The statement by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, claiming that “nothing would ever have been built in Serbia if economic feasibility studies were required for every project,” sparked surprise and concern among experts. His remark came during a recent interview when asked why no economic feasibility study was conducted for the “Kraljevica” stadium in Zaječar, which cost around 30 million euros.
President Vučić stated that if economic feasibility studies were strictly applied, many infrastructure projects—including roads, highways and the Moravian Corridor—would never have been built. However, experts and interlocutors in the media stressed that such studies are not mere bureaucratic formalities but essential for responsible public spending. They ensure investments make sense and protect taxpayers from projects that may lead to unnecessary debt.
According to Serbia’s Law on Spatial Planning and Construction, economic, spatial, ecological, social, market, and financial justifications are mandatory for nearly every public project. The law lists over 20 types of projects requiring such studies, including stadiums, state roads, border crossings, and major infrastructure facilities. Experts argue that these legal requirements reflect core values necessary for Serbia’s progress toward European Union integration.
Despite the legal framework, there are concerns that projects are being carried out without proper justification studies. Stadiums have been built without clear cost-benefit calculations, and millions have been invested without proof of return. This practice clashes with the rhetoric about democracy and European integration, turning these ideals into mere words without practical enforcement.
Architect Mahmud Bušatlija emphasized that economic feasibility studies are fundamental tools for democratic governance and rational public spending. They protect citizens by ensuring that public money is invested wisely and that any unrecoverable funds do not simply become public debt. Without such studies, the state acts non-transparently and contradicts the democratic principles it claims to uphold.
Bušatlija criticized the president’s approach, suggesting it reflects a concentration of power that sidelines institutional checks and balances. While the president may not be legally bound to adhere to these obligations, the citizens ultimately bear the consequences of ignoring them.
The issue gained further attention following an Anti-Corruption Council investigation into the construction of three stadiums—in Zaječar, Leskovac, and Loznica—built without feasibility studies. The Council revealed that the estimated construction costs increased by about 20 million euros after completion, raising questions about the transparency and justification of these projects.
The Council highlighted that decisions on stadium locations, size, and content were made within a narrow circle of politically influential figures. This lack of transparency increases the risk of corruption and misuse of public funds.
Professor Nenad Ivanišević from the Faculty of Civil Engineering explained that under the current Law on Planning and Construction, justification studies are mandatory for stadiums with capacities of 20,000 or more spectators, or for facilities hosting over 5,000 spectators. Since the three stadiums each have an 8,000 spectator capacity, they technically fall outside the strict obligation for a justification study.
However, Ivanišević noted that these stadiums could still be subject to such studies under other legal criteria, particularly given their significant public funding totaling around 100 million euros. This financial scale alone warrants thorough analysis to confirm the economic justification of these projects.
