| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Aidukaite, Jolanta
(författare)
-
Post-Sovjet Vilnius : Giving meaning to abandoned buildings
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Baltic Worlds. - 2000-2955 .- 2001-7308. ; IX:1-2, s. 68-79
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper explores the scope, causes, flourishing, and decline of squatting in Lithuanian society during the period of 1990-2002. Drawing on 16 in-depth interviews conducted with squatters in Vilnius, newspaper articles and legal documents, this paper shows that squatters made contributions to the city with their cultural capital, creating local subcultures and making the urban space more attractive. Squatters promoted an alternative way of life, contributed to the preservation of the city and fostered counter-cultural activities. They offered spaces for performances, exhibits, and concerts. These activities are still present up to this day in the Užupis neighborhood that hosted the most long-lived squat, which in turn was transformed into Art Incubator.
|
|
| 3. |
- Aidukaite, Jolanta, et al.
(författare)
-
Struggle over public space : grassroots movements in Moscow and Vilnius
- 2015
-
Ingår i: International journal of sociology and social policy. - : Emerald Group Publishing Limited. - 0144-333X .- 1758-6720. ; 35:7-8, s. 565-580
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore urban mobilisation patterns in two post-Soviet cities: Vilnius and Moscow. Both cities were subject to similar housing and urban policy during Soviet times, and they have implemented urban development using neoliberal market principles, provoking grassroots opposition from citizens to privatisation and marketisation of their housing environment and local public space. However, the differing conditions of democratic Lithuanian and authoritarian Russian public governance offer different opportunities and set different constraints for neighbourhood mobilisation. The purpose is to contrast local community mobilisations under the two regimes and highlight the differences between and similarities in the activists' repertoires of actions in two distinct political and economic urban settings. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employs qualitative methodology using data from semi-structured interviews conducted with community activists and state officials, presented using a comparative case study design. Findings - Although, citizens' mobilisations in the two cities are reactions to the neoliberalisation of housing and local public space, they take different forms. In Vilnius they are institutionalised and receive formal support from national and local authorities. Moreover, support from the EU encourages organisational development and provides material and cognitive resources for grassroots urban mobilisations. In contrast, residents' mobilisations in Moscow are informal and face fierce opposition from local authorities. However, even in an authoritarian setting, grassroots mobilisations evolve using creative strategies to circumvent institutional constraints. Originality/value - Little attention has been paid to grassroots urban mobilisations in post-Soviet cities. There is also a lack of comparative attempts to show variation in post-Soviet urban activism related to housing and local public space.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Genelyte, Indre, 1985-
(författare)
-
Lost in Mobility? : Labour Migration from Baltic Lithuania to Sweden
- 2018
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This thesis seeks to make both theoretical and empirical contributions to the understanding of intra-EU mobility, with a focus on labour migration from Lithuania to Sweden. Inspired by a critical realist perspective, the thesis aims to help to explain the dynamics and individual decision-making behind mass labour emigration from the Baltic states, its socioeconomic consequences and policy responses. Theoretically, the thesis proposes a model that synthesizes a social transformation approach with an extended version of Hirschman’s analytical framework of exit, voice and loyalty. The three empirical articles, based mainly on semi-structured interviews, are situated within this framework. Two of the articles seek to explain the migrants’ decision-making process of stay-exit-entrance in the context of the structural-institutional social changes that followed (1) independence from the Soviet Union in 1990; (2) EU accession in 2004; and (3) the 2008/2009 economic crisis with austerity. The third article brings into the debate the perspective of the sending Baltic countries, in a broader context of the East-West migration debate. The dissertation shows that the consequences of the neoliberal policies of the post-communist and post-crisis transformations, together with the construction of formal migration channels after EU accession, constitute various migrant categories. Individual strategies of actively looking for channels to exit and enter, combining them in different ways at various points of the migratory process and establishing informal social networks are re-constituting who can be and who is a migrant. Furthermore, following the economic crisis and austerity measures, the decision to emigrate extends beyond individual survival strategies, instead becoming bound to an individual’s perception of the (ine)quality of life and pursuit of a better quality of life for oneself and one’s family across time and in different places. Finally, as the interviewed Baltic experts agree, the EU’s policy of the free movement is socially and economically problematic, although the official Baltic states’ policy responses focus primarily on ‘talented’ and ‘needed’ diaspora members’ return or engagement. These policies have proved to be inadequate to address demographic and socioeconomic challenges in part brought about by emigration.The structural-institutional conditions, states’ and migrants’ strategies engender mobility as a social norm in the sending countries and promote and constitute the perpetuation of migration of both ‘precarious labour migrants’ and ‘active talented EU mobile citizens’.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
