Damiana Otoiu Current Project Damiana Otoiu Curriculum Vitae Current Project The (re)privatization of the cities. Politics and policies in post-communist Romania In Romania (as in most of Eastern Europe), once the communist took power in 1945 they began nationalizing the houses labeled as belonging to "the class enemies", "the capitalists", "the exploiters". More than 400 000 buildings were nationalized or confiscated between 1945 and 1989 and among them, more than 150 000 were demolished. The cities had to become "modern, socialist cities, worthy of the epoch of multilaterally developed socialist society, that will be the pride of our whole people" (Ceausescu, 12th congress of the Communist Party). The postsocialist governments dissolved state ownership over urban housing. Firstly, they offered to the tenants living in the buildings formerly constructed by the state the opportunity of buying the properties they had lived in, at very low prices (in 1990 and 1992). Secondly, they tried to restore private ownership over nationalized houses or to offer compensation for the demolished buildings (beginning with 1995). My PhD project concerns "The (re)privatization of the cities. Politics and policies in post-communist Romania". The PhD thesis will be divided in two main parts: The first one engages in a legislative history of the urban property (namely real estate) in Romania after 1945, comparing it with other Central and Eastern European countries and looks at the political dimension of this legal process (the interactions between different the social and political actors)

The second one is devoted to two case-studies, aiming to give an answer to the very general question: who are the beneficiaries of the "reprivatization of the cities" after 1989? Do these reprivatization laws privilege some categories, while excluding others? The 1st case-study is focused on the Post-communist metamorphoses of a "red quarter". Privatization and political elites in Romania. For this 1st case-study I have chosen a highly symbolic place: the "Primaverii" (Spring) district, situated in northern Bucharest. Not only had the most important communist leaders been residents (beginning with the 1950s), but also important political institutions had been located in this area (beginning with the 1940s: e.g. the first headquarters of the Central Committee of the Party, between the years 1945 and 1947). After 1989, this area became a space for "confrontation" between the former members of the communist nomenklatura, the political clientele of successive postcommunist governments (both "rightist" and "leftist"), the "nouveaux riches" and the former owners. Bucharest, The Great Synagogue, 1980's I deem that tracing the history of this "red quarter", of his inhabitants and of their postcommunist "avatars" is meaningful for understanding if the former high officials have kept their "real-estate" privileges even after 1989. The main hypothesis of my research (based also on the data gathered in the course of my first interviews) is that the "political capitalism" thesis (the idea that the old nomenklatura appropriated buildings and other assets which used to belong to the socialist State) is not wholly valid in this particular case. Some of the former tenants of these houses, important communist - era political leaders lost their prestige, their power and also their privileges. Other high officials (and especially 2nd rank officials) managed to keep their privileges as a result of their membership in elite social networks established during the socialist period (Eyal et al., 1998). In other cases, it was the "cultural capital" (i.e. in the case of some former anti-communist "dissidents") who was converted in economic capital. Moreover, the political alternations have in some cases an effect on the ownership of these houses - some of the political clientele of the "leftist" government (in power between 1990 and 1996) had to let the political clientele of the new "rightist" government have these houses. In addition, the policies concerning the housing restitution have been constantly changing (for instance, the most recent law, adopted in 2005, allowed the restitution of all the buildings held by the Romanian state, including the various embassies or party quarters, which had been forsaken by the previous laws; as a consequence, some of the former owners were allowed for the first time to claim ownership of the houses in this area). Bucharest, The Great Synagogue, 2006 In brief, my hypothesis is that the ownership pattern of this former "red quarter" reflects more a socio-political mosaic (former members of the nomenklatura and "dissidents", communist 2nd rank officials and "nouveaux riches", leftist and rightist politicians, etc), quite dynamic (permeable to political changes) than a "nomenklatura privatization". The 2nd case-study is focused on the Restitution policies and "national identity" in (post)communist Romania. The case of the Jewish Community. At the beginning of the 1990s, the policies concerning the restitution of urban properties implemented in Romania (as in most of Eastern Europe) were restricted to current citizens and permanent residents dispossessed after the instauration of the communist regimes. This means that the laws were excluding from compensation: firstly the non-citizens (emigrants who had lost or renounced their citizenship) and the non-residents (citizens of the state who resided abroad), secondly the formers owners dispossessed before 1945 (it was the case for the Jewish properties "Aryanized" between 1940 and 1945), and thirdly the so-called "religious and ethnic minorities" (the first law pertaining to the restitution of communal property was elaborated in 1997 and it allowed the restitution of a very limited number of assets). While most political leaders justified the legal cut-offs by a necessary limitation of restitution due to budget constraints, others explained this agenda by using "national" (or nationalistic) arguments. Dudesti-Vacaresti, a former Jewish area in Bucharest (2006) This case-study allows me to give an answer to two sets of questions: does "ethnicity" play a role in the elaboration of restitution policies? And if so, when/ how (with which arguments) this "ethnos - based" policies (Priban 2004) concerning the restitution were pursued? ("top-down" perspective) when and why (with which arguments) is this "ethnification" of restitution policies (Offe 1997) seen as legitimate? ("bottom - up" perspective) My hypothesis is that the legislative redefinition of the private property through the restitution laws and the public debates around these laws could tell us something about how the legislators have constructed an "other" through the restitution policies. Moreover, I presume that the definition of the "nation" by means of restitution policies is still "coherent" with the recent past, that these "Romanian people", whose civil rights, including the right to property, are re-defined after 1989 represent (during post-socialism, exactly like during socialism) "an organic nation, by the ethnic understanding of citizenship" (Barbu 2001: 23). And several of my interviewees largely agree with this rhetoric of the organic "ethno-nation" approached during the political negotiations. Some of them even noticed bitterly: "They [the Jews] always had a privileged status. Maybe should I convert to their religion, in order to get my family's house back". Of course, as Verdery (1993: 194) as well as others stressed, "part of makes nationality so powerful is that it exists not just at the level of political rhetoric, interest groups and constitutionalism, but as a basic elements of people's self-conception"...