Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Housing Status in Post-Soviet Contexts: A Multi-dimensional Measurement Approach

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study draws on a novel survey in Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Ukraine to develop a framework for conceptualizing and measuring housing status, a multi-dimensional construct reflecting positions in a housing stratification order. We employ structural equation modeling to confirm whether our measures reflect distinct dimensions of housing status. We validate our measurement approach by testing for distinct dimensional effects on subjective housing wellbeing. Our novel measures of housing tenure, quantity, quality, and wellbeing reflect post-Soviet intra-household differences in property rights; the cultural premium placed on having a room of one’s own; constellations of amenities and comforts comprising quality; and the significance of a sense of autonomy for subjective housing wellbeing. Results demonstrate that the three dimensions of housing status—tenure, quality, and quantity—exert independent effects on subjective housing wellbeing, with consistent effects across the four study countries. Our systematic attention to measurement of housing status in post-Soviet conditions models an approach that scholars could adapt for other contexts, including but not limited to other post-communist societies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term residential satisfaction is sometimes used interchangeably with housing satisfaction, and more often to describe neighborhood-level satisfaction. The latter is beyond the scope of the present article.

  2. Following conventions for SEM diagrams, ovals represent latent variables, while rectangles represent measured variables. Unidirectional arrows indicate a direct relationship (“effect”), while two-headed arrows indicate covariance. Error terms associated with measured variables are included in statistical models but not in the figure or tables of results (for concision). Latent variables are assumed to be continuous; measured indicators are ordinal or dichotomous, with probit link functions (see Mplus Version 8 User Guide, example 5.2).

  3. Cases with missing values on housing tenure are listwise deleted due to this being a key variable with few missing cases in all but one country. Fewer than 1% of cases are missing everywhere except Ukraine, where 7% did not respond. Analysis of missingness did not identify systematic bias in nonresponse with respect to other variables of interest. In the interest of simplicity and given other complexities in our modeling framework, we elected to listwise delete rather than impute these cases.

  4. We also performed a Mokken scale analysis (MSA) on the same sets of items. MSA and CFA have different vulnerabilities to violations of different assumptions (Antino et al. 2018; van der Eijk and Rose 2015). Results were consistent across the two methods everywhere except Azerbaijan, where MSA selected one scale for quality rather than two scales distinguishing amenities versus comfort. As discussed below, there are multicollinearity issues for some amenities in Azerbaijan. Because we have no substantive reason to expect differences in quality dimensionality for Azerbaijan, and because the two-dimension solution is confirmed for all four countries in CFA and three out of four in MSA, we treat amenities and comfort as separate factors in the SEM for all four countries.

  5. Whereas in other countries an outhouse typically is not plumbed and is associated with poor housing quality, this may not be the case in Kyrgyzstan. Interviewers suggested (too late for the present survey) that it would be better to measure whether the home has access to a private plumbed toilet, including those in detached outbuildings.

References

  • Alexeev, M. (1999). The effect of privatization on wealth distribution in Russia. Economics of Transition, 7(2), 449–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amérigo, M., & Aragonés, J. I. (1997). A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antino, M., Alvarado, J. M., Asún, R. A., & Bliese, P. (2018). Rethinking the exploration of dichotomous data: Mokken scale analysis versus factorial analysis. Sociological Methods & Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118769090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arias, E., & De Vos, S. (1996). Using housing items to indicate socioeconomic status: Latin America. Social Indicators Research, 38(1), 53–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristizabal, N. C., & Gómez, A. O. (2004). Improving security without titles in Bogotá. Habitat International, 28(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00075-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attwood, L. (2010). Gender and housing in Soviet Russia: Private life in a public space. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attwood, L. (2012). Privatisation of housing in Post-Soviet Russia: A new understanding of home? Europe-Asia Studies, 64(5), 903–928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Shahar, D., & Warszawski, J. (2016). Inequality in housing affordability: Measurement and estimation. Urban Studies, 53(6), 1178–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A., Glanville, J. L., & Stecklov, G. (2002). Economic status proxies in studies of fertility in developing countries: Does the measure matter? Population Studies, 56(1), 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bright, S., & Hopkins, N. (2011). Home, meaning and identity: Learning from the English model of shared ownership. Housing, Theory and Society, 28(4), 377–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cable, N., & Sacker, A. (2019). Validating overcrowding measures using the UK Household Longitudinal Study. SSM-Population Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campagna, G. (2016). Linking crowding, housing inadequacy, and perceived housing stress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 252–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, M. D., Galiani, S., Gertler, P. J., Martinez, S., & Titiunik, R. (2009). Housing, health, and happiness. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(1), 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, Z., King, S. P., Smyth, R., & Wang, H. (2016). Housing property rights and subjective wellbeing in urban China. European Journal of Political Economy, 45, 160–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cirman, A., Mandič, S., & Zorić, J. (2013). Decisions to renovate: Identifying key determinants in Central and Eastern European post-socialist countries. Urban Studies, 50(16), 3378–3393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clair, A., Reeves, A., McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2018). Constructing a housing precariousness measure for Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 29(1), 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, D. (2005). The meaning of housing: A pathways approach. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, D., Foye, C., & Christian, J. (2018). The concept of subjective well-being in housing research. Housing, Theory and Society, 35(3), 261–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J., & Kearns, A. (2012). Housing improvements, perceived housing quality and psychosocial benefits from the home. Housing Studies, 27(7), 915–939.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coley, R. L., Kull, M., Leventhal, T., & Lynch, A. D. (2014). Profiles of housing and neighborhood contexts among low-income families: Links with children’s well-being. Cityscape, 16(1), 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, D. (2001). A room with a view or a room of one’s own? Housing and social stratification. Sociological Forum, 16(2), 263–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, R., & Thomas, M. (2019). A new look at the housing antecedents of separation. Demographic Research, 40(26), 725–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. S. (2004). Talking about property in the new Chinese domestic property regime. In F. Dobbin (Ed.), The sociology of the economy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devoto, F., Duflo, E., Dupas, P., Pariente, W., & Pons, V. (2012). Happiness on tap: Piped water adoption in urban Morocco. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(4), 68–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewilde, C. (2015). What have ECHP and EU-SILC to contribute to the comparative study of housing? Critical Housing Analysis, 2(2), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewilde, C. (2017). Do housing regimes matter? Assessing the concept of housing regimes through configurations of housing outcomes. International Journal of Social Welfare, 26, 384–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhongde, S., & Haveman, R. (2017). Multi-dimensional deprivation in the U.S. Social Indicators Research, 133(2), 477–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Serrano, L. (2009). Disentangling the housing satisfaction puzzle: Does homeownership really matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5), 745–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druta, O., & Ronald, R. (2018). Intergenerational support for autonomous living in a post-socialist housing market: Homes, meanings and practices. Housing Studies, 33(2), 299–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis, A., & Thorns, D. C. (1998). Home, home ownership and the search for ontological security. The Sociological Review, 46(1), 24–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, R. E., Neilson, L. A., Nau, M., & Hodson, R. (2016). Mortgage worries: Young adults and the US housing crisis. Socio-Economic Review, 14(3), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwv018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsinga, M., & Hoekstra, J. (2005). Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. W., Lepore, S. J., & Allen, K. M. (2000). Cross-cultural differences in tolerance for crowding: Fact or fiction? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foye, C. (2017). The relationship between size of living space and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(2), 427–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrido, L. E., Abad, F. J., & Ponsoda, V. (2016). Are fit indices really fit to estimate the number of factors with categorical variables? Some cautionary findings via Monte Carlo simulation. Psychological Methods, 21(1), 93–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, M. (2005). Urban residential preferences and satisfaction in the former Soviet Union: Results from a survey in Ust’-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan. Urban Geography, 26(4), 296–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, M. (2015a). The “Soviet” factor: Exploring perceived housing inequalities in a midsized city in the Donbas, Ukraine. Urban Geography, 36(5), 696–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, M. (2015b). The post-Soviet urban poor and where they live: Khrushchev-era blocks, “bad” areas, and the vertical dimension in Luhansk, Ukraine. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(3), 583–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greif, M. (2015). The intersection of homeownership, race and neighbourhood context: Implications for neighbourhood satisfaction. Urban Studies, 52(1), 50–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grzeskowiak, S., Sirgy, M. J., Lee, D.-J., & Claiborne, C. B. (2006). Housing well-being: Developing and validating a measure. Social Indicators Research, 79(3), 503–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. (2013). Communism on tomorrow street: Mass housing and everyday life after Stalin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashim, A. H., Rahim, Z. A., Rashid, S. N. S. A., & Yahaya, N. (2006). Visual privacy and family intimacy: A case study of Malay inhabitants living in two-story low-cost terrace housing. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(2), 301–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M., & Ye, W. (2020). Home ownership and subjective wellbeing: A perspective from ownership heterogeneity. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(2), 1059–1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulse, K., & Milligan, V. (2014). Secure occupancy: A new framework for analysing security in rental housing. Housing Studies, 29(5), 638–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibem, E. O., & Amole, D. (2013). Residential satisfaction in public core housing in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria. Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 563–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, K., & Kes, A. (2015). The ambiguity of joint asset ownership: Cautionary tales from Uganda and South Africa. Feminist Economics, 21(3), 23–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, S. J. T. (2014). Why is housing always satisfactory? A study into the impact of cognitive restructuring and future perspectives on housing appreciation. Social Indicators Research, 116(2), 353–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyukin, A., & Kohl, S. (2020). Continuities and discontinuities of Russian urban housing. The Soviet housing experiment in historical long-term perspective. Urban Studies, 57(8), 1768–1785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B. J. H., Choi, M. J., & Ko, J. (2009). Mismatch between homeownership and residence in Korea. Housing Finance International, 24, 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinhans, R., & Elsinga, M. (2010). ‘Buy your home and feel in control’: Does home ownership achieve the empowerment of former tenants of social housing? International Journal of Housing Policy, 10(1), 41–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauster, N. T. (2010). Housing and the proper performance of American motherhood, 1940–2005. Housing Studies, 25(4), 543–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lersch, P. M., & Vidal, S. (2016). My house or our home? Transitions into sole home ownership in British couples. Demographic Research, 35, 139–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lux, M., Sunega, P., & Katrňák, T. (2013). Classes and castles: Impact of social stratification on housing inequality in post-socialist states. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 274–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maestri, V. (2015). A measure of income poverty including housing: Benefits and limitations for policy making. Social Indicators Research, 121(3), 675–696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandić, S. (2001). Residential mobility versus “in-place” adjustments in Slovenia: Viewpoint from a society “in transition”. Housing Studies, 16(1), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandič, S., & Cirman, A. (2012). Housing conditions and their structural determinants: Comparisons within the enlarged EU. Urban Studies, 49(4), 777–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandič, S., & Hrast, M. F. (2018). Homeownership in multi-apartment buildings: Control beyond property rights. Housing, Theory and Society, 36(4), 401–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, C. C. (2006). House as a mirror of self: Exploring the deeper meaning of home. Newburyport: Nicolas-Hays, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, M. R., Gragnolati, M., Burke, K. A., & Paredes, E. (2000). Measuring living standards with proxy variables. Demography, 37(2), 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, M., & Madigan, R. (1993). Privacy in the private sphere. Housing Studies, 8(1), 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozaki, R. (2002). Housing as a reflection of culture: Privatised living and privacy in England and Japan. Housing Studies, 17(2), 209–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattillo, M. (2013). Housing: Commodity versus right. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 509–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, G., Durand-Lasserve, A., & Rakodi, C. (2009). The limits of land titling and home ownership. Environment and Urbanization, 21(2), 443–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penner, J. E. (1995). The bundle of rights picture of property. UCLA Law Review, 43, 711–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popova, D., & Pishniak, A. (2017). Measuring individual material well-being using multidimensional indices: An application using the gender and generation survey for Russia. Social Indicators Research, 130(3), 883–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajaei, S. A., & Mansourian, H. (2017). Urban growth and housing quality in Iran. Social Indicators Research, 131(2), 587–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rex, J., Moore, R., Williams, J., & Shuttleworth, A. (1971). Race, community, and conflict: A study of Sparkbrook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, P. (1984). Beyond housing classes: The sociological significance of private property rights in means of consumption. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 8(2), 202–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmeer, K. K., & Yoon, A. J. (2016). Home sweet home? Home physical environment and inflammation in children. Social Science Research, 60, 236–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, H., & Seabrooke, L. (2008). Varieties of residential capitalism in the international political economy: Old welfare states and the new politics of housing. Comparative European Politics, 6(3), 237–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. (2004). Housing and public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 397–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shlay, A. B. (2014). Life and liberty in the pursuit of housing: Rethinking renting and owning in post-crisis America. Housing Studies, 30(4), 560–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soaita, A. M. (2012). Strategies for in situ home improvement in Romanian large housing estates. Housing Studies, 27(7), 1008–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soaita, A. M. (2014). Overcrowding and “underoccupancy” in Romania: A case study of housing inequality. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(1), 203–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soaita, A. M. (2015). The meaning of home in Romania: Views from urban owner–occupiers. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(1), 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soaita, A. M. (2017). The changing nature of outright home ownership in Romania: Housing wealth and housing inequality. In C. Dewilde & R. Ronald (Eds.), Housing wealth and welfare. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soaita, A. M., & Dewilde, C. (2019). A critical-realist review of housing quality within the post-communist EU states: Progressing towards a middle-range explanation. Housing, Theory and Society, 36(1), 44–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solari, C. D., & Mare, R. D. (2012). Housing crowding effects on children’s wellbeing. Social Science Research, 41(2), 464–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, M., Lux, M., & Sunega, P. (2015). Post-socialist housing systems in Europe: Housing welfare regimes by default? Housing Studies, 30(8), 1210–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S., Wang, S., & Cheng, C. (2016). Change of housing inequality in urban China and its decomposition: 1989–2011. Social Indicators Research, 129(1), 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomaszewski, W., & Perales, F. (2014). Who settles for less? Subjective dispositions, objective circumstances, and housing satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 118(1), 181–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunstall, B. (2015). Relative housing space inequality in England and Wales, and its recent rapid resurgence. International Journal of Housing Policy, 15(2), 105–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Eijk, C., & Rose, J. (2015). Risky business: Factor analysis of survey data—Assessing the probability of incorrect dimensionalisation. PLoS One, 10(3), e0118900. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S., Cheng, C., & Tan, S. (2019). Housing determinants of health in urban China: A structural equation modeling analysis. Social Indicators Research, 143(3), 1245–1270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, S.-Y. (2014). Property rights and intra-household bargaining. Journal of Development Economics, 107, 192–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, E. J. (2018). Housing affordability and material hardship: Does affordability measurement matter? Journal of Poverty, 22(3), 228–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanuzdana, A., Khan, M., & Kraemer, A. (2013). Housing satisfaction related to health and importance of services in urban slums: Evidence from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Social Indicators Research, 112(1), 163–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavisca, J. R. (2012). Housing the new Russia. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavisca, J. R. (2013). A home not one’s own: How young Russians living with extended family navigate and negotiate space. In M. Kusenbach, K. Paulsen, & M. Milligan (Eds.), Home–place–community: International sociological perspectives. New York: Peter Lag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavisca, J. R., & Gerber, T. P. (2016). The socioeconomic, demographic, and political effects of housing in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 347–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavisca, J. R., & Gerber, T. P. (2017). Experiences of homeownership and housing mobility after privatization in Russia, 1992–2013. In C. Dewilde & R. Ronald (Eds.), Housing wealth and wellbeing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research for this paper was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Office via the Minerva Research Initiative program under grant number W911NF1310303. The views reported herein are not the views of the U.S. Army or U.S. government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Jane R. Zavisca

  2. Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    Theodore P. Gerber

  3. Department of Sociology, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

    Hyungjun Suh

Authors
  1. Jane R. Zavisca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theodore P. Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hyungjun Suh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane R. Zavisca.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

R. Zavisca, J., P. Gerber, T. & Suh, H. Housing Status in Post-Soviet Contexts: A Multi-dimensional Measurement Approach. Soc Indic Res 153, 609–634 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02477-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02477-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation