32 households are probably satisfied with it; besides, they may not be able to afford new housing Second, pensioner households constitute a large share of the owners, and they have no need to move. On the other hand, a high proportion of municipal housing is still inhabited by households for whom housing remains a pressing concern and who are ready to join the housing market.

As for the type of settlement as a factor of this process, it manifests itself most strongly in Moscow and to a lesser extent in the provincial towns.

Similar trends can be observed in the other former Soviet republics, where after privatization part of the housing remained in state or municipal ownership. Surveys conducted in 1995 in Estonia (Arpaillange, 1995a), for example, demonstrated that only a very strong desire to obtain a more suitable home motivates the dwellers who envision moving in the next five years. This hope is shared by about 15% of those surveyed; tenants display a stronger desire (about a third of the total inumber), while owners have a much more stable attitude (13%), especially if they own a house (only 9% of those living in individual houses would like to move).

These findings are also consistent with those of surveys conducted in Lithuania (Arpaillange, 1995b), where nearly all housing is now privately owned. Lithuanian researchers have found that residential mobility has been increasing as a consequence of the privatization program and the tremendous changes that occurred in the economy since independence: 25% of households have moved in the past five years. Over the past few years, mobility in Lithuania was 5% a year on average as compared to 3.5% in Moscow, 4% in Vladimir and 4.5% in Gorodets.

In short privatization has made a large contribution to the establishment of the housing market, and this could not help but increase residential mobility. Housing privatization has also made better headway in small towns, which may be one of the reasons for its success in the Baltic states, countries in which a reiatively higher proportion of the population lives in smaller population centers.

# 2.3.2. Mobility Trends Versus the **Housing Problem in Moscow**

The findings of the Moscow surveys allow for a more detailed examination of the housing problem in Moscow in the years 1993-1995.20 In these three years, 11.6% of households moved, with 10.4% of them Muscovites and 1.2% persons new to Moscow.

In 1993-1994, roughly equal shares of households moved into newly constructed and into secondary market housing (Fig. 2.13), while in 1995 the place of the latter category expanded (3.2% as against 1.9%). As a result, 5.4% of the households moved into new apartments, and 6.2% moved into secondary market apartments.

The distribution by the means of obtaining housing was as follows: 4.2% exchanged their housing; 4% received free housing through the waiting list system or were moved fiom buildings slated for demolition; 3.4% bought apartments, including cooperatives. Over the three-year period, the ratio of these means remained basically unchanged. Distinctions in the purchase of primary and secondary market housing are illustrated by Fig. 2.14.

2 An analysis of the mobiLity of Muswcovites was also caied out by the Urban InstitLte (Lee,, 1996), which compared the data of four annual sveys undetaken in 1992-1996 and eveted similar trends.