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.

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.

This paper reviews housing policy development in Lithuania in the light of previous literature which reinterprets Esping-Andersen’s work on welfare regimes and adopts it to study housing policy. It seeks to highlight the major features of the Lithuanian housing policy. The findings of this paper reveal that the Lithuanian housing regime exhibits many features which are common under the liberal one. Most significant of these are low de-commodification for those who have to buy or rent a home for the market price, increasing stratification based on income and the dominant position of the market in housing production, allocation and price determination. However, a detailed examination of the Lithuanian housing policy reveals that the housing policy system, despite having many features similar to the liberal one, has been operating in different social and economic settings as a result of unique historical experience of the communist housing policy (massive production of low quality apartment blocks during the communist era, which currently need substantial renovation) and consequently drastic changes in the housing field since 1990s (massive privatization of the housing stock and decentralization of the housing management system). The Lithuanian housing policy regime could be characterized as a regime with the higher owner-occupation compared to other welfare state regimes, but the lower economic power of the owners to take care of their property maintenance, repair and renovation.

This paper reviews activities of community organizations in the post-Soviet city of Vilnius. The particular attention is paid to the reasons for mobilization of the local communities; the leadership and motivation; the reasons for non-participation; and the communication with the local authorities. The findings of this paper show that mobilizations are not taking place on the massive scale. However, they are being institutionalized and have achieved noteworthy results. Communities mobilize against illegal or unwanted constructions close to their vicinity or to defend green zones in the city. The successful movement is centered around a charismatic leader who devotes his/her time and non-material and material resources to attain results. The explanations for non-participation can be found in difficult economical conditions of the majority of the population; low level of civil society; increasing individualization and income inequalities. The findings of this paper also demonstrate that the political and institutional structure is fairly unfavorable for local activists. The community organizations are not supported by the local governmental structures in a substantial way. On the contrary, they are faced, in most of the cases, with the authority’s alienation and confrontation.

The paper reviews recent socio-economic changes in the 10 new EU member states of Central and Eastern Europe and the earlier and latest debates on the emergence of the post-communist welfare state regime. It asks two questions: are the new EU member states more similar to each other in their social problems encountered than to the rest of the EU world? Do they exhibit enough common socio-economic and institutional features to group them into the distinct/unified post-communist welfare regime that deviates from any well-known welfare state typology? The findings of this paper indicate that despite some slight variation within, the new EU countries exhibit lower indicators compared to the EU-15 as it comes to the minimum wage and social protection expenditure. The degree of material deprivation and the shadow economy is on average also higher if compared to the EU-15 or the EU-27. However, then it comes to at-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers or Gini index, some Eastern European outliers especially the Check Republic, but also Slovenia, Slovakia and Hungary perform the same or even better than the old capitalist democracies. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, however, show many similarities in their social indicators and performances and this group of countries never perform better than the EU-15 or the EU-27 averages. Nevertheless, the literature reviews on welfare state development in the CEE region reveal a number of important institutional features in support of identifying the distinct/unified post-communist welfare regime. Most resilient of it are: an insurance-based programs that played a major part in the social protection system; high take-up of social security; relatively low social security benefits; increasing signs of liberalization of social policy; and the experience of the Soviet/Communist type of welfare state, which implies still deeply embedded signs of solidarity and universalism.

This paper reviews some theoretical and empirical literature written on welfare state development in post-communist Eastern Europe in the light of the theories and approaches that have been developed to study affluent capitalist democracies. The aim of this discussion is to critically reassess the old welfare state theories, definitions and approaches and their implications regarding the study of post-communist Eastern Europe. The paper ends with the conclusion that the exclusion of 'communist' countries for more than twenty years from welfare state theorising has created an empirical and theoretical gap. This creates fresh challenges for welfare state research and calls for a new paradigm. It is evident that the not so well explored Eastern European region with regards to social policy research suggests that it is necessary not only to test already existing welfare state theories, definitions, typologies and approaches on these countries, but also to advance them.