Abstract
This article addresses a number of conceptual and empirical ambiguities in the model proposed by Pearse Murray and Iván Szelényi (1984) of the city in transition to socialism. Significantly, two of the four stages postulated in their work, i.e., underurbanisation and zero urban growth, can be shown to share the same characteristics in most respects. In order to account for the necessary reconceptualisation, an alternative explanation emphasising the importance of the nuts and bolts of the traditional model of central planning is put forth. It is thus argued that investment patterns and enterprise behaviour rather than 'primitive socialist accumulation' and 'extensive growth' are the principal determinants of the observed patterns of urban growth in Soviet-type economies. The administration of strict migratory controls is identified as the pivotal factor in achieving zero urban growth as defined by Murray and Szelényi. A case study focusing on patterns of diverted migration and the growth of non-urban settlements on the outskirts of the Albanian capital, Tirana, illustrates how the proposed explanation may help to re-interpret the particulars of urbanisation under orthodox socialist rule.
