• What are you interested in?

  • En español

  • Learn key terms

    Find definitions for key terms used in this blog in our glossary
  • Do you want more?

    Debates and polls
    Join in current debates in Social Science and vote and check the results of polls about hot topics.

    Talk to the experts
    A space for exchange between the blog's readers and the Social Polis experts. Leave your questions and comments for the authors of the papers.

    Test your knowledge
    Online interactive quizzes to test your knowledge on Social Science.

  • Read the original Social Polis papers

    Social polarisation, the labour market and economic restructuring in Europe: an urban perspective
    Morlicchio and Pratschke

    Housing, Neighbourhood and Health: Research Review
    Cameron, Gilroy and Miciukiewick

    Cities, social cohesion and the environment
    Swyngedouw and Cook

    Towards a research agenda on Governance, Citizenship and Social Cohesion in Cities
    García, Pradel, Eizaguirre, Martínez and Terrones

    Super Diversity, Multiple Identities and Place
    Dukes and Musterd

    If you are interested in reading these papers, contact Social Polis.

  • References

  • Advertisements

Experiences showing the extent of privatisation of public housing in different Eastern Europe countries

These are some experiences showing the extent of privatisation of public housing in different Eastern Europe countries (according to Mandič 2001)

1ST GROUP ASSESSED

(Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia)

2NDGROUP ASSESSED – LARGER!

(Hungary, Lithuania, Croatia, Romania, Slovenia)

Only slightly reduced public housing
  • Marked decrease in public renting  (became residual).  (Cirman, 2008)
  • Homeownership: + 80%     (Tsenkova & Turner, 2004)
  • And not supported by a housing police  (Mandič 2001)

Advertisements

RESTATE

Project RESTATE

As regards social cohesion:

Aim

Peripheries built in large, high-density European states, in the early post war period(van Kempen et al 2005). They have social and physical problems. But… Are they really problematic? Or is it just a question of improving social cohesion? (Rowlands and Dekket, 2006).

Findings

MEASURES TO IMPROVE SOCIAL COHESION are essential. They:  

  • facilitate communication and networking between groups
  • empower residents
  • favour attachment to the neighbourhood and shared identity and
  • above all, promote effective participation of residents in decision making processes

 But they must be accompanied by MEASURES TO REDUCE INEQUALITIES  

And it is important to offer more housing options for a greater housing mix. Because policies which:

  • see concentrations of poverty as a problem
  • promote demolition and gentrification 

 create even more socially diverse populations (Andersson and Musterd, 2005).

As regards migration, ethnic diversity and neighbourhoods:

Aim

Fostering of social cohesion in ethnically-diverse estates

Findings

  • The large, ethnically mixed estates don’t form a single cohesive community but overlapping communities.
  •  Future of social cohesion: mutual respect and democratic inclusion.