Abstract
Much has been said, yet little remains known, about the impacts of the changes associated with post-socialist transition on housing inequalities in metropolitan Central and Eastern Europe. To some extent, this depends on the scarcity of ‘hard evidence’ about the socialist epoch against which the subsequent developments may be gauged. Based on a case study of Bucharest, the Romanian capital and one of the region’s major cities, this study investigates various lines of housing inequality using data from a 20 % sample of the national censuses of 1992 and 2002. With only minor changes having taken place since the revolutionary events of late 1989, the year 1992 provides an accurate picture of the housing inequalities inherited from the socialist epoch, whereas the new societal order had largely been established by 2002. We use linear regression and binary logistic regression modeling to identify the factors that predict living space and level of facilities. The results suggest that the first decade of transition did not exert any major influences on the housing inequalities inherited from socialism, with the exception of notable improvements at the very top of the social pyramid. This finding is at odds with the literature that highlights the (suggested) effects of socio-economic polarization on the residential structure of cities after socialism. However, the results from 1992 indicate that housing was segmented along socio-economic lines already under socialism, and perhaps more so than one would have expected in the light of the literature on housing inequalities during this period.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Because of the similarities between the Romanian and Soviet housing systems under socialism, this literature review pays particular attention to the Soviet experience.
These data are freely obtainable from the Minnesota Population Center. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, International: Version 6.2 (Machine-readable database). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2013.
The denomination used in the census materials is ‘Gypsies’; we prefer using ‘Roma’ because of the pejorative tint associated with the former term.
The values of the dependent variable in the OLS models are expressed as the natural logarithm of the original value (ln). The reason for this transformation is that the dependent variable in OLS models should approximate normal distribution. In our case, the distribution of the original values of the dependent variable was skewed. The standard interpretation of coefficients in a regression analysis is that a one-unit change in the independent variable results in a respective regression coefficient change in the expected value of the dependent variable while all the predictors are held constant. Interpreting a log-transformed variable can be done this way; however, for greater clarity, such coefficients are routinely interpreted in terms of percentage change. In models where the dependent variable has been log-transformed and the predictors have not, the format for interpretation is that the dependent variable changes by 100*(coefficient) percent for a one-unit increase in the independent variable, all other variables being held constant.
The most common variable employed in studies on housing inequalities in the Western city is the value and/or costs of a housing unit (cf. Krivo and Kaufman 2004). Unfortunately, the Romanian censuses do not include such information. As fully equipped apartment blocks are the most common residential building type in Bucharest, we set a somewhat high threshold in our housing facilities index in order to distinguish between high and low quality housing.
Housing completed between 1990 and 2002 constitutes 8.7 % of the total number of dwellings in the city. With the exception of some low-quality structures built in peripheral areas, most of these 'new' buildings are probably socialist structures completed after 1990 (such as many of the apartment blocks present in Ceauşescu’s monumental complex surrounding the Palace of the People. In other words, little had changed in the early years of transition.
According to the census data, in 1992, 67 percent of Roma households consisted of five or more members, whereas this figure was only 21 % for Romanians. In 2002, the values were of 65 and 16 %, respectively.
Rather than reflecting true increases in available housing, this increase probably reflects the city’s ongoing population shrinkage.
Elsewhere where such policies were implemented, such as in Albania (Sjöberg 1992), this ‘success’ was shadowed by the deviation of migrant flows to the rural surroundings of cities, where living conditions were significantly inferior to those found within urban areas they enclosed.
References
Alexeev, M. (1988). Market versus rationing: The case of soviet housing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(3), 414–420.
Andrusz, G. (1984). Housing and Urban development in the USSR. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Bater, J. (1980). The soviet city. London: Edward Arnold.
Bater, J. (1989). The soviet scene: A geographical perspective. London: Edward Arnold.
Blinnikov, M., Shanin, A., Sobolev, N., & Volkova, L. (2006). Gated communities of the Moscow green belt: Newly segregated landscapes and the suburban Russian environment. GeoJournal, 66, 65–81.
Bodnár, J. (1996). ‘He that hath to him shall be given’: Housing privatization in Budapest after state socialism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 20(4), 616–636.
Bodnár, J., & Böröcz, J. (1998). Housing advantages for the better connected? Institutional segmentation, settlement type, and social network effects in Hungary’s late state socialist housing inequalities. Social Forces, 76(4), 1275–1304.
Borén, T., & Gentile, M. (2007). Metropolitan processes in post-communist states: An introduction. Geografiska Annaler, 89B, 95–110.
Borjas, G. (1999). Heaven’s door: Immigrant policy and the American economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brade, I., Herfert, G., & Wiest, K. (2009). Recent trends and future prospects of socio-spatial differentiation in urban regions of central and Eastern Europe: A lull before the storm? Cities, 26(5), 233–244.
Buckley, C. (1995). The myth of managed migration: Migration control and market in the Soviet period. Slavic Review, 54(4), 896–916.
Buckley, R., & Tsenkova, S. (2001). Housing market systems in reforming socialist economies: Comparative indicators of performance and policy. International Journal of Housing Policy, 1(2), 257–289.
Cavalcanti, M. (1997). Urban reconstruction and autocratic regimes: Ceausescu’s Bucharest in its historic context. Planning Perspectives, 12, 71–109.
Chelcea, L. (2006). Marginal groups in central places: Gentrification, property rights and post-socialist primitive accumulation (Bucharest, Romania). In G. Enyédi & Z. Kovács (Eds.), Social changes and social sustainability in historical urban centres: The case of central europe (pp. 127–146). Pécs: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Chelcea, L. (2012). The ‘housing question’ and the State Socialist answer: City, class and state remaking in the 1950s Bucharest. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(2), 281–296.
Church, G. (1979). Bucharest: Revolution in the townscape art. In R. A. French & F. E. I. Hamilton (Eds.), The socialist city: Spatial structure and urban policy (pp. 493–506). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Creed, G. (1995). The politics of agriculture: Identity and socialist sentiment in Bulgaria. Slavic Review, 54(4), 843–868.
Daniell, J., & Struyk, R. (1994). Housing privatization in Moscow: Who privatizes and why. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 18(3), 510–525.
Danta, D. (1993). Ceausescu’s Bucharest. Geographical Review, 83(2), 170–182.
Davidenko, A., Simonova, I. and Simonov, S. (2013). Eksperimental’nye i teoreticheskie issledovaniya teplotekhnicheskikh kachestv naruzhnykh ograzhdeniy zhilykh domov serii 1-480A. Budivel’nii konstruktsii, 78 (2), 571–576. Available online at http://archive.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/Natural/Bud_kon/ (Accessed 31 Oct 2013).
Dawidson, K. (2004). Redistributing nationalized housing: Impacts on property patterns in Timişoara Romania. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 45(2), 134–156.
Domański, B. (1997). Industrial control over the socialist town: Benevolence or exploitation? Westport, CT: Praeger.
French, A. (1995). Plans, pragmatism and people. London: UCL Press.
Galster, G. (1983). Empirical evidence on cross-tenure differences in home maintenance and conditions. Land Economics, 59(1), 107–113.
Gentile, M. (2003). Residential segregation in a medium-sized post-Soviet city: Ust’-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 94(5), 589–605.
Gentile, M. (2005). Urban residential preferences and satisfaction in the former Soviet Union: Results from a survey in Ust-Kamenogorsk Kazakhstan. Urban Geography, 26(4), 296–327.
Gentile, M., & Sjöberg, Ö. (2013). Housing allocation under socialism: The soviet case revisited. Post-Soviet Affairs, 29(2), 173–195.
Gentile, M., & Tammaru, T. (2006). Ethnicity and housing in Ust’-Kamenogorsk Kazakhstan. Urban Studies, 43(10), 1757–1778.
Haase, A. K., Grossmann, K., & Steinführer, A. (2012). Transitory urbanites: New actors of residential change in Polish and Czech inner cities. Cities, 29(5), 318–326.
Hamilton, F. E. I., & Burnett, A. D. (1979). Social processes and residential structure. In R. A. French & F. E. I. Hamilton (Eds.), The socialist city: Spatial structure and urban policy (pp. 263–304). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Herman, L. M. (1971). Urbanization and new housing construction in the Soviet Union. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 30(2), 203–220.
Hess, D., Tammaru, T., & Leetmaa, K. (2012). Ethnic differences in housing in post-Soviet Tartu Estonia. Cities, 29(5), 327–333.
Hirt, S. (2007). Suburbanizing Sofia: Characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geography, 28(8), 755–780.
Hirt, S. (2012). Iron curtains - gates, suburbs and privatization of space in the post-socialist city. Malden, MA and Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Huang, Y., & Jiang, L. (2009). Housing inequality in transitional Beijing. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(4), 936–956.
Kemeny, J. (1981). The myth of home-ownership: Private versus public choices in housing tenure. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kendig, H. (1984). Housing careers, life cycle and residential mobility: Implications for the housing market. Urban Studies, 21(3), 271–283.
Kok, H., & Kovács, Z. (1999). The process of suburbanization in the agglomeration of Budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 14(2), 119–141.
Kornai, J. (1980). Economics of shortage. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kornai, J. (1992). The socialist system. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Krivo, L., & Kaufman, R. (2004). Housing and wealth inequality: Racial-ethnic differences in home equity in the United States. Demography, 41(3), 585–605.
Kulu, H. (2003). Housing differences in the late soviet city: The case of Tartu, Estonia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 897–911.
Ladányi, J. (1993). Patterns of residential segregation and the Gypsy minority in Budapest. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 17(1), 30–41.
Leetmaa, K., & Tammaru, T. (2007). Suburbanisation in countries in transition: Destinations of suburbanizers in the Tallinn metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler, 89B(2), 127–146.
Lewis, C., & Sternheimer, S. (1979). Soviet urban management: With comparisons to the United States. New York: Praeger.
Liang, Z., & Ma, Z. (2004). China’s floating population: New evidence from the 2000 census. Population and Development Review, 30(3), 467–488.
Logan, J., Bian, Y., & Bian, F. (1999). Housing inequality in urban China in the 1990s. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(1), 7–25.
Maloutas, T. (2007). Segregation, social polarization and immigration in Athens during the 1990s: Theoretical expectations and contextual difference. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(4), 733–758.
Marcińczak, S., Gentile, M., Rufat, S. and Chelcea, L. (2013b). Urban geographies of hesitant transition: Tracing socioeconomic segregation in post-ceauşescu Bucharest. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, pre-published online, doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12073.
Marcińczak, S., Gentile, M., & Stępniak, M. (2013a). Paradoxes of (post)socialist segregation: Metropolitan sociospatial divisions under socialism and after in Poland. Urban Geography, 34(3), 327–352.
Marcińczak, S., Musterd, S., & Stępniak, M. (2012). Where the grass is greener: Social segregation in three major Polish cities at the beginning of the twenty-first century. European Urban and Regional Studies, 19(4), 383–403.
Marcińczak, S., & Sagan, I. (2011). The socio-spatial restructuring of Łódź Poland. Urban Studies, 48(9), 1789–1809.
Morton, H. W. (1980). Who gets what, when and how? Housing in the Soviet Union. Soviet Studies, 32(2), 235–259.
Morton, H. W. (1984). The contemporary soviet city. In H. W. Morton & R. C. Stuart (Eds.), The contemporary soviet city (pp. 3–24). New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Murray, P., & Szelényi, I. (1984). The city in the transition to socialism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 8(1), 90–107.
Nae, M., & Turnock, D. (2011). The new Bucharest: Two decades of restructuring. Cities, 28(2), 206–219.
Novák, J., & Sýkora, L. (2007). A city in motion: Time-space activity and mobility patterns of suburban inhabitants and structuration of spatial organisation of the Prague metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler, B89(2), 147–167.
O’Higgins, N. (2010). It’s not that I’m a racist, it’s that they are Roma: Roma discrimination and returns to education in South Eastern Europe. International Journal of Manpower, 31(2), 163–187.
Ouředníček, M. (2007). Differential suburban development in the Prague urban region. Geografiska Annaler, B89(2), 111–126.
Parkins, M. F. (1953). Soviet policy on urban housing and housing rent. Land Economics, 29(3), 269–279.
Petrovici, N. (2012). Workers and the City: Rethinking the geographies of power in post-socialist urbanisation. Urban Studies, 49(11), 2377–2397.
Polanska, D. (2011). The emergence of enclaves of wealth and poverty: a sociological study of residential differentiation in post-communist Poland. Stockholm Studies in Sociology 50. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Potârcă, G., Mills, M., & Lesnard, L. (2013). Family formation trajectories in Romania, the Russian federation and France: Towards the second demographic transition? European Journal of Population, 29(1), 69–101.
Pugh, C., & Lewin, S. (1991). Housing, gender and family policies in the Soviet Union under Perestroika. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 6(1), 47–55.
Remmert, M., Hegedűs, J. and Tosics, I. (2001). Housing in southeastern Europe: Between state and market. SouthEast Europe Review for Labour and Social Affairs 2001 (4), 123–149, available online at www.ceeol.com. (Accessed 30 Oct 2013).
Ronnås, P. (1984). Urbanization in Romania. Stockholm: The Economics Research Institute at the Stockholm School of Economics.
Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move. A study in the social psychology of urban residential mobility. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.
Rufat, S. (2013). Spectroscopy of urban vulnerability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(3), 505–525.
Ruoppila, S., & Kährik, A. (2003). Socio-economic residential differentiation in post-socialist Tallinn. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 18(1), 49–73.
Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999). Characteristics of post-socialist urban transformation in East Central Europe. GeoJournal, 49, 7–16.
Sampson, S. (1979). Urbanization - planned and unplanned: A case study of Brasov, Romania. In R.A. French & F.E.I. Hamilton (Eds.), The Socialist City - Spatial Structure and Urban Policy (pp. 509-524). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & sons.
Shomina, E. S. (1992). Enterprises and the urban environment in the USSR. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16(2), 222–233.
Sjöberg, Ö. (1992). Under urbanisation and the zero urban growth hypothesis: Diverted migration in Albania. Geografiska Annaler, B74(1), 3–19.
Sjöberg, Ö. (1999). Shortage, priority and urban growth: Towards a theory of urbanisation under central planning. Urban Studies, 36(13), 2217–2236.
Smith, D. M. (1989). Urban inequality under socialism: Case studies from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, A., & Timar, J. (2010). Uneven transformations: Space, economy and society 20 years after the collapse of state socialism. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(2), 115–125.
Soaita, A. (2012). Strategies for in situ home improvement in Romanian large housing estates. Housing Studies, 27(7), 1008–1030.
Statistics Finland (2013), Income distribution statistics. Electronic publication available at http://www.stat.fi/til/tjt/index_en.html (Helsinki: Statistics Finland) (Accessed: 30 Oct2013).
Stoyanov, P. & Frantz, K. (2006). Gated communities in Bulgaria: interpreting a new trend in post-communist urban development. GeoJournal, 2006(66), 57–63.
Struktura wynagrodzeń według zawodów (2006). Warsaw: Główny Urząd Statystyczny.
Sýkora, L. (2009). New socio-spatial formations: Places of residential segregation and separation in Czechia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100(4), 417–435.
Szelényi, I. (1983). Urban inequalities under state socialism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Szelényi, I. (1987). Housing inequalities and occupational segregation in state socialist cities. Commentary to the special issue of IJURR on east European cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 11(1), 1–8.
Szelényi, I. (1996). Cities under socialism—and after. In G. Andrusz, M. Harloe, & I. Szelényi (Eds.), Cities after socialism (pp. 286–317). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Temelová, J., & Dvořaková, N. (2012). Residential satisfaction of elderly in the city centre: The case of revitalizing neighbourhoods in Prague. Cities, 29(5), 310–317.
Temelová, J., Novák, J., Ouředníček, M., & Puldová, P. (2011). Housing estates in the Czech Republic: Various trajectories and inner differentiation. Urban Studies, 48(9), 1811–1834.
Tosics, I. (2005). City development in central and Eastern Europe since 1990: The impact of internal forces. In F. E. I. Hamilton, K. Andrews, & N. Pichler-Milanović (Eds.), Transformation of Cities in central and Eastern Europe: Towards globalization (pp. 44–78). Tokyo: United Nations Press.
Tsenkova, S. (2008). Managing change: The comeback of post-socialist cities. Urban Research and Practice, 1(3), 291–310.
Turnock, D. (1990). Bucharest city profile. Cities, 7(2), 107–118.
Turnock, D. (2007). Aspects of independent Romania’s economic history with particular reference to transition for EU accession. Aldershot (UK): Ashgate.
Ulč, O. (1988). Gypsies in Czechoslovakia: A case of unfinished integration. East European Politics and Society, 1988(2), 306–332.
US Census Bureau (2013). Employment, Work Experience, and Earnings by Age and Education: Civilian Noninstitutional Population: United States: Both Sexes. Data available from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/earnings/call1usboth.html. (Accessed 29 Oct 2013).
Veres, V. (n.d.). Difficulties in Researching the Demographic Behaviour of Ethnic Hungarian and Roma Communities from Romania, electronic document available from the website of the University of Montreal, http://www.ciqss.umontreal.ca/Docs/SSDE/pdf/Veres.pdf. (Accessed 21 Nov 2013).
Voineagu, V. and Alexandrescu, A. (n.d.). Romania: Population and Housing Census Experience, electronic document available from the website of the Institut National d’Etudes. Démographiques, http://www.ined.fr/fichier/t_paragraphe/69677/paragraphe_file_1_fr_romania.census_new.pdf (Accessed 24 Nov 2013).
Węcławowicz, G. (1998). Social polarisation in post socialist cities: Budapest, Prague and warsaw. In G. Enyédi (Ed.), Social change and urban restructuring in central Europe (pp. 55–66). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Wu, W. (2004). Sources of migrant housing disadvantage in urban China. Environment and Planning, A36(7), 1285–1304.
Zavisca, J. (2012). Housing the new Russia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Zhu, Y. (2007). China’s floating population and their settlement intention in the cities: Beyond the Hukou reform. Habitat International, 31(1), 65–76.
Acknowledgments
Michael Gentile thanks Umeå University for supporting this research with a Young Scholar’s Award (karriärbidrag), and Szymon Marcińczak thanks the Łódź University Foundation (Fundacja Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego) for funding in the form of a Young Scholar Award (Nagroda Naukowa Fundacji Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego). We also are grateful for the useful comments provided by two reviewers and by the theme issue’s guest editors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gentile, M., Marcińczak, S. Housing inequalities in Bucharest: shallow changes in hesitant transition. GeoJournal 79, 449–465 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9530-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9530-5