Serbian construction companies carried out RSD 19.312bn worth of works abroad in 2025, confirming that the country’s contractors remain active outside the domestic market even as their foreign footprint has become more concentrated, more selective and more exposed to a small group of destination markets.
The figure, published by the Republic Statistical Office of Serbia, is modest when compared with Serbia’s domestic construction cycle, but it is commercially important because it shows where Serbian contractors still have export capacity, labour mobility, project-management know-how and client relationships beyond the national market. It also offers a useful reading of the sector’s external competitiveness at a time when construction in Serbia itself is being shaped by infrastructure spending, real-estate development, public investment, inflation in materials and labour shortages.
The largest share of work performed abroad in 2025 was recorded in the Russian Federation, which accounted for 21.9% of the total value. The Netherlands followed with 16.9%, while Montenegro accounted for 16.1%, Germany for 13.9% and Uganda for 8.7%. Together, these five markets represented more than three quarters of the foreign construction value delivered by Serbian contractors. That level of concentration suggests that Serbia’s construction export model is not a broad global platform, but a corridor-based business built around specific markets, client networks and project types.
The geographical spread is revealing. Russia remains a major destination for Serbian contractors, reflecting long-standing commercial links, engineering relationships and the continued ability of some Serbian companies to operate in that market despite the broader geopolitical and sanctions environment. Germany and the Netherlands point to the labour and subcontracting dimension of Serbian construction capacity inside advanced European markets. Montenegro reflects regional proximity, language compatibility, developer networks and the long-standing role of Serbian companies in the Montenegrin construction and infrastructure ecosystem. Uganda, meanwhile, shows that some Serbian contractors are still capable of participating in more distant project markets, especially where legacy engineering links or specialised contracts create entry points.
The structure of the works is equally important. Of the total value performed abroad, works on buildings amounted to RSD 4.96bn, or 25.7% of the total. That means almost three quarters of the value came from other construction categories, including civil engineering, infrastructure, industrial facilities or specialised works. This matters because the export profile of construction services is often more resilient when it is not limited to residential or commercial buildings. Infrastructure, industrial and technically complex projects can carry higher barriers to entry and depend more on engineering capacity, references and execution discipline than on cheap labour alone.
Serbian contractors engaged 1,669 workers abroad in 2025. The largest number of Serbian workers was deployed in the Netherlands, Germany, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. That distribution confirms a split between value and labour intensity. Russia led by value, but the largest worker deployments were concentrated in European and regional markets. This suggests that Serbian companies may be using different operating models by geography: higher-value contracts or project packages in some destinations, labour-intensive site execution or subcontracting in others.
The data also shows that the strongest pipeline of newly contracted works in 2025 was in Uganda, followed by the Russian Federation, Montenegro, the Netherlands and Germany. Uganda’s position at the top of the contracted-work ranking is notable because it suggests that distant non-European markets may still offer meaningful opportunities for Serbian construction firms, particularly where competition is less standardised than in the EU and where technical references, state-linked relationships or specialised project experience can matter.
The broader story is not simply that Serbian builders earned RSD 19.3bn abroad. It is that Serbia’s construction-export base remains alive but relatively narrow. The sector has not turned into a large-scale international contracting industry comparable with Turkish, Chinese or Austrian players. Instead, Serbian companies appear to operate through selective niches: regional proximity in the Western Balkans, labour and subcontracting channels in Western Europe, legacy or relationship-driven projects in Russia, and occasional higher-risk opportunities in Africa and other distant markets.
That is not necessarily a weakness. For mid-sized contractors, a focused foreign-market model can be more sustainable than overextension. International construction is risky. It exposes companies to currency movements, contract enforcement issues, labour-permit regimes, project delays, payment discipline, unfamiliar legal systems and political risk. A Serbian contractor operating in Germany or the Netherlands faces a different risk profile from one operating in Uganda or Russia. A healthy export strategy requires the ability to price these risks properly, not simply chase volume.
The comparison with earlier years is useful. In 2019, Serbian contractors carried out around RSD 19.45bn worth of works abroad, with Russia, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Montenegro among the leading markets. In 2023, the value was around RSD 22bn, with Germany and Russia accounting for the largest shares. The 2025 figure therefore does not represent a dramatic nominal expansion. It shows a sector that has remained in the same broad value corridor, but with a changing market composition. The disappearance of Saudi Arabia from the top tier and the rise of the Netherlands and Uganda in the current data point to a more fluid geography of Serbian construction exports.
This also means that inflation must be considered. A nominal foreign-works value near the 2019 level does not imply the same real volume of work. Construction costs, wages, materials, transport and compliance expenses have risen significantly across Europe and the wider region over the past several years. In real terms, the foreign works performed by Serbian contractors may be smaller than the headline dinar figure suggests. The export story is therefore less about rapid growth and more about resilience, continuity and market repositioning.
For Serbia’s construction industry, foreign work remains strategically useful for several reasons. It diversifies revenue away from the domestic cycle, gives companies international references, supports skilled labour retention, and exposes contractors to higher technical and compliance standards. Work in Germany and the Netherlands can be particularly valuable because it forces companies to operate under stricter labour, safety, quality and documentation regimes. Those standards can later improve competitiveness in domestic and regional projects, especially where international lenders, EPC contractors or foreign investors are involved.
The labour dimension is more complex. Deploying 1,669 workers abroad is not large enough to transform the Serbian labour market, but it does show continued outward mobility in a sector already facing shortages at home. Serbian construction companies compete for engineers, foremen, welders, electricians, machine operators and skilled site workers not only with domestic developers but also with EU labour markets. Foreign contracts can help companies retain workers by offering higher wages and project continuity, but they can also deepen domestic labour scarcity if skilled teams spend extended periods outside Serbia.
For companies, the key question is whether foreign works are being executed as low-margin labour export or as higher-value engineering and contracting services. The distinction is critical. Labour export can generate short-term revenue but leaves companies vulnerable to wage competition and regulatory tightening. Engineering-led contracting, specialised installation, industrial construction, infrastructure works and project-management services offer stronger margins and better long-term positioning. The relatively low share of buildings in the 2025 structure may indicate that Serbian contractors are not only exporting basic building labour, but also participating in broader and more technically varied construction categories.
Montenegro’s role deserves particular attention. With 16.1% of the total value of works performed abroad, it remains one of the most important nearby markets for Serbian contractors. The logic is straightforward: geographical proximity, language overlap, shared business networks and strong real-estate and tourism-investment cycles make Montenegro a natural external market. Serbian contractors can mobilise workers, equipment and management more easily than in distant destinations, while Montenegrin developers and investors often understand Serbian construction capacity. The market is smaller than Germany or Russia, but it can be commercially attractive because of lower entry friction.
Germany and the Netherlands represent a different opportunity. These markets are richer, more regulated and more competitive, but they also face chronic shortages of construction labour and specialist subcontractors. Serbian companies active there can benefit from demand for reliable execution teams, especially in technically defined work packages. The challenge is compliance. Western European markets require strict attention to labour law, tax registration, posting rules, safety standards, insurance, quality documentation and payment procedures. Companies that manage these requirements professionally can build durable positions; those that treat Western Europe only as a labour-arbitrage market face higher legal and reputational risk.
Russia is the most commercially significant but politically complicated destination in the 2025 data. Its 21.9% share keeps it at the top of the Serbian foreign construction map. Long-standing links and familiarity still matter, but the sanctions environment, payment channels, banking restrictions and geopolitical uncertainty increase execution risk. Serbian contractors working in Russia must manage not only normal project risks but also financial-transfer risk, counterparty screening, currency exposure and the possibility of sudden regulatory disruption. The market may offer value, but it is no longer a simple legacy opportunity.
Uganda’s role is perhaps the most interesting signal in the data. Its 8.7% share of performed works and leading position in newly contracted works suggest that Serbian contractors may be finding specific project openings in Africa. This recalls a longer tradition of Yugoslav and Serbian engineering activity in non-aligned and developing markets, though the modern context is more commercial and competitive. African infrastructure and construction demand is large, but Serbian companies need strong risk management if they are to convert such contracts into profitable revenue. Payment security, political risk insurance, contract enforcement, logistics and local partnership structures become central.
For policymakers, the data shows that construction can be part of Serbia’s services-export and industrial-capability story, but only if companies move up the value chain. Foreign construction work should not be seen merely as workers leaving Serbia for better-paid sites abroad. It can also be a platform for exporting engineering, project management, prefabrication, industrial installation, electrical works, mechanical works, environmental systems and infrastructure know-how. That requires stronger certification, better access to guarantees, export-credit support, insurance instruments and professional contract management.
Serbian banks and insurers also have a role. International construction contracts often require performance guarantees, advance-payment guarantees, retention bonds and working-capital lines. Smaller and mid-sized Serbian contractors can struggle to compete abroad if they cannot secure the financial instruments required by foreign clients. A more active construction-export model would therefore depend not only on contractors themselves, but also on the banking sector’s willingness to support credible firms with project-specific financing and guarantee capacity.
The RSD 19.312bn figure should therefore be read as both achievement and limitation. It confirms that Serbian contractors remain present abroad, but it also shows that the scale is still relatively small and concentrated. The next stage of development would require a move from opportunistic foreign contracting toward a more structured export model: clearer market selection, stronger legal and financial preparation, technical specialisation and better integration with Serbia’s engineering education and industrial supply base.
Serbia’s construction sector has already demonstrated that it can operate across very different markets, from Russia and Montenegro to the Netherlands, Germany and Uganda. The strategic question is whether that experience becomes a durable export industry or remains a collection of individual contracts won by companies with specific relationships. The answer will depend on whether Serbian contractors can sell more than labour and site execution. The real margin lies in engineering credibility, disciplined delivery, risk pricing and the ability to manage complex contracts under foreign legal and commercial conditions.
The latest data points to a sector that is still outward-looking, but not yet fully internationalised. Serbian contractors are present abroad, but their export base needs scale, diversification and stronger institutional support. The companies that can combine regional familiarity, EU-standard compliance and technically specialised delivery will be best positioned to turn today’s RSD 19.3bn foreign-works market into a more stable source of export revenue.
