Housing privatization in Romania

Buckley, Robert M.; Mathema, Ashna S.

doi:10.1111/ecot.12140

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(69 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, if a housing estate has ten owners, each owning their apartment, and nine of them agree to pay for rehabilitation works for the commons space of the estate, but one denies, then the process is blocked or discontinued. Referred by economists as an "anti-commons" problem, which describes a situation where many owners have the right to exclude others from use of a resource, resulting in the underuse of resource, it summarizes the present conundrum of Romania's housing policy (Buckley and Mathema, 2018).…”

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating the Urban Commons: A Romanian Case Study of Improving Building Facades

Vrabie

Ianole-Călin

2020

CEPAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the effect of build environment regulations for facades emergency repairs and embellishment, as implemented by the city of Cluj-Napoca, the second largest municipality in Romania. The scope was to identify to what extent the over taxation measure was efficient in generating compliant behaviour and what secondary effects it may have generated in people’s attitude towards the local authorities. We conducted structured interviews with 25 homeowners targeted by the policy. The qualitative analysis uncovers structural issues on how the policy was implemented and communicated to the population. It further acknowledges difficulties in managing mixed property and collective actions. We interpret the findings as a first step towards building a more comprehensive research framework focused also on included behavioural insights, as captured by our recommendations. Namely, they illustrate that homeowners were critical about the measure, both in its rationale and its implementation, and were unable to act upon a cost-benefit analysis given the ambiguous available information. The findings further acknowledge difficulties in managing mixed property and collective actions, but they also hint favourably towards the role of peer effects, expressed here as compliant neighbours’ behaviour. We interpret the results of this exploratory case study as a first step towards building a more comprehensive approach to serve as a toolkit in examining the development of innovative local policies in post-communist environments, through a combined research framework including also the significant contribution of behavioural insights, next to the traditional rational actor theories. Naturally, the usual limitations of the method also apply to our study, in the sense of non-generalizable conclusions. This fuels up the need for further research on similar regional and urban challenges in an extended multiple-case study scheme.

show abstract

Section: Research Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regulating the Urban Commons: A Romanian Case Study of Improving Building Facades

Vrabie

Ianole-Călin

2020

CEPAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sovyetler Birliği döneminde Romanya, Litvanya ve Slovakya gibi Doğu Avrupa ülkelerinde devlet tüm hanelere konut sağlamıştır. Sovyetler Birliği yıkıldıktan sonra Romanya gibi ülkelerde büyük çaplı özelleştirmeler yapılarak konutlar hanelerin özel mülkiyetine devredilmiştir (Buckeley ve Mathema, 2017;Simeleviciene, 2018).…”

Section: Tablounclassified

Türkiye’de Konut Sahipliği, Konut Koşulları ve Konut Kalite Endeksi

Aydın¹

2019

iusd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bu çalışmada Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği (AB) ülkelerinde 2006-2015 yıllarını kapsayan Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları araştırmalarının verileri analiz edilerek konut sahipliği, kiracılık, konut kredileri ve konut koşulları incelenmiştir. Türkiye'de konut sahipliği ve ipotekli/kredili konut satın alma yüzdeleri AB-28 ortalamasının altında yer almaktadır. Türkiye'de ev sahipliği oranı %60 AB'de ise %70'tir. Gelir düzeyi ve konut sahipliğinde alt gelir grubunda yer alan hanelerin konut sahipliği oranı %40 civarındadır. Sonuçlar, Türkiye'de konut açığının olduğuna ve konut sektörünün ilerleyen yıllarda canlılığını koruyacağına işaret etmektedir. Konut standartlarının uygun düzeyde olması hayat kalitesinin göstergeleri arasında yer almaktadır. Türkiye'de fiyatlandırma ile ilgili konut fiyat endekslerine ilave olarak detaylı konut kalite gösterge endekslerinin geliştirilmesi önem arz etmektedir. Bu makalede TÜİK Gelir ve Yaşam Koşulları mikro veri setinden toplam 16 konut değişkeni kullanılarak bir konut kalite endeksi sunulmaktadır. Endeks sonuçlarına göre konutların nitelikleri yıllar itibarı ile artmaktadır.

show abstract

“…Romania stands apart among the EU post-communist states by its 'super' 98% homeownership rate and poor housing conditions, not least the prominence of overcrowding, undersized dwellings and lack of basic infrastructure (Buckley and Mathema 2018;Soaita and Dewilde 2019). Yet, with households' and governments' grown affluence, population decline and new additions to the stock, conditions as those mentioned above have improved after 2000.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Housing stratification in Romania: mapping a decade of change

Soaita

Dewilde

2020

J Hous and the Built Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given increasing economic affluence, improvement in housing conditions and population decline in the last three decades, Romanians should be more likely to experience better housing than ever before, particularly in terms of the availability and affordability of space. But substantial improvement alongside numerous people still suffering poor conditions begs the important question of who has benefited and who has been excluded. Engaging the theoretical framework of diverse economies and drawing on 2007 and 2018 Eurostat-SILC micro-data, we examine the realignment between housing and income stratification across a proposed housing typology that reflects historically enduring arrangements of housing provisions and economic hierarchies. We find that residents’ socioeconomic profiles differ significantly by type of housing (e.g. showing surprising economic prosperity in urban flats and extreme poverty in some rural houses), which positions our typology as an expression of housing stratification. Furthermore, multivariate analyses highlight the increasingly stronger relationship between income and housing consumption over the decade. Of concern, a large share of the population (the bottom 40% of the income distribution) has fallen further into housing disadvantage after controlling for overall improvements in housing conditions. Conversely, the relative distance between middle- and higher-income households has decreased; given the dominance of small dwellings in the housing stock, higher-income groups seem unable to transfer their financial gains into space in their main residence except a minority engaged in the self-provision of ‘villas’. These patterns of housing stratification indicate a move towards a 40%/60% ‘hour-glass’ society if housing continues to remain outside the political agenda.

show abstract

Housing privatization in Romania

Cited by 4 publications

References 36 publications

Regulating the Urban Commons: A Romanian Case Study of Improving Building Facades

Regulating the Urban Commons: A Romanian Case Study of Improving Building Facades

Türkiye’de Konut Sahipliği, Konut Koşulları ve Konut Kalite Endeksi

Housing stratification in Romania: mapping a decade of change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About