Preferences Toward Neighbor Ethnicity and Affluence: Evidence from an Inherited Dual Ethnic Context in Post-Soviet Tartu, Estonia

Abstract

In the post-Soviet era, cities in Central and Eastern Europe inherited a rather undifferentiated sociospatial urban landscape that contrasts with the highly segregated cities in Western Europe and North America. In the Soviet era, ethnic segregation emerged as migrants were prioritized in public housing allocation. The dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, changed the economic and political position of those in-migrants. This study explores how inherited segregation patterns have evolved in the city of Tartu, Estonia. We use data from (1) 1998, 2008, and 2013 municipal surveys about stated preferences with regard to residential settings for the two main ethno-linguistic groups in Estonia (the Estonian majority and the mainly Russian-speaking minority population), and (2) the 2000 and 2011 national census that allows us to track changes in actual segregation patterns. We study two dimensions of preferences and segregation-ethnicity and neighbor affluence-and apply bivariate probit regression for the analysis of stated preferences. We detect a stronger preference among the majority population to live in its own language environment compared to minorities. Minority avoidance attitudes were strongest immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union and restoration of Estonia's statehood; by the end of the 2000s the preferences of the two groups toward neighbor ethnicity converged. Members of the majority population, however, prefer affluent environments more than minorities do. Despite converging preferences, the actual levels of segregation have increased in Tartu. This suggests that socioeconomic differences drive patterns of ethnic segregation even when preferences with regard to ethnicity have become more tolerant.

Lessons Learned from a Pan-European Study of Large Housing Estates: Origin, Trajectories of Change and Future Prospects

“…The trend towards an overlap of ethnic, social and spatial disadvantage is growing in Western and Northern European cities, and an increasing share of the housing stock is privatised. Certain risk factors call for caution when it comes to the future of particular housing estates in Eastern Europe as well, since there is some evidence of high-income groups moving away from the less attractive housing estates built in the 1980s (Kovács et al 2018;Leetmaa et al 2018). Similar risks also apply to many Southern European housing estates located on urban peripheries, which are characterised by high densities and tall buildings and private ownership combined with mainly low-income groups (Petsimeris 2018;Leal et al 2018).…”

“…To conclude, lower socio-economic groups and ethnic minorities have become increasingly concentrated in large housing estates and in other areas where social, ethnic and spatial disadvantage overlaps and intensifies (Hess et al 2012;Leetmaa et al 2015;Bolt 2018). In this context, it is critical to better conceptualise the current role of housing estates in urban housing markets, especially in light of the second demographic transition and an increase of mobile people without families.…”

“…Initial choices made about the physical characteristics of housing estates-location, size, design and construction-have had a crucial impact on the long-term trajectory and performance of housing estates, even if social and housing values have changed since then. As a rule of thumb, immense housing estates and those located in more peripheral locations face higher risks for social and physical downgrading than smaller housing estates (Andersson and Bråmå 2018;Kovács et al 2018;Leetmaa et al 2018), while smaller building types in housing estates within the urban core tend to perform better over the long run (Kovács et al 2018;Vaattovaara et al 2018).…”

“…In the U.K. (Murie 2018), private owners are leaseholders and the freeholder (usually the local authority) retains key legal responsibilities for maintenance and repair of the external fabric and common areas of buildings; private owners are consulted and charged for these services. In many Eastern European countries, most apartments became privately owned in the 1990s, usually through 'right-to-buy' or 'pure give away' strategies to sitting tenants, resulting in the formation of super-homeownership societies (Kovács et al 2018;Marin and Chelcea 2018;Leetmaa et al 2018). In Prague, the transformation period (housing restitution, privatisation, rent regulation, administrative and legal changes) was top-down and overseen by municipal governments, but now the private and commercial sector influences the development of residential and commercial space of large housing estates (Ouředníček et al 2018;Liepa-Zemeša and Hess 2016).…”

The Views of Neighbourhood Associations on Collaborative Urban Governance in Tallinn, Estonia

“…Slightly less than half of the population of Tallinn is Russian-speakers, or their descendants, who arrived in the country during the Soviet decades. As a result, Tallinn has a dual ethnic character-ethnic Estonians and Russian-speakers live somewhat parallel lives with only limited intergroup communication (Kamenik et al, 2015;Leetmaa et al, 2015a). Russianspeakers, usually skilled-workers with an industrial background, who do not speak Estonian well, have found themselves in a more disadvantaged position in the growing serviceoriented labour market (Leping and Toomet, 2008).…”