Örjan Sjöberg

It has been argued that digital platform firms leverage their position at spatial bottlenecks in such a fashion so as to allow operations in local labour markets while at the same time insulating themselves from the regulatory provisions that govern those local markets. This is not necessarily a stable condition, but as long as platform firms exert power, they may shift the social relationships that platforms embody in their favour: domination trumps mutuality and autonomy. However, this does not have to be so. Depending on the context, opportunities for breaking out of this mould exist. Specifically, we focus on the institutional context provided by coordinated market economies to argue that, depending on pre-existing forms of cooperation, platforms can be designed and applied in a manner that enables the building and maintenance of trust through an emphasis on mutuality and autonomy rather than inevitably drifting towards the pole of domination. Using the example of the hospitality industry and focusing on training and certification in geographically fragmented labour markets, we set out to explore the possible role of the institutional setting in shaping platform use as recruitment needs are to be resolved.

The attitude of trade unions towards migration and migrants, be it of asylum seekers or those in search of jobs and better incomes, differs substantially across European countries. No matter the original stance, a common current pattern is that of the willingness to accept migrants being eroded over time. To see whether this is the case also in a country that both proved welcoming to labour migrants and refugees during the opening decades of the new millennium, we set out to explore the attitudes of blue-collar trade unions in Sweden. Based on a diverse set of material issuing from the unions themselves, we use sentiment analysis to assess whether there are any changes to be discerned in the opinions of the representatives of 12 blue-collar trade unions and their national confederation. At its most general, the trend appears to turn more negative over time, yet the influence of defining events and legal changes is not so easily observed at the aggregate level. The union representing workers in the industry with the largest proportion of immigrant labour, the Hotel and Restaurant Workers' Union, is therefore selected for closer analysis. To the extent that changes can, or cannot, be observed, we relate those to major events and policy changes that have taken place over the 2010s.

Concerns have been raised that neoliberalism has become the favoured, yet uncritically applied lens used to approach and explain societal developments. This contribution assesses research on an area where this concern has been pronounced, namely the formerly centrally planned economies of Europe. Examining a sample of more than 200 articles published in twelve geography, area and urban studies journals over the period 2000-2014, findings suggest that while neoliberalism is not generally used as a blanket explanation for patterns of change following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it is occasionally afforded explanatory power. Moreover, when it does assume this role it is rarely defined and more rarely still validated empirically. Thus, in about one tenth of the sampled literature, the importance of neoliberalism is asserted rather than shown.

Although the contribution of geographers to post-socialist urban studies has shown considerable vitality and resulted in a great volume of research, its impact on urban studies as a general field of inquiry is neither proportionate to the momentous changes since 1989 nor to the volume of research that has found its way into the literature. The entire field punches below its weight and, despite recent claims to the contrary, the prominence and visibility of this line of research beyond the confines of established communities of scholars working in the field of socialist and post-socialist urban studies remains insubstantial. This has been pointed out by scholars of a post-colonial bent, who argue that in order to move forward both the alleged parochialism and empiricism of much current geographical work on post-socialist cities and the deference to hegemonic strands of Westerns urban theory need to be shed. This paper attempts to put these claims in perspective, suggesting that while some of the problems decidedly issue from the manner in which of urban geographers themselves conduct and report research on post-socialist cities, post-colonial theory might not be an ideal way forward.

Social or public housing is an important component of the housing supply in most European countries. Nowhere, however, has the notion of social housing been taken as far as in the countries that formerly were ruled by socialist regimes, most notably the Soviet Union. For this reason, it may be argued that the development of theorizations on housing has much to learn from this large but inconclusively studied example. One of the avowed virtues of socialism was that the system, in theory, guaranteed its subjects equal rights to housing. That this was not quite the case is well known in the literature, but in fact no robust evidence to support this view (or the contrary) has been presented so far. Therefore, this paper's aim is to investigate the functioning of the Soviet system of housing allocation, assessing its claims to social equity and justice. Based on a detailed case study of about 3500 Soviet-era housing allocation decisions made in Daugavpils, Latvia, at five points in time covering various stages in the development of Soviet power (full coverage of decisions made in 1953, 1960, 1970, 1980, and January-April 1990), we illustrate how much living space was allocated to whom. In addition, we detail the characteristics of the waiting times involved. We apply both descriptive and regression methods on our data-set, making a significant contribution to what is known about the outcome of housing allocation under socialism and, at a more general level, under strictly supply-constrained conditions.

Throughout much of the Soviet period, access to housing was a major consideration, both for individual citizens and employers intent on increasing their number of employees. Because of the heavy emphasis on industry, and despite the progress made within the area since the late 1950s, Soviet urban residential provision never managed to fully recover from the acute housing shortage that characterized the Stalin years. In this paper, we address the quantitative side of housing construction during the socialist era. Using the mid-sized diversified industrial town of Daugavpils (Latvia) as a case study, we set out to investigate the extent to which employers were involved in decisions concerning housing provision. To do this, we consult a large volume of archival records, our focus being on documents tracing entries indicating that new living quarters were ready and could be allocated to employees of sponsoring organizations and enterprises.

As a result of the absence of a land market, socialist-era cities tended to look different from their market-economy equivalents. The difference was made more pronounced by the fact that the command economy also favored industrial investment over infrastructure and housing. Yet, with an increasing appetite for additional labor, needed by production units to ensure plan fulfillment, housing became a means to recruit and retain employees. Not all employers could afford to put resources into such “nonproductive” investment, however, and the literature suggests that the notion of priorities allows for discriminating between those enterprises that enjoyed soft budget constraints, and therefore could afford to spend money on worker welfare, and those that could not. As a heuristic framework based on the economics of shortage, the priority model is compelling, but as yet it lacks empirical substantiation. Setting out to test the landscapes of priority model of urban development, this article details the developments of housing construction in Daugavpils, Latvia, during the Soviet period. Based on extensive archive and field research covering all newly constructed or converted housing projects over the period from 1951 to 1991, it yields considerable, if not unqualified, support for the model that until now has not been made subject to systematic empirical tests.

Cambodia has been growing rapidly over the past few years, but remains one of the poorest countries in East Asia. This paper analyzes rural poverty in Cambodia to identify the factors that explain its occurrence and persistence. The reduction of rural poverty in Cambodia requires (1) improvements in agricultural productivity and (2) the establishment of other income-earning opportunities for the rural population. Our econometric investigation of the 2004 Cambodian Socio-Economic Survey shows that the main causes of poverty differ between landowners and the landless, and between different regions. Increasing inputs to agriculture (e.g., fertilizers) is critical to increasing the welfare of landowning poor, and linkages with the rest of the economy are of vital importance to both landowners and the landless poor.

Cambodia is facing the familiar problem of achieving sustained rates of economic growth that could help it alleviate widespread poverty. Against the background of some encouraging developments, and quite a few that are not equally reassuring, we argue that any push for development needs to consider both agriculture and industry. This is so as both labour absorption, primarily in secondary sector activities, and productivity growth in agriculture are necessary to lift large segments of the population out of the poverty associated with subsistence agriculture, landlessness and informal sector activities. Given that the major success story of the past decade - the garment and textile industry - is under threat, we conclude that Cambodia is yet to achieve an economic take-off.

Based on the urban experience of the Soviet Union, this article explores the value of the so-called priority approach for understanding the mechanisms that contributed to the creation of the spatial structure of the Soviet/socialist city. The changes in priority status that the various urban functions were subject to are highlighted. It is then proposed that these variations were instrumental in the formation of the internal functioning and social differentiation of the Soviet/socialist city and, to the extent that the pre-1991 urban fabric persists, of its post-Soviet successor. Finally, the authors propose a new model of the development of the Soviet/socialist city, fusing the priority approach with an extensive survey of previous scholarly work within the field.