Contemporary Housing Struggles

This OA book provides a comparative study of housing contention in Budapest and Bucharest in 2008-2021. The financialization of housing and the resulting inequalities, expulsions and social contention are a central characteristic of today’s capitalist crisis. These two East European cities that fall outside the usual focus of urban movements research provide an illuminating case of similar structural conditions governed by different political constellations at the national and local scales. Instead of searching for unilinear narratives connecting structural tensions to politicized claims, the book offers an in-depth contextual analysis of multiple forms of contention, their (often unintentional) interactions, and their broader political-structural background, including tensions surrounded by political silence. The authors analyze the two cases and their comparative lessons through what they propose as a “structural field of contention” approach to the multiple, interconnected ways in which structural tensions become (or not) politicized in today’s social movements. The book will appeal to everyone interested in today’s urban tensions and social movements

Chapter 11 Antagonisms and solidarities in housing movements in Bucharest and Budapest

This chapter investigates housing contention in Bucharest and Budapest in the period after the 2008 financial crisis. Our focus of attention is on the antagonisms and solidarities produced across different social positions within current mobilizations around housing. To account for the complexity of housing contention that we observe, we draw on the ‘field of contention’ notion, focusing specifically on how structural processes shape actors’ positions and mutual relations in present social struggles over housing. The main argument is that structural aspects of housing relations are relevant in understanding the alliances, solidarities, antagonisms and conflicts in the field of housing contention, and the various ideologies and political values involved in those dynamics

Chapter 11 Antagonisms and solidarities in housing movements in Bucharest and Budapest

This chapter investigates housing contention in Bucharest and Budapest in the period after the 2008 financial crisis. Our focus of attention is on the antagonisms and solidarities produced across different social positions within current mobilizations around housing. To account for the complexity of housing contention that we observe, we draw on the ‘field of contention’ notion, focusing specifically on how structural processes shape actors’ positions and mutual relations in present social struggles over housing. The main argument is that structural aspects of housing relations are relevant in understanding the alliances, solidarities, antagonisms and conflicts in the field of housing contention, and the various ideologies and political values involved in those dynamics

Contemporary Housing Struggles

This OA book provides a comparative study of housing contention in Budapest and Bucharest in 2008-2021. The financialization of housing and the resulting inequalities, expulsions and social contention are a central characteristic of today’s capitalist crisis. These two East European cities that fall outside the usual focus of urban movements research provide an illuminating case of similar structural conditions governed by different political constellations at the national and local scales. Instead of searching for unilinear narratives connecting structural tensions to politicized claims, the book offers an in-depth contextual analysis of multiple forms of contention, their (often unintentional) interactions, and their broader political-structural background, including tensions surrounded by political silence. The authors analyze the two cases and their comparative lessons through what they propose as a “structural field of contention” approach to the multiple, interconnected ways in which structural tensions become (or not) politicized in today’s social movements. The book will appeal to everyone interested in today’s urban tensions and social movements

Corruption and Conflagration: (In)Justice and Protest in Bucharest after the Colectiv Fire

The fire in the Colectiv nightclub in Bucharest, Romania in October 2015 led to sustained, nationwide protests that forced the resignation of the government. These protests drew on deep-seated feelings of injustice due to rampant corruption among the political elite. The capital city location provided an opening for spontaneous actions to present claims to power holders. We aim to identify how the urban space was used to initiate and scale up a meaningful challenge to the governing system by examining the evolution of these protests. Through analysis of interviews with protest participants and nonparticipants resident in Bucharest, we identify factors that mobilized participants and how these built and reinforced the developing movement. The findings emphasize the importance of (capital) cities in incubating social movements, by providing spaces to organize challenges to institutional actors from the local to the national level

State of the art. Overview of concepts, indicators and methodologies used for analyzing the social OMC.

This paper is a detailed analysis about the literature on the Social OMC from 2006-2010, focusing on how OMC research has been carried out. It specifically points to which theoretical framework/concepts are used, and how change is conceptualised and measured. It is organised in five sections. The first concerns visibility and awareness about the OMC; the second analyses research on the EU level coordination process; the third scrutinizes how features of the OMC have been analysed. The fourth and fifth sections, addressing how national integration of the OMC has been researched, respectively address substantive policy change as well as national policy-making. Strikingly, virtually all OMC research adopts theoretical frameworks derived from literature on Europeanisation and/or institutionalisation. Also, as the OMC is voluntary and sanction-free, it depends heavily on how and the the extent to which actors use it (agenda-setting, conflict resolution, maintaining focus on a policy issue, developing a policy dialogue, etc). OMC research has become nuanced and does highlight how, for which purpose and with which outcome actors engage with the OMC. Another finding is that there is data on policy issues addressed through the OMC, learning does take place and there is knowledge about domestic policy problems. However, the linkage between knowledge of an issue and direct use of the OMC for policy change in social policy is weak, but that may change with EU2020, where social policy has received a higher profile. Most research covers the EU-15, much more research needs to be undertaken in newer EU member states