Planning trajectories in post-socialist cities: patterns of divergence and change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the new planning regimes and planning processes in post-socialist countries and their ability to influence the spatial transformation of cities. It views planning institutions as culturally embedded in the overall process of economic, social, and political transition, while recognizing the power of specific local imperatives and market pressures to shape their response. The research draws on empirical evidence in four countries and their capital cities to highlight the links between the transition to democracy, markets, and decentralized governance on the spatial transformation in post-socialist cities. The main argument is that the new planning institutions have different ability to direct these processes of change, depending on the legal framework, the availability of plans, and the institutionalization of the plan-implementation process. Despite the diverse mosaic of urban experiences in Prague, Riga, Belgrade, and Tirana, planning institutions are viewed as path dependent, influenced by a common socialist legacy. Further, changes in the exogenous environment – economic, social, and institutional – are perceived to be important sources of convergence, but tend to shape different planning responses and policy choices. The research explores these differences as well as the new patterns of spatial transformation in three principal domains: (1) spaces of production/consumption reflecting the economic transition; (2) differentiation in residential spaces associated with the social transition; and (3) new approaches to planning and service delivery resulting from the transition in governance. Central to the arguments in the article is that transition of this magnitude has created a complex urban world in which the patterns of divergence are going to become more explicit in the future, producing spatial and temporal differentiation among post-socialist cities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".