Like many other modern states, both the Soviet Union, with its authoritian socialism, and Sweden, with its social democracy, strived to shape their citizens' lives for the better. Both states considered it their duty actively to plan, organize and control housing.
The host countries have a lot riding on not just their teams' performances, but also their management of the tournament.
Though once very controversial in the context of the Cold War, Fitzpatrick’s view of totalitarianism in the Soviet Union as something complex, full of contradictions and of different kinds of agency, has now become a commonplace in Russian studies.
There can be no doubt that Russia has again surprised Western commentators; there had been a good consensus that there would not be major political opposition in Russia,that civil society is weak and there were no alternatives around. Now we have to develop a much more sophisticated analysis. In this article I will concentrate on two issues: legitimacy and interests.
Working-class neighborhoods in post-communist countries have often been depicted as unable to adapt to the new economic situation. Stefan Bouzarovski has studied urban development and reached the conclusion that residents in working-class areas may, in fact, display considerable resilience and adaptability to the new housing market. One coping mechanism has been to enlarge apartments by building so-called vertical building extensions.
The Polish sociologist Piotr Sztompka explains how he became fascinated by the laws and theories governing the behavior of individuals and the dynamics of society. Soon, his work on social existence, which examines the macro level, will be published.