‘Leap Into the Future’ Program Costs Serbia Billions Without Official Documentation

RksNews
RksNews 4 Min Read
4 Min Read

Citizens of Serbia are expected to finance infrastructure and development projects worth between €14 billion and €18 billion under the government’s “Leap Into the Future” program, despite the initiative not existing as a formal or publicly available document, according to a report cited by Beta.

Program Lacks Transparency and Clear Planning

According to representatives of Serbia’s Fiscal Council, the program operates as a collection of various infrastructure projects whose scope and costs frequently change. Economist Marko Milanović stated that the initiative appears to function as a flexible framework that allows authorities to adjust project lists and budgets as needed.

He noted that project costs fluctuate depending on political priorities, sometimes including or excluding major developments such as infrastructure corridors or sports-related facilities.

Discrepancies in Cost Estimates

The report highlighted significant inconsistencies in the program’s total projected cost. According to Serbia’s revised Fiscal Strategy, 52 infrastructure projects are currently included, with expenditures estimated at 2.2 trillion dinars (€18.9 billion) planned through 2026.

However, when projected spending through 2028 is included, the overall investment could reach €21.7 billion. Other official estimates referenced in government documents suggest lower totals, including €14.6 billion, while separate online materials list projects without clearly specifying their value or currency.

Experts warn that the absence of consistent documentation raises concerns about financial oversight and public accountability.

Government’s Expo and Infrastructure Expansion Plans

In January 2024, President Aleksandar Vučić announced the Expo 2027 project as part of broader economic development efforts. The government later clarified through Finance Minister Siniša Mali that the estimated costs included not only the exhibition itself but also numerous supporting infrastructure developments under the “Leap Into the Future” framework.

Rising Costs and Oversight Concerns

Economic analysts cited by Nova ekonomija emphasized that many infrastructure projects have experienced significant cost increases, partly due to rising material prices but also because of poor planning and potential irregularities in procurement processes.

One example highlighted was the Ruma–Šabac–Loznica road project, whose estimated cost increased from 65.2 billion dinars to 122.9 billion dinars, marking a nearly 90 percent rise. Analysts noted that contract amendments explaining these increases are not publicly accessible, further fueling concerns about transparency.

Additionally, fiscal experts reported that the overall price of major infrastructure projects increased by approximately €850 million within just a few months between mid-2025 and late-2025 revisions of government strategy documents.

Questions Over Investment Priorities

Critics have also questioned whether some projects included in the program qualify as transformative investments or simply represent overdue basic infrastructure, such as improvements to sanitation systems.

Analysts warn that public funds are being spent without comprehensive feasibility studies or clear investment justification, while oversight bodies responsible for approving such projects remain largely opaque to the public.

Long-Term Development Strategy Under Scrutiny

Observers noted that several previous government development programs, including earlier national investment initiatives, experienced cost overruns and missed deadlines. Authorities are reportedly planning additional long-term development programs extending toward 2030 and potentially 2035.

Under Serbia’s Budget System Law, the government can be held accountable for project delays and cost increases. However, analysts argue that parliamentary scrutiny often intensifies only after major incidents or infrastructure failures occur, rather than through systematic oversight.