Is There a Core-semiperiphery Division in Housing? Applying World-systems Theory in European Comparative Housing Research

ABSTRACT

Theories conceptualizing the Southern European, and the Central and Eastern European housing systems (SEHS and CEEHS) are dominated by approaches explaining the ostensibly similar development of the two regions by distinct region-specific path dependencies. Applying world-systems theory to comparative housing studies, the article proposes an alternative approach by suggesting SEHS and CEEHS bear resemblance due to their shared semiperipheral position in the world economy. Cluster analysis performed on indicators of semiperipherality in EU member states confirms CEEHS, SEHS and Ireland exhibit similarly low values of de-commodification; but high values of familialization of housing, semiproletarianization of the workforce and lenient regulation, compared to the core region of North-Western Europe. Case studies of self-build in the postwar decades in Athens and Budapest indicate CEEHS is likely to have resembled the Mediterranean in the significance of semiproletarianization, familialism and lenient regulation during state socialism more than it is currently suggested in the literature.

KEYWORDS:

• Housing
• semiperiphery
• familialism
• central and Eastern Europe
• southern Europe
• state socialism

Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to Judit Timár, Dorottya Szikra and the three anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions regarding the earlier drafts of the paper. Márton Czirfusz’s reflections on the methodology are also most appreciated.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. The term self-build or self-construction is understood in the current paper following Duncan and Rowe's (1993, 1332) definition as a form of housing production where “the household […] (individually or collectively) [carries] out the bulk of the construction work”. Together with self-promotion, whereby construction is managed but not implemented by the household, they form the category of self-provision.

2. This chapter draws mostly on Emmanuel (1981) and Leontidou’s (1990) monographs on the development of housing production in and spatial expansion of Athens in the 20th century.

3. Data are not available about self-build, but the larger category of self-provision, including self-promotion as well. (For definitions see Duncan and Rowe (1993, 1332)). In the two decades following the Second World War, sources indicate the overwhelming majority of self-provided housing was self-built (Emmanuel 1981, 140–43; Kováts forthcoming). Due to differences in measurement and different share of self-build in self-provision in the two cities, data can only be used for the rough measurement of the phenomenon.

Additional information

Funding

The publication is the outcome of the project entitled “From Talent to Young Researcher project aimed at activities supporting the research career model in higher education”, identifier EFOP-3.6.3-VEKOP-16-2017-00007 co-supported by the European Union, Hungary and the European Social Fund.