Home > Arhiva > 2021 > Numar: 3 > Differences in Housing Conditions between Adult Roma and Adult Romanians

Differences in Housing Conditions between Adult Roma and Adult Romanians

Nikki Khanna (Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont, 31 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA, 18026562162, nkhanna@uvm.edu)
Stephen J. Cutler (Professor of Sociology, Emeritus and Emeritus Bishop Robert F. Joyce Distinguished University Professor of Gerontology, University of Vermont, 31 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05405 USA, 18027582025, scutler@uvm.edu)
Roxanna-Andreea Marin (Associated Assistant Professor, University of Bucharest, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, Sos. Panduri no.90, sector 5, Bucharest, Romania, +40723671901, roxana.marin@unibuc.ro)

This study addresses two questions: (1) Do the housing characteristics of people who self-reported themselves as Roma differ from the housing characteristics of people who self-reported themselves as ethnic Romanians? (2) If we find that the Roma are disadvantaged, are the differences due to ethnicity or to rural-urban status? To examine housing in Romania, we use the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series – International (IPUMS-I) data that are publicly available from the University of Minnesota’s Institute for Social Research and Data Innovation. These data – a 10 percent sample from the 2011 Romanian national Census – are useful for our purposes because (1) they are the most recent national data in Romania, (2) as a 10 percent sample of the 2011 census, the data set contains 1,658,727 non-Roma Romanians 18 years of age and older and 61,411 Roma 18 and older, and (3) this national census allows us to examine very specific household characteristics. The data are analyzed using cross-tabulation procedures and presented showing percentage and mean differences. To answer the two questions posed earlier, on every variable examined in our analysis, we find that the Roma’s particular housing characteristic is poorer than that of self-reported, ethnic Romanians; the same finding is true regardless of whether the person is living in a rural area or in an urban area. We conclude the article by summarizing specific findings, discussing the implications of our findings for social workers and for the Romanian government, and by pointing to additional directions for research.

Keywords: IPUMS-I, housing characteristics, Romania, Romani