30

# 2.3. **Residential Mobility Trends**

An important indicator of the development of the housing market in Russia is the degree of residential mobility, which has largely been determined by the process of privatization. This is measured by the share of households who changed their housing by moving to a place of permanent residence in other housing within the city (including external migrants). ' In the two parts of this subsection, mobility trends in Russia are presented, and the interrelation of residential mobility and the housing problem in Moscow is explored in detail. It will be seen that part of those households that change their place of residence consisted of poorer households who benefit from the housing market by selling the larger, better apartments that were their initial housing allocation and moving to alpartments that are more in keeping with their incomes. This process can be seen as a step towards market-based greater efficiency in the allocation of the housing stock, and these efficiency gains benefit all market agents concerned.

# **2.3.1. Household Mobility Trends in Russia**

Having discussed households' plans and potential, in this section we will review the actual implementation of these plans in Moscow, Vladimir and Gorodets in the past few years and demonstrate the main trends in the housing sphere.

Fig. 2.11 shows the distribution of households by the year they moved into their current apartments (as of the end of 1996). With some reservations, this picture can be assumed to reflect actual household mobility over the past years.'<sup>9</sup> The analysis of the dynamic of residential movement shows that at the outset of reform, mobility decreased somewhat. In Moscow, the lowest recorded mobility occurred in 1992, in Vladimir and Gorodets, in 19931994. Then a rise began: in 1996, 5.9-6.5% of the households changed apartments. It should be noted that commission of new housing did not accelerate over that period (in Moscow the annual rate was 1.7 - 1.8%/ **a** , nd in most other Russian cities it was lower and tended to decline). It is easy to see that in the past two or three years, the increase in mobility stemmed mostly from the development of the secondary housing market.

Fig. 2.11. Household mobility in Russia (% of households by year of move into current unit) <!-- Start of picture text --> < '6.5<br>.4.9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~.<br>4.2 0 ~~~~~~~~~4Moscow<br>.6 -0-~~~~~~~Vladimir<br>O . . . . . ~ ~ ~~~~. 5.9<br>2 2.5 2<br>19 190 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995i 1996<br>Sources: The Moscow Longitudinal Household Survey, January 1996; Vladimir and Gorodets Longitudinal Household Survey,<br>December 1996. Note: Mobility rate in Moscow 1996 - own estimate (minimum).<br><!-- End of picture text -->

**ITe** analys did not coverhouseholds who rent housing This category (75% of whom occupied **their** apartments for less **than** one year at the time ofthe survey) proved inconvenient for further comparative analysis due to "hyper-mobility". According to **the** findings of surveys held in Moscow, **the** share of such households in Moscow was 0.9, 1.4, **1.8** and 1.7% in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 respectively. **In** Vladimir and **Gorodets, the** proportion ofthe renter households was much lower.

**19 One** can overlook the possibility that over a short period households may have moved more than once, this is very uncommon in Russia.