Urban Geographies of Hesitant Transition PDF

bs_bs_banner
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

DOI:10.1111/1468-2427.12073
Urban Geographies of Hesitant Transition:

Tracing Socioeconomic Segregation
in Post-Ceauşescu Bucharest
SZYMON MARCIŃCZAK, MICHAEL GENTILE,
SAMUEL RUFAT and LIVIU CHELCEA
Abstract
Scholars have raised concerns about the social costs of the transition from state
socialism to capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe, and geographers are particularly
interested in the spatial expressions and implications of these costs, including apparently
increasing residential segregation. Applying a range of segregation measures to
1992 and 2002 census data, this contribution studies socio-occupational residential
segregation in Bucharest. The conclusion is that Bucharest was relatively socio-spatially
mixed at both times; in fact, a modest, yet fully legible, decreasing overall trend is
observable. This is at odds with many popular assumptions of the past 20 years.
Introduction
Research on socio-spatial change in Central and Eastern European (CEE) cities is
gradually making its way into urban theory (Gentile et al., 2012; Marcińczak et al.,
2012; Sýkora and Bouzarovski, 2012). With the experience of real socialism slowly
fading away, these cities are now characterized by a variety of paths of socio-spatial
development that are not easily captured by the frequently advanced categorizations
post-socialism, post-communism and transition. As our article will show, Bucharest, the
near two-million strong capital of Romania and a major metropolis of the Balkans,
exemplifies this.
A widely held view is that the demise of state socialism brought about a change in
the rules of the game almost overnight, as CEE countries embarked on a trajectory of
neoliberal socioeconomic development promoted by international funding agencies
(Smith and Pickles, 1998; Bradshaw and Stenning, 2004; Tosics, 2005; Smith and Timár,
2010; Sýkora and Bouzarovski, 2012). In parallel, social and income inequalities rose
conspicuously across the entire region, albeit at different rates and with different
consequences, while unemployment, which was virtually unheard of under socialism,
became increasingly widespread. However, this view requires some qualification: the
reform strategies chosen, as well as the tempo of their implementation, vary across
countries and have produced increasingly divergent macroeconomic outcomes (Åslund,
Szymon Marcińczak thanks the Łódź University Foundation (Fundacja Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego) for
supporting this research with a Young Scholar’s Award (Nagroda Naukowa Fundacji Uniwersytetu
Łódzkiego), and Michael Gentile likewise thanks Umeå University for its generous support in the form
of a Young Scholar’s Award (Karriärbidrag).
© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4
2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA
2 Szymon Marcińczak, Michael Gentile, Samuel Rufat and Liviu Chelcea
2002). Also, in some countries (e.g. Uzbekistan) the willingness and ability to reform
have been stifled by the continued presence of non-democratic forms of government
(Koch, 2011).
Many scholars have raised concerns about the social costs of transition (e.g. Dunford
and Smith, 2000; Stenning, 2004; Smith et al., 2008; Smith and Timár, 2010), and
geographers are particularly concerned with the spatial expressions and implications of
these costs. With this in mind, many scholars — though certainly not all, as opposed to
what Kostreš and Reba (2010: 331) opine — have associated social and/or income
polarization with mirroring developments in urban space (Vendina, 1997; We˛cławowicz,
1998; Sailer-Fliege, 1999; Brade et al., 2009; Polanska, 2011). However, systematic
attempts at socio-spatial pattern description have been produced only recently (e.g.
Sýkora et al., 2006; Prelogović, 2009; Marcińczak and Sagan, 2011; Marcińczak, 2012;
Marcińczak et al., 2013). Many of the findings from these studies cast some doubt on the
suggestion that there would be a clear correlation between socioeconomic polarization and
residential segregation. Moreover, when such a correlation exists at all, it appears to be
negative for the time being.
Thus far, most research on socioeconomic segregation after communism has
side-stepped the developments that have taken place outside the fast-track reforming
countries (Sýkora, 2009; Marcińczak et al., 2012). Studying segregation in Bucharest
allows us to gain valuable new knowledge of this phenomenon within the gradualist
context of transition, to which Romania is generally considered to have adhered
(Bradshaw and Stenning, 2004; Turnock, 2007). Moreover, the Romanian experience
of communist rule is generally regarded as having been characterized by a ‘hardline’
approach for considerably longer than elsewhere in the socialist bloc (Turnock,
2007).
Two characteristics make the Romanian road to communism distinctive. First, when
Nicolae Ceauşescu secured control over Romania (in the late 1960s), the country
embarked on a sui generis path of development, at least when compared to its socialist
brethren. Romania thus avoided full-scale Soviet control over its economy and foreign
policy and opened up to West-European credit, investment and technology. However,
it did this by cultivating an increasingly brutal Stalinist regime, garnished with elements
of the North Korean Juche ideology, starting from the mid-1970s and ending abruptly
with Ceauşescu’s Christmas execution in 1989. Second, as urban development and
planning were central to the creation of socialist Romania (Church, 1979; Sampson,
1979; Ronnås, 1982; 1984), Bucharest became the autocratic regime’s ‘Ceauşesque
playground’: ‘Perhaps no present-day city exhibits the imprints of an individual to
the extent that Bucharest shows the effect of Nicolae Ceauşescu’ (Danta, 1993:
170).
This contribution assesses the dynamics, levels and patterns of socioeconomic
residential segregation in Bucharest. We define socioeconomic segregation as the
separation and concentration of the population according to socio-professional status (cf.
Musterd, 2005). Specifically, we measure the changes in segregation patterns in the
context of the recent large-scale socialist redevelopment of the city and of ‘delayed’
systemic transformation (Turnock, 2007). By doing so, we elaborate on the relationship
between socialist spatial planning, different forms of post-socialist transformation and the
ensuing patterns of socioeconomic segregation after 1990. This way we will extend the
frontier of segregation research on post-communist Europe, offering a contribution to
theory that draws on the experience of a region that undeservedly remains outside the
purview of urban scholarship.
The following two sections outline the state of the art in segregation research under
socialism and after. Next, we introduce the Bucharest context, followed by a concise
description of the research materials and methods used in the study. Then we present the
changing global and local patterns of socio-occupational segregation in Bucharest after
Ceauşescu, interpreting them within the wider framework of the literature. Finally, we
present our conclusions.

© 2013 Urban Research Publications Limited
Socioeconomic segregation in post-Ceauşescu Bucharest 3
Segregation and socio-spatial patterning under socialism

The meaning of the CEE cities’ experience of communism is often mentioned
somewhat lightly in the literature. Even though the époque rouge has long left the
scene, there are good reasons not to dismiss the relevance of this period too swiftly.
For one thing, many CEE urbanites still dine on the left-overs of socialism: they
live in socialist-era apartments, ride on Czechoslovak trams, and spend excessive
amounts of time dealing with superficially reformed bureaucracies. Accordingly, while
capitalist development has made transformation evident to the eye, the ostensibly
conservative nature of the built environment and of the social spaces embedded in it
remains concealed. Second, a satisfactory appreciation of the nuts and bolts of the
socialist economy, and of the mechanisms through which it produced urban and
regional spatial patterns, has yet to be achieved (Sjöberg, 1999; Gentile and Sjöberg,
2006). Third, and most importantly, socialist-era legacies are the starting point for
post-1989 transformations and, as such, they represent the inner (albeit degenerating)
organs of the CEE city, engulfed — sometimes just cosmetically — by the new layers
of urban growth that are relentlessly produced by actors operating in a market
economy.
Although there is no full consensus on the extent and meaning of urban socio-spatial
inequalities under socialism, their existence has a long history of recognition in the
literature (Hamilton and Burnett, 1979; Bater, 1980; Szelényi, 1983; Smith, 1989). The
underlying mechanisms that produced these inequalities, on the other hand, are far less
evident. In this respect, it is important to distinguish between the socialist system’s
production of material urban structures and the socio-spatial patterns imprinted on them.
While the emphasis of much research on the CEE city is on the former, our review of the
literature will focus on the latter.
Socio-spatial differences had a variety of roots and sources under socialism.
First, there were the ‘bourgeois’ patterns inherited from pre-socialist times, which were
fading away but were still recognizable halfway through socialism (Matějů et al.,
1979; We˛cławowicz, 1979). Second, there were patterns produced directly by the
housing shortage — the socialist city’s inexpugnable bête noire: those who were not
able to come across passable shelter in cities were typically consigned to the illegal
or semi-legal private rental market or to the poorly serviced hinterland, where the
typical blessings of socialist urban life were not available (Konrád and Szelényi,
1974; Szelényi, 1983; Murray and Szelényi, 1984; Sjöberg, 1992; Domański, 1997).
Moreover, closed city and migration restriction policies reinforced this pattern
because they precluded various population groups from asserting their legal rights
to the socialist city (Sjöberg, 1994; Buckley, 1995). Third, because of limited supply,
the housing provision system did not live up to its ideological guidebook: rationing
and allocation by social merit partly replaced the intended need-based principles
(Szelényi, 1983; Andrusz, 1984; Pásztor and Péter, 2009, Gentile and Sjöberg, 2013).
Consequently, fourth, personal or political clout, as well as bribery, often became
part of the picture (Morton, 1984; Domański, 1997). Fifth, the actions
of individual enterprises and organizations aimed at ironing out difficulties in
securing necessary resources caused new wrinkles in the homogenous surface
of the socio-spatial landscape advocated by planners (Hall, 1987). Because
‘departmental housing’ (or ‘semi-public’, cf. Hall, ibid.) was usually earmarked for the
staff of the enterprises building it, a significant source of residential segregation on
socio-professional grounds was created (Shomina, 1992; Domański, 1997; Szirmai,
1998; Petrovici, 2012). Accordingly, access to this segment of the housing stock
was both exclusionary by socioeconomic status and, following well-documented
characteristics of the Soviet-style labor markets (e.g. Linz, 1995), gendered. Also,
departmental housing typically clustered, increasing the likelihood that work
colleagues were also neighbors, particularly if employed in strategic industries and
organizations (Lehmann and Ruble, 1997; Gentile, 2005; Gentile and Sjöberg, 2010a;

2010b).1 Sixth, there were several forms of housing tenure under socialism, and these
tended to be associated with the residents’ socioeconomic characteristics (French,
1995; Domański, 1997). The main forms were state-owned, private (on state land in
most cases) and cooperative (or ‘semi-private’, cf. Hall, 1987). Typically, the share of
state-owned housing, which was the most subsidized because of nominal rents and
insignificant fees for utilities, increased with city size (Andrusz, 1984). Finally, the
socialist institutions in many, though not all, countries produced an ‘unhousable’
underclass that was, in fact, both segregated and highly deprived. This underclass
included not only political offenders, former prison inmates and so-called (societal)
‘parasites’, but also temporary rural migrants who were not granted the full privilege
of urban life (see Gentile, 2003; Marcińczak and Sagan, 2011).
Socialist and early post-socialist segregation in Southeastern European (SEE) cities is
an entirely unexplored topic in the English-language literature. Some retrospective hints
about it appear in more recent work on urban inequalities in the region (Vesselinov, 2004;
2005; Vesselinov and Logan, 2005; Speveć and Klempić-Bogadi, 2009; Petrovici, 2012),
but these do not report the ‘hard facts’ of segregation under socialism.
Segregation and socio-spatial patterning after socialism

Globalization and economic restructuring, and the development of the financial (Sassen,
1991) and creative (Florida, 2003) sectors in particular, are seen as the key causes of the
growing income inequalities and segregation in the large cities of the Western world
(Mollenkopf and Castells, 1991; van Kempen, 2007). Similar arguments emphasizing
the rise of socioeconomic segregation have been aired in the post-communist context
(Smith and Timár, 2010). While much research on socio-spatial and housing inequalities
in Central and Eastern Europe has been published during recent years (for reviews see
Ruoppila, 2004; Hamilton et al., 2005; Borén and Gentile, 2007; Gentile et al., 2012),
we argue that two significant knowledge gaps remain. First, most works describe general
forms of socio-spatial patterning, rather than the actual level and scale of socioeconomic
residential segregation. Accordingly, beyond a small number of studies that employ
stringent methods of segregation measurement (Dangschat, 1987; Ladányi, 1989; 2002;
Sýkora, 2007; 2009; Tátrai, 2011; Marcińczak, 2012; Marcińczak et al., 2012), very little
is known about the patterns of segregation in this region (Musterd, 2005; Musterd and
van Kempen, 2009; van Kempen and Murie, 2009). Second, research on CEE cities tends
to be geographically selective, as it was during socialist times, being primarily confined
to the largest metropolitan regions of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and, more
recently, Estonia and Russia (Borén and Gentile, 2007; Marcińczak and Sagan, 2011),
whereas cities in Southeastern Europe attracted sporadic and more recent attention
(Sýkora and Bouzarovski, 2012). Providing valuable commentary on contemporary
social and spatial urban change in the Balkans, the existing studies (Chelcea, 2003;
2006; Dawidson, 2004; Deda and Tsenkova, 2006; Mišetić and Mišetić, 2006; Hirt
and Kovachev, 2006; Hirt, 2007; Brade et al., 2009; Speveć and Klempić-Bogadi, 2009;
Nase and Okaçki, 2010; Vöckler, 2010; Bouzarovski, 2011; Bouzarovski et al., 2011;
Petrovici, 2012; Rufat, 2013) do not, in fact, illustrate actual segregation patterns. Some
of these studies describe processes of socio-spatial restructuring, but most studies on
1 Occasionally an additional source of segregation surfaced during the early years of socialism, when
housing nationalization programs were implemented. In this process, some people found themselves
being displaced or forced to accept an unwelcome ‘flat-sharing’ agreement. Displacement meant
relocation. In some cases political and defense-related considerations gained the upper hand. For
example, as Chelcea (2012) shows, employees of the new defense ministry in Bucharest were
clustered nearby, at the expense of the sitting tenants who were forced to accept accommodation
elsewhere.

the SEE city’s spatial changes target singular spatial expressions of socioeconomic
decompression (e.g. the proliferation of gated communities for the upper and upper-
middle classes).
The pace, scale and extent of the socioeconomic changes embedded in transition are
shaped by the historically developed and path-dependent characteristics of cities, regions
and nation-states (Marcińczak and Sagan, 2011; Sýkora and Bouzarovski, 2012).
The fusion of pre-socialist and socialist legacies with the post-socialist reform
therapies triggered increased labor-market segmentation, growing income inequalities,
unemployment, the gradual withdrawal of the welfare state and, accordingly, a new order
of social stratification (Smith and Pickles, 1998; Bandelj and Mahutga, 2010; Stenning
et al., 2010). The capital cities had a pioneering role in these processes (We˛cławowicz,
1998), making them ideal objects for the investigation of the spatial manifestation of the
new order (Stenning, 2004).
Residential segregation in SEE cities after socialism has been the subject of a handful
of studies. Petrovici (2012) uses factor analysis to illustrate the social geography of
the Romanian mid-sized city of Cluj, finding modest evidence of socio-spatial
differentiation explained, in part, by the idiosyncrasies of nationalist local government.
However, the socio-spatial configurations observed defy generalization other than the
observation that the elderly and relatively disadvantaged seem to be overrepresented in
the inner-city areas in a way similar to many other cities in CEE, especially under
socialism and in the decade that followed (cf. Szelényi, 1983; Kovács, 1998; Marcińczak
et al., 2012; 2013). Also using factor analysis, this time applied to data from the Croatian
census, Prelogović (2009) shows that Zagreb’s residential socioeconomic spatial pattern
in the early 2000s assumed a somewhat sectoral form. Using the same data source at a
more aggregated level, Speveć and Klempić-Bogadi (2009) describe the residential
geographies of the population of Zagreb and Split by education, reporting a certain
educational distance decay effect (with the more highly educated settling in central
locations). Ethnic segregation in three mid-sized Romanian cities with significant
Magyar minorities has been the focus of a recent study by Tátrai (2011), who found low
and stable levels of segregation using global segregation measures.
Summing up, there is little knowledge of residential segregation patterns in the
post-socialist SEE city, and even less is known about the situation under socialism.
Moreover, while generally supporting the notion that segregation levels are/were low, the
results are not uniform.
Setting the scene

With a history dating back at least to the fifteenth century, Bucharest started developing
more rapidly in 1862, when it became the capital of Romania. While the lower social
categories clustered in the shanty towns of Bucharest’s periphery and in poor-quality
tenements and houses in the inner city, the higher social groups largely resided in the
centre and in the northern sector, in fashionable places such as Kiseleff-Primăverii, Lake
Floreasca and Herăstrău, which were characterized by fine villas, wide boulevards and
parks (Figure 1).
The city was moderately damaged during the second world war. The reconstruction of
damaged or destroyed areas, the nationalization of the residential property that was left
intact (see Chelcea, 2012), along with further industrialization, became the prime targets
of the new socialist government. The first wave of industrial expansion went to the
south (Rahova, Ferentari) and west (Gara de Nord, Griviţa). Massive industrialization
continued throughout the 1960s and 1970s, attracting workers from outside the city, and
triggering under-urbanization, whereby the housing sector increasingly lagged behind
the growth of industrial employment (Murray and Szelényi, 1984). Consequently, the
peripheral zone was gradually taken over by self-provided wood and cob housing lacking

Figure 1 Land use map of Bucharest showing age of housing stock (sources: Direcţia
Urbanism şi Amenajarea Teritoriului 2000; National Institute of Statistics, 2002)
basic amenities, even though higher and denser housing estates were hastily constructed
in the proximity of the industrial areas, e.g. the Obor (1966), Militari (1968) and Rahova
(1970) housing complexes. Initially, the overall quality of the housing estates was low,
but it improved subsequently.
Unlike elsewhere in metropolitan Central and Eastern Europe, where inner-city
redevelopment was seriously initiated in the 1950s (Carter, 1979; Bater, 1980; Smith,
1996), the reconstruction of Bucharest’s centre did not take off until the early 1980s, at
a time when several socialist regimes, especially in Poland and Hungary, had started to
look shaky. Ceauşescu’s grand project was completed shortly after the fall of his regime
in the early 1990s. Because this massive scale intervention into the existing urban fabric
is portrayed elsewhere (Turnock, 1990; Danta, 1993; Cavalcanti, 1997), it suffices to say
that it was the flagship project of the Romanian ‘systematization’ program, which aimed
at the socialist modernization of society, economy and space through countrywide
homogenization and the diffusion of the benefits of urbanism (Ronnås, 1984; Danta,
1993). Eventually, about a quarter of the historical core was razed and more than
40,000 people were displaced to accommodate Ceauşescu’s monumental visions.

Former low-density housing with socially mixed populations was torn down to provide
room for the immense House of the Republic, spacious squares, and a wide boulevard
whose length exceeds that of the Champs-Elysées in Paris. This boulevard was — and
still is — lined with trees, fountains and gargantuan apartment buildings designed
to house high-ranking members of the military, secret police (the securitate) and
nomenklatura (Behr, 1991). Needless to say, this flamboyant project stood in sharp
contrast to the overall poverty of the Romanian population (O’Neill, 2009).
The pace and character of Romania’s post-socialist transition differed from those of
its CEE counterparts. First, the country’s regime and economy in 1989 were still largely
Stalinist; second, Romania was virtually foreign-debt-free because of Ceauşescu’s
insistence on economic autarky. The virtual nonexistence of anti-communist opposition
enabled the previous regime’s cream of the crop to take full advantage of the new
circumstances (Gabányi, 2004). Until 1996 when the liberals won the elections with a
program of reforms, privatization and euro-modernization, the pace of the reforms was
dawdling, the inflow of foreign investment was slender, and employment in large
state-owned enterprises remained more or less intact (Turnock, 2007). The new round of
reforms did not come until 2003 when the new constitution secured private property
rights. Regardless of the massive housing privatization to sitting tenants and the
subsequent formation of a ‘hyper-ownership’ structure (Ball, 2006), residential mobility
was low, and the mortgage market insignificantly small. Crudely, the first decade of
transition brought slower economic development for Bucharest and its SEE counterparts
(see Tsenkova, 2008), than for comparable cities in northern CEE countries.
Research design
Data and geography
Our analysis relies on census materials — currently the best source of population data in
Romania. We use data on the socio-occupational structure of the population in 1992 and
2002. The sub-city district, the smallest available spatial unit (hereafter called a census
tract, cf. Rufat 2013), constitutes the prime level of analysis. The Bucharest census tracts
— of which there were 160 in 1992 and 151 in 2002 — are relatively small and compact
units, typically both functionally and morphologically homogenous, with an average
population of about 10,000 inhabitants. Unfortunately, the boundaries of the 1992 and
2002 census tracts do not entirely overlap. Yet, if interpreted with care, these two datasets
are sufficiently similar to enable meaningful comparison across time.
The analysis of the global and local patterns of socioeconomic segregation rests on
the division of the economically active population (population aged 15–65) into seven
major socio-professional groups: (1) managers, (2) professionals, (3) technicians, (4)
administrative, service and sales workers, (5) skilled workers, (6) unskilled workers and
(7) first-time job-seekers. This classification reflects the main lines of social and income
divisions in contemporary Romania, and it is also congruent with the taxonomies
employed in similar studies in other parts of Europe (Butler et al., 2008; Musterd, 2005;
Marcińczak et al., 2012) and North America (Scott, 1988). Therefore, it allows us to
trace the overall changes in the city’s socio-professional structure, pinning down their
spatial dimensions and effects.
Methodologies and methods

Segregation may refer to both the uneven distribution of social (ethnic/racial) groups
across the city and to the social composition of particular neighborhoods within it
(Reardon, 2006). Because its measurement is the prime informant of theory (Granis,
2002), it is crucial to distinguish between the two main approaches in segregation pattern

analysis. The first approach, whose roots date back to the Chicago School (Peach, 2009),
involves the assessment of global patterns, and is dominated by single-number indices that
summarize the (un)evenness in a given group’s distribution within a wider population
or in relation to other group(s) (Simpson, 2007). The more recent second approach
emphasizes actual (principally local) patterns of ethnic (social) residential concentration
and mixing. By doing so, it generally downplays the role of the global indices (Johnston
et al., 2010) and injects more geography into the study of segregation (Johnston et al.,
2009).
For easier comparison with existing studies and in order not to confuse the two
meanings of segregation patterns, we will refer to the global and local patterns of
segregation throughout the article, scrutinizing them separately. Consequently, this study
proceeds in two stages. In the first stage, together with an assessment of the overall trends
in the socio-occupational composition of the Bucharest population during the inter-census
period, we measure the global levels of socioeconomic segregation in 1992 and 2002 using
the single number indices. The dissimilarity index (ID),2 the segregation index (IS),3 the
isolation index (II)4 and its modified version that takes into account the relative size of a
group (MII)5 are calculated for each of the seven socio-professional categories. In the
second stage, we turn to the geography of the phenomenon by exploring the local patterns
of social segregation. This analysis rests on the location quotient (LQ).6 To tease out the
places of concentration and significant concentration of each of the socio-professional
groups, the LQ thresholds are based on the properties of the binomial distribution. LQs are
calculated independently and scaled for each socio-professional group distinguished.
Results
Segregation dynamics at the global scale
Despite the postponement of ‘shock therapy’, the first decade of transition triggered
profound changes in the overall occupational structure of Bucharest, with two main
trends emerging (Table 1). The first trend is represented by a significant drop in the total
number of the economically active population, with the most substantial decrease having
2 The index of dissimilarity is calculated as: ID = (0.5* Σ[|xi/X * yi/Y|])*100 where: xi is the number of
people in category X in spatial unit i; X is the total number of people in category X; yi is the number
of people in category Y in spatial unit i; Y is the total number of people in category Y. The index
varies from 0 to 1 and indicates the degree of (un)evenness in the spatial distributions of two groups
being compared. Values that are less than 30 are usually interpreted as low whereas those that are
greater than 60 are interpreted as high.
3 The index of segregation (IS) is a variant of the dissimilarity index. IS explicitly compares the
distribution of a social/ethnic group with the remainder of the population. The formula is almost
identical to the ID. The only difference is that yi refers to the remainder of the population in spatial
unit i, and Y refers to the remainder of the population in a city. IS varies from 0 to 1 and illustrates
how (un)evenly an ethnic/social group is distributed compared to the remainder of the population.
The values of the IS are interpreted in the same way as those of the ID.
4 The index of isolation is calculated as: II = (Σ [(xi/X) * (xi/ti)])*100 where xi is the number of people
in category X in spatial unit i, X is the total number of people in category X, ti is the total population
of unit i. II varies from 0 to 1 and is interpreted as the probability that a person of category X meets
someone else of category X in spatial unit i. The values of II are interpreted in the same way as those
of ID and IS.
5 The modified index of isolation is calculated as: MII = (I — (X/T))*100 where II is the index of isolation
for people in category X, X is the total number of people in category X, T is the total population of
the city (Sin, 2002). The values of MII are interpreted in the same way as those of II.
6 The Location Quotient is calculated as: LQ = (xi/ti)/(X/T) where xi is the number of people in category
X in spatial unit i, ti is the total population of unit i, X is the total X population, and T is the total
population of a city/region.

Table 1 Overall trends in occupational composition in Bucharest, 1992–2002
Economically Active 1992 2002 Percent

Population 1992 2002 Change in % in % Change
Managers, legislators, 26,146 68,189 42,043 2.72 8.26 5.54
senior officials
Professionals 142,728 166,414 23,686 14.86 20.16 5.30
Technicians 160,113 129,557 −30,556 16.66 15.69 −0.97
Clerks and service 145,619 163,255 17,636 15.16 19.77 4.62
workers
Skilled industrial workers 403,613 223,519 −180,094 42.01 27.07 −14.94
Unskilled workers 55,821 51,305 −4,516 5.81 6.21 0.40
Never worked 23,489 21,677 −1,812 2.44 2.63 0.18
Total 960,787 825,655 −135,132 100 100
Source: National Institute of Statistics (2002)
taken place within industry, which is illustrated by the absolute and relative (-15%)
decline in the number of skilled industrial workers. This trend follows the overall
population shrinkage of Bucharest, which was largely caused by out-migration. The
second trend is the noticeable expansion of the white-collar occupations, which largely
represent the higher socio-professional echelons (managers and professionals): this
category grew by almost 11 percentage points. Conversely, no such expansion took place
at the bottom of the socio-occupational hierarchy. Moreover, the middle category (clerks
and services workers) also expanded during the period studied. The coarse analysis of the
changing socio-professional composition (SPC) of Bucharest’s population thus sheds
some new light on the social effects of post-socialist transition. Simply stated, we do not
find support for the social polarization arguments that have been advanced since the
mid-1990s (We˛cławowicz, 1998; Smith and Timár, 2010). The overall trends indicate
neither relative nor absolute social polarization (cf. Sassen, 1991), but rather
professionalization: in other words, the developments in Bucharest resemble those taking
place elsewhere in the European capitals (Hamnett, 1994; Butler et al., 2008). Instead of
assuming an hourglass shape, Bucharest’s SPC arguably looks like an upside-down pear.
The results of the analysis of the single-number indices summarize the spatial effects
of the overall socio-occupational change. The indices of segregation (ISs) indicate a low
level of residential segregation in both 1992 and 2002. Despite the constraints that stem
from the use of spatially incompatible data sets in comparative segregation research —
the modifiable areal unit problem, essentially (Wong, 2009) — some indications from
the figures are strong enough to draw general conclusions. The IS values are all below
30, and this pattern is stable over time (Table 2). It also appears that the irregular
‘U profile’ segregation curves at both dates are in line with the ‘universal’ pattern
of socio-occupational residential distribution, which seems to be insensitive to the
prevailing socioeconomic system (Duncan and Duncan, 1955; Dangschat, 1987;
Ladányi, 1989; Musterd, 2005; Marcińczak et al., 2012); fundamentally, the higher
social strata are more segregated than the lower strata. Moreover, a legible trajectory of
change becomes evident: the professionalization of Bucharest’s SPC seems to contribute
to lowering segregation, with a more even spatial distribution of managers and
professionals, and a concomitant increase in residential segregation among lower social
groups. Yet, the pace of these changes is very slow.
The index of isolation (II) and its modified version (MII) describe the absolute and
relative concentration of the socio-professional categories, respectively. The global
concentration measures indicate a somewhat divergent path. Despite having a more
even spatial distribution, as the IS values indicate, growth at the top end of the

Table 2 Indices of residential segregation and isolation of major socio-professional groups:

Bucharest, 1992–2002
Modified
Segregation Index Isolation Index Isolation Index
Socio-professional Groups 1992 2002 1992 2002 1992 2002
Managers, legislators, senior officials 23.2 21.1 3.8 10.5 1.08 2.24
Professionals 28.6 23.5 21.1 24.9 6.24 4.74
Technicians 10.3 8.9 18.0 16.7 1.34 1.01
Clerks and service workers 6.0 8.4 15.8 20.9 0.64 1.13
Skilled industrial workers 18.3 18.8 46.0 30.9 3.99 3.83
Unskilled workers 14.5 17.8 6.8 7.8 0.99 1.59
Never worked 11.6 17.9 2.7 3.2 0.26 0.57
Table 3 Indices of residential dissimilarity between major socio-professional groups:

Bucharest, 1992–2002
Socio-professional Groups MLS P T CSW SIW UW NW

Managers, legislators, senior officials 0 6.6 18.4 25.4 32.5 32.9 30.0
Professionals 8.9 0 19.6 27.2 34.5 34.8 31.8
Technicians 18.7 17.1 0 9.9 18.1 21.8 16.2
Clerks and service workers 25.5 24.5 10.6 0 9.5 14.0 9.6
Skilled industrial workers 32.0 32.1 17.6 9.1 0 9.8 11.1
Unskilled workers 32.2 33.0 21.8 15.4 11.2 0 12.2
Never worked 0.29 27.2 20.4 15.5 16.3 19.1 0
Notes: Above diagonal cells contain IDs for 1992, and below diagonal cells contain IDs for 2002.
MLS = managers, legislators and senior officials; P = professionals; T = technicians; CSW = clerks and service
workers; SIW = skilled industrial workers; UW = unskilled workers; NW = never worked.
socio-occupational hierarchy involves the residential concentration of the higher social

groups in both absolute and relative terms. Somewhat counterintuitively, and in spite of
the shrinking size of the base of the socio-occupational pyramid, the lower social groups
became more residentially concentrated. Although the values of IIs and MIIs are still low,
they could indicate residential proto-ghettoization among these groups.
The index of dissimilarity (ID) provides additional information on residential
segregation between the distinguished socio-professional categories (Table 3). Echoing
findings from across the spectrum of economic systems (Duncan and Duncan, 1955;
Scott, 1988; Ladányi, 1989), the results of the IDs for both dates indicate that spatial
segregation reflects social distance. In addition, the substantial shift in the overall SPC
of Bucharest does not affect the broad spatial divisions between the higher (white-
collar) and the lower (blue-collar) socio-professional groups, a key feature of socio-
occupational spatial segregation in capitalist cities (Scott, 1988). Despite being measured
at a much more general spatial scale,7 the level of socio-occupational segregation in
7 The ID is sensitive to the spatial scale used for its calculation, meaning that fine-grained spatial
resolutions return higher values (Wong, 1997).

Bucharest was greater than that observed in major Polish cities (cf. Marcińczak et al.,
2012).
The geography of socio-occupational segregation

Because an extended analysis of the local patterns of socio-occupational residential
segregation is beyond the scope of this article, we focus on the opposite ends of the
socio-occupational hierarchy by selecting the two highest and two lowest categories for
further investigation. Consequently, our continued analysis details the changing local
residential geographies of the managers and professionals (see Figure 2) and the local
concentration patterns of the unskilled workers and of those who have never worked (see
Figure 3). Importantly, these groups reflect the main social divisions in the city at both
dates (Table 3). The Location Quotient (LQ) maps for the higher socio-occupational
groups reveal, bar a few exceptions, that the residential concentrations of these social
categories form a substantial cluster in the vicinity of the city center (sectors 1 and 3).
This coincides with the best-quality pre-socialist housing (the villas in sector 1 and the
surviving bourgeois tenements in the central zone) and the better-quality multifamily
buildings from the Ceauşescu period (Titan, Drumul Taberei), particularly those erected
during the monumental redevelopment project (Figure 2). The first decade of ‘hesitant
transition’ brought about visible, albeit minor changes in the spatial distribution of
the higher social categories. The stability of the spatial patterns notwithstanding, and
despite the professionalization of the city’s overall occupational structure, some of the
significant residential concentrations of the higher categories thinned out in a centrifugal
movement that started somewhere between 1992 and 2002, a process that is said to have
gained momentum after 2000 (Pǎtroescu et al., 2011).
Being predominantly concentrated in the outer parts of Bucharest, the lower social
categories (LSCs) display a nearly inverse spatial pattern (Figure 3). Unlike the higher
social groups, these categories typically concentrate in the low-quality housing estates
from the 1960s neighboring vast industrial complexes — Griviţa, Ferentari and Rahova
being good cases in point — but also in substandard rural-type housing in peripheral
locations. Perhaps surprisingly, this substandard housing was typically erected after the
demise of the socialist system (ibid.). However, members of the LSCs are also found in
many centrally located census tracts, even those adjoining the Palace of Parliament.
Sector 1 stands out as the city’s most socially prestigious area, while Sector 5 is
characterized by a predominantly LSC population, with significant stability over time,
and whose presence increased in the Ferentari district. This suggests the emergence of
underclass ghettos of post-1989 origin. These areas partly overlap with the poor-quality
blocks of flats from the 1960s (Mionel and Neguţ, 2011). Accordingly, the findings from
Bucharest lend further support to arguments that the socialist-era panel-block estates
have become increasingly differentiated (Temelová et al., 2011); some, like the former
workers’ dormitories in the Ferentari district, became the dreaded slums of the
twenty-first century (cf. Szelényi, 1996), whereas the estates from the late 1970s and the
1980s still house medium to higher social categories (cf. Kährik and Tammaru, 2010;
Marcińczak and Sagan, 2011).
Conclusion
This article’s main conclusion is that Bucharest, by West European standards (cf.
Musterd, 2005), was a relatively socio-spatially mixed city both at the onset of transition
(1992) and after it had ‘ripened’ during the first post-socialist inter-census decade (2002).
There is no eye-catching evidence of increased residential segregation during this period,
at least not at the meso-scale level of analysis deployed in this study; quite the contrary,
we found a modest, yet fully legible, decreasing overall trend, though this mix may well

Figure 2 Residential concentration of the higher socio-occupational categories

(sources: National Institute of Statistics, 1992; 2002)
involve sharp local socio-spatial contrasts. Specifically, the global trend in residential
segregation patterning indicates an increase in socio-occupational mixing, mirroring
recent results from the Czech Republic and Poland (Sýkora, 2009; Marcińczak, 2012),
countries known as ‘leaders’ in the process of transition (Bradshaw and Stenning, 2004).
Accordingly, it casts doubt on the popular notion that there is an inherent association
between social stratification and residential segregation (cf. We˛cławowicz, 1998;
Sailer-Fliege, 1999; Brade et al., 2009; Polanska, 2011). In fact, increasing income
inequalities and substantial changes in the overall socio-occupational composition have
not translated into socio-spatial — or even just social — polarization. Specifically, the

Figure 3 Residential concentration of the lower socio-occupational categories

(sources: National Institute of Statistics, 1992; 2002)
city’s social composition has not changed in the direction of the hourglass structure
typical of socially polarized societies (cf. Sassen 1991); rather, we suggest that it reflects
growing professionalization, similar to what has been noted in, not least, London (Butler
et al., 2008). The developments in Bucharest lend support to the notion of the paradox
of post-socialist segregation (Sýkora, 2007), whereby socioeconomic inequalities and
residential segregation move in opposite directions. This situation may or may not
change, of course. The question is when, and under which influences of local cultural,
socioeconomic and geographic context.
By the low level of CEE standards, however, residential segregation in Bucharest
seems to be on the high side. Also, its local geographical characteristics stand out when

compared to similar studies from Poland and the Czech Republic (Marcińczak et al.,
2012; Sýkora et al., 2006; Sýkora, 2009). Instead, and similar to the Albanian case (Aliaj
et al., 2003; Deda and Tsenkova, 2006), Bucharest’s outer zone has largely attracted low
social categories often housed in poor-quality illegally constructed housing (cf. Marin,
2005). Conversely, the significant presence of members of the higher social strata in the
inner-city districts follows a wider tendency of socio-spatial patterning in the SEE city
(Vesselinov and Logan, 2005; Speveć and Klempić-Bogadi, 2009).
While society as a whole went through comprehensive changes — not least owing to
rapid population growth and targeted spatial development policies under socialism — the
socio-spatial patterns observed in Bucharest are firmly rooted in the city’s past. Decades
of hardline socialist rule did not fully manage to offset the longue durée of the pre-war
bourgeois socio-spatial structures. In fact, both the socialist nomenklatura and the
subsequent post-socialist elites cluster(ed) in areas with spacious pre-war villas and
apartment buildings; the prestige and popularity of such areas has become consolidated
since the demise of communism (Chelcea, 2006). However, because the vast majority of
Bucharest’s residents are housed in socialist-era structures (Marin, 2005), the imprint of
the urban (re)development programs of this period is at least as important in determining
the configuration of socio-spatial sorting after socialism. Intriguingly, our results chime
in with the notion that socialist regimes produced legible social segregation (cf. Szelényi,
1983; Domański, 1997; Gentile and Sjöberg, 2006), which is elegantly epitomized
by Ceauşescu’s extravagant project in the city centre: whereas the new Ceauşesque
apartment complexes became the stronghold of the higher social segments, dwellings
in aging tenements targeted for ‘systematized’ demolition (in an alternative future that
was never to be) were ‘temporarily’ allocated to deprived Roma families (Chelcea,
2006). Already under socialism, this strategy led to localized socio-spatially ‘mixed’
polarization, where compact lines of relatively high-quality apartment blocks directly
neighbored — and to a certain extent ‘walled off’ — the city’s pockets of poverty. The
first, hesitant, decade of transition ossified this pattern.
Szymon Marcińczak (szymmar@geo.uni.lodz.pl), Institute of Urban Geography and

Tourism Studies, University of Łódź, ul Kopcińskiego 31, 90–142 Łódź, Poland,
Michael Gentile (michael.gentile@geography.umu.se), Department of Geography
and Economic History, Umeå University, SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden, Samuel Rufat
(samuel.rufat@u-cergy.fr), UFR Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Université de
Cergy-Pontoise, Boulevard du Port 33, 95011 Cergy-Pontoise, France and Liviu Chelcea
(liviu.chelcea@sas.unibuc.ro), Department of Sociology and Social Work, University of
Bucharest, Str. Schitu Magureanu 9, Sector 5, Bucuresti, Romania.
References
Aliaj, B., K. Lulo and G. Myftiu (2003) inequality in post-socialist Europe. Social
Tirana: the challenge of urban Forces 88.5, 2133–62.
development. Cetis, Tirana. Bater, J. (1980) The Soviet city. Edward
Andrusz, G. (1984) Housing and urban Arnold, London.
development in the USSR. SUNY Press, Behr, E. (1991) Kiss the hand you cannot
Albany, NY. bite: the rise and fall of the Ceausescus.
Åslund, A. (2002) Building capitalism. Villard Books, New York.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Borén, T. and M. Gentile (2007) Metropolitan
Ball, M. (2006) Markets and institutions in processes in post-communist states: an
real estate and construction. Blackwell, introduction. Geografiska Annaler 89B,
Oxford. 95–110.
Bandelj, N. and M.C. Mahutga (2010) How Bouzarovski, S. (2011) Skopje city profile.
socio-economic change shapes income Cities 28.3, 265–77.

Bouzarovski, S., J. Salukvadze and M. Dangschat, J. (1987) Residential segregation

Gentile (2011) A socially resilient urban in Warsaw in 1970 and 1978. In M.
transition? The contested landscapes of Ciechocinska and W. Strubelt (eds.),
apartment building extensions in two Determinants of urban development.
post-communist cities. Urban Studies Urban research in Poland and West
48.13, 2689–714. Germany, BfLR Symposien, Heft 26,
Brade, I., G. Herfert and K. Wiest (2009) Bonn.
Recent trends and future prospects of Danta, D. (1993) Ceausescu’s Bucharest.
socio-spatial differentiation in urban Geographical Review 83.2, 170–82.
regions of central and eastern Europe: a Dawidson, K. (2004) Redistributing
lull before the storm? Cities 26.5, nationalized housing: impacts on property
233–44. patterns in Timişoara, Romania. Eurasian
Bradshaw M. and A. Stenning (eds.) (2004) Geography and Economics 45.2, 134–56.
East Central Europe and the former Soviet Deda, L. and S. Tsenkova (2006) Poverty and
Union: the post socialist states. Pearson/ inequality in Greater Tirana: the reality of
Prentice Hall, Harlow. peri-urban areas. In S. Tsenkova and Z.
Buckley, C. (1995) The myth of managed Nedović-Budić (eds.), The urban mosaic
migration: migration control and market in of post-socialist Europe, Physica Verlag,
the Soviet period. Slavic Review 54.4, Heidelberg.
896–916. Direcţia Urbanism şi Amenajarea Teritoriului
Butler, T., C. Hamnett and M. Ramsed (2008) (2000) Planul urbanistic general al
Inward and upward: marking out social municipiului Bucuresti [Bucharest
class change in London, 1981–2001. municipality general urban plan] [WWW
Urban Studies 45.1, 67–88. document]. URL http://www.pmb.ro/
Carter, F.W. (1979) Prague and Sofia: an servicii/urbanism/pug/pug.php (accessed 9
analysis of their changing internal city July 2012).
structure. In R.A. French and F.E.I. Domański, B. (1997) Industrial control over
Hamilton (eds.), The socialist city: spatial the socialist town — benevolence or
structure and urban policy, John Wiley & exploitation? Praeger, Westport, CT.
Sons, Chichester. Duncan, D. and B. Duncan (1955) A
Cavalcanti, M. (1997) Urban reconstruction methodological analysis of segregation
and autocratic regimes: Ceausescu’s indices. American Sociological Review
Bucharest in its historic context. Planning 20.2, 210–17.
Perspectives 12, 71–109. Dunford, M. and A. Smith (2000) Catching
Chelcea, L. (2003) Domestic groups and the up or falling behind? Economic
socialist state: housing nationalization and performance and regional trajectories in
restitution in Romania. Comparative the ‘new’ Europe. Economic Geography
Studies in Society and History 45.5, 76.2, 169–95.
714–40. Florida, R. (2003) Cities and the creative
Chelcea, L. (2006) Marginal groups in central class. City and Community 2.1, 3–19.
places: gentrification, property rights and French, A. (1995) Plans, pragmatism and
post-socialist primitive accumulation people. UCL Press, London.
(Bucharest, Romania). In G. Enyédi and Z. Gabányi, A. (2004) The new business elite:
Kovács (eds.), Social changes and social from nomenklatura to oligarchy. In H.
sustainability in historical urban centres: Carem (ed.), Romania since 1989: politics,
the case of Central Europe, Hungarian economics and society, Lexington Books,
Academy of Sciences, Pécs. Oxford.
Chelcea, L. (2012) The ‘housing question’ Gentile, M. (2003) Residential segregation
and the state socialist answer: city, class in a medium-sized post-Soviet city:
and state remaking in 1950s Bucharest. Ust’-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan. Tijdschrift
International Journal of Urban and voor Economische en Sociale Geografie
Regional Research 36.2, 281–96. 94.5, 589–605.
Church, G. (1979) Bucharest: revolution in Gentile, M. (2005) Urban residential
the townscape art. In R.A. French and preferences and satisfaction in the former
F.E.I. Hamilton (eds.), The socialist city: Soviet Union: results from a survey in
spatial structure and urban policy, John Ust’-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan. Urban
Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Geography 26.4, 296–327.

Gentile, M. and Ö. Sjöberg (2006) Intra-urban on mix: on measuring and understanding

landscapes of priority: the Soviet legacy. ethnic patterns of residential segregation.
Europe-Asia Studies 58.5, 701–29. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Gentile, M. and Ö. Sjöberg (2010a) Spaces of 36.4, 697–706.
priority: the geography of Soviet housing Kährik, A. and T. Tammaru (2010) Soviet
construction in Daugavpils, Latvia. Annals prefabricated panel housing estates: areas
of the Association of American of continued social mix or decline? The
Geographers 100.1, 1–25. case of Tallinn. Housing Studies 25.2,
Gentile, M. and Ö. Sjöberg (2010b) Soviet 201–19.
housing: who built what and when? The Koch, N. (2011) Security and gendered
case of Daugavpils, Latvia. Journal of national identity in Uzbekistan. Gender,
Historical Geography 36.4, 453–65. Place and Culture 18.4, 499–518.
Gentile, M. and Ö. Sjöberg (2013) Housing Konrád, G. and I. Szelényi (1974) Social
allocation under socialism: the Soviet conflicts and urbanisation. In A. Brown, J.
case revisited. Post-Soviet Affairs 29.2, Licari and E. Neuberger (eds.), Urban and
173–95. social economics in market and planned
Gentile, M., T. Tammaru and R. van Kempen economies: policy, planning, and
(2012) Heteropolitanization: social and development, Praeger, New York.
spatial change in Central and Eastern Kostreš, M. and D. Reba (2010) Housing for
Europe. Cities 29.5, 291–9. the new socio-economic elite: the case
Granis, R. (2002) Discussion: segregation of Novi Sad. Architecture and Civil
indices and their functional inputs. Engineering 8.3, 329–43.
Sociological Methodology 32.1, 69–84. Kovács, Z. (1998) Ghettoisation or
Hall, D. (1987) Emerging residential gentrification? Post-socialist scenarios for
structures of socialist cities. In C.S. Yadav Budapest. Netherlands Journal of Housing
(ed.), Contemporary city ecology, Naurang and the Built Environment 13.1, 63–81.
Rai, New Delhi. Ladányi, J. (1989) Changing patterns of
Hamilton, F.E.I. and A.D. Burnett (1979) residential segregation in Budapest.
Social processes and residential structure. International Journal of Urban and
In R.A. French and F.E.I. Hamilton (eds.), Regional Research 13.4, 555–71.
The socialist city: spatial structure and Ladányi, J. (2002) Residential segregation
urban policy, John Wiley & Sons, among social and ethnic groups in
Chichester. Budapest under the post-communist
Hamilton, F.E.I., K. Andrews and N. transition. In P. Marcuse and R. van
Pichler-Milanović (eds.) (2005) Kempen (eds.), Of states and cities: the
Transformation of cities in Central and partitioning of urban space, Oxford
Eastern Europe: towards globalization. University Press, Oxford.
United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Lehmann, S.G. and B. Ruble (1997) From
Hamnett, C. (1994) Social polarization in ‘Soviet’ to ‘European’ Yaroslavl: changing
global cities: theory and evidence. Urban neighbourhood structure in post-Soviet
Studies 31.3, 401–24. Russian cities. Urban Studies 34.7,
Hirt, S. (2007) Suburbanizing Sofia: 1085–107.
characteristics of post-socialist peri-urban Linz, S.J. (1995) Russian labor market in
change. Urban Geography 28.8, 755–80. transition. Economic Development and
Hirt, S. and A. Kovachev (2006) The Cultural Change 43.4, 693–716.
changing spatial structure of post- Marcińczak, S. (2012) The evolution of
socialist Sofia. In S. Tsenkova and Z. spatial patterns of residential segregation
Nedović-Budić (eds.), The urban mosaic in Central European Cities: The Łódz
of post-socialist Europe, Physica Verlag, Functional Urban Region from mature
Heidelberg. socialism to mature post-socialism. Cities
Johnston, R., M. Poulsen and J. Forrest 29.5, 300–9.
(2009) Research note — measuring ethnic Marcińczak, S. and I. Sagan (2011) The
residential segregation: putting some more socio-spatial restructuring of Łódz, Poland.
geography in. Urban Geography 30.1, Urban Studies 48.9, 1789–809.
91–109. Marcińczak, S., S. Musterd and M. Ste˛pniak
Johnston, R., M. Poulsen and J. Forrest (2012) Where the grass is greener: social
(2010) Moving on from indices, refocusing segregation in three major Polish cities at

the beginning of the 21st century. National Institute of Statistics of Romania,

European Urban and Regional Studies Bucharest and available upon request from
19.4, 383–403. the Institute.
Marcińczak, S., M. Gentile and M. Ste˛pniak National Institute of Statistics (2002) Census
(2013) Paradoxes of post(socialist) of population and dwellings [WWW
segregation: metropolitan sociospatial document]. URL http://www.insse.ro/
divisions under socialism and after in cms/rw/pages/rpl2002.en.do;jsessionid
Poland. Urban Geography 34.3, 527–52. =f3d0419ce7076ddfaa5ad73b63c
Marin, V. (2005) Inhabiting the outskirts 944e37cd4bb24e723dc04e5b612
of Bucharest: ‘old’ socialist housing 152060b435.e38QbxeSahyTbi0Oc310
estates versus ‘new’ capitalist suburbia (accessed 24 March 2013).
developments. In F. Eckardt (ed.), Paths of O’Neill, B. (2009) The political agency of
urban transformation, Peter Lang Verlag, cityscapes. Journal of Social Archaeology
Frankfurt. 9.1, 92–109.
Matějů, P., J. Večerník and H. Jeřábek (1979) Pásztor, G. and L. Péter (2009) Urban
Social structure, spatial structure and housing problem in Romania: the legacy
problems of urban research: the example of communist block of flats. Studia
of Prague. International Journal of Urban universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Sociologia
and Regional Research 3.2, 181–202. 2009/1, 79–100 [WWW document].
Mišetić, A. and R. Mišetić (2006) Social URL http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/
aspects of life in the inner-city of Zagreb. media_129752_en.pdf (accessed 2
In G. Enyédi and Z. Kovács (eds.), Social April 2013).
changes and social sustainability in Pǎtroescu M., G. Vanau, N. Răzvan, C. Ioja,
historical urban centres: the case of and A. Ioja (2011) Land use change in
Central Europe, Hungarian Academy of the Bucharest metropolitan area and its
Sciences, Pécs. impacts on the quality of the environment
Mionel, V. and S. Negut, (2011) The social in residential developments. Forum
dimension of the Bucharest ghettos. Geografic. Studii şi Cercetări de
Transylvanian Review of Administrative Geografie şi Protectia Mediului 10.1,
Sciences 33, 197–217. 177–86.
Mollenkopf, J.H. and M. Castells (eds.) Peach, C. (2009) Slippery segregation:
(1991) Dual city. Restructuring New York. discovering or manufacturing ghettos?
Sage, New York. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Morton, H.W. (1984) The contemporary 35.9, 1381–95.
Soviet city. In H.W. Morton and R.C. Petrovici, N. (2012) Workers and the city:
Stuart (eds.), The contemporary Soviet rethinking the geographies of power in
city, M.E. Sharpe, New York. post-socialist urbanisation. Urban Studies
Murray, P. and I. Szelényi (1984) The city in 49.11, 2377–97.
the transition to socialism. International Polanska, D. (2011) The emergence of
Journal of Urban and Regional Research enclaves of wealth and poverty — a
8.1, 90–107. sociological study of residential
Musterd, S. (2005) Social and ethnic differentiation in post-communist Poland.
segregation in Europe: levels, causes, and Stockholm Studies in Sociology 50,
effects. Journal of Urban Affairs 27.3, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
27–36. Prelogović, V. (2009) Primjena faktorske
Musterd, S. and R. van Kempen (2009) analize u istraživanju socio-prostorne
Segregation and housing of minority ethnic strukture grada: primjer Zagreba
groups in Western European Cities. [Applying factor analysis in research on
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale urban socio-spatial structures: an example
Geografie 100.4, 559–66. from Zagreb]. Hrvatski Geografski Glasnik
Nase, I. and M. Okaçki (2010) Urban pattern 71.1, 67–85.
dichotomy in Tirana: socio-spatial impact Reardon, S.F. (2006) A conceptual framework
of liberalism. European Planning Studies for measuring segregation and its
18.11, 1837–61. association with population outcomes.
National Institute of Statistics (1992) Census In J.M. Oakes and J.S. Kaufman (eds.),
of population and dwellings. Unpublished Methods in social epidemiology,
census-tract-level data produced by the Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Ronnås, P. (1982) Centrally planned urbanisation under central planning. Urban

urbanization: the case of Romania. Studies 36.13, 2217–36.
Geografiska Annaler B 64.2, 143–51. Smith, A. and J. Pickles (1998) Introduction:
Ronnås, P. (1984) Urbanization in Romania. theorizing transition and the political
The Economics Research Institute at the economy of transformation. In J. Pickles
Stockholm School of Economics, and A. Smith (eds.), Theorising transition:
Stockholm. the political economy of post-communist
Rufat, S. (2013) Spectroscopy of urban transformation, Routledge, London.
vulnerability. Annals of the Association of Smith A., A. Stenning, A. Rochovska and
American Geographers 103.3, 505–25. D. Świa˛tek (2008) The emergence
Ruoppila, S. (2004) Processes of residential of a working poor: labour markets,
differentiation in socialist cities: literature neoliberalisation and diverse economies in
review on the cases of Budapest, Prague, post-socialist cities. Antipode 40, 283–311.
Tallinn and Warsaw. European Journal of Smith, A. and J. Timár (2010) Uneven
Spatial Development 9 [WWW document]. transformations: space, economy and
URL http://www.nordregio.se/Global/ society 20 years after the collapse of state
EJSD/Refereed%20articles/refereed9.pdf socialism. European Urban and Regional
(accessed 2 April 2013). Studies 17.2, 115–25.
Sailer-Fliege, U. (1999) Characteristics of Smith, D.M. (1989) Urban inequality under
post-socialist urban transformation in East socialism — case studies from Eastern
Central Europe. GeoJournal 49.1, 7–16. Europe and the Soviet Union. Cambridge
Sampson, S. (1979) Urbanisation — planned University Press, Cambridge.
and unplanned: a case study of Brasov, Smith, D.M. (1996) The socialist city. In G.
Romania. In R.A. French and F.E.I. Andrusz, M. Harloe, and I. Szelényi (eds.),
Hamilton (eds.), The socialist city: spatial Cities after socialism, Blackwell, Oxford.
structure and urban policy spatial Speveć, D. and S. Klempić-Bogadi (2009)
structure and urban policy, John Wiley & Croatian cities under transformation: new
Sons, Chichester. tendencies in housing and segregation.
Sassen, S. (1991) The global city: New York, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press, Geografie 100.4, 454–68.
Princeton, NJ. Stenning, A. (2004) Urban change and the
Scott, A.J. (1988) Metropolis: from the localities. In M. Bradshaw and A.
division of labor to urban form. University Stenning (eds.), East Central Europe and
of California Press, Berkeley, CA. the former Soviet Union. The post socialist
Shomina, E.S. (1992) Enterprises and states, Pearson/Prentice Hall, Harlow.
the urban environment in the USSR. Stenning A., A. Smith, A. Rochovska
International Journal of Urban and and D. Świa˛tek (2010) Domesticating
Regional Research 16.2, 222–33. neo-liberalism: spaces of economic
Simpson, L. (2007) Ghettos in the mind: practice and social reproduction in
the empirical behaviour of indices of post-socialist cities. Wiley-Blackwell,
segregation and diversity. Journal of the Oxford.
Royal Statistical Society A 170.2, Sýkora, L. (2007) The Czech case study —
405–24. social inequalities in urban areas and their
Sin, C.H. (2002) The interpretation of relationship with competitiveness in the
segregation indices in context: the case of Czech Republic. In V. Szirmai (ed.),
P* in Singapore. The Professional Social inequalities in urban areas and
Geographer 54.3, 422–37. globalisation: the case of Central Europe,
Sjöberg, Ö. (1992) Underurbanisation and the Centre for Regional Studies of Hungarian
zero urban growth hypothesis: diverted Academy of Science, Pécs.
migration in Albania. Geografiska Annaler Sýkora, L. (2009) New socio-spatial
B 74.1, 3–19. formations: places of residential
Sjöberg, Ö. (1994) Rural retention in Albania: segregation and separation in Czechia.
administrative restrictions on urban-bound Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
migration. East European Quarterly 28.2, Geografie 100.4, 417–35.
205–233. Sýkora, L., J. Temelová, J. Novák and M.
Sjöberg, Ö. (1999) Shortage, priority and Ouředníček (2006) Forms of residential
urban growth: towards a theory of segregation and separation in the Czech

cities. Paper presented at the international van Kempen, R. and A. Murie (2009) The
conference on Urban Conditions and Life new divided city: changing patterns
Chances, University of Amsterdam, 6–8 in European cities. Tijdschrift voor
July 2006. Economische en Sociale Geografie 100.4,
Sýkora, L. and S. Bouzarovski (2012) 377–98.
Multiple transformations: conceptualising Vendina, O. (1997) Transformation processes
the post-communist urban transition. in Moscow and in intra-urban stratification
Urban Studies 49.1, 43–60. of population. GeoJournal 42.4, 349–63.
Szelényi, I. (1983) Urban inequalities under Vesselinov, E. (2004) The continuing ‘wind
state socialism. Oxford University Press, of change’ in the Balkans: sources of
New York. housing inequality in Bulgaria. Urban
Szelényi, I. (1996) Cities under socialism — Studies 41.13, 2601–19.
and after. In G. Andrusz, M. Harloe, and Vesselinov, E. (2005) Housing inequality:
I. Szelényi (eds.), Cities after socialism, changes of first-order in Sofia, Bulgaria.
Blackwell, Oxford. In F. Eckardt (ed.), Paths of urban
Szirmai, V. (1998) ‘Socialist’ cities (new transformation, Peter Lang Verlag,
towns) in the postsocialist era. In G. Frankfurt.
Enyédi (ed.), Social change and urban Vesselinov, E. and J. Logan (2005) Mixed
restructuring in Central Europe, success: economic stability and urban
Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. inequality in Sofia. In F.E.I. Hamilton, K.
Tátrai, P. (2011) Ethnic residential segregation Andrews and N. Pichler-Milanović (eds.),
in three cities in northwest Romania. Transformation of cities in Central and
Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 60.2, Eastern Europe, United Nations University
189–216. Press, Tokyo.
Temelová, J., J. Novák, M. Ouředníček and P. Vöckler, K. (2010) Turbo urbanism in
Puldová (2011) Housing estates in the Prishtina. In A. Kliems and M. Dmitrieva
Czech Republic: various trajectories and (eds.), The post-socialist city — continuity
inner differentiation. Urban Studies 48.9, and change in urban imagery, Jovis
1811–34. Verlag, Berlin.
Tosics, I. (2005) City development in We˛cławowicz, G. (1979) The structure of
Central and Eastern Europe since 1990: socio-economic space in Warsaw in 1931
the impacts of internal forces. In and 1970: a study in factorial ecology. In
F.E.I. Hamilton, K. Andrews and N. R.A. French and F.E.I. Hamilton (eds.),
Pichler-Milanović (eds.), Transformation The socialist city: spatial structure and
of cities in Central and Eastern Europe, urban policy, John Wiley & Sons,
United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Chichester.
Tsenkova, S. (2008) Managing change: the We˛cławowicz, G. (1998) Social polarisation
comeback of post-socialist cities. Urban in postsocialist cities: Budapest, Prague
Research and Practice 1.3, 291–310. and Warsaw. In G. Enyédi (ed.), Social
Turnock, D. (1990) Bucharest city profile. change and urban restructuring in Central
Cities 7.2, 107–18. Europe, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Turnock, D. (2007) Aspects of independent Wong, D.W.S. (1997) Spatial dependency of
Romania’s economic history with segregation indices. The Canadian
particular reference to transition for Geographer 41.2, 128–36.
EU accession. Ashgate, Aldershot. Wong, D. (2009) The modifiable areal unit
van Kempen, R. (2007) Divided cities in the problem (MAUP). In A.S. Fortheringham
21st century: challenging the importance of and P.A. Rogerson (eds.), The Sage
globalization. Journal of Housing and Handbook of Spatial Analysis, Sage,
Built Environment 22.1, 13–31. London.


Urban Geographies of Hesitant Transition PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Geographies of Hesitant Transition PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research