Ružica Šimić Banović is a Full Professor and Head of the Department of Economics at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, where she also chairs the Career Development Committee. A CERGE-EI Foundation Fellow and member of CEPOR‘s research team, she holds advanced degrees from Harvard Kennedy School, the University of Ljubljana, and King’s College London.
Her academic experience includes visits to institutions such as UC Berkeley, LSE, Higher School of Economics and George Washington University. Before academia, she worked in the private sector and was an adviser in the National Competitiveness Council. Her research focuses on gender equality, post-socialist economies, informality, migrant entrepreneurship, and migration trends, with publications in respected journals and edited volumes. She currently leads or contributes to projects funded by the U.S. Embassy, EU, EBRD, World Bank Group, and University of Zagreb.
Your recent work includes some policy efforts tackling gender inequality in Croatia with possible reflections for other (East)European countries. Can you explain your perspective and how you approach this complex issue?
The gender pay gap is probably the most widely recognized concept when discussing gender inequality, yet there are many other gaps that are even wider. We are aware of the 12.7% wage difference at the EU level—reflected in the EU Equal Pay Day in mid-November, symbolizing a month and a half of “free work” done by women compared to their male counterparts. At the global level, the situation is even worse. Put more illustratively: since mid-September, women have effectively been working for free compared to men.
“I am passionate about international cooperation, always strive to contribute to networking with substance, and seek to make a policy impact.”
Yet, as mentioned, there are gaps and trends that are even more worrisome. One such example is the “motherhood penalty”, which is evident in many aspects of our societies. Probably the most striking quantitative instance is a wage gap of up to 35% for women with children in South Asia (according to UN data). I also witnessed this dynamic in my fieldwork in Sri Lanka last year. The roots of this problem are deep—and they bring us back to Europe as well—namely, the gender gap in unpaid work. This is far less debated, but strongly present.
While co-leading a multistakeholder group on the socioeconomic position of women in Croatia within the Women in the Lead project implemented by the Academy for Political Development, much of our discussion centered on persistent gender stereotypes and the underrepresentation of women, even though women are on average more educated and perform better throughout their educational and professional paths. We shall continuously be reminded that ensuring gender equality, but also gender equity, is not only fair and inclusive—it is also smart economics, vital for sustainable development, as the World Bank highlighted over a decade ago.
Do you see any similarities between Czech Republic and Croatia linked to gender equality issue?
According to the latest Index of the European Institute for Gender Equality, in the domain of Time—which measures the allocation of time spent on family, household, and social activities—the two lowest-ranking EU member states are the Czech Republic, followed (with almost 10 points fewer) by my home country, Croatia. Other benchmarks make Croatia’s position even more telling, as they highlight deeply rooted and tacitly tolerated gender stereotypes, reflected in the substantial emotional and mental load carried by women. In other words, most women are the planners and predominant executors of most family and household responsibilities, while most men only occasionally perform tasks that have already been organized by women.
For instance, in 87% of Croatian households, ironing is done exclusively by women, and in 85% of households, bathroom cleaning is carried out solely by women. Furthermore, the care of elderly family members—including in-laws—as well as the organization of children’s activities, is primarily planned and executed by women.
Thus, the proper implementation of EU gender-related Directives, and the effective tackling of phenomena such as the “sticky floor,” “motherhood penalty,” and “glass ceiling,” will require more effort in some countries than in others. In Croatia—an EU leader in the gender gap in unpaid work—as well as in many other countries, women face not only glass ceilings but also glass walls all around them.
You’ve examined immigrant entrepreneurship and digital nomads in Croatia (2022) — are there any developments since your study? Do you plan to continue monitoring the immigrant entrepreneurship and digital nomads in Croatia in your future research?
I started researching immigrant entrepreneurship almost eight years ago. At that time, it seemed like an “exotic” topic in Croatia, given that we had one of the most homogeneous populations in the EU. However, in recent years immigration has become an unavoidable topic of discussion. I have just completed a project investigating refugee entrepreneurship among Ukrainians in Croatia as a tool for socioeconomic integration. I have also delved more deeply into the integration of Third Country workers, as I find it both highly relevant and urgently needed in research and policy debates. For that purpose, I also used my stay at CERGE-EI to visit the Prague Integration Centre.
Digital nomads represent another group from whom we can learn a great deal, particularly regarding the strength of small, tightly connected groups that generate strong advocacy and networking effects. Croatia was among the first countries in the world to introduce a digital nomad visa. However, once the visa expires, self-employed digital nomads who wish to remain in Croatia often encounter the same barriers that we have identified for immigrant entrepreneurs.
Overall, when discussing current immigration inflows to Croatia—ranging from Ukrainian refugees to Third Country workers and digital nomads—I often like to rephrase the common saying “We needed workers/entrepreneurs, we welcomed people” into “…we have witnessed so many inspirational stories, alongside a pressing need for more systemic integration efforts.”
Drawing on your work “Cutting the red ribbon but not the red tape” (2015), what lessons from the failure of business reforms in Croatia might be applicable to other reform seeking economies today?
While delivering the lectures on this topic abroad, Croatia’s reform trajectory serves as a relatable cautionary tale: reforms fail not merely because of poor regulatory design, but due to ignoring context, power dynamics, and human behavior. In other words, translating and slightly adapting Western European laws won’t by itself result in the similarly successful outcomes. For economies today, particularly those in transitional settings, several inputs might be essential in order to efficiently adapt Western best practices to local realities. First, acknowledge and actively mitigate informal constraints. Second, combine top-down mandates with bottom-up buy-in. Third, ensure transparency in communicating reform goals and progress. Fourth, align institutional structures with the incentives of reform implementation. Finally, plan for and resource long-term implementation and not just legal change.
“Our research, as well as that of others, has shown that ‘pull’ factors related to the overall social climate and the quality of key social pillars—such as education, healthcare, and the judiciary—play an increasingly important role in the emigration decisions of highly skilled individuals.”
In the Croatian case, despite the satisfactory progress of the reform, a change in political leadership brought the process to a halt. The tip of the iceberg was that newly appointed leader did not want to commit to a reform package that was perceived, or even branded, as the legacy of the previous incumbent. This created greater room for manoeuvre by interest groups, leading to long-lasting, domino-like damage. When I presented the Croatian Regulatory Guillotine case in a postsocialist country where, at the time, the front pages were full of announcements about ambitious ‘red tape removal’ reform packages being put into force, high-ranking insiders told me to expect the same scenario as in Croatia. I asked them about the commitment of the incumbents, as stated in the media, but they doubted it. And they were right—a copy-paste of the Croatian case followed.
In your work on the emigration of highly qualified populations (2019), how do you interpret current migration trends in Central and Eastern Europe—especially among young professionals?
Our research, as well as that of others, has shown that ‘pull’ factors related to the overall social climate and the quality of key social pillars—such as education, healthcare, and the judiciary—play an increasingly important role in the emigration decisions of highly skilled individuals. So, again factors like corruption prevalence and clientelism play an important role as ‘push’ factors. Moreover, unlike in the past, when emigration from Eastern Europe was often driven by existential reasons and typically involved the pater familias leaving alone, today the share of highly educated emigrants is significantly larger, and their push factors are much less existential. Moreover, they often come from mobile professions (such as IT) and professions (such as medicine) that are already in shortage in their home countries, and whole young families tend to emigrate together, which further alters the demographic structure of their origin country.
You’ve significantly focused on informal networks and the “economy of favors” in post socialist societies. Are there particular informal mechanisms (e.g. clientelism, informal networks) you’re investigating further now?
At this point, I am not focused on that particular research area, but my previous work on contributions to the Global Encyclopaedia of Informality and short stays at UCL, hosted by Professor Ledeneva, further trained me to recognize informalities. To me, they now appear omnipresent. For instance, return migrants and immigrants who start entrepreneurial endeavours are often less able than locals to efficiently navigate barriers rooted in locally specific informal practices. Moreover, the way they perceive and tolerate the informal practices of their destination country is largely shaped by their country of origin and/or previous professional experience.
Our research has also shown that, within immigrant entrepreneurs’ circles, informal networks frequently substitute for weak formal institutions in meeting their needs. In addition, foreign entrepreneurs rely heavily on in-group cooperation. That resource that should be leveraged in future networking opportunities, as well as in mentoring and training programs.
What drew you to CERGE EI as a visiting scholar, and how are you connecting with colleagues here to enrich your current research agenda?
I am a CERGE EI Career Integration Fellow. My stay here is divided into two main components. The first focuses on research, which involves not only the use of library resources but also fieldwork and meetings with CERGE-EI researchers and Foundation staff. The second component centers on participation in training sessions for the teaching Fellows, aimed at refreshing and expanding teaching-related skills. I am particularly looking forward to the sessions on interactive teaching, the use of AI, teaching large classes, as well as both lectures on teaching economics by Randy Filer. I love the welcoming and productive atmosphere here! I very much appreciate the hospitality at CERGE-EI.
As a Full Professor at the University of Zagreb, how has your time outside Croatia—such as Master study at King’s College London as a Chevening scholar, summer studies at LSE, State Department Fellowship at GWU, a secondment in Sri Lanka or the visit to CERGE EI—shaped your methodological or theoretical approaches?
My exposure to Western education initially taught me to feel free to question the content presented and to have the courage to ask questions in class. When I came to the UK for my master’s, I remember that my voice was still shaking when I asked questions in front of a large group – despite having almost a decade of work experience, excellent results in my previous education, and several international training programs. I also still felt that I needed support in structuring my research, refining my research questions, and presenting my work.
In Croatia, as in many Eastern European countries, pupils and students have traditionally been – and often still are – taught ex cathedra, with insufficient training in critical thinking, structured writing, and public speaking. Frequently, the system itself does not motivate them to communicate in an assertive way. This is such a handicap in today’s world!
My international education, along with many teaching and research stays abroad, has further strengthened my self-driven attitude as a student, teacher, and expert. In evaluations, my students usually emphasize how I encouraged them to step out of their comfort zones, fostered their proactivity, and strongly supported interaction in class. Many of my former students continue to highlight these skills as essential now that they are experienced in the job market. I greatly value feedback from my former students – their insights, combined with my international education, are vital for continuously improving my teaching.
I am passionate about international cooperation, always strive to contribute to networking with substance, and seek to make a policy impact. I also enjoy participating in projects that involve not only academia but also the private sector, NGOs, and international organizations.
