Land and housing represent a large part of the assets and of investment in each nation. The countries' experiences differed over the past half century. Czechoslovakia saw the bulk of land and housing socialized. Housing remained largely private in Bulgaria, though agriculture was transformed into large-scale collective and cooperative farms. Much of the stock of dwelling units in Poland also remained private, though as in the other countries many were in coops. Agriculture was predominantly private.
Each of the countries has seen since 1989 a major decline in the share of publicly owned real estate. Restitution to those with claims of previous ownership has transferred a large part of such assets: especially of housing in Czechoslovakia and of land in Bulgaria. Poland's political context has delayed moves to return such lands (a process which will be particularly complex on account of shifts in national boundaries). Czechoslovakia and to a lesser degree the other countries have included much of the remaining publicly held housing in privatization schemes, generally by local auction.
With a larger share of land and housing in private hands and with the reduction of the role of state institutions real estate markets are functioning, though with many imperfections. In place of very low, highly subsidized and generally uniform land and housing fees, differential and much higher rents have recently appeared, approximating real value. Changes in urban land use with a far greater commercialization of city centers has occurred, especially in the larger cities. Institutional structures are in place, such as fledgling real estate agencies.
These changes have not been without their problems. To date, little credit is available for construction and purchase of housing, or for the individual farmer in agriculture. Construction has fallen precipitously. Restitution in Bulgaria and in the Czech Republic will create a rural pattern of very small, dispersed land holdings, with potentially devastating effects on farming. With increasing abandonment of rent controls, certain populations are at risk, with little social policy to accommodate to their needs. Change in use, especially shift to commercial use of older center city apartments, often occupied by elderly pensioners, has serious social consequences. At the same time, availability of such space is a critical prerequisite for enterprise formation, particularly in trade and service professions. Here, as in other aspects of the transition to a market environment, there are winners and losers: there is support for the belief that the "nomenklatura" of old has done well in the transition. Their familiarity with how the system works, ability to take acquire real estate early, and having sufficient resources in place of credit appear to make the nomenklatura important actors.
Information on the new real estate environment is not easy to come by. Many of the old land records no longer exist; this has particular consequences for the reestablishment of pre-1945 holdings. And while the existence of restitution claims and of privatization, as well as of real estate transactions, is on record, actual sales prices are generally not part of that record.
Land use planning suffers in a setting where controls of any sort are challenged as residues of a rejected past. Still there is an acknowledgement that urban growth requires some planning. This is particularly so where assets of major historical value are in place and where environmental impacts need be taken into account. Revised forms of planning consistent with primacy of the private sector are being put in place.
The results of the study will appear as a book published by the Central European University / Oxford University Press.