BOUNDARIES OF BELONGING: BRAZIL AND BULGARIA AND THE POLITICS OF HOUSING REDISTRIBUTION

Abstract

Why do some democratic states adopt large-scale federal housing programs for marginalized populations while others, facing comparable levels of housing deprivation, do not? The thesis answers this question through a comparative analysis of Brazil and Bulgaria, two democracies with substantial populations living in informal or substandard housing, access to fiscal resources, and formal commitments to housing rights, yet sharply divergent policy outcomes. In 2009, Brazil implemented Minha Casa Minha Vida (MCMV), delivering approximately 4.4-5 million housing units and benefiting an estimated 14.7 million people. Bulgaria, by contrast, has failed to produce a comparable national housing intervention for its Roma population, despite European Union funding and binding legal obligations, including the European Court of Human Rights’ 2012 Yordanova ruling. Existing explanations emphasizing fiscal capacity, institutional quality, or supranational legal pressure cannot account for this divergence. This thesis advances an alternative explanation: variation in national incorporation, defined as the extent to which marginalized populations are constructed as members of the national community. Where incorporation is high, housing deprivation can be framed as a national problem, enabling universalist policy design and broad, cross-class coalitions. Where incorporation is low, redistribution is framed as targeted minority welfare, producing stigma, narrowing political coalitions, and undermining policy adoption. The argument integrates three strands of literature. Deservingness theory (van Oorschot) demonstrates that public support for redistribution depends on perceived group membership. Welfare state scholarship (Korpi and Palme) shows that universalist policies generate larger and more durable coalitions than targeted programs. Constructivist theories of nationhood (Brubaker) explain how boundaries of belonging are politically produced through rhetoric, institutions, and classification. Together, these frameworks yield a causal mechanism; national incorporation shapes deservingness perceptions; these perceptions constrain policy framing; framing determines coalition feasibility; and coalition feasibility determines policy adoption. The thesis tests this mechanism using comparative case analysis and within-case process tracing. Brazil and Bulgaria are selected because they vary on the independent variable while sharing key structural conditions, including democratic institutions, measurable housing deprivation, and access to funding. National incorporation is operationalized across four indicators: political rhetoric, media framing, public attitudes, and institutional recognition, and evaluated systematically in each case. The analysis shows that Brazil meets multiple indicators of incorporation, enabling housing policy to be framed as national development and economic stimulus. Bulgaria fails across these indicators, resulting in persistent ethnic targeting, fragmented policy efforts, and the non-deployment of available resources. These findings contribute to three debates. First, they extend Korpi and Palme’s “paradox of redistribution” beyond its original Western European context, demonstrating its applicability in both Latin American and post-communist settings. Second, they qualify the claim that ethnic diversity is conditional on whether marginalized populations are constructed as insiders or outsiders. Third, they provide a causal explanation for Bulgaria’s persistent Roma housing policy failure. Despite sustained external funding and legal mandates. The thesis concludes that housing policy outcomes are not determined solely by material resources or institutional capacity, but by the political construction of belonging. In the Bulgarian context, effective reform requires not only federal coordination and universalist program design, but a transformation in how Roma populations are incorporated into the national community.