Brkić notes that the 1971 document explicitly assigned economic planning to the state, while the 2026 student programme calls for a competitive market and independent institutions but does not identify an authority responsible for balanced, planned development. He suggests the wording may reflect a compromise between advocates of planning and more market-oriented voices in the student movement.
The column’s central argument is that central planning conflicts with a free, competitive market. Brkić says information about demand, prices and production opportunities is dispersed among millions of people and changes constantly, making it impossible for government databases and plans to substitute for decisions by consumers, workers and businesses. In his view, competition encourages firms to cut costs, improve quality and innovate.
He links a functioning market to the rule of law and independent institutions: rules should apply equally, deter coercion and fraud, and prevent powerful players from receiving special advantages. Brkić warns that central control can appear orderly but may reinforce political influence and weaken competition in Serbia’s clientelist economy.
The column extends the planning debate to artificial intelligence. Brkić argues that powerful AI systems could concentrate wealth and political power, and proposes discussing a tax on extreme wealth and redistributing its proceeds. These are the columnist’s recommendations, not enacted policy or a confirmed plan of the student movement.