitly on spatial policy and outcomes. From a strategic planning perspective, they should support the implementation of Slovenia 2030 and the national regional development strategy, but sit below them in the strategic planning hierarchy.
Source: Based on (Republic of Slovenia, 2023[85]).
Further, Slovenia’s spatial planning system has been shaped by decades of polycentric spatial strategies and land-use policies that have implications for regional development. For example, local government reforms in the 1960s and 1970s encouraged the development of 64 local centres to ensure equal access to employment and social infrastructure (Nared, 2017[86]). The large investment in road infrastructure since independence, the creation of new municipalities in the 1990s and the accompanying zoning of land for residential use have also promoted the development of new suburbs in greenfield areas (Ursic, 2021[87]). Compared to most OECD countries, Slovenia is therefore characterised by a large number of small settlements. The result of these policies can be seen by the low rate of urbanisation in Slovenia, with only 19.5% of the total population living in cities (Figure 2.18).
With a high proportion of residents living in rural areas, Slovenia’s settlement patterns are associated with several development challenges. Most immediately, dispersed residential and commercial land use is a barrier to agglomeration. From a business perspective, it is more difficult to engage with suppliers, make deliveries to customers and form partnerships or collaborations with other enterprises when economic activity is widely dispersed, rather than concentrated in urban areas. For residents, the number of employment opportunities, professional services, cultural activities and retail providers located in close proximity to their residence and workplace is also limited by deconcentrated land use.
Note: Total population is classified as living in cities (densely populated areas), towns and suburbs (intermediate density areas) or rural areas (thinly populated areas).
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2025[88]).
Related to the low share of residents living in cities, urban sprawl is one of the most pressing spatial challenges for Slovenia and a trend that has strengthened Ljubljana’s position relative to other regions. Although less-concentrated housing patterns and large distances between new developments and urban centres offer some advantages – such as cheaper land, fewer building restrictions and the potential for larger residential lots – they also bring significant economic costs. These costs are predominantly immediate, such as those that affect the budgets of governments and households each year, but can also impose hidden costs through reduced efficiency of land use and deterrence of productive activities. A further consideration is the social cost of urban sprawl. Places with high rates of commuting, for example, may have less time on average for leisure and cultural activities, reducing overall well-being (Figure 2.19).
Note: Persons in employment (excluding farmers) whose workplace is not in the statistical region of their residence. Slovenia represents the share of the national population working outside their region of residence.
Source: Based on data from (SiSat, 2024[23]).
Large differences also exist in the quality of the motorway and rail networks, resulting from the prioritisation of investments in the motorway network after Slovenia’s independence in 1991 and after joining the European Union in 2004 (Hudak, 2023[89]). For example, of the 2 170 kilometre (km) rail network, only 325 km are lines with double tracks (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[90]). Further, aviation infrastructure is centralised, with the vast majority of passengers travelling through Ljubljana airport, imposing a significant time and inconvenience cost on regions farthest away (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[91]). Yet good access to transport infrastructure is extremely important for regional development as it influences investment decisions and is a precondition for many businesses, particularly those that transport goods.
Housing, broadband access and other infrastructure are significant barriers to development
The housing and infrastructure endowment of each region is a further constraint to even regional development in Slovenia. High-quality housing and supporting infrastructure are critical to maintaining each region’s competitiveness and attractiveness, especially for foreign investors and skilled labour. Although the general level of infrastructure provision in Slovenia is good, regional differences are clearly apparent, especially in housing (European Commission, 2025[32]). These differences are not necessarily development barriers, but the absence of some housing and infrastructure types can deter specific types of activities, industries and businesses. More broadly, they may limit the potential for agglomeration and clustering, which can help enhance productivity and promote innovation.
The housing stock of each region illustrates these limits. In Posavska, which has only 76 000 residents, 75.2% of housing consists of single-dwelling buildings, offering very few apartments and limited choices for different household types. Importantly, single-dwelling buildings are an impediment to networking and agglomeration, and low-density housing imposes higher costs on governments and businesses. The provision of public transport, for example, is more costly, all else being equal. Osrednjeslovenska, where around 51% of all residences are located in three-dwelling buildings or greater, has much greater capacity to support agglomeration, as well as offering additional options that may suit individuals at different life stages.
Housing costs are also a major factor contributing to the high rates of commuting to Ljubljana. Although prices would be expected to vary across Slovenia, average house and apartment prices in some non-capital regions are around one-third those of Osrednjeslovenska (Figure 2.20). Residents relocating to a neighbouring region for cheaper housing, but continuing to work at the same business location, not only increase the burden on transport infrastructure but may also reduce the tax income of economically productive municipalities. More positively, affordable housing is an important asset in the pursuit of potential residents – both workers and entrepreneurs – from abroad and can help retain skilled labour.
Source: Based on data from (Republic of Slovenia, 2024[92]).
Internet access and speeds are further considerations for businesses and households when choosing where to locate. Throughout Slovenia, around 94% of households have broadband access, suggesting a very well-developed digital infrastructure (SiStat, 2024[93]). Further, 97.9% of enterprises report internet access. The distribution of internet access at the regional level, however, is less uniform. For households, 98% of Obalno-kraška reported a connection, compared to only 87% in Posavska.
Recognising these challenges, future strategic documents at both the national and regional levels should therefore be informed by – and work in tandem with – regional spatial plans and existing regional infrastructure to achieve the best possible outcome for the region. Insufficient consideration of regional spatial planning could, for example, lead to unrealistic proposals, delays in implementation and additional expense. However, strategic planning should not be considered as an instrument of spatial planning, as both play important and complementary roles in supporting regional development. Rather, strategic planning should be based on the needs of the specific region, following rigorous analysis of its major development challenges and opportunities.
Net-zero and other environmental challenges
Slovenia’s environmental objectives at a national level, its international commitments to improve sustainability, and the demands for a cleaner environment from local communities and international investors are likely to impose significant costs and obligations on its regions. Energy production and transport in particular remain heavily polluting sectors, requiring new technologies and practices to curb their environmental impact. Other sectors, such as manufacturing and agriculture, will also need to adapt, imposing costs on incumbent businesses and leading to the cessation of specific activities, such as coal mining and coal-fired electricity generation. Although the challenges of this transition will affect all Slovenian regions and municipalities differently – with the Zasavska and Savinjska regions particularly vulnerable due to the strong influence of coal mining and related industries on their economic structure – strategic planning can help identify and secure funding to smooth out the transition-related costs that might otherwise deepen inter-regional inequalities.
Slovenia’s national commitment to a green transition imposes costs at the regional level
As an EU Member State, Slovenia is a signatory of the Paris Agreement and is bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the European Union’s collective nationally-determined contributions and targets – i.e. reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 and achieving climate neutrality (net zero) by 2050 (UNFCC, 2025[94]). In addition to these high-level targets, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, affecting large emitters, and the EU-wide target of banning internal combustion engines by 2035 will also affect Slovenian regions (European Parliament, 2023[95]). Domestically, a wide raft of commitments and policies aimed at strengthening, complementing and implementing EU-level commitments are also in force. For example, the National Energy and Climate Plan sets out additional national and sectoral targets and milestones for greenhouse gas reduction, as well as outlining the phase-out of coal mining by 2033 (Republic of Slovenia, 2023[96]).
At the national level, Slovenia’s carbon emissions are broadly in line with benchmark countries (Eurostat, 2023[97]). In 2023, greenhouse gas emissions were equal to 5.0 tonnes per capita, higher than Lithuania's (4.4) – the lowest – and well below those of Estonia (9.5), the highest. The largest emitting sectors in Slovenia were transport, electricity generation and manufacturing. It should be noted that a significant portion of transport emissions are the result of traffic, particularly road freight, passing through Slovenia from other countries. Nonetheless, as transport is responsible for around 30% of Slovenia’s annual emissions, significant changes in the transport sector – potentially through greater investment in railways or changes to road pricing – will be needed over the medium term to reach the required targets.
The environmental developments, initiatives and changes that are driving a green transition are having a significant impact on regional economies. The most directly affected is the region of Savinjska, which has the only operating coal mine and coal-powered power station. Together, these employ around 1 800 full-time workers directly, as well as supporting additional local businesses and suppliers indirectly. The closure of these facilities may therefore affect regional employment (European Commission, 2022[98]). Other sectoral considerations are less clear-cut but will also have an uneven impact on regional economies. Agriculture, manufacturing, transport and electricity generation, for example, are relatively carbon-intensive compared to finance, public administration and health, which will require fewer adjustments and are rarely required to purchase emissions credits. As an example, the region of Jugovzhodna Slovenija produces 43.9% of its regional GVA through manufacturing activities – the highest share in the country (Figure 2.21). Obalno-kraška, by contrast, produces only 10.1% of its GVA from manufacturing and has low-carbon sectors such as trade and accommodation (37.6%) and public administration (15.7%) making up nearly half of its GVA.
Note: Also includes mining and quarrying. Slovenia represents share of national economy.
Source: Based on data from (SiStat, 2025[99]).
In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a vast quantity of environmental laws, regulations and commitments will also pose challenges to regional development over the coming decades. These include a mix of national and European initiatives relating to biodiversity, water management, soil quality and air pollution. For example, the EU Nature Restoration Regulation under the EU Biodiversity Strategy includes legally binding targets for the restoration of agricultural ecosystems, rivers, forests and pollinator populations, and is likely to require changes to land use and farming practices in all Slovenian regions (European Commission, 2024[100]). At the national level, legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act is likely to have a similarly asymmetric impact (Republic of Slovenia, 2006[101]), for example, on development regions with a high concentration of protected areas and sensitive natural habitats.
Environmental management and mitigation costs are greater for some regions
Natural disasters and the management of natural assets are a further consideration with widespread but uneven regional implications. Although all regions are at risk of occasional floods, fires and other extreme weather events, some are more vulnerable than others. For example, the proportion of the population exposed to flood varies greatly across Slovenian municipalities, with those located near the Sava (northwest to southeast), Drava (northeast) and Mura (northeast) rivers estimated to be the most vulnerable to a 100-year flooding event (OECD, 2020[102]). Of the 12 development regions, Pomurska is the most exposed, with 34.7% of its built-up area vulnerable to river flooding. In Savinjska region, where exposure to flooding is low in some areas, several municipalities in the southern section, including Polzela and Celje, are at very high risk. Obalno-kraška (0.2%) and Primorsko-notranjska (0.4%) by contrast, have relatively low flood risk (OECD, 2020[103]). Therefore, additional investment in preventive infrastructure such as levees, emergency service equipment and information campaigns could be pressing regional priorities in these areas, but a lower priority in others.
Forest cover and the share of protected areas are further constraints on regional development that are particularly acute in Slovenia (Figure 2.22). In addition to the country having a small land area overall, a very large share is unavailable for most types of economic activities. In 2023, an estimated 58.2% of total surface area was forested, with 79% of forests privately owned (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, 2023[104]). A cross-country comparison using a slightly different methodology estimated that 61.4% of Slovenia had forest cover, a greater share than in all comparable economies (Eurostat, 2021[105]). Although forest cover provides numerous regional benefits, including support for forestry industries, recreation, tourism and biodiversity, very high concentrations of forest cover can be a barrier to other types of economic activities, such as manufacturing and renewable-energy generation.
Note: Protected areas comprise of national designations and Natura 2000 sites.
Source: Based on data from (Eurostat, 2025[106]).
The share of protected areas in Slovenia is also high, with 40.5% of total land area receiving some degree of national or Natura 2000 conservation status, greatly enhancing its attractiveness to residents and tourists (Eurostat, 2025[107]). Lithuania (17.8%), Latvia (18.1%) and Italy (21.0%), by contrast, have far fewer protected areas. Although protected areas in Slovenia can still be developed in some circumstances, the types of allowable activities may be more limited, applications more complex and land-use conditions more onerous, resulting in a lower proportion of land being potentially available for industrial, residential and infrastructure uses. At the sub-national level, protected-area status is much more concentrated in the southwest and northwest, as well as in a small cluster directly adjacent to the Hungarian border. The proportion of land given formal protection is the lowest in the central valleys – where, not coincidentally, population density is the highest.
The benefits and opportunities of sustainable regions should inform future strategic development documents
Although environmental challenges are in many respects an impediment to regional development in Slovenia, improvements in environmental outcomes simultaneously present valuable development opportunities. Furthermore, notwithstanding the short-term costs, progress on addressing some environmental issues may help reduce regional inequalities. New investment in renewable energy, for example, is likely to provide new economic and employment opportunities in some regional areas with the appropriate space and topographical conditions to support it.
Addressing environmental issues, such as reducing contaminated waterways and rehabilitating degraded land, has a further benefit for the well-being of regional inhabitants by boosting local amenity. Not only do improved physical environments provide additional leisure opportunities that contribute to well-being, they are also valuable assets that can help attract new residents, skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Finally, a sustainable environment has explicit economic benefits. This can be demonstrated through additional tourists or the regeneration of degraded areas that can be repurposed and used for commercial activities. In the Slovak Republic, the region of Banksá Bystrica was able to leverage its rich natural assets and national parks by boosting accessibility through investment in bike paths, public transport and signage, as well as improving international awareness through online marketing, leading to increased tourism (OECD, 2025[108]). A more sustainable environmental record can also help with marketing regional products and attracting foreign investment, as many institutional investors – and multinational businesses themselves (e.g. IKEA) – apply strict environmental criteria to every step of their supply chain (Han, 2022[109]). Regions play a critical role in improving environmental outcomes, conserving natural heritage and fulfilling international commitments. They also lead the implementation of important policy changes, such as improvements in sustainable mobility and transport, co-ordinating local energy operations to support long-term decarbonisation and planning regional-level responses to legislation on climate-change mitigation. The actions of each development region, and its constituent stakeholders, should therefore be aligned as much as possible with long-term national environmental objectives such as net-zero.
Addressing environmental challenges will also affect regions and localities in a variety of ways. If not well-managed, they could accelerate the concentration of population and economic activity in Ljubljana. The transition away from fossil fuels, for example, poses an immediate challenge to coal mining, electricity generation and the communities in which those activities are currently undertaken. The gradual shift to renewable-energy sources, business practices and technologies, although simultaneously supporting new industries and providing new sources of investment, will also disproportionately affect regional economies with a high share of manufacturing, transport and agriculture. These combined factors create a risk that business activity, migration and commuting patterns will become more deeply oriented towards Osrednjeslovenska, at the expense of other regional economies.
Finally, the benefits of enhanced environmental sustainability for regional competitiveness, security and well-being should also be considered as they can help offset the outward flow of workers, residents and economic activity to Ljubljana. Although the costs of compliance with environmental regulations and investments in the management of natural assets are often unavoidable, their rigorous application can also enhance the region’s attractiveness for residents, boost well-being and help attract new sources of foreign investment.
The strong pull of Ljubljana, and the availability of employment across international borders, create a substantial barrier to growth in Slovenia’s non-capital regions and the country’s periphery. This pull exacerbates existing economic, social and structural challenges, which need to be addressed through place-based regional development. Major economic indicators – including GDP per capita, labour productivity, foreign investment and exports – demonstrate the scale of economic concentration in central Slovenia and the relative difficulties for smaller regions seeking to catch up. However, social inequalities are also undermining regional development. Regional concentrations of poverty, life expectancy and crime limit workforce participation, impose costs on municipalities, reduce social cohesion and ultimately stifle economic growth. Further, social inequalities can hinder the flow of skilled labour from abroad and encourage current residents to commute or relocate permanently to a neighbouring region or other countries.
Overlaying these economic and social challenges are several structural characteristics of Slovenian society that are further complicating regional development. These include an ageing population, a largely rural settlement pattern and the ongoing transition to net-zero carbon emissions. These characteristics should not be viewed as negative or detrimental to regional development in all circumstances, but rather as challenges that may shape policy choices, impose costs and require careful management.
There is a clear role for a place-based approach in Slovenia that recognises the unique characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of each region (Box 2.11). Although differences among regions are modest on some indicators, such as household disposable income, the cumulative evidence suggests that the quality of life and opportunities available to individuals living in Slovenia will be somewhat shaped by their region of residence.
A national-level regional development strategy to guide regional and sectoral policy programming, featuring clearly defined long-term objectives, priorities and targets, is therefore justified. This strategy could help co-ordinate line ministries and development programmes at the national level by establishing clear and long-term regional development priorities. A national regional development strategy could moreover help regional and municipal actors better design their own strategic plans. By assessing their local needs and circumstances in relation to broader regional challenges, subnational strategies could more effectively link place-based priorities to national programmes and funding.
To help address regional economic disparities and build competitiveness, Slovenia could:
Establish a long-term, national-level objective to reduce regional disparities in economic activity by 2050. This should include:
a specific national target to reduce gaps in regional GDP per capita and household disposable income among development regions
complementary economic growth targets, i.e. GDP, GDP per capita and household disposable income, in each region based on its existing assets, major industries and development potential
corresponding targets for important factors that can contribute to economic growth in each region such as foreign investment, exports, labour productivity, and R&D.
Work with RDAs to assess major barriers to international competitiveness in each region. This could include:
reviewing publicly available research to develop a list of 15-20 criteria, such as infrastructure quality and workforce skills, that are critical to international business and therefore most relevant to the competitiveness of each development region
launching a questionnaire to gather qualitative evidence from regional exporters and foreign investors to identify which of the 15-20 criteria are most present and most lacking in their region, and how their absence affects their operations
using the information gathered to prioritise regional development projects and funding that can most directly build on existing opportunities and/or reduce or remove existing barriers to foreign investment and exports.
Call for regions to undertake comprehensive assessments of their skills assets and shortages as part of future regional development programmes, drawing on assistance from the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, and in consultation with regional employers. This could include:
establishing guidelines for the assessments, including for example the identified needs of regional employers, the most numerous occupational types and the necessary labour qualifications; as well as providing advice on ways to incorporate the short, medium- and longer-term impacts of demographic change
collaborating with the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia to increase the availability and accessibility of regional skills statistics, which are currently only available at the national level
consulting periodically with local businesses, unions and industry associations to understand how employer needs are evolving and ensure that the assessments are realistically linked with regional development priorities.
To help address regional social inequalities and boost productivity, Slovenia could:
Build on existing data that provide insights into well-being and quality of life in order to identify risk factors which could be contributing to disparities in subnational well-being outcomes. This could include:
expanding the annual survey on living conditions to include additional questions directly linking health outcomes (such as disability, illness and mental health) to economic circumstances (such as unemployment) and well-being measures (such as loneliness and life satisfaction)
calculating and publishing regional breakdowns of healthy and harmful behaviours, which are currently only publicly available at the national level
using survey findings and regional data to inform regional development programmes and better target territorial interventions to address issues affecting resident well-being, as well as helping to evaluate the impact of completed projects.
Improve the consistency and focus of social objectives in subnational strategic documents as a step towards boosting labour-market participation in Slovenian regions. Means to do so include:
establishing a definition, clear objectives and common benchmarks for social inequality (e.g. reducing the risk of poverty, increasing overall life satisfaction and providing sufficient health services to treat mental illness) in the national regional development strategy
working with regions to ensure that realistic targets aimed at reducing social inequality through the established benchmarks are included in regional development programmes, using a consistent, rigorous and standardised methodology.
To help address structural and transition challenges facing regions (e.g. infrastructure gaps, demographic change), Slovenia could:
Establish a framework for assessing the attractiveness of regions to workers and firms from within Slovenia and abroad, which could also contribute to meeting objectives in the national regional development strategy. Such a framework could:
consist of economic, social, well-being and other dimensions of attractiveness, supported by agreed-upon quantitative indicators
be used to measure the relative strengths and weaknesses of each region in terms of its attractiveness to workers and firms
serve as a guide for regions to prioritise projects and direct funding towards those initiatives that are most likely to increase the region’s appeal to potential residents, partly helping to offset future costs associated with ageing and population decline.
Ensure that future strategic documents at both the national and regional levels (i.e. the national regional development strategy and regional development programmes) are informed by, and work in tandem with, regional spatial plans while remaining focused on regional development objectives. These strategic documents should include a brief review of spatial planning strategies and an assessment of land-use constraints, regulations and zonings, with an eye on potential future investments and activities in the region, for example in housing, heavy industry and infrastructure.
Expand the cost-benefit analysis undertaken for new, large-scale changes to environmental regulations and legislation, such as those affecting coal mining and national targets for carbon-emission reduction, to include an assessment of regional-level environmental impacts. This can help to identify any asymmetric costs that new measures may impose on specific regions and enable mitigating actions to be prepared through strategic planning.
The regional profiles of Slovenia’s 12 development regions include a short overview of the territory, a description of the region’s economic and social features, the latest results available from the OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass and a table of quantitative measures of the region’s performance alongside the national average. The profiles were developed with the indicators used in the preparation of this report and the OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass.
Consisting of over 50 indicators across 14 dimensions, the Regional Attractiveness Compass (Seunga Ryu et al., 2024[110]) plots regional performance relative to all others in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions located in the European Union (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that the region is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance.
The compass was created to compare the appeal of individual regions for investors, skilled workers and visitors. It helps national and subnational governments assess their region’s strengths and shortcomings, compare their region with national and international peers, identify potential policy areas for investment and prioritisation, and monitor the impact of new regional development policies.
|
Population: 209 451 (9.9%) Area: 2 137 km2 (10.5%) Population density: 98/km2 Municipalities: 18 Largest settlement: Kranj (37 966) Gorenjska, located in the northwest of Slovenia, is the fourth-largest region by population, the sixth-largest by area, and the sixth most densely populated. Over the past ten years, Gorenjska’s population grew at an annual average rate of 0.3%, in line with the Slovenian average. The average age is 44 years, the third-lowest in the country, while the birth rate is 8.4 per 1 000 of population, the third-highest. Net international migration (number of immigrants arriving in Slovenia from abroad minus emigrants leaving) is positive, equal to 4.7 per 1 000 of population, above the Slovenian average. |
Economic features Gorenjska’s economy is relatively large, with a total GDP of EUR 5.5 billion (8.6% of national GDP), and has grown at an average annual rate of 6% over the last decade. GDP per capita is below the national average, equal to EUR 26 247, but still the fifth-highest. Gorenjska’s international competitiveness is also relatively strong, with the third-highest quantity of foreign direct investment, EUR 1.7 billion, making up 7.5% of the country’s total, and annual goods exports of EUR 3.4 billion, accounting for 6.2%. Investment in R&D was the equivalent of only 1.3% of regional GDP and 5.1% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Gorenjska’s labour market is generally healthy in comparison with other regions, with an employment rate of 71.9% and an unemployment rate of 2.6%, the second-lowest in the country. Social features Life expectancy in Gorenjska is 84.7 years for women and 80 for men, both among the highest in Slovenia, and it has the highest rate of people reporting good health at 73%, both of which can support labour market participation and labour productivity. The poverty rate, 10.9%, is below the national average, and only 16% of households were subject to bad dwelling conditions, the lowest in the country. Skills and education are approximately in line with the national average, but Gorenjska has the lowest population share with no digital skills (9.8%), equal to that of Obalno-kraška, suggesting a high rate of digital literacy for most of the population which can complement formal qualifications and boost labour productivity. |
|---|---|
|
On most regional attractiveness dimensions, Gorenjska scored equal to or above the Slovenian median. This suggests that the region has a relatively balanced set of strengths and weaknesses. Most notably, its housing, education services, digitalisation, environment and tourism sectors are ranked highly, although its economic attractiveness and social cohesion dimensions are more modest. In comparison with all other TL3 regions located in the EU, Gorenjska’s attractiveness is less clear-cut. For example, social cohesion was rated as exceptionally low. Other indicators, such as transportation, cultural capital and health, received much weaker scores when compared to EU regions than the rest of Slovenia. Overall, the compass highlights social cohesion as the most suitable policy area for potential prioritisation.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Gorenjska’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Gorenjska is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 118 254 (5.6%) Area: 2 325 km2 (11.5%) Population density: 50.9/km2 Municipalities: 13 Largest settlement: Nova Gorica (13 055) Goriška, located in the west of Slovenia, is the seventh-largest region by population yet the third largest by area and has the second-lowest population densely. Over the past ten years Goriška’s population declined slightly, with an average annual change of -0.01%. The average age is 46 years, the second-highest in the country, while the birth rate is 8.2 per 1 000 of population, slightly above the national average. While net international migration is positive, equal to 2.6 per 1 000 of population, it remains below the Slovenian average of 5.4. |
Economic features Goriška’s economy is moderately sized given its population, with a total GDP of EUR 3.2 billion (5% of national GDP), and has had an average annual growth rate of 5.8% over the last decade. Its GDP per capita is among the highest in Slovenia, equal to EUR 27 187. Goriška’s international competitiveness is modest, with foreign direct investment of EUR 851 million, making up 3.9% of the country’s total, and annual goods exports of EUR 2.3 billion, accounting for 4.2%. Investment in R&D was the equivalent of 2.8% of regional GDP, the third-highest, and 6.5% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Goriška’s labour market is strong in comparison with other regions, with an employment rate of 72.1%, the second-highest in Slovenia, and an unemployment rate of 3.1%, below the national average. Social features Life expectancy in Goriška is 84.8 years for women and 79.6 for men, among the highest in Slovenia, with 68% of people reporting good health. Poverty rates are slightly above the national average, at 14.2%, with 25% of households subject to bad dwelling conditions. However, only 7.8% of households were living in overcrowded dwellings, the second-lowest rate in Slovenia, suggesting that the quality of the housing stock is a major issue rather than the overall quantity of dwellings. Skills and education are close to the national average, with 41.1% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification, but 14.4% of people reporting no digital skills, hampering labour productivity. |
|---|---|
|
Based on the regional attractiveness compass, Goriška’s primary development challenge is its transportation infrastructure. In comparison with Slovenian and EU regions, it scored among the lowest, based on the density of its roads, cycleways, railways and electric vehicles, despite scoring near or above the median on most other indicators. Goriška’s natural capital, education services and tourism sector, for example, are all considered highly attractive relative to its EU peers. Its cultural capital and social cohesion are also well above most Slovenian regions. Due to their moderate level of attractiveness, digitalisation, health, land, innovation and the labour market are dimensions that could be prioritised.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Goriška’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Goriška is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 147 789 (7%) Area: 2 675 km2 (13.2%) Population density: 55.2/km2 Municipalities: 21 Largest settlement: Novo Mesto (24 700) Jugovzhodna Slovenija, located in the southeast of Slovenia, is the fifth-largest region by population and the largest by area, making it the tenth most densely populated. Over the past ten years Jugovzhodna Slovenija recorded the third-fastest annual population growth, averaging 0.5%. The average age is 43.5 years, the second-lowest in the country, while the birth rate is 9.5 per 1 000 of population, the highest. Net international migration is positive, equal to 4.7 per 1000 of population. |
Economic features Jugovzhodna Slovenija’s economy has a total GDP of EUR 4 billion (6.3% of national GDP) and has grown at an average annual rate of 5.6% over the last decade. GDP per capita is also slightly below the national average, equal to EUR 27 170, but is the fourth-highest among Slovenia’s regions. Jugovzhodna Slovenija’s international competitiveness is mixed, with foreign direct investment of only EUR 254 million, making up 1.1% of the country’s total, yet annual goods exports of EUR 4.5 billion, the second-highest in the country, accounting for 8.2%. Investment in R&D was equivalent to 4% of regional GDP, the highest, accounting for 11.6% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Jugovzhodna Slovenija’s labour market is broadly in line with other regions, with an employment rate of 71.2% and an unemployment rate of 3.4% Social features Life expectancy in Jugovzhodna Slovenija is 83.9 years for women and 79 for men, with 62% of people reporting good health, all slightly below the national averages. Poverty rates are approximately equal to the national average, and 21% of households were subject to bad dwelling conditions. Skills and education are also significantly behind the national average, with only 39.7% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification, the third-lowest rate in the country. In addition, Jugovzhodna Slovenija has the fourth-highest population share with no digital skills, at 15.3%, which may be limiting labour productivity. |
|---|---|
|
The regional attractiveness of Jugovzhodna Slovenija is slightly above average, both in comparison with Slovenian regions and other regions throughout the EU. Among Slovenian regions, it scored well on innovation, the economy, natural capital and housing. On tourism and transportation, it scored slightly below, but on all other indicators appeared similar to the country as a whole. Jugovzhodna Slovenija also appears to be broadly comparable to most other EU TL3 regions on a variety of measures. However, its natural capital is exceptional, considered to be among the most attractive in Europe. Transportation scored very poorly and is a clear area for prioritisation, along with health and cultural capital.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Jugovzhodna Slovenija’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Jugovzhodna Slovenija is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 70 492 (3.3%) Area: 1 041 km2 (5.1%) Population density: 67.7/km2 Municipalities: 12 Largest settlement: Slovenj Gradec (7 731) Koroška, located in the north of Slovenia, is the third-smallest region by both population and area, and has the ninth-highest population density. Over the past ten years, Koroška was the second-fastest shrinking region, with an average annual population change of -0.2%. The average age is 45.5 years, among the highest in the country, while the birth rate was close to the national average, at 8.1 per 1 000 of population. Net international migration is positive but below average, equal to 3.4 per 1 000 of population. |
Economic features Koroška’s economy is the third-smallest in the country, with a total GDP of EUR 1.6 billion (2.5% of national GDP), which has grown at an average annual rate of 5.3% over the last decade. GDP per capita is also significantly below the national average, equal to EUR 22 742, the fourth-lowest. Koroška’s international competitiveness is also limited, receiving the lowest quantity of foreign direct investment in Slovenia, EUR 86 million, making up 0.4% of the country’s total, and exporting goods equal to EUR 1.3 billion, accounting for 2.4%. Investment in R&D was equivalent to only 0.4% of regional GDP, the joint lowest with Primorsko-notranjska, and only 0.5% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Koroška’s labour market is mixed, with an employment rate of only 66.8%, the third-lowest in Slovenia, but an unemployment rate of only 2.6%, the second-lowest (equal with Gorenjska). Social features Life expectancy in Koroška is 83.8 years for women and 77.9 for men, both among the lowest in Slovenia, with only 61% of people reporting good health and 13% reporting bad health, the highest share of any region. Poverty rates are above the national average at 14.5%, with 17% of households subject to bad dwelling conditions. However, crime rates in Koroška are the second-lowest among development regions and equal to only half the national average. Skills and education are above the national average, with 42.3% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification, the second-highest share in the country. Koroška also has a low population share with no digital skills, at only 12.3%. |
|---|---|
|
Koroška received a mixed score across the 14 regional attractiveness dimensions. In comparison with other Slovenian regions, it scored poorly on tourism, housing, cultural capital and digitalisation. However, on innovation, land and natural environment indicators, it scored very highly. In comparison with the median EU TL3 region, Koroška’s attractiveness is approximately average. It scored relatively high on land and natural capital, and relatively low on transportation and cultural capital, but on all other measures, it appears to have a comparable balance of strengths and weaknesses to the average European region. Overall, digitalisation and cultural capital may be the most suitable areas for prioritisation, but there is significant room for improvement on most attractiveness dimensions.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Koroška’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Koroška is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 119 205 (5.6%) Area: 1 044 km2 (5.1%) Population density: 114.2/km2 Municipalities: 8 Largest settlement: Koper (26 410) Obalno-kraška, located in the southwest of Slovenia, is the sixth-largest region by population, the ninth-largest by area, and has the fourth-highest population density. Over the past ten years, population growth in Obalno-kraška was the second-fastest, with an average annual change of 0.7%. The average age is 45.8 years, the third-highest in the country, while the birth rate is 6.5 per 1 000 of population, the lowest. At 8.8 per 1 000 of population, Obalno-kraška has the highest net international migration rate. |
Economic features Obalno-kraška has a total GDP of EUR 3.3 billion (5.3% of national GDP) and has achieved an average annual growth rate of 6% over the last decade, the fourth-fastest. GDP per capita, while below the national average, is equal to EUR 28 433, making it the second-highest. Obalno-kraška’s international competitiveness is relatively strong with foreign direct investment of EUR 1.2 billion, making up 5.3% of the country’s total, and annual goods exports of EUR 1.4 billion, accounting for 2.5%. Investment in R&D was equivalent to only 0.8% of regional GDP, and 2% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Obalno-kraška’s labour market is robust compared to other regions, with an employment rate of 70%, equal to the national average, and an unemployment rate of 2.3%, Slovenia’s lowest. Social features Life expectancy in Obalno-kraška is 84.6 years for women, just below average, but 80.8 for men, the highest in Slovenia, with 63% of the total population reporting good health. Poverty rates are the highest in the country at 19.5%, as is the share of households subject to bad dwelling conditions, at 29%. This suggests that the region’s good economic performance is not benefitting the entire population proportionately. Skills and education are just below the national average, with 40.2% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification. However, Obalno-kraška, alongside Gorenjska, has the lowest population share with no digital skills, equal to 9.8%, suggesting a high rate of digital literacy that can complement formal qualifications and boost labour productivity. |
|---|---|
|
Obalno-kraška’s regional attractiveness is mixed, with most dimensions sitting near the national and EU average. Exceptions include housing, which is among the least affordable in Slovenia, transportation, which is significantly lower than most EU and Slovenian TL3 regions, and natural capital, which receives an exceptionally high score in comparison with all other EU regions. Tourism, the economy and digitalisation are other comparative strengths of Obalno-kraška that can be built upon in the future. However, social cohesion, health and the environment appear to be slightly underperforming dimensions which could also benefit from enhanced prioritisation.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Obalno-kraška’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Obalno-kraška is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 565 353 (26.6%) Area: 2 334 km2 (11.5%) Population density: 242.2/km2 Municipalities: 25 Largest settlement: Ljubljana (290 903) Osrednjeslovenska, located in the centre of Slovenia, is the largest region by population and second largest by area, making it the most densely populated by a wide margin. Over the past ten years, Osrednjeslovenska was the fastest-growing region, with an average annual population change of 0.7%. The average age is 42.7 years, the lowest in the country, while the birth rate is 8.2 per 1 000 of population, the fourth-highest. Net international migration is the second-highest, equal to 7.4 per 1 000 of population. |
Economic features Osrednjeslovenska’s economy is by far the largest in the country, with a total GDP of EUR 25.1 billion (39.3% of national GDP), and achieved the second-fastest growth over the last decade, at an average annual rate of 6.8%. Osrednjeslovenska’s GDP per capita is the highest in Slovenia, equal to EUR 44 567, and it is the only region above the national average. Osrednjeslovenska’s international competitiveness is also extremely strong, with foreign direct investment of EUR 13 billion making up 58.9% of the country’s total, and annual goods exports of EUR 25 billion, accounting for 46.3% of the national total. Investment in R&D was equivalent to 3.2% of regional GDP, the second-highest, comprising 58.4% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Osrednjeslovenska’s labour market is only marginally above average in comparison with other regions, with an employment rate of 70.8%, and an unemployment rate of 3.8%. Social features Life expectancy in Osrednjeslovenska is 85.1 years for women and 80.6 for men, both among the highest in Slovenia, with 71% of people reporting good health. Poverty rates are the lowest in the country, yet 18% of households are subject to bad dwelling conditions. Skills and education are also significantly ahead of the national average, with 42.8% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification, the highest rate in the country, and 10% of the population reporting no digital skills, among the lowest in the country. Both of these can support the attraction of foreign investment and boost labour productivity in the region. |
|---|---|
|
On most regional attractiveness indicators, Osrednjeslovenska scored above the national average, suggesting it is one of the most attractive regions in Slovenia. In particular, its economy, transportation, cultural capital and digitalisation received close to a perfect score, with health, education and tourism also significantly above average. Osrednjeslovenska’s major weakness is its housing, specifically its housing affordability – deemed to be the worst in Slovenia, and likely to be a substantial barrier to development. Interestingly, housing affordability in Osrednjeslovenska is around the EU median, suggesting that it might be less of a deterrent to international workers than it appears. Transportation, which is much lower, and natural capital, which is much higher, are the only other two dimensions in which Osrednjeslovenska’s EU score diverges significantly from its intra-Slovenia regional comparison.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Osrednjeslovenska’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Osrednjeslovenska is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 330 572 (15.6%) Area: 2 170 km2 (10.7%) Population density: 152.3/km2 Municipalities: 41 Largest settlement: Maribor (97 552) Podravska, located in the northeast of Slovenia, is the country’s second-largest region by population, the fifth-largest by area, and has the second-highest population density. Over the past ten years, Podravska’s average annual population growth has been positive, at 0.3%, but just below the national average. The average age is 45.1 years, while the birth rate is 7.2 per 1 000 of population, both close to the national average. Net international migration is positive, equal to 6.7 per 1 000 of population, and the third-highest in Slovenia. |
Economic features Podravska’s economy is the second-largest, with a total GDP of EUR 8.1 billion (12.6% of national GDP), which has grown at an average annual rate of 5.8% over the last decade. GDP per capita, however, is below the national average, equal to EUR 24 527. Podravska’s international competitiveness is strong, with foreign direct investment of EUR 2.3 billion, making up 10.6% of the country’s total (the second highest), and annual goods exports of EUR 3.8 billion, accounting for 6.9%. Investment in R&D was the equivalent of only 1% of regional GDP, less than half the national average, and only 5.9% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Podravska’s labour market is generally underperforming in comparison with other regions, with an employment rate of only 66.3%, the second-lowest in Slovenia, and an unemployment rate of 5.4%, the highest in the country. Social features Life expectancy in Podravska is 83.5 years for women and 78.4 for men, among the lowest in Slovenia, with 65% of people reporting good health, just below the national average. Poverty rates are the second-highest in the country at 18.2%, greatly limiting social mobility and human capital formation. In addition to high poverty rates, 17% of households were subject to bad dwelling conditions. Skills and education are approximately equal to the national average, with 41.6% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification and 14.1% of the population reporting no digital skills, which hampers labour productivity |
|---|---|
|
Podravska scored close to the Slovenian median on approximately half of the regional attractiveness dimensions. Its cultural capital, land, health, digitalisation and transportation are identified as its strongest development assets, while its natural capital, labour market, and housing score relatively low. However, the most striking feature of its compass results is the evenness and consistency across dimensions, with no major outliers. Podravska’s attractiveness scores are also broadly similar to the average TL3 region in the EU, providing limited guidance on what dimensions would most benefit from prioritisation. Interestingly, Podravska scored slightly above average on natural capital, tourism and education compared to the median EU region, despite being marginally behind other Slovenian regions on these measures.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Podravska’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Podravska is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 113 668 (5.4%) Area: 1 337 km2 (6.6%) Population density: 85/km2 Municipalities: 27 Largest settlement: Murska Sobota (10 923) Pomurska, located in the northeast of Slovenia, is the eighth-largest region by both population and area, and the seventh most-densely populated. Over the past ten years, Pomurska was the fastest-shrinking region, with an average annual population change of -0.3%. The average age is 47.1 years, the highest in the country, while the birth rate is 6.8 per 1 000 of population, the second-lowest. While net international migration is positive, equal to 1.3 per 1 000 of population, it remains the lowest of all Slovenian regions. |
Economic features Pomurska’s economy is relatively small, with a total GDP of EUR 2.3 billion (3.6% of national GDP), which has grown at an average annual rate of 5.3% over the last decade. GDP per capita is also significantly below the national average, equal to EUR 20 360, the third-lowest. Pomurska’s international competitiveness is also limited, with foreign direct investment of only EUR 502.5 million, making up 2.3% of the country’s total, and annual goods exports of EUR 1.1 billion, accounting for 2%. Investment in R&D was the equivalent of only 0.5% of regional GDP, the third-lowest in the country, and only 0.8% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Pomurska’s labour market is generally underperforming in comparison with other regions, with an employment rate of only 63%, the lowest in Slovenia, and an unemployment rate of 4.1%, among the highest in the country. Social features Life expectancy in Pomurska is 82.4 years for women and 76.7 for men, the lowest in Slovenia, with only 59% of people reporting good health. Although poverty rates are approximately equal to the national average (13.8% compared to 13.2%), 27% of households were subject to bad dwelling conditions. Skills and education are also significantly behind the national average, with only 38% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification, the lowest rate in the country. Pomurska also has the highest population share, at 22.3%, with no digital skills significantly hindering labour productivity and the overall quality of life. |
|---|---|
|
On most regional attractiveness dimensions, Pomurska scored below the Slovenian median. In particular, on measures of attractiveness related to the environment, digitalisation, cultural capital and the economy, the region has significant room for improvement. On both health and social cohesion, however, Pomurska scored slightly better than the Slovenian median. Relative to EU regions, Pomurska scored highly on both natural capital and tourism while underperforming on transportation, cultural capital and, to a lesser extent, the environment and health. In all other areas, Pomurska’s regional attractiveness was assessed as approximately equal to the EU regional median.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Pomurska’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Pomurska is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 76 027 (3.6%) Area: 968 km2 (4.8%) Population density: 78.5/km2 Municipalities: 6 Largest settlement: Brežice (6 867) Posavska, located in the east of Slovenia, is the fourth-smallest region by population and second-smallest by area, and has the eighth-highest population density. Over the past ten years, Posavska’s population has been broadly stable, growing at an average annual rate of 0.1%. The mean age is 45.1 years, just above the country’s average, while the birth rate is 8.5 per 1 000 of population, the second-highest. Net international migration is positive, equal to 3.2 per 1 000 of population. |
Economic features Posavska’s economy is relatively small, with a total GDP of EUR 1.9 billion (2.9% of national GDP), but has had the highest growth rate at an average annual rate of 7.3% over the last decade. GDP per capita is also below the national average, equal to EUR 24 729. Posavska’s international competitiveness is also limited, with foreign direct investment of only EUR 397 million, making up 1.8% of the country’s total, and the third-lowest annual goods exports of EUR 924 million, accounting for 1.7%. Investment in R&D was the equivalent to only 0.7% of regional GDP, the fourth-lowest, and only 1% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Posavska’s labour market is slightly above average in comparison with other regions, with an employment rate of 71.8%, and an unemployment rate of 3%, among the lowest in the country. Social features Life expectancy in Posavska is 84.5 years for women and 78.2 for men, which is broadly in line with the average for women but the third-lowest for men, with 61% of people reporting good health. Posavska has the highest suicide rate in the country, yet the lowest prevalence of symptoms of depression, at only 4%. Although poverty rates are above the national average, only 18% of households were subject to bad dwelling conditions. Skills and education are also slightly behind the national average, with only 40.1% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification, the lowest rate in the country, and 14.6% of people reporting no digital skills, hampering labour productivity. |
|---|---|
|
On most regional attractiveness indicators, Posavska scored below the Slovenian median. In particular, its environment, natural capital and innovation performance was very low, with cultural capital and health also significantly below average. In comparison to other EU regions, Posavska’s attractiveness was more varied; its natural capital and tourism performance was significantly above the median, highlighting a relative strength that could be further built upon. Yet on health, transportation, the environment and cultural capital, it appears to be far behind most other European TL3 regions. Overall, health, innovation, natural capital and the environment appear to be the most suitable dimensions for additional prioritisation.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Posavska’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Posavska is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 54 109 (2.5%) Area: 1 456 km2 (7.2%) Population density: 37.2/km2 Municipalities: 6 Largest settlement: Postojna (10 041) Primorsko-notranjska, located in the southwest of Slovenia, is the smallest region by population and seventh-largest by area, making it the least densely populated. Over the past ten years, Primorsko-notranjska experienced population growth broadly in line with Slovenia as a whole, averaging 0.3% annually. The average age is 45 years, while the birth rate is 7 per 1 000 of population, the third-lowest. While net international migration is positive, equal to 1.8 per 1 000 of population, it is the second-lowest of all Slovenian regions. |
Economic features Primorsko-notranjska’s economy is the second smallest of the 12 development regions, with a total GDP of EUR1.1 billion (1.7% of national GDP) and the lowest average annual growth rate (5% over the last decade). GDP per capita is also significantly below the national average, equal to EUR 19 720, the second-lowest. Primorsko-notranjska’s international competitiveness is also significantly limited, with foreign direct investment of only EUR 138 million, making up 0.6% of the country’s total, and annual goods exports of EUR 766 million, accounting for only 1.4%. Investment in R&D was the equivalent of only 0.4% of regional GDP, the lowest, and only 0.3% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Primorsko-notranjska’s labour market has an employment rate of 74.6%, the highest in Slovenia, but also an unemployment rate of 4.9%, the second-highest in the country. Social features Life expectancy in Primorsko-notranjska is 84.7 years for women and 79.1 for men, both approximately equal to the Slovenian average, with 71% of people reporting good health, the second-highest rate. Although poverty rates are below the national average, 22% of households were subject to bad dwelling conditions. Skills and education are slightly below the national average, with 40.5% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification, and 20.1% having no digital skills, the third-highest population share, significantly hindering labour productivity and the overall quality of life. |
|---|---|
|
Primorsko-notranjska has two characteristics that greatly enhance its attractiveness in comparison with other Slovenian regions. These are housing, based on affordability in relation to income, and natural capital, based on forest cover and the share of protected areas. However, other measures of attractiveness, including the economy, cultural capital, land, social cohesion and health, scored below the Slovenian average. In comparison with other EU regions, Primorsko-notranjska’s housing advantage is much less pronounced, but its score on natural capital remains among the highest. In addition, the attractiveness of its transportation, health services and cultural capital – already lower than in most Slovenian regions – is even weaker in comparison with other European regions.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Primorsko-notranjska’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Primorsko-notranjska is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 261 786 (12.3%) Area: 2 301 km2 (11.4%) Population density: 113.8/km2 Municipalities: 31 Largest settlement: Celje (38 059) Savinjska, located in northcentral Slovenia, is the third-largest region by population, the fourth-largest by area, and the fifth most densely populated. Over the past ten years, Savinjska had an average annual population increase of 0.4%. The average age is 44.4 years, equal to the national average, while the birth rate is 8.1 per 1 000 of population. Net international migration is positive, equal to 4.8 per 1 000 of population, and the fourth highest in Slovenia. |
Economic features Savinjska’s economy is the third-largest in Slovenia, with a total GDP of EUR 6.8 billion (10.7% of national GDP), which has grown at an average annual rate of 5.6% over the last decade. GDP per capita is slightly below the national average, equal to EUR 26 110. Savinjska’s international competitiveness is mixed, with foreign direct investment at only EUR 986 million, making up 4.5% of the country’s total, but with the third-highest annual goods exports at EUR 4.3 billion, accounting for 7.8%. Investment in R&D was the equivalent to only 1.3% of regional GDP, and 6.7% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Savinjska’s labour market is strong in comparison with other regions, with an employment rate of 72.1%, and an unemployment rate of 3.1%, both outperforming the national average. Social features Life expectancy in Savinjska is 83.6 years for women and 79.1 for men, with 62% of people reporting good health. Poverty rates are above the national average at 15.5%, with 23% of households subject to bad dwelling conditions. Skills and education are broadly aligned with the national average, with 41.5% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification, yet 15.2% of people reported no digital skills, hampering labour productivity. |
|---|---|
|
In comparison with other Slovenian regions, Savinjska scored close to the median on most indicators. However, its housing market is among the least attractive in the country, and education services and natural capital assets were considerably below average. In comparison with EU regions, Savinjska also scored broadly in line with the median. Its best-performing indicator was tourism, with the number of overnight stays and available tourist infrastructure ranking highly. In contrast, transportation, made up of cycleway, road and rail infrastructure, as well as the share of electric vehicles, scored very poorly, and the attractiveness of the environment was also significantly below the EU average.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Savinjska’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Savinjska is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
|
Population: 57 243 (2.7%) Area: 485 km2 (2.4%) Population density: 118/km2 Municipalities: 4 Largest settlement: Zagorje ob Savi (16 413) Zasavska, located in central Slovenia, is the second-smallest region by population and the smallest by area, however it is the third most densely populated. Over the past ten years Zasavska shrunk at the third-fastest rate, with an average annual population change of -0.1%. The average age is 45.5 years, slightly above the national average, while the birth rate is 7.7 per 1 000 of population, the fifth lowest. While net international migration is positive, equal to 2.1 per 1 000 of population, it is the third lowest of all Slovenian regions. |
Economic features Zasavska’s economy is the smallest in Slovenia, with a total GDP of EUR 942 million (1.5% of national GDP), but has grown at an average annual rate of 5.3% over the last decade. GDP per capita is also the lowest, equal to EUR 16 456. Zasavska’s international competitiveness is limited, with foreign direct investment of only EUR 168 million, making up 0.8% of the country’s total, and the lowest annual goods exports in the country at EUR 469 million, accounting for 0.9%. Investment in R&D was the equivalent of 1.9% of regional GDP, the fourth-highest, and made up 1.3% of Slovenia’s total R&D expenditure. Zasavska’s labour market is generally underperforming compared with other regions, with an employment rate of only 69.9%, the fourth-lowest in Slovenia, and an unemployment rate of 4.7%, among the country’s highest. Social features Life expectancy in Zasavska is 83.9 years for women and 78.9 for men, just below the national average. It has the country’s lowest rate of people reporting good health, at only 55%, and the highest (equal with Posavska) rate of people with high BMI, at 62.7%. The poverty rate of 15.6% is above the national average, yet only 16% of households were subject to bad dwelling conditions, the lowest in the country. Education and skills are significantly behind the national average, with only 38.7% of people holding a tertiary or vocational qualification, the second-lowest in the country. Zasavska also has the second-highest population share with no digital skills (21.1%), significantly hindering labour productivity and the overall quality of life. |
|---|---|
|
Zasavska scored close to the Slovenian median on most attractiveness dimensions. However, on tourism, cultural capital and health, it was among the lowest in the country. Zasavska’s attractiveness relative to other EU regions follows a similar pattern. Tourism, cultural capital and health are again well below the median, but Zasavska scored poorly on transportation, the environment and social cohesion. Innovation, measured by trademark and patent applications, alongside housing and digitalisation, were among Zasavska’s greatest strengths in comparison with both Slovenian and EU regions.
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass visualises Zasavska’s performance relative to all other regions in Slovenia (in red) and all TL3 regions in the EU (in blue). Each indicator is scored from 0 to 200, with the dashed black line representing the median score of 100. A higher score (closer to the circumference) indicates that Zasavska is performing better relative to other regions, while a lower score (closer to the centre) indicates underperformance. |
|
Notes: BMI = body mass index. µm = microns. m2 = metres squared. km2 =.kilometres squared. *denotes figures where a high ranking is negative. All indicators are based on the most recently available data.
Source: Based on data from (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2025[111]) and (Eurostat, 2025[112]).
The OECD Regional Attractiveness Compass methodology draws upon a wide range of indicators to estimate the relative position of regions according to their attractiveness to investors, talent and visitors. It provides an overview of a region’s attractiveness across 6 multidimensional domains, with a total of 14 dimensions considered. The compasses offer a comparative view against national and EU benchmarks, making them a valuable tool for planning and evaluating policy interventions, identifying complementarities across regions and understanding systemic challenges. Below are the indicators used by the OECD to create the attractiveness compasses in Slovenian TL3 regions.
Notes: USD = United States dollars. PPP = purchasing power parity. p.p. = percentage point. µg/m³ = microgrammes per cubic metre. cm = centimetre. Km = kilometre.
Source: (OECD, 2022[113]).
Note: µm = microns. km2 = kilometres squared. ^ = Based on indicated source. Years specified the most recently available as of September 2025.
References
[35] Banka Slovenije (2025), Direct Investment, directional principle, direct investment in Slovenia, stocks, https://px.bsi.si/pxweb/en/serije_ang/serije_ang__30_EOT__50_NEPOSREDNE_NALOZBE/nn_s_r.px/?rxid=2a86ece7-6426-4088-9faf-629f81845617 (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[57] CEDEFOP (2023), Skills anticipation in Germany, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/data-insights/skills-anticipation-germany-2023-update (accessed on 28 August 2025).
[53] Cedefop (2024), “European Skills Index”, European Skills Index, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/tools/european-skills-index (accessed on 30 July 2025).
[52] Cedefop (2021), Vocational Education and Training in Slovenia: Short Description, Publications Office of the European Union, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications/4204.
[24] Dijkstra, L., H. Poelman and P. Veneri (2019), “The EU-OECD definition of a functional urban area”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, No. 2019/11, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d58cb34d-en.
[13] Dolenjski List (2023), DS umaknil zakonodajne predloge o ustanovitvi pokrajin [DS withdraws legislative proposals on the establishment of provinces], https://dolenjskilist.svet24.si/novice/politika/ds-umaknil-zakonodajne-predloge-o-ustanovitvi-pokrajin-272034-1725435 (accessed on 1 July 2025).
[83] Dražić, B. (2021), Spatial Planning Systems in Europe - Slovenian Example, Chamber of Architecture and Spatial Planning, https://www.arhitekti-hka.hr/files/file/vijesti/2020/02_SI.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2025).
[49] European Commision (2025), “Eurydice”, Slovenia, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/slovenia/overview (accessed on 30 July 2025).
[32] European Commission (2025), 2025 Country Report – Slovenia, European Commission, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=celex:52025SC0224.
[100] European Commission (2024), Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869, Official Journal of the European Unioin, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1991.
[29] European Commission (2024), The Future of European Competitiveness, Publications Office of the European Union, https://commission.europa.eu/document/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[98] European Commission (2022), Partnership Agreement between Slovenia and European Commission 2021-2027, European Commission, https://commission.europa.eu/publications/partnership-agreement-slovenia-2021-2027_en (accessed on 19 August 2025).
[31] European Investment Bank (2025), EIB Investment Survey 2024 Country Overview: Slovenia, https://doi.org/10.2867/0758495.
[95] European Parliament (2023), EU ban on the Sale of New Petrol and Diesel Cars, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdfs/news/expert/2022/11/story/20221019STO44572/20221019STO44572_en.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).
[15] Eurostat (2025), Area by NUTS 3 Region, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/REG_AREA3__custom_6173523/default/table?lang=en&utm_ (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[10] Eurostat (2025), Create your maps with IMAGE, our map generator tool, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/wdn-20230823-1 (accessed on 23 September 2025).
[112] Eurostat (2025), Data Browser - Regional Statistics, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/explore/all/all_themes?lang=en&display=list&sort=category (accessed on 3 October 2025).
[30] Eurostat (2025), Inward FDI stocks in % of GDP, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tec00105/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[106] Eurostat (2025), Land Cover for FAO Forest Categories by NUTS 2 Region, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lan_lcv_fao/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[45] Eurostat (2025), Nominal Labour productivity by NUTS 2 region, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nama_10r_2nlp/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[46] Eurostat (2025), Nominal Labour Productivity by NUTS 3 Region, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nama_10r_3nlp/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[107] Eurostat (2025), Protected areas, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_bio4/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 25 July 2025).
[34] Eurostat (2025), “Trust in others by sex, age and educational attainment”, Life Satisfaction and Trust, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_pw03/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 23 July 2025).
[37] Eurostat (2024), Exports of Goods and Services in % of GDP, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/page/TET00003 (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[74] Eurostat (2024), “Overall life satisfaction by sex, age and educational attainment”, Living Conditions, https://doi.org/10.2908/ILC_PW01 (accessed on 24 September 2025).
[65] Eurostat (2024), Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age and sex, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ilc_peps01n/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[51] Eurostat (2024), Population in private households by educational attainment level, country of birth and NUTS 2 region, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/edat_lfs_9917__custom_18049645/default/table (accessed on 5 November 2025).
[97] Eurostat (2023), Domestic Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_13_10/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 24 September 2025).
[114] Eurostat (2023), Healthy life years by sex (from 2004 onwards), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/hlth_hlye/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 17 September 2025).
[71] Eurostat (2023), Police-recorded offences by offence category, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/crim_off_cat/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 31 July 2025).
[105] Eurostat (2021), “Land cover for FAO Forest categories by NUTS 2 region”, Data Browser, https://doi.org/10.2908/LAN_LCV_FAO (accessed on 26 June 2025).
[27] FURS (2024), Work Migrants - Austria-Italy, Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia.
[109] Han, X. (2022), Analysis and Reflection of IKEA’s Supply Chain Management, Springer/Atlantis Press, https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-098-5_19.
[89] Hudak, S. (2023), “Tracing rail transformation: the case of passenger services in Slovenia from 1975 to 2015”, Public Transport, Vol. 15, pp. 253-274, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-022-00316-1.
[22] Institute of Economic Research (2025), Quality of Life in Slovenia: Development Report 2025, https://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/razvoj_slovenije/2025/angleski/POR_2025_EN.pdf.
[41] Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development (2025), Spring Forecast of Economic Trends 2025, https://www.umar.gov.si/en/forecast-of-economic-trends/publication/spring-forecast-of-economic-trends-2025.
[33] Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development (2024), Development Report 2024, Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, https://www.umar.gov.si/en/publications/development-report/publication/development-report-2024-1.
[44] International Trade Administration (2024), “Market Challenges”, Slovenia Country Commercial Guide, https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/slovenia-market-challenges#:~:text=Potential%20investors%20in%20Slovenia%20still,heavy%20tax%20and%20regulatory%20burdens (accessed on 13 August 2025).
[7] IOM (2015), World Migration Report 2015, https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/country/docs/syria/IOM-World-Migration-Report-2015-Overview.pdf (accessed on 2025).
[64] Kolada (2025), Overview of Public Health, https://kolada.se/verktyg/jamforaren/?focus=16689&report=207703 (accessed on 29 July 2025).
[47] Lehmann, E. and M. Keilbach (eds.) (2019), Education, Human Capital Spillovers and Productivity: Evidence from Swedish Firm Level Production Functions, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25237-3_20.
[104] Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (2023), Forestry: Slovenia is among the most forested countries in Europe, https://www.gov.si/en/policies/agriculture-forestry-and-food/forestry/#:~:text=Slovenia%20is%20among%20the%20most%20forested%20countries%20in%20Europe&text=About%201.2%20million%20ha%20of,and%2053.5%25%20deciduous%20growing%20stock (accessed on 26 June 2025).
[21] Ministry of Cohesion and Regional Development (2023), Regional Development Report 2018-2022.
[58] Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (2025), Analysis of the labor market situation and results of medium- and long-term forecasts of labor market needs until 2039, Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.
[81] Ministry of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning (2025), The Average Time to issue a Building Permit for a Residential Building is a Good Four to Five Months, https://www.gov.si/novice/2025-03-05-povprecni-cas-za-izdajo-gradbenega-dovoljenja-za-stanovanjski-objekt-je-dobrih-stiri-do-pet-mesecev/ (accessed on 25 July 2025).
[62] NIJZ (2024), Alcohol Consumption and Selected Health Consequences of Alcohol Consumption, National Institute of Public Health, https://nijz.si/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Epidemiolosko-spremljanje-porabe-alkohola-in-izbranih-zdravstvenih-posledicah-rabe-alkohola-v-Sloveniji-v-obdobju-2013-2021-1.pdf.
[61] NIJZ (2023), Health Determinants - Risk Factors, National Institute of Public Health, https://nijz.si/publikacije/zdravstveni-statisticni-letopis-2023/ (accessed on 2025).
[63] NIJZ (2023), Health Status of the Population, National Institute of Public Health, https://nijz.si/publikacije/zdravstveni-statisticni-letopis-2023/.
[84] O’Brien, P. (2021), Planning Reform: a Zonal Future?, Chartered Institute of Housing, https://www.ukhousingreview.org.uk/ukhr21/ (accessed on 21 August 2025).
[39] OECD (2025), “A review of Slovenia’s industrial strategy: Policies for a green, innovative, and smart economy”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 177, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f10e4ef9-en.
[75] OECD (2025), OECD Better Life Index, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/tools/oecd-better-life-index.html (accessed on 18 July 2025).
[78] OECD (2025), OECD Regional Well-Being, https://www.oecdregionalwellbeing.org/SI03.html (accessed on 23 July 2025).
[108] OECD (2025), Preparing for Demographic Change in the Banská Bystrica Region, Slovak Republic, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/62ab1acb-en.
[6] OECD (2025), “Shrinking Smartly and Sustainably: Strategies for Action”, OECD Rural Studies, https://doi.org/10.1787/f91693e3-en.
[1] OECD (2024), “Annual GDP and components - Expenditure Approach”, OECD Data Explorer, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?fs[0]=Topic%2C1%7CEconomy%23ECO%23%7CNational%20accounts%23ECO_NAD%23&fs[1]=Topic%2C2%7CEconomy%23ECO%23%7CNational%20accounts%23ECO_NAD%23%7CGDP%20and%20non-financial%20accounts%23ECO_NAD_GNF%23&fs[2]=Frequency%20of%20o (accessed on 23 July 2025).
[28] OECD (2024), Building More Resilient Cross-border Regions: Considerations in Governance and Partnerships, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5fd3e59-en.
[79] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: Slovenia 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc4a107b-en.
[4] OECD (2024), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2024, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/f42db3bf-en.
[76] OECD (2024), Society at a Glance 2024, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en.
[115] OECD (2023), Expanding the Doughnut? How the Geography of Housing Demand has changed since the rise of Remote Work with COVID-19, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf591216-en.
[72] OECD (2023), Lessons from the 2023 OECD Trust Survey in Slovenia, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/261ac7b2-en.
[3] OECD (2023), OECD Regional Outlook 2023: The Longstanding Geography of Inequalities, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/92cd40a0-en.
[113] OECD (2022), Measuring the Attractiveness of Regions, OECD Regional Development Papers, https://doi.org/10.1787/fbe44086-en.
[102] OECD (2020), “Local Data Portal”, Climate, https://localdataportal.oecd.org/maps.html?geolevel=SAU&indicator=RIVER_FLOOD_RP100_POP_SH&latitude=46.3672&longitude=15.3800&zoom=8.2019&topic=climate (accessed on 26 June 2025).
[103] OECD (2020), “River and Coastal Flooding - Regions”, OECD Data Explorer, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?tm=TL3%20data&pg=40&fc=Topic&hc[Territorial%20level]=&snb=63&vw=tb&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_REG_CLIM%40DF_FLOOD&df[ag]=OECD.CFE.EDS&df[vs]=1.0&dq=A.TL3.SI031%2BSI032%2BSI033%2BSI034%2BSI035%2BSI036%2BSI037 (accessed on 26 June 2025).
[82] OECD (2017), The Governance of Land Use in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268609-en.
[26] Pečar, J. (2020), Slovenia’s Regional Policy Objectives 2021-2027, Institute of Macroeconomic Analysis and Development, https://www.umar.gov.si/en/publications/single/publication/janja-pecar-slovenian-regional-policy-objectives-in-the-period-2021-2027 (accessed on 12 August 2025).
[86] Pelc, S. and M. Koderman (eds.) (2017), Local Self-government Reforms in Slovenia: Discourse on Centrality and Peripherality, Springer, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-59002-8_17.
[16] Republic of Slovenia (2025), Cohesion Regions in Slovenia, https://www.gov.si/en/topics/cohesion-regions-in-slovenia/ (accessed on 12 August 2025).
[8] Republic of Slovenia (2025), Political System, https://www.gov.si/en/topics/political-system/ (accessed on 7 July 2025).
[92] Republic of Slovenia (2024), Real estate market and mass valuation, https://ipi.eprostor.gov.si/jgp/data (accessed on 12 December 2024).
[96] Republic of Slovenia (2023), Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan of the Republic of Slovenia.
[85] Republic of Slovenia (2023), Spatial Development Strategy of Slovenia 2050.
[73] Republic of Slovenia (2017), Slovenian Development Strategy 2030.
[101] Republic of Slovenia (2006), Environmental Protection Act, Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, https://pisrs.si/pregledPredpisa?id=URED3967 (accessed on 24 July 2025).
[9] Republic of Slovenia (1993), The Law on Local Self Government.
[11] Republic of Slovenia (1991), Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia.
[110] Seunga Ryu, I. et al. (2024), “A granular approach to measuring regional attractiveness”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 100, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4f0866f1-en.
[36] SiSat (2025), Exports and Imports by Activity of Products (NACE Rev. 2) and Countries, Slovenia, Annually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/2490521S.px/ (accessed on 1 August 2025).
[55] SiSat (2025), Unemployment Rate, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0762115S.px/table/tableViewLayout2/ (accessed on 24 July 2025).
[23] SiSat (2024), Persons in employment (excluding farmers), labour migrants between statistical regions and the labour migration index by sex, statistical regions, Slovenia, annually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0723425S.px/table/tableViewLayout2/ (accessed on 14 August 2025).
[77] SiSat (2024), Self-assessment of overall life satisfaction, statistical regions, Slovenia, annually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0872040S.px/ (accessed on 13 August 2025).
[18] SiSat (2023), “Business Demography by Size of Enterprise, Cohesion and Statistical Regions, Slovenia, Annually”, Enterprises, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/1483402S.px/ (accessed on 24 September 2025).
[42] SiSat (2023), Gross value added at basic prices by activities, statistical regions, Slovenia, annually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0309254S.px/ (accessed on 24 September 2025).
[66] SiStat (2025), At-risk-of-poverty rate, statistical regions, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0867636S.px/ (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[38] SiStat (2025), “Exports and imports by the statistical regions and countries (in 1000 EUR), Slovenia, annually”, Foreign and Economic Relations, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/2430113S.px/ (accessed on 19 June 2025).
[99] SiStat (2025), Gross value added at basic prices by activities, statistical regions, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0309254S.px/ (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[59] SiStat (2025), Life Expectancy at Birth by Sex, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/05L4010S.px/ (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[80] SiStat (2025), Migration change of population, statistical regions, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/05I2004S.px/ (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[48] SiStat (2025), Population Aged 15 years or more by Education, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/05G2010S.px/ (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[88] SiStat (2025), Population by Large and 5-year Age Groups, Sex and Degree of Urbanisation, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/05C1015S.px/ (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[5] SiStat (2025), Population Density and Femininity Index, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/05C2010S.px/ (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[68] SiStat (2025), Share of households (%) by housing conditions, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0867725S.px/ (accessed on 27 August 2025).
[69] SiStat (2025), Share of persons (%) by frequency of contacts and getting together with relatives, statistical regions, Slovenia, multiannually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0888707S.px/ (accessed on 13 August 2025).
[60] SiStat (2025), Share of persons (%) by general health, statistical regions, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0868527S.px/table/tableViewLayout2/ (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[56] SiStat (2024), Measures of the Activity (in %), Statistical Regions, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0762115S.px/ (accessed on 26 August 2025).
[93] SiStat (2024), Number of households by Internet access, cohesion and statistical regions, Slovenia, annually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/2974007S.px/ (accessed on 24 September 2025).
[67] SiStat (2024), Overcrowding Rate, Statistical Regions, Slovenia, Annually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0867935S.px/ (accessed on 24 September 2025).
[2] SiStat (2023), Gross domestic product, statistical regions, Slovenia, annually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0309250S.px/table/tableViewLayout2/ (accessed on 31 July 2025).
[54] SiStat (2023), Number of Individuals by Level of Digital Skills, Cohesion and Statistical Regions, Slovenia, Multiannually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/2984205S.px/ (accessed on 19 September 2025).
[20] SiStat (2023), Regional Economic Differences (index), Statistical Regions, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/H249S.px/ (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[70] SiStat (2022), Share of persons (%) by frequency of getting together and contacts with friends, statistical regions, Slovenia, multiannually, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0888807S.px/ (accessed on 24 September 2025).
[40] Slovenia Business (2025), Automotive industry, https://www.sloveniabusiness.eu/industries-and-technologies/automotive-industry (accessed on 22 July 2025).
[50] Slovenian Qualifications Framework (2025), Slovenian Qualifications Framework, https://www.nok.si/en/ (accessed on 30 OCtober 2025).
[91] Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2025), “Air transport, 2024”, StatWeb, https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/en/News/Index/13547 (accessed on 28 July 2025).
[17] Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2025), “Gross domestic product, statistical regions, Slovenia, annually”, SiStat, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/0309250S.px/ (accessed on 6 January 2025).
[90] Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2025), “Length of railway lines, Slovenia, annually”, SiStat, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/2221601S.px/ (accessed on 28 July 2025).
[111] Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2025), SIStat Database, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStat/en.
[19] Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2024), “Regional economic differences (index), statistical regions, Slovenia, annually”, SiStat, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/H249S.px/ (accessed on 11 December 2024).
[43] Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2023), “Research and development indicators (%) by statistical region, Slovenia, annually”, SiStat, https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatData/pxweb/en/Data/-/2372405S.px/ (accessed on 24 September 2025).
[12] Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2000), POJASNILA O TERITORIALNIH SPREMEMBAH STATISTIČNIH, https://www.stat.si/dokument/5449/Pojasnila-spremembah-statisticnih-regij.pdf (accessed on 21 July 2025).
[14] SURS (2025), Slovene Statistical Regions and Municipalities in Figures, https://www.stat.si/obcine/en (accessed on 22 August 2025).
[94] UNFCC (2025), “NDC Registry”, Nationally Determined Contributions Registry, https://unfccc.int/NDCREG (accessed on 25 July 2025).
[25] Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za gradbeništvo in geodezijo (2021), Funkcionalne regije v Sloveniji, Institute for Local Self-Government Maribor, https://doi.org/10.4335/2021.8.
[87] Ursic, M. (2021), “Urbanisation History of Slovenia in the Context of Eastern and SouthEastern European Countries”, EQPAM, Vol. 1/1, http://Urbanisation History of Slovenia in the Context of Eastern and SouthEastern European Countries.
← 1. The “doughnut effect” is characterised by a high-activity and economically prosperous urban periphery, or outer ring, enveloping a less dynamic, hollowed out or underutilised centre (OECD, 2023[115]). What is seen in Slovenia is the opposite effect playing out at a larger territorial level: there is a dynamic and prosperous centre, Ljubljana, and an outer ring along border territories that can access employment opportunities in neighbouring countries, but limited activity in the territory between the centre and the borders.
← 2. Employees working in other regions are included based on their region of residence.
← 3. GDP per capita, as a measure of production, does not include a consideration of tax. Regions with high GDP are likely to also have a larger number of high-income households; these households will be taxed at a higher proportion of their income, thereby reducing the average disposable income.
← 4. Productivity per worker can occasionally obscure regional comparisons due to variations in industries, employment types, working conditions and other factors. For example, if the average worker in one region works 40 hours per week but the average worker in another works 38 hours, productivity per worker may appear higher even if the productivity of each additional hour of labour in both regions is equal.
← 5. These include digital skills for problem solving (e.g. internet banking), content creation (e.g. editing documents and photos), communication (e.g. using social media) and attaining information (e.g. determining reliable sources).
← 6. Expected healthy life years at birth, the number of years that a person is expected to live without any severe or moderate health problems, are also higher in Slovenia (66.6) compared to all benchmark countries except Italy (69.1) (Eurostat, 2023[114]).
← 7. Percentage of persons living in households where the equivalised total disposable household income is below the at-risk-of-poverty threshold.
← 8. The overcrowding rate is the percentage of persons living in dwellings with not enough rooms in relation to the number of household members. The condition for an overcrowded dwelling is that it does not have one room per household and at the same time, one room per couple in the household
← 9. Implementing spatial plans provide explicit guidance on land use, by contrast with strategic spatial plans, which provide more general guidance and a long-term vision. Implementation plans at the national level (national spatial plans) primarily concern national infrastructure, while municipal spatial plans provide detailed land-use rules for the entire municipal land area and form the basis of building permits.
← 10. “Bad” dwelling conditions encompass problems such as a leaking roof, damp walls/floors/foundation, or rot in window frames or the floor.