Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Patterns of Socioeconomic Segregation in the Capital Cities of Fast-Track Reforming Postsocialist Countries

2014; American Association of Geographers; Volume: 105; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00045608.2014.968977

1467-8306

Szymon Marcińczak, Tiit Tammaru, Jakub Novák, Michael Gentile, Zoltán Kovács, Jana Temelová, Vytautas Valatka, Anneli Kährik, Balázs Szabó,

Housing, Finance, and Neoliberalism

AbstractSocioeconomic disparities have been rising on both sides of the Atlantic for the last forty years. This study illuminates the relationship among economic inequality, other contextual and institutional factors, and socioeconomic intraurban segregation in Eastern Europe. We draw our empirical evidence from the capital cities of so-called fast-track reforming postsocialist countries: Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, and the Czech Republic. The analysis consists of two stages. First, we use the traditional indexes of segregation to assess the global levels of socioeconomic segregation in the case cities. Second, we investigate the global patterns and local geographies of socioeconomic residential intermixing and introduce a typology of neighborhoods based on the socio-occupational composition of their residential tracts. Despite rapidly growing income inequality, the levels of socioeconomic segregation in the postsocialist city are either low or very low. The scale of segregation differs between the cities and the patterns of residential intermixing in the large cities of central and Eastern Europe are fundamentally different from those found in the Baltic states. The results lead to two important conclusions. One is that the link between socioeconomic distance and spatial distance in postsocialist cities is moderately sensitive to the level of economic inequality and to other contributory factors. The other key finding is that inertia effects have offset the immediate catalyzing effect of economic liberalization, globalization, and growing socioeconomic inequality on the patterns of segregation, at least in the first decade after the collapse of socialism.过去四十年以来，社会经济不均，在大西洋两岸皆有所增加。本研究揭示东欧的经济不均、其他脉络性与制度性因素， 以及城市内部社会—经济隔离之间的关联性。 我们所运用的经验证据，来自于爱沙尼亚、匈牙利、 立陶宛、 波兰以及捷克共和国这些所谓快速改革的后社会主义国家的首都城市。 本分析包含两阶段： 首先， 我们运用传统的隔离指标， 评估这些案例城市中， 社会经济隔离的全球层级。再者，我们探讨社会经济的混合居住的全球模式与在地地理，并引介根据一居住区中的社会—职业组成的邻里类型学。 儘管所得不均正在快速成长， 后社会主义城市的社会经济隔离， 不是轻微就是相当轻微。在中欧与东欧的大型城市中，隔离尺度在城市之间的差异，以及居住的混合模式，皆与波罗的海国家有根本上的不同。该研究结果导向两个重要结论：第一个是后社会主义城市中，社会经济距离与空间距离，受到经济不均程度及其他促成因素的影响一般。另一项关键发现是，惯性作用已抵消了经济自由化、全球化以及成长中的社会经济不均对隔离模式的直接激化影响，至少在社会主义崩解后的第一个十年中是如此。Durante los últimos cuarenta años han aumentado las disparidades socioeconómicas a lado y lado del Atlántico. Este estudio aclara la relación entre desigualdad económica, otros factores contextuales e institucionales y la segregación socioeconómica intraurbana en Europa Oriental. Nuestra evidencia empírica la extrajimos de las ciudades capitales de los llamados países postsocialistas reformadores de vía rápida: Estonia, Hungría, Lituania, Polonia y República Checa. El análisis comprende dos etapas. Primero, utilizamos los índices tradicionales de segregación para evaluar los niveles globales de segregación socioeconómica en las ciudades del caso. Segundo, investigamos los patrones globales y geografías locales de combinación socioeconómica residencial e introducimos una tipología de vecindarios con base en la composición socio-ocupacional de sus sectores residenciales. A pesar del muy rápido crecimiento de la desigualdad por ingreso, los niveles de segregación socioeconómica en la ciudad postsocialista son bajos o muy bajos. La escala de segregación difiere entre ciudades y los patrones de entremezcla residencial en las ciudades grandes de Europa Central y Oriental son fundamentalmente diferentes de los hallados en los países Bálticos. Los resultados nos llevan a dos conclusiones importantes. Una indica que el vínculo entre la distancia socioeconómica y la distancia espacial en las ciudades postsocialistas es moderadamente sensible al nivel de desigualdad económica y a otros factores contribuyentes. El otro hallazgo clave es que los efectos de la inercia han compensado el efecto catalizador inmediato de la liberalización económica, la globalización y la creciente desigualdad socioeconómica sobre los patrones de segregación, por lo menos durante la década siguiente al colapso del socialismo.Key Words: Eastern Europepostsocialist cityresidential segregationsocial class关键词：: 东欧后社会主义城市居住隔离社会阶级Palabras clave: Europa Orientalciudad postsocialistasegregación residencialclase social AcknowledgmentsWe thank Richard Wright and four anonymous referees for their excellent comments on the article.FundingThe research reported in this article was made possible in part through the financial support of the Estonian Research Council (Institutional Research Grant IUT 2-17 on Spatial Population Mobility and Geographical Changes in Urban Regions); the Estonian Science Foundation (Grants No. 8774 and 9247); the Polish National Science Center (Research Grant No. 2011/03/B/HS4/02302); and the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA, Grant No. K105534).Notes1 In many postsocialist countries, the national Gini coefficient of household income inequality grew from the low twenties in the late 1980s to low or mid-thirties in the early 2000s. Interestingly, the pace of growth of economic inequality in postsocialist Europe has been much more dramatic than in many other developed countries in the last two decades.2 Economic inequality relates to disparities in household incomes and it thus reflects the flow of money. Another important aspect evident in the spatial sorting of population is the unequal distribution of wealth, which reflects the stock of money (Ross et al. 2005). In Eastern Europe, wealth differences emerged in several ways in the course of transition. For example, the former elite was able to utilize its social capital in the privatization process (cf. Słomczyński and Shabad 1996 Słomczyński, K. M., and G. Shabad. 1996. Systemic transformation and the salience of class structure in east central Europe. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures 11 (2): 155–89.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). Likewise, the restitution process favored pre–World War II owners of property or their heirs.3 Unfortunately, we do not have the necessary space to offer a more nuanced review of the housing market and policy evolution in postsocialist countries. It is difficult, however, to ignore the fact that Eastern Europe after 1990 has undergone the most abrupt changes in terms of planning and real estate institutions in living memory (Ball 2006 Ball, M. 2006. Markets and institutions in real estate and construction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). Essentially, the fall of communism entailed a rapid and massive privatization and restitution of housing stock and subsequent residualization of social housing in the postsocialist city (Hegedüs, Martin, and Teller 2013 Hegedüs, J. 2013. The transformation of the social housing sector in Eastern Europe: A conceptual framework. In Social housing in transition countries, ed. J. Hegedüs, M. Lux, and N. Teller, 1–32. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). The process was especially extensive in the Baltic states and southeastern Europe, where the share of private housing is often higher than 90 percent of the total. Nonetheless, in many cases, sitting tenants in restituted apartments still enjoy regulated rents.4 , where xi is the number of people in the reference category in spatial unit i, X is the total number of people in the reference category, ti is the total number of people in spatial unit i, and T is the total number of people in a city. IS varies from 0 (no segregation) to 1 (perfect segregation) and illustrates how (un)evenly an ethnic or social group is distributed in relation to the rest of the population.5 , where ti refers to the total population of tract i, T is the metropolitan area population, n is the number of tracts, and Ei and E represent tract i's diversity (entropy) and metropolitan area diversity, respectively: , where Πr refers to the proportion of a particular racial or ethnic group in the whole metropolitan area population. All logarithmic calculations use the natural log. The formula for Ei is almost identical to that for E. The only difference is that ri replaces r in the formula, where ri refers to the proportion of a particular socioeconomic group present in tract i. The H index measures the difference between the diversity of the system and the weighted average diversity of individual units, expressed as a fraction of the total diversity of the system (Reardon 2006 Reardon, S. F. 2006. A conceptual framework for measuring segregation and its association with population outcomes. In Methods in social epidemiology, ed. J. M. Oakes and J. S. Kaufman, 169–92. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]). The H index varies between 0, when all areas have the same composition as the entire city (maximum intermixing), to 1, when all tracts contain one group only (maximum segregation).6 By PNs we mean tracts that have very small shares of middle-social categories and both higher and lower social categories are significantly overrepresented. Such neighborhoods, which are also termed bipolar neighborhoods, appear to be a corollary of increasing income disparity and growing income segregation (Galster and Booza 2007 Galster, G., and J. Booza. 2007. The rise of bipolar neighborhood. Journal of the American Planning Association 73 (4): 421–35.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).7 The classification of welfare regimes in Table 3 is based on Esping-Andersen's (1990) taxonomy and its proposed use by Fenger (2007 Fenger, H. 2007. Welfare regimes in central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating post-communist countries in a welfare regime typology. http://journal.ciiss.net/index.php/ciiss/article/viewPDFInterstitial/45/37 (last accessed 22 June 2014). [Google Scholar]) in categorizing postsocialist countries.