116 Abstract The administrative policies of urban segre- gated spaces remain an unsolved issue in many of Central and Eastern European countries. This paper discusses the new emergence of ghetto spaces in Romania, analyzing different admin- istrative policies and their effects after 1990. It develops around an ethnographic approach and reviews the actions of local administrations, aim- ing to assess the most signifi cant interventions. The main fi ndings show that the political involve- ment in the administrative policies focused on ghettos occurs only in certain conditions, while emphasizing the lack of coherent strategy to solve these expanding spaces. The evaluation of administrative policies identifi es that Rroma resettlement is an exclusion and ghettoization policy, the only one that suggests durability for local administrations. Keywords: Administrative policies, urban segregation, ghettos, Romania, Central and Eastern European countries. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES IN URBAN SEGREGATED SPACES. THE CASE OF THE ROMANIAN GHETTOS*1 Viorel MIONEL Alexandru GAVRIŞ Viorel MIONEL Lecturer, Department of Tourism and Geography, Faculty of Business and Tourism, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, Tel.: 021-319.19.00 / int. 202, 340 E-mail: viorel.mionel@rei.ase.ro Alexandru GAVRIŞ Lecturer, Department of Tourism and Geography, Faculty of Business and Tourism, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania E-mail: alexandru.gavris@rei.ase.ro * Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for the invaluable comments and to Adele Youmans for her support to improve the quality of this text. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, No. 45 E/2015, pp. 116-135 117 1. Introduction Diff erent causes of urban crisis and civic involvement, based on impoverishment, poverty and stigma, fi nd their roots within the ghett o spaces (Bauman, 2001; Drei- er, 2003; Sugrue, 2005). The spatial segregation of Rroma1 populations has generated many ghett os or the so-called areas ‘of second hand’ in the cities of Romania. The re- ality of living inside ghett os is marked by poverty, people on social assistance, lack of proper education and working skills, lack of basic utilities, increased birth rate, high density of the living space, spatial degradation, sanitation and epidemic risks, crimes and local confl icts, drugs use and begging (Mionel, 2012a). With the help of a ‘circuit of disadvantages’ (Omenya, 2003, p. 13), we argue that Romania is the scene of a fast process of auto-reproduction in the case of urban ghett os. Moreover, many people on social assistance live in these poor spaces, triggering the alarm of intervention for the urban administration. The scene of administrative policies resembles that of many cities of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), both as action model as well as result. Urban administrations try to get involved actively inside communities, especially of those spatially segregat- ed, to improve the living standards and to diminish inequalities among areas under their responsibility. The Romanian case adds value not only through diversifying the context, but exploring and establishing a typology of the directions of intervention. The analysis of administrative policies in segregated urban spaces involves anchor- ing the topic in the fi eld of Rroma segregation. While the number of Rroma commu- nities is controversial within the offi cials’ discourse, their segregation expanded in many Romanian cities, despite the authorities att empt to remodel the urban image by blocking the housing access of Rroma into the cities. It challenges the sustainable pol- icies which fi ght against poverty and marginalization around Rroma communities. The paper develops around the characteristics and the process of segregation be- tween Romanian cities and communities marginalized to live inside ghett os. The seg- regation of Rroma population has occurred naturally through spatial concentration, but some cases emerged when urban administrations developed and maintained seg- regation. Another goal of this paper relates to the target of administrative interven- tions and their motivations, to see the resemblance with areas of other CEE countries. Our third focus is to identify and classify the administrative policies which target the life of the ghett o. For these, the next section explores the segregation concept, emphasizing the spatial segregation of Rroma in CEE countries and Romania. The methodology section develops around an ethnographic approach, exploring the me- dia storytelling experiences and reports, to analyze the policies applied by urban ad- ministrations. It leads to the evaluation of the most signifi cant interventions of the local urban management, which try to grasp sustainable ways that contribute to the 1 We use Rroma and not Roma or Rromani or Gypsies, to bett er identify diff erent concepts and to be close to the way in which this ethnic group identifi es itself. 118 improvement of living conditions. Then, we discuss the administrative policies, em- phasizing the evaluation of policies. The conclusion section wraps up the evaluation of policies about their success, promoting critical refl ections on studied cases. 2. Literature analysis Segregation aff ects at diff erent stages and with diff erent intensities almost all countries (Feitosa and Wissmann, 2006). White (1983) suggests two types of segre- gation: social and geographic, which are intertwined. In general, social segregation analysis relies on the representative dimensions that generate categories; ethnicity, race, confession, alongside education, income and sexual minorities, all these repre- sent parts of the general process of social segregation because each involves and de- fi nes population. Racial segregation analysis has been the focus of many studies, with the main focus on the segregation of the black population (Massey and Denton, 1993; Collins and Williams, 1999; Maly, 2008). Ethnic segregation has also gained the att en- tion of many researchers (Gültekin and Güzey, 2007) who have analyzed, described and mapped levels of separation of ethnic groups in their living environments. Yet, Kain (2003) argues that socio-economic segregation and diff erent ways of measure- ment of the socio-economic status have received less att ention in academic studies. In the case of income distribution developed through global economy, Musterd and Ostendorf (2013) identify a strong emphasis on social inequalities and the emergence of socio-economic segregation. Other studies (Santos, 1979) mention the structuring of urban society in social classes that appear and develop simultaneously because of the income distribution. Finally, confessional segregation has received lesser att en- tion (Knox, 1973; Glasze, 2005). This notion involves those cases where religion has generated spatial rupture of the population, causing a real social phenomenon. Unlike social segregations, geographic segregation deals with urban morpholo- gy (Sinha and Sinha, 2007; Latham et al., 2008). Although social segregation implies many meanings, it is usually used for geographical separation of diff erent social and spatial groups. Urban diversity and heterogeneity originate from the evolution through time of the social and geographic components of urban segregation, marking the urban landscape with diff erent shapes. In other words, geographical segregation defi nes spatial forms of urban landscape and the quality of living in such spaces. In this context we focus on the geographical segregation of poor people, identifi ed as ghett o. 2.1. What is a ghett o? Wirth (1928) has suggested that the ghett o existed long before it was named like this. Its origin remains unclear, but it has been in use for over 500 years. Some time ago, the ghett o meant a Jewish neighborhood in a city. Starting with the Middle Ages, the presence of Jews in Italy was cited to be high in the neighborhoods of the outskirts and to a lesser extent in the main parts of the city. This infers that stigmatization and discrimination, main factors for the existence of the ghett o, have an old history. 119 Through a detailed analysis of the etymology of the ghett o, Cuceu (2010) suggests the separation of the word at its root. Despite the evidence of its Italian origins – ‘campo ghett o’, which represents the place where iron is melted, some researchers have suggested that ‘get’ comes from the Hebrew language, meaning separation (Cu- ceu, 2010). Therefore, campo ghett o evolved to Nuovo Ghett o to reveal the Jewish space in an institutional way and, fi nally, it has become the well-known ghett o. Other studies have advocated for the word ‘borghett o’ (Wirth, 1928), because this form has close resemblance to a small village or even small neighborhood; as such, it suggests the creation of small urban sett lements by the Jewish population, where they were forced to live. The social life of the ghett o gravitates around two coordinates of composition, which are simultaneous: the enhancement of integration and cohesion from within, and acceleration of isolation from the outside space (Wacquant, 2011). After a de- tailed description and analysis of the Jewish community from the ghett o of Venice, he emphasizes four grounding elements: stigmatization, constraint, spatial confi nement and institutional parallelism. With the exception of these elements, the ghett o reveals to the outside world – almost everywhere – a distinct space with unique characteris- tics: poverty, which seems a derivative element (Wacquant, 2011); segregation - not all segregated spaces are ghett os, but all the ghett os are segregated; a ghett o is diff er- ent of an ethnic enclave; a ghett o is isolated from the outside and congregated within; social sustainability and ghett o represents two diverging issues. Even if the spatial process approached by this paper was not named ghett o in the countries where it has developed, this does not mean its denial. Famous cases from Venice (Wirth, 1928; Wacquant, 2011; Kessler and Nirenberg, 2012), Rome (Mionel, 2012a; Mionel, 2013), from the history of Japan (De Vos, 1971; Shirasawa, 1985; Lie, 2004) or US (Wirth, 1928; Ward, 1989; Wacquant, 2011) off er plenty of arguments for ghett o analysis. Romanian ghett os manifest a certain patt ern that is conceptualized and custom- ized in accordance with the spatial and social dimensions found in the analyzed cas- es. Poverty, segregation and exclusion are among the factors that favors the emer- gence and the continuation of stigma in many Romanian urban ghett os. Here, the poverty is not necessary a derived phenomenon, but one that has mainly implicit values and that seems perpetual. The causes of poverty from ghett os alter profoundly any relation to the outside: from equal access to the working market, education, to the simple social contract. In Romania, the ghett os are urban spaces that concentrate dynamic Rroma com- munities, unfolding through three facets: they evolved steadily over a long period of time, they developed through misused administrative policies, or they are formed through a combination of the previous two. Transposed in the segregation frame- work of ethnic communities, the facets of ghett os involve two types of segregation (voluntary and involuntary), as well as a mix of the two. Without the use of force over the decision of localization, the ethnic concentration means a voluntary ghett o (Wirth, 1928; Bauman, 2001) and relates to the individuals’ preferences. The Romanian urban 120 ghett o plays a specifi c role of social and economic coercion on one side, while on the other side it acts its institutional role (Mionel, 2013). Communities from these areas lost their economic utility for the host cities (Wac- quant, 1993). In the case of some families, children’s education does not involve leav- ing poverty with the help of education. Transmitt ed from generation to generation, the ‘culture of poverty’ adds to the Rroma’s particular way of living and to their social environment. It forms a dynamic process with aggravated consequences which, in no way, diminishes the social eff ects. This cultural system of learning poverty is well established in ghett o communities. It is without doubt that ghett os concentrate many social assisted individuals because of poverty or other occurring disadvantages. The diff erent culture of these communities is of poverty and stigma. It becomes radical against the outside space and towards other communities, while acting in uni- ty. The community chain consists of each member and is made with each one individ- ually. Rroma individuals display impressive cohesiveness when anything seems to change their interest in the community. Therefore, personal interest gains justifi cation through group actions (Mionel, 2013). Antisocial behavior antagonizes the relation- ship between neighbors and Rroma communities in the ghett os. The presence of so- cial confl icts between Rroma living in ghett os and the population of the host cities, in general, and the population living nearby in particular, is the source of social confl icts and the main agent of unrest against the Rroma’s spatial concentration. 2.2. Rroma segregation and administrative policies in Central and Eastern Europe Considered pariah among ethnic groups (Vassilev, 2004), the Rroma populations remains the largest ethnic group to date in CEE. It shapes ethnic segregation, one of the most important ‘unsolved’ issues of the local administration of the post-so- cialist cities (Sobotka, 2006). The academic literature shows the actuality of Rroma segregation in the countries of CEE (Barany, 2000a; Zoon, 2001; Guy, 2001; Vašečka, 2003; Vassilev, 2004; Scheff el, 2008; Toušek, 2011; Ruzicka, 2012). The amplifi cation of segregation has evolved into an accentuated ghett oization (Farnam, 2003; Imre, 2006; Mionel, 2013). The fall of communism in CEE has marked the social and geographical segregation of Rroma population in cities from Poland (Puckett , 2005; Sobotka, 2006), Czech Republic (Guy, 2001; Toušek, 2011), Slovakia (Cangár, Kotvanová and Szép, 2003; Farnam, 2003; Guy, 2001), Hungary (Barany, 2000a; Barany, 2000b), Bulgaria (Vassilev, 2004; Camerer, 2012) and Romania (Rughiniş, 2007; Creţan and Turnock, 2008; Mionel and Neguţ, 2011; Mionel, 2013). These countries and others in the re- gion represent the only instance in postwar Europe where ghett os have reemerged (Wacquant, 2005). The amplifi cation of segregation has evolved into an accentuated ghett oization (Farnam, 2003; Imre, 2006; Mionel, 2013), indicating that a new residen- tial form of segregation and ghett oization has emerged in the CEE after 1990, without clearly saying if such segregation practices existed during the communist period. The dynamics of segregation belong to a cultural purifi cation, which was on a freewill basis, but unwillingly in the case of space (Toušek, 2011). This approach fac- 121 es many critics, research showing that Rroma segregation relates to policies of the local administrations (Vašečka, 2003). She argues about a ‘wall strategy’ used by lo- cal authorities in Ústí nad Labem to separate the Rroma inhabitants, and to create a border dividing them from the rest of the population. The containment policy or the wall strategy is known in Hungary (Cangár, Kotvanová and Szép, 2003), as well as in many locations in Slovakia. All these examples of segregation suggest a strict social control of Rroma by authorities (Barany, 2000a). The resett lement from cities to other locations corresponds to another form of so- cial control. This policy has been analyzed in Slovakia (Farnam, 2003) and it has been active for over 15 years. Only in 1997, over 25000 ethnic Rroma were evacuated from the city of Košice (Guy, 2001; Farnam, 2003). Today, between 4000 and 5000 Rroma of those evacuated live in one of the largest ghett os of Slovakia, at the city outskirts (Zoon, 2001). Regarding the large number of Rroma in a segregated space, the best example is Bulgaria, where over half of the population lives in ghett o neighborhoods (Camer- er, 2012; Vassilev, 2004). Bulgaria has the largest ghett o out of the former commu- nist countries: Fakulteta in Sofi a comprises informal housing with over 35000 people (Vassilev, 2004). Other studies suggest that Rroma’s ghett oization has expanded from CEE to the West (Berescu, 2011). Niculae (2013) argues that Rroma segregation in France and Italy is dressed up through names as: campi nomadi and les villages d’insertion. These spatial products of administrative policies are in fact ghett os. The argumentation sup- ports on the obvious containment of Rroma population: far away from cities, sur- rounded by three meters fences, guarded access points, lighting systems to help ‘vig- ilantes’ patrol during the night (Niculae, 2013, pp. 49-50). 2.3. Rroma segregation in Romania Segregation in Romania received inputs from local researchers (Rughiniş, 2007; Creţan and Turnock, 2008; Mionel, 2012), as well as from an international perspec- tive (Tátrai, 2011; Marcińczak et al., 2014). Fleck and Rughiniş (2008) explored the residential segregation, arguing that ethnic-spatial segregation is a key element of understanding the lack of interaction between Rroma communities and the rest, and that ‘social distance and geographical separation are mutually reinforcing’ (p. 123). At national level, Creţan and Turnock (2008) indicated a particular development of Rroma segregation exists in Romania. Auto-segregation develops when some parts of Rroma population try keeping at all cost its ‘identity’, despite the progress of the country or the nearby communities, involving a ‘separation from the mainstream in terms of the modernizing ethos and the rule of law’ (Creţan and Turnock, 2008, p. 274). Their mapping of Rroma segregation included almost all the urban spaces of the current study in which the Rroma segregation has (been) transformed into ghett os. At local level, Tátrai (2011) explored the eff ects of administrative policies of three cities where Rroma segregation is high. He argues that ‘the residential segregation of 122 R(r)oma is spectacular’ (p. 189), but it is challenged by the lack of data. That is why segregation cannot be fully explored, because the quantitative analysis does not have support. 3. Methodological clarifi cations The fi rst goal of the paper is to account for the administrative interventions of local authorities in urban ghett os. Then, it highlights the target of these interventions and their motivations to see the similarity to those from other CEE countries. The via- bility of these interventions is the last element of the analysis. The methodology involved discarding the taboo of many Romanian researchers when they tackle urban ghett os, and to follow the journalists’ path (Mionel, 2012b). Reporters interested in the ghett o phenomenon succeeded in displaying a vast amount of information, resulting from their semi-ethnographic research. The mass-media re- ports were our local sensors for information gathering, supporting the understanding of ghett o life recent dynamics, while we critically examined the data and connected it to the academic framework. The geographical analysis of Romanian urban ghett os introduces the ghett os char- acteristics developed by Wacquant (2011), respectively Wirth (1928) and Bauman (2001, pp. 82-91). The ghett o concept involves a geographical space, mainly urban, in which a minority of a certain ethnicity, race or other type, concentrates and is forced to live there. Some caveats do arise, because of the mass-media methods of using and presenting information that makes the concept to look diff erent from the academic defi nitions. Parts of mass-media write about some urban areas and considers them to be ghett os just for being physically degraded, while others suggest that a ghett o is a space with trash and squalor. Therefore, the essence of the ghett o is ignored: spatial concentration of a minority and the shortcomings it faces. It is obvious that the deg- radation of houses and spaces are characteristics of these spaces, but they are not the main ones (Mionel, 2012b). 3.1. Data collection The data were collected from Internet, seen as the best alternative to process infor- mation in unreliable situations as that of Rroma dynamics. The reason lies in the poor support of institutions to provide and manage data referring to ethnic groups. More- over, the administrative terminology avoids the word ghett o and focuses on ‘commu- nity of poor Rroma’ or ‘pockets of poverty’. We explored every space identifi ed as ghett o through newspaper articles pub- lished on the Internet, containing the word ghett o in the title or in the body of the text, acknowledging the following characteristics: spatial segregation of Rroma popula- tion, poor contact with the community, physical bordering against the nearby spac- es, lack of basic public facilities, impoverished population, poor housing conditions, high criminality, low employment. Those articles covering only a characteristic of the ghett o were not included. Even if some areas (Chercheci) do not have a clear spatial 123 border, they were considered a ghett o by having all the other characteristics. The lack of one characteristic does not aff ect the complex defi nition of the ghett o. The only ex- ception is the spatial segregation of Rroma or their low proportion within the overall population of the area discussed as being ghett o. Such areas are not ghett os, but pock- ets of poverty even if all the other conditions are fulfi lled. Gathering information for ghett os involved the period of August 2012 – December 2013 during which we assessed articles in relation to ghett os. This interval comprised two phases for identifi cation and examination of changes inside ghett os. We used Google search engine to collect articles, based on a patt ern containing Romanian key words: ghetou or ghetou and romi or ghetou and ţigani or ghetoizare or ghetoizare and ţigani or ghetoizare and romi or comunitate de romi or romi and segregare or ţigani and segregare. The results helped us to identify urban spaces described by the inquired words and where local administration acted through diff erent policies. For each identifi ed space with characteristics belonging to a ghett o, we developed a col- lection of articles inside a database. The number of articles diff ers from one ghett o to another, ranging from over 50 (Pata Rât, Craica, Horea, Tineretului, Turturica and Muncii) to 22 (Zăvoi). Each space was coded to contain the accepted characteristics, while the papers were constrained accordingly. We found other urban spaces con- forming to these requirements, but which involved some issues: the number of arti- cles was low and the writing subjective, they approached a specifi c issue of the ghett o and the social component was confusing. Subsequently, at least 20 articles from three diff erent authors was the threshold for ghett o identifi cation. Most of the gathered articles approached both segregation and ghett oization of Rroma communities, as well as administrative actions of local authorities. The articles showed how the interest for Rroma segregated communities rose in direct proportion with the administrative actions. Monitoring the administrative policies, identifi ed in the fi rst phase, was specifi c for the next period of analysis, when a new set of articles was analyzed, writt en most- ly by other reporters and after at least one year has passed from the policy imple- mentation. We assessed the success of administrative policies according to particular changes that occurred inside ghett os, showing improvement or decay of living status. For example, in the cases of Bârlad and Drobeta Turnu Severin cities, when local ad- ministration tried to solve the housing issues of their respective ghett os, we followed the way in which this policy generates bett er housing and living conditions. If hous- ing improved for the corresponding ghett o during the analyzed interval between the fi rst articles and the last ones, we accepted the fulfi llment of the criterion. If nothing changed, we synthesized the results of administrative policies in Table 2. The cities of the study originated from the analysis of the whole content within the aforementioned methodology. The number of Romanian cities with their respective ghett os may diff er from other approaches, giving the fact that much data is missing or ambiguous and few detailed research projects exists on the living conditions inside these segregated urban space. All these diminish the chance of an exact mapping, but 124 our investigation into the Rroma’s urban ghett o helps authorities for bett er policies of integration, while it also enlarges the academic literature. 4. Results Romanian ghett os are small and display well framed spatial landscapes. Their presence is contagious and aff ects the nearby spaces, especially the market value of nearby housing units. The Rroma’s concentration in ghett os hastens mobility in the vicinity and housing devaluation. The wish to sell a household faces stigmatization spread from the ghett o. The eff ect of tainted vicinity emerges from a popular culture of fear against the ghett o; for the urban community, the ghett o signifi es the place that, because of its high risks, has to be avoided at all costs. Many ghett os are located in peripheral or semi-peripheral areas, with fewer than 3,000 Rroma. In Bucharest it is impossible to estimate the Rroma from each ghett o because they are seen as a whole, given their proximity; the exception is the ghett o from Valea Cascadelor. These ghett os record a variable ratio of Rroma, but they ap- pear to be dominant within the total Rroma population of all these environments in the country. The Romanian urban ghett o shares similar characteristics to the concept devel- oped by Wacquant (2011), which is ethnic homogeneity. Craica, Horea, Colonia de la kilometrul 10, Zăvoi, Munţii Tatra are urban spaces where the Rroma population reaches a distribution of over 50%, refl ecting the overwhelming dominance of the Rroma population. The NATO ghett o belongs to the city of Oradea and recorded 405 Rroma from a total of 574 people, with 167 Hungarians and 2 Romanians in 2006. The inference on these data suggests a high homogeneity and an ethnic concentration of Rroma. Other information that delineates the Romanian ghett o demography is the ghett o of Satu Mare, where the Rroma population is over 90% and comprises 100 fam- ilies with Rroma origins. Spatial location of the ghett os within the city limits diff ers from case to case (Table 1). With some exceptions, urban ghett os from Romanian cities are new and struc- tured after 1990. Among the generating factors of the ghett os the most active ones are institutional policies, poverty and the new dimension of the neoliberal economy, which has fl ourished especially after 2000. The economic downturn and the unequal free market competition have set the stage for poverty and exclusion in the Rroma communities (Stănculescu and Berevoescu, 2004; Wacquant, 2005), who were deep- ly aff ected by the new economic dimension. The lack of education, their hard skills proved of litt le use in the new environment and so, the labor utility of the Rroma population was not found useful anymore, generating ruptures. Inside the Romanian urban ghett os, local authorities display a wide range of ac- tions (Table 2). They were analyzed and then identifi ed and classifi ed accordingly into: inventory of informal households; demolition of informal households; sanitation and garbage collection; environmental public awareness; implementation of projects; partial or total rehabilitation of households; moving into new homes; training courses 125 Ta bl e 1: R om an ia n ur ba n gh et to s No . Na m e Ho st c ity Re la tiv e lo ca tio n Lo ca tio n wi th in ur ba n sp ac e Es tim at io n of in ha bi ta nt s 1 Cr ai ca * Ba ia M ar e Ne ar P ăl tin işu lu i s tre et , w ith in V as ile A le cs an dr i n ei gh - bo rh oo d, in th e So ut h of th e cit y, al on gs id e th e Cr ai ca b ro ok ou ts kir ts 58 2 (C ra ica a re a) a nd 1 10 0 (w ith th e on es m ov ed a t C up ro m ) 2 Ch ec he ci* ** Ar ad W es t, be tw ee n Co nf ec ţii an d Şe ga n ei gh bo rh oo ds ou ts kir ts - 3 Co lo ni a de la k m . 1 0* Br ăi la 10 k m d ist an ce o f t he c ity , ne ar th e ch em ica l in du st ria l p la nt C hi sc an i ou ts id e th e cit y 70 0 4 W as te wa te r p la nt * M ie rc ur ea C iu c W es t p ar t o f t he c ity , n ea r t he w as te wa te r t re at m en t p la nt ou ts kir ts 20 0 5 Ti ne re tu lu i P ar k* Bo to şa ni pa rk a re a ne ar by c en te r 25 00 6 M un ţii Ta tra s tre et * Co ns ta nţ a Pa la s ne ig hb or ho od , W es t o f t he c ity ou ts kir ts ov er 1 00 7 Ză vo i* Si bi u Ne ar Z ăv oi s tre et fr om T ur ni şo r n ei gh bo rh oo d ou ts id e th e cit y 15 0 8 G 1* Bâ rla d Cp t. G rig or e Ig na t s tre en , N E of th e cit y re se ttl ed fr om c en te r to o ut sk irt s 50 0 9 G 4* G al aţ i So ut h of th e cit y, at th e lim it of M icr o 19 n ei gh bo rh oo d ou ts kir ts 12 00 10 Ho re a* Ba ia M ar e W es t o f t he c ity ou ts kir ts 75 0 11 Is tru * G iu rg iu SW , n ea r S lo bo zia s tre et ou ts kir ts 50 0 12 L2 ** * Dr ob et a Tu rn u- Se ve rin Se rp en tin a Ro şio ri st re et . re se ttl ed to ou ts kir ts 28 0 13 NA TO ** O ra de a ne ar V ol ta ire s tre et , S W o f t he c ity ou ts kir ts 57 0 14 O st ro vu lu i* Sa tu M ar e So ar el ui n ei gh bo rh oo d ce nt er a re a 40 0 15 Pa ta R ât * Cl uj N ap oc a La nd fi ll a re a ou ts kir ts 20 00 16 Tu rtu ric a* ** Al ba iu lia Ar ns be rg s tre et o f t he c en tra l n ei gh bo rh oo d Ce ta te ce nt er ov er 3 00 17 G he tto ‘B er lin W al l‘* * Sf ân tu G he or gh e Va ra di J oz se f s tre et , O rk ő ne ig hb or ho od ou ts kir ts 10 00 18 M un cii * Pi at ra N ea m ţ Ne ar 1 M ai a nd M ăr ăţ ei n ei gh bo rh oo d re se ttl ed to ou ts kir ts 10 00 19 Sp er an ţa * Pi at ra N ea m ţ 3 km o ut sid e th e cit y ne ar th e ne w re al e st at e Sp er an ţa ou ts id e th e cit y 17 5 20 Ză br ău ţi* Bu cu re şt i Fe re nt ar i n ei gh bo rh oo d ou ts kir ts 10 00 21 So ut h Fe re nt ar i* Bu cu re şt i Fe re nt ar i n ei gh bo rh oo d ou ts kir ts 12 .0 00 (L ive zil or , T un su P et re an d Am ur gu lu i s tre et s) 22 Va le a Ca sc ad el or * Bu cu re şt i M ilit ar i n ei gh bo rh oo d ou ts kir ts - No te s: * fo rm ed a fte r 1 98 9; ** fo rm ed d ur in g co m m un ism ; * ** b ef or e co m m un ism ; 126 for inhabitants, containment of Rroma population. These measures were further ex- plored and, when more ghett os were involved, the degree of success is emphasized. – Inventory of informal households. The offi cials of Baia Mare City Hall took account- ing of the houses of the ghett o Craica in 2010. All poor households on Craica streets were checked, each person was identifi ed and the shanty houses were tagged. This was the solution for keeping at bay the Rroma concentration of the largest ghett o of the city. – Demolition of informal households. The cities of Baia Mare, Satu Mare and Bucharest took accounting of demolitions of shanty households. In Baia Mare, three years after the inventory, the local offi cials demolished the makeshift housing. The fi rst phase recorded the demolition of Rromas’ households, then followed the hous- es where people lived illegally. The Ostrov ghett o encountered a similar action when about 50 individuals were left aside from the households of the two block of fl ats found in the ghett o. Mainly Rroma, they built illegal barracks on the near- by public space. In 2010, the City Hall of Satu Mare decided to demolish the bar- racks. The Bucharest case was similar, but the two ghett os that were demolished every year, reappeared after some time. – Sanitation and garbage collection took place in three of the ghett os analyzed: Craica, Ostrovului and G4. The fi rst two recorded frequent actions of sanitation because of the amazingly fast accumulation of garbage in the area. The garbage and pol- lution are striking in the Ostrov ghett o, where the level of ammonia in the air is three times higher than the accepted standards. For example, in one of the san- itation procedures from the Ostrov ghett o a volume exceeding 6m3 of garbages was gathered (Satu Mare City Hall, 2009). It is the same case as in Craica, where the sanitation eliminated massive quantities of garbage. And in the G4 ghett o, the ecological mess from the underground level of the block of fl ats pushed the limits of the assigned workers, who in two consecutive years, struggled to extract the huge amount of garbage. – Awareness and reports on environmental protection. While the above locations re- quired environmental reports and information, litt le has changed. The Colonia de la km. 10 ghett o was the only one where such actions did take place. The Brăi- la City Hall and the Romanian Association of Nature Lovers started a project to improve ghett o life. With 160,000 Euros, the partners tried to inform inhabitants and raise their awareness of the local environment, which should be clean and without garbage. – Implementation of projects. The fi rst and the biggest project started in a Romanian ghett o is Turturica. This one diff ers from Brăila, being developed through a de- tailed analysis of the ghett o and involved the whole neighborhood. The project (Stănculescu and Berevoescu, 2004) brought a new philosophy to change the be- havior of tenants and, as a consequence, the housing conditions of the whole Cetate neighborhood. Despite the proven quality of the project and the rewards proposed to the people, the results were not the expected ones. 127 Ta bl e 2: T he a dm in ist ra tiv e po lic ie s an d th ei r r es ul ts Na m e of th e gh et to Ad m in ist ra tiv e po lic ie s Th e re su lt of a dm in ist ra tiv e po lic ie s Cr ai ca - i nv en to ry o f i nf or m al h ou se ho ld s; - d em ol itio n of in fo rm al h ou se ho ld s; - m ov in g in to n ew h om es ; - s an ita tio n an d ga rb ag e co lle ct io n. - i nv en to ry o f i nf or m al h ou se ho ld s wa s pr ec ed ed b y th e de m ol itio n of h ou se s; - m an y re se ttl ed fa m ilie s re tu rn ed a nd re bu ild th ei r s ha ck s. Ch ec he ci - s an ita tio n an d ga rb ag e co lle ct io n. - g ar ba ge re ap pe ar ed . Co lo ni a de la k m . 1 0 - t ot al a nd p ar tia l r eh ab ilit at io n of h ou sin g; - a wa re ne ss a nd re po rts o n en vir on m en ta l p ro te ct io n; - s kil l t ra in in g co ur se s. - l im ite d re ha bi lita tio n. - t he c la ss es o f e nv iro nm en ta l a wa re ne ss a nd p ro te ct io n ar e nu ll, as g ar ba ge is a ll ov er th e pl ac e. - o nl y 40 p eo pl e fro m 7 00 . G he tto o f w at er tr ea tm en t p la nt - c on ta in m en t. - e xt re m e m ar gi na liz at io n at th e cit y ou ts kir ts , n ea rb y th e wa te r t re at in g pl an t. G he tto o f Pa rc ul T in er et ul ui - t ot al a nd p ar tia l r eh ab ilit at io n of h ou sin g. - b ui ld in gs w er e de va st at ed a nd s an ita tio n in st al la tio n br ok en . G he tto o f M un ţii T at ra S tre et - s an ita tio n an d ga rb ag e co lle ct io n. - g ar ba ge re ap pe ar ed . G he tto o f Z ăv oi - - i nf or m al s et tle m en t i s th e re su lts o f t he e xp ul sio n of s oc ia l a ss ist ed R ro m a fa m ilie s by a dm in ist ra tio n. G 1 - m ov in g in to n ew h om es ; - c on ta in m en t. - e xt re m e m ar gi na liz at io n at th e cit y ou ts kir ts ; - t he n ew b ui ld in g we re s ha tte re d. G 4 - t ot al a nd p ar tia l r eh ab ilit at io n of h ou sin g; - s an ita tio n an d ga rb ag e co lle ct io n. - s am e lo ok , d es pi te th e re ha bi lita tio n; - g ar ba ge re ap pe ar ed . Ho re a - c on ta in m en t. - t he fe nc e fu lly is ol at e th e Rr om a ho us es . Is tru - s an ita tio n an d ga rb ag e co lle ct io n. - g ar ba ge re ap pe ar ed . L2 - m ov in g in to n ew h ou se s - t he R ro m a we re m ov ed o ut sid e th e cit y; - d eg ra da tio n of th e ne w bu ild in g. NA TO - s an ita tio n an d ga rb ag e co lle ct io n - O st ro vu lu i - d em ol itio n of in fo rm al h ou se ho ld s; - s an ita tio n an d ga rb ag e co lle ct io n. - t he s ha ck s re ap pe ar ed in th e sa m e da y of d em ol itio n; - g ar ba ge le ve l is h ig h. Pa ta R ât - m ov in g in to n ew h om es . - R ro m a we re re se ttl ed n ea rb y th e cit y du m p, w he re o th er tw o co m m un itie s liv e. Tu rtu ric a - i m pl em en ta tio n of p ro je ct s. - s am e be ha vio r o f t he p op ul at io n; - g ar ba ge le ve l is s till h ig h. Zi du l B er lin ul ui / Be rli n W al l - c on ta in m en t. - p hy sic al b or de rs ; M un ci i - m ov in g in to n ew h om es ; - c on ta in m en t. - m ov in g to s ev er al k ilo m et er s ou ts id e th e cit y. Sp er an ţa - s an ita tio n an d ga rb ag e co lle ct io n; - c on ta in m en t. - g ar ba ge le ve l is s till h ig h. - p hy sic al b or de rs . G he tto s of B uc ha re st - d em ol itio n of in fo rm al h ou se ho ld s. - s ha ck s re ap pe ar ed . 128 – Total and partial rehabilitation of housing took place in the following ghett os: Parcul Tineretului, G4, Colonia de la km. 10. G4 recorded not only sanitation in 2007- 2008, but the blocks of fl ats received consolidation. Colonia de la km. 10 involved much more att ention: 20 households from four block of fl ats entered a rehabil- itation program, alongside the nearby green spaces. The largest administrative actions were in the Parcul Tineretului ghett o, where, inhabitants received new heating systems in 1998 and then, in 2000-2004 a new investment focused on san- itation and heating. The fi nal intervention was in 2007, when a renewed thermal rehabilitation and an overall facade restoration brought improvements to the buildings of the ghett o. – Moving into new homes. Only a few inhabitants of the ghett os (G1, L2, Muncii, Pata Rât) received such an opportunity. The new homes were equipped with modern features and installations, everything with money from the city halls budget. The case of Pata Rât brought some issues, though, as the people were moved to con- tainer modular houses located near the city garbage deposit area. – Skill training courses were only in Brăila, where about 40 persons received support for diff erent occupations. – Containment of Rroma population was applied by four local administrations: Baia Mare, Piatra Neamţ, Sfântu Gheorghe and Miercurea Ciuc. Romania is not the only case where such actions took place. Similar actions occurred in Slovakia and the Czech Republic (Guy, 2001). In Romania, the oldest example of spatial ex- clusion is the ‘Berlin Wall’ from Sfântu Gheorghe (Kovacs, 2009; Mateescu, 2010; Székely, 2012). It started during 1985-1987, when local offi cials built a wall in the last 200 meters of Váradi József street, on its axis, a wall separating ‘local Rroma community from the ‘civilized world’’ (Kovacs, 2009). On one side of the wall there are blocks of fl ats with ethnic Hungarians and Romanian, while on the oth- er side are lined the Rroma houses. Miercurea Ciuc records another example of the containment of Rroma behind a wire fence. The Rroma population of about 140 people was moved near the wastewater treatment plant, outside the city, in an area of about 800 square meters. Another example is of the Horea ghett o, where the local offi cials declared the necessity of the wall because of the risk of accidents, which seemed high for children playing near the national road. Sim- ilar to the Sfântu Gheorghe case is the ghett o of Piatra Neamţ, which has a wall separating the Romanian villas and blocks of fl ats from about 160 Rroma people. These Rroma live in reequipped buildings, which belonged to a former poultry farm. 5. Discussions Based on the goals of the local administration, three main characteristics emerged from the administrative policies undertaken in the segregated urban spaces of Ro- manian ghett os; they are: administrative policies for the improvements of living conditions inside the ghett o; administrative policies for population control and sur- 129 veillance; mixed administrative policies, which target improvements of living con- ditions and population control. The fi rst category includes sanitation and garbage collection, actions of environmental protection information; total or partial rehabilita- tion of housing and inhabitants training. The second gathers policies of counting the informal housing, demolition of insalubrious shelters and wall-separating building. Meanwhile, the third includes only the movement action. In the ghett o, improvement of living conditions displays a diff erent situation from the one expected. Policies of the fi rst category are the ones considered to be essential. But did they reach the goals pursued by offi cials? Is there any improvement in the life of the ghett o? Is there the same intensity of poverty, degradation and misery? What has followed allows a no answer to the fi rst two questions and a yes to the third. We explain why in the following analysis. The eff ects of administrative actions have left many caveats. Limited or temporary results have materialized from the fi rst category. Regular visits showed the everlast- ing presence of garbage and that the reckless behavior has remained unchanged, even in Turturica ghett o. The project suggested clear regulations for inhabitants, which were followed for a period, but one year later, old habits returned to previous (ab) normality. Interviews confi rm that ‘the regulations were followed, to clean daily, but, you see, [people] adhere to it for some months and then the mess sett les once again... that you are terrifi ed to enter the block of fl ats, given the garbage and squalor’ (Bumb, 2010). The meeting between the mayor and inhabitants of Turturica confi rmed the deterioration, the mayor reminding inhabitants that the assets gained through the project have to be maintained clean and functional (Stanciu, 2010). Neither did the actions taken in Brăila have produced consistent and positive out- comes. The ghett o of this city looks like nothing has ever changed or that the results are indistinct, given the amount of money used ‘73,0000 Euros... for access to sanita- tion and for rehabilitation of the spaces they live in’ (Butnaru and Şerban, 2008). Yet, the Rroma community does not have more access to sanitation in comparison to the past and the same things happened to cleaning and employment. Among 700 mem- bers of the active population of the ghett o, only 40 individuals gained working skills. Another fi nding is that housing rehabilitation caused, surprisingly as it seems, a new degradation. The investments from Parcul Tineretului ghett o, proved the lack of sustainability of such approaches. The three rounds of renovation were futile; after each intervention for rehabilitation, the inhabitants devastated the new installations and households. After the project was completed and all the reparations done, the ghett o looks the same, like no improvements or interventions have ever been ad- dressed there (Sauciuc, 2008). Further results have shown that the second administrative set of actions, direct- ly coordinated by local administrations, accomplished their goals. The accounting of households, which happened only in Craica, seemed a soft policy in comparison to the containment one; in fact, it was a transitional policy. The accounting was the fi rst action part of a more general policy, which targeted the Rroma concentration and 130 the demolition of the ghett o. The second action was to move a part of the Rroma of Craica, not to new homes, but to the so-called ‘necessity households’ erected inside the former offi ce building of the Cuprom company. There were some families that returned to the ghett o to rebuild their informal houses. The action to move the Rroma from their hovels was on the same day of elections, suggesting that the accounting was a premeditated procedure of resett lement, an action of control in fact. The dem- olition of hovels, which belonged to the people, who did not fi nd a place in the two blocks of fl ats of the new ghett o, was a failure in Satu Mare. According to local police, who supervised each action, such procedures do not have success, because the Rroma (re)build hovels on the same spot. Policies of social control are common in CEE (Barany, 2000a; Vašečka, 2003). They are retrogressive at their core, but building walls of separation or total containment truly represents an administrative policy that leads to the ghett o. Their viability ex- hibits the way of permanent control that was applied in several cities and that trig- gered controversies, intensifying the national and international wave of critics to- wards the administrative actions. The wall durability implies the success of the policy and, for local offi cials, the alleviation of fear that Rroma might trigger new troubles. It is the same patt ern of containment encountered in the fi rst dated ghett o of Venice. An Rroma from Miercurea Ciuc ghett o, compares the ghett o to a penitentiary, adding that ‘the only diff erence is that, there (in prison), there are guards. Here there aren’t and you may go outside. Except for this, everything looks the same’. And he remarks more: ‘in the prison there is food and you have an address, but no when you live in the ghett o’ (Mionel, 2013). The ghett o location is relative, being presented as somewhere near the wastewater treatment plant. Similar is the case of Horea ghett o that has raised the biggest controversies. In spite of the fi ne received by the mayor from the National Council against Discrimina- tion and of diff erent recommendations, which suggested the demolition, the wall of two meters tall is still in place. The analysis of the third category of measures raises some questions. Is the clas- sifi cation of administrative policies of this category a constrained action? The reset- tlement is without doubt a segregation and control step. In all the cases, local offi - cials built houses in the city outskirts and not somewhere else. The fi nding is true for Cluj-Napoca in the same degree as for Drobeta Turnu Severin, Bârlad or Košice in Slovakia (Zoon, 2001; Guy, 2001; Farnam, 2003). The building of new houses is a trick which diverts att ention from the real goal. The quality and the features of the new houses (PVC windows, new sanitary installations, showers, hot water and many others) aim to exhibit how well the offi cials care for the ‘outcasts’ (Wacquant, 2011). Even so, the new houses bring an added value to the living environment. For a while, the resett lement has removed the shortcomings of the old space. A second question addresses how much success did the resett lement action gain. We foresee two paths of evolution. The positive path reveals a normality, in which the population looks after households in the spaces nearby, and everything develops 131 normally. The second path is negative, because the people transform the living space into a poor and squalid one, where living is no less than an ordeal. Many journalists’ predictions, foreseeing the transformation of the houses into a new ghett o, become true. In this context, the ghett o concept has been used to describe the squalor, garbage, chaos, degradation and decay of the new housing estates. This reenactment adds to the reality of the ghett o spaces of the analyzed cases. Resett le- ment in the outskirts reinforces Rroma segregation towards the urban space and peo- ple living at urban standards. Old ghett os recompose themselves in the new address- es, not only because of the segregation caused by resett lement, but because of the garbage and decay produced by residents. The decay of the new households unveils a new caveat of the administrative policies: lack of investment in people and their education. 6. Conclusions Two directions resulted from the three categories of administrative intervention: actions of social interventions and improvement of living conditions is the fi rst one, while the second refers to monitoring and segregation. While welcomed, new houses located at the outskirts of diff erent cities produced only more separation between Rroma and the rest of population. This last direction has a long lasting eff ect as long as the resett led population is poor and without any alternative. But we cannot con- clude the same for the fi rst mentioned directions. The administrative policies of ghett os in Romania remains blurred. In some re- gards, similar solutions were applied in many ghett os and the results look similar, which is no change. The viability of diff erent programs and administrative invest- ments rely a lot on their harmonization and hierarchic structuring in time. Thus, scat- tered projects and incoherent actions will bring again futile and limited results that will show no sign of intervention in that respective space. Administrative policies targeted obvious issues which were monitored for short periods of time, without considering a broader strategy. The results were transient and their aftermath become visible in most of the analyzed ghett os. Degradation and squalor, which were troublesome for offi cials before resett lement, have returned in- side the households, as well as in the nearby space. We argue that the old ghett os have been resett led with all their components. Likewise, solving the ghett oization involves hiding these spaces. Once evicted outside the city, their control becomes a powerful administrative intervention. The resett lement of Rroma population outside the urban space in ‘new’ houses is a cynical action of social control that empowers the invisible wall of separation. The current situation, which is the failure of many administrative policies, has its origins in the administrative chaotic system and poor fi nance management. The anal- ysis showed that administrations lack vision and develop limited actions; their ac- tions targeted specifi c issues and did not involve the larger framework of segregation. Many times, administrations appeared overwhelmed by the extent of the phenome- 132 non, or they did not truly wish to act accordingly to an European framework. To reach social sustainability, some actions were required, but they have exceeded the phys- ical structures of consolidation and housing repairs, resett lement and others alike. To eliminate the poverty spaces many years are required in Romania, which in- volves a visionary policy on the long term. But it overlaps many electoral cycles and political interests, hindering the solutions. Policies have to emerge from the space facts and be transplanted into them. For example, a Rroma who collects materials informally should receive administrative policies helping his/her integration into a specifi c company. Hence, interventions and policies should emerge from the local characteristics. Not all the ghett os develop at the outskirts of cities. But the institutional trend is to push Rroma population from the cities, to exclude it socially and to create spatial segregation with or without fences. The result indicates that Rroma resett lement is an exclusion and ghett oization policy, the only one that suggests durability for local administrations. References: 1. Barany, Z., ‘Politics and the Roma in State-Socialist Eastern Europe’, 2000a, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 421-437. 2. Barany, Z., ‘The Socio-Economic Impact of Regime Change in Eastern Europe: Gypsy Marginality in the 1990s’, 2000b, East European Politics & Societies, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 64- 113. 3. Bauman, Z., Community. Seeking Safety in an Insecure World, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2001. 4. Berescu, C., ‘The Rise of the New European Roma Ghett os: a Brief Account of Some Empirical Studies’, 2011, Urban Research & Practice, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 344-352. 5. Bumb, C., ‘Blocul Turturica – între haos şi normalitate’, DPM Online, 7 December 2010, [Online] available at htt p://alba-iulia.reporterdeliceu.ro/?p=1872, accessed on May 20, 2013. 6. Butnaru, N. and Şerban, L., ‘Sute de Mii de Euro Pentru Accesul Romilor La Sănătate’, 2008, Centrul pentru Jurnalism Independent, [Online] available at htt p://www2.cji.ro/us erfi les/fi le/documente/braila.pdf, accessed on May 24, 2015. 7. Cahn, C. and Trehan, N., ‘Time of the Skinheads-Denial and Exclusion of Roma in Slo- vakia’, 1997, European Roma Rights Center Country Reports Series, European Roma Rights Center, [Online] available at htt p://www.errc.org/cms/upload/media/00/15/ m00000015.pdf, accessed on May 24, 2015. 8. Camerer, S., ‘The State of Human Rights for the Roma People in Bulgaria’, 2012, ESR Review: Economic and Social Rights in South Africa, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 12-15. 9. Cangár, J., Kotvanová, A. and Szép, A., ‘Depiction of the Roma in the Media’, in Vašeč- ka, M., Jurásková, M. and Nicholson, T. (eds.), Čačipen pal o Roma (A Global Report on Roma in Slovakia), Institute for Public Aff airs, 2003, pp. 249-266. 10. Collins, C.A. and Williams, D.R., ‘Segregation and Mortality: the Deadly Eff ects of Racism?’, 1999, Sociological Forum, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 495-523. 133 11. Creţan, R. and Turnock D., ‘Romania’s Roma Population: From Marginality to Social Integration’, 2008, Scott ish Geographical Journal, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 274-299. 12. Cuceu, C., ‘Spaţiul Ghetoului’, 2010, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 164-175. 13. De Vos, G.A., Japan’s Outcasts, Minority Rights Group, 1971. 14. Dreier, P., ‘America’s Urban Crisis a Decade after the Los Angeles Riots’, 2003, Nation- al Civic Review, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 35-55. 15. Farnam, A., ‘Slovakian Roma Forced to Ghett os’, The Christian Science Monitor, January 3, 2003, p. 4. 16. Feitosa, F.F. and Wissmann, A., Social-Mix Policy Approaches to Urban Segregation in Eu- rope and the United States, Bonn: Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung, ZEF, 2006. 17. Fleck, G. and Rughiniş C. Come Closer: Inclusion and Exclusion of Roma in Present-Day Romanian Society, Bucureşti: Human Dynamics, 2008. 18. Glasze, G., ‘The Spread of Private Guarded Neighbourhoods in Lebanon and the Sig- nifi cance of a Historically and Geographically Specifi c Governamentality’, in Glasze, G., Webster, C. and Frantz , K. (eds.), Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives, New York: Routledge, 2005, pp. 123-138. 19. Gültekin, N.T. and Güzey, Ö., Divided Cities: Social and Residential Segregation: A Gipsy Neighborhood in Menzilahir, Edirne, Turkey, Paper presented at the 47th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Paris, 2007. 20. Guy, W., ‘The Czech Lands and Slovakia: Another False Dawn?’, in Guy, W. (ed.), Be- tween Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe, Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001, pp. 285-332. 21. Imre, A. ‘Global Entertainment and the European Roma Problem’, 2006, Third Text, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 659-670. 22. Kain, J., ‘Racial and Economic Segregation in US Metropolitan Areas’, in Clark G.L., Gertler M.S. and Feldman M.P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, Ox- ford University Press, 2003. 23. Kessler, H.L. and Nirenberg, D., Judaism and Christian Art: Aesthetic Anxieties from the Catacombs to Colonialism, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012. 24. Knox, H.M., ‘Religious Segregation in the Schools of Northern Ireland’, 1973, British Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 307-312. 25. Kovacs, A., ‘Ghetou la Sfântu Gheorghe. Ţiganii cer dărâmarea zidului care separă oraşul de cartierul rromilor’, Gardianul, 26 February 2009, [Online] available at htt p:// www.newz.ro/stire/80686/ghetou-la-sfantu-gheorghe-tiganii-cer-daramarea-zidu lui-care-separa-orasul-de-cartierul-rromilor.html, accessed on May 20, 2014. 26. Latham, A. McCormack, D., McNamara, K. and McNeill, D., Key Concepts in Urban Geography, London: Sage, 2008. 27. Lie, J., Multi-Ethnic Japan, Cambridge, Massachusett s: Harvard University Press, 2004. 28. Maly, M., Beyond Segregation: Multiracial and Multiethnic Neighborhoods, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2008. 29. Marciń czak, S., Gentile, M., Rufat, S. and Chelcea, L., ‘Urban Geographies of Hesitant Transition: Tracing Socioeconomic Segregation in Post-Ceauşescu Bucharest’, 2014, In- ternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1399-1417. 30. Massey, D.S. and Denton, N.A., American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass, Cambridge, Massachusett s: Harvard University Press, 1993. 134 31. Mateescu, I. ‘Romii Nu Mai Vor «Zidul Berlinez»’, Adevărul, 26 January 2010, [Online] available at htt p://adevarul.ro/locale/brasov/romii-nu-mai-vor-zidul-berlinez-1_50ad 61e57c42d5a6639417a4/index.html, accessed on July 20, 2014. 32. Mionel, V., Segregarea urbană. Separaţi dar împreună, Bucureşti: Editura Universitară, 2012a. 33. Mionel, V., ‘Ghetourile urbane şi alegerile electorale. De ce sunt importante ghetourile pentru oamenii politici?’, 2012b, Sfera Politicii, vol. XX, no. 171, pp. 50-58. 34. Mionel, V., România ghetourilor urbane. Spaţiul vicios al marginalizării, sărăciei şi stigmatu- lui, Bucureşti: Pro Universitaria, 2013. 35. Mionel, V. and Neguţ S., ‘The Socio-Spatial Dimension of the Bucharest Ghett os’, 2011, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, no. 33E, pp. 197-217. 36. Musterd, S. and Ostendorf, W., Urban Segregation and the Welfare State: Inequality and Exclusion in Western Cities, New York; London: Routledge, 2013. 37. Niculae, L.C., Arhipera. Arhitectură socială participativă (PhD thesis), 2013, Universitatea de Arhitectură şi Urbanism “Ion Mincu”, Bucureşti. 38. Oblet, T., Gouverner la ville: Les voies urbaines de la démocratie moderne, Paris: PUF, 2005. 39. Omenya, A., Theoretical Conceptualisations of Urban Segregation and Their Relevance to Housing in Post-Apartheid South Africa, Paper presented at the Conference on Gated Communities: Building Social Division or Safer Communities?, Glasgow, UK, 2003. 40. Puckett , L.M., ‘Barriers to Access Social Services and the Roma of Poland’, 2005, Inter- national Social Work, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 621-631. 41. Rughiniş, C., Integration Every Other Day. Public Reasoning on Roma/Gypsy Segregation in Romania, 2007, Center for Policy Studies, Open Society Institute, [Online] available at htt p://www.policy.hu/rughinis/rughinis_integration.pdf, accessed on May 24, 2015. 42. Ruzicka, M., ‘Continuity or Rupture? Roma/Gypsy Communities in Rural and Urban Environments under Post-Socialism’, 2012, Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 81-88. 43. Santos, M., The Shared Space: The Two Circuits of the Urban Economy in Underdeveloped Countries, London: Methuen, 1979. 44. Sauciuc, R., ‘Ghetourile din Parcul Tineretului ar putea fi dărâmate’, Evenimentul de Botoşani, 8 August 2008, [Online] available at htt p://www.evenimentuldebotosani.ro/ cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi, accessed on April 16, 2014. 45. Scheff el, D., ‘Ethnic Micropolitics in Eastern Europe: A Case Study from Slovakia’s Gypsy Archipelago’, 2008, Anthropology Today, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 23-25. 46. Shirasawa, M., ‘Living Conditions of the Elderly in Buraku Ghett os in Osaka-City’, 1985, Journal of Minority Aging, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 57-76. 47. Sinha, R. and Sinha U.P., Ecology and Quality of Life in Urban Slums: an Empirical Study, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 2007. 48. Sobotka, E., ‘Human Rights and Policy Formulation toward Roma in the Czech Re- public, Slovakia and Poland’, in Marsh, A. and Strand, E. (eds.), Gypsies and the Problem of Identities: Contextual, Constructed and Contested, Swedish Research Institute in Istan- bul, 2006, pp. 141-156. 49. Stanciu, G., ‘Primarul a făcut şedinţă publică cu locatarii din Turturica’, City News, 15 July 2010, [Online] available at htt p://alba.citynews.ro/eveniment-15/primarul-fa cut-sedinta-publica-cu-locatarii-din-turturica-87912, accessed on April 28, 2014. 135 50. Stănculescu, M. and Berevoescu I., Sărac lipit, caut altă viaţă, Bucureşti: Nemira, 2004. 51. Sugrue, T.J., The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005. 52. Székely, E., ‘Nu Mă Bate, Au, Mă Doare!’, Covasnamedia, 27 May 2012, [Online] avail- able at htt p://covasnamedia.ro/beta/?p=30051, accessed on April 28, 2014. 53. Tátrai, P., ‘Ethnic Residential Segregation in Three Cities of Northwest Romania’, 2011, Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 189-216. 54. Toušek, L., ‘Purifi cation of Space: Spatial Segregation of Roma in the Czech Republic’, 2011, [Online] available at htt p://www.academia.edu/428790/Purifi cation_of_Space_ Spatial_Segregation_of_ the_Roma_in_the_Czech_Republic, accessed on January 10, 2014. 55. Vašečka, I., ‘The Roma Issue in Local Social Policy’, in Vašečka, M., Jurásková, M. and Nicholson, T. (eds.), Čačipen pal o Roma (A Global Report on Roma in Slovakia), Institute for Public Aff airs, 2003, pp. 249-266. 56. Vassilev, R., ‘The Roma of Bulgaria: A Pariah Minority’, 2004, The Global Review of Eth- nopolitics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 40-51. 57. Wacquant, L., ‘Les deux visages du ghett o. Construire un concept sociologique’, 2005, Actes de La Recherche En Sciences Sociales, vol. 160, no. 4, p. 21. 58. Wacquant, L., ‘A Janus-Faced Institution of Ethnoracial Closure: A Sociological Speci- fi cation of the Ghett o’, in Hutchison, R. and Haynes, B. (eds.), The Ghett o: Contemporary Global Issues and Controversies, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2011, pp. 1-31. 59. Wacquant, L., ‘Urban Outcasts: Stigma and Division in the Black American Ghett o and the French Urban Periphery’, 1993, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 366-383. 60. Ward, D., Poverty, Ethnicity and the American City, 1840-1925: Changing Conceptions of the Slum and Ghett o, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 61. White, M.J., ‘The Measurement of Spatial Segregation”, 1983, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 1008-1018. 62. Wirth, L., The Ghett o, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1928 (reprint 1998). 63. Zoon, I., On the Margins, New York: Open Society Institute, 2001.