IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v57y2020i8p1642-1659.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The variegated role of the state in different gated neighbourhoods in China

Author

Listed:
  • Tingting Lu

    (Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China)

  • Fangzhu Zhang

    (University College London, UK)

  • Fulong Wu

    (University College London, UK)

Abstract

Housing commodification has led to the development of gated neighbourhoods in China. However, the types of gated neighbourhoods are very different from each other, and include ‘commodity housing’, affordable housing and resettlement housing. They might not be the same as the commonly known ‘gated communities’, which are characterised by both gating and private governance. Using three cases in the city of Wenzhou, we analyse the motivations for development, service provision and property management, and neighbourhood control. In commodity housing, the state is still visible and self-governance is limited, while the real estate developer leads land development and property management. In affordable housing, the state regulates the standards and the prices of services, while the developer is the provider of these services. In resettlement housing, the state uses a state-owned enterprise to relocate households, while the homeowners’ association and the service charges are ineffective. All these cases demonstrate the important and variegated role of the state and provide a more nuanced understanding of these gated neighbourhoods.

Suggested Citation

  • Tingting Lu & Fangzhu Zhang & Fulong Wu, 2020. "The variegated role of the state in different gated neighbourhoods in China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(8), pages 1642-1659, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:57:y:2020:i:8:p:1642-1659
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098019838423
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098019838423
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098019838423?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ya Ping Wang & Alan Murie, 2000. "Social and Spatial Implications of Housing Reform in China," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 397-417, June.
    2. Fred E. Foldvary, 1994. "Public Goods And Private Communities," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 167.
    3. Gillad Rosen & Jill Grant, 2011. "Reproducing Difference: Gated Communities in Canada and Israel," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 778-793, July.
    4. Gabriel Fauveaud, 2016. "Residential Enclosure, Power and Relationality: Rethinking Sociopolitical Relations in Southeast Asian Cities," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 849-865, July.
    5. Peter Aning Tedong & Jill L. Grant & Wan Nor Azriyati Wan Abd Aziz, 2015. "Governing Enclosure: The Role of Governance in Producing Gated Communities and Guarded Neighborhoods in Malaysia," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 112-128, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xuerui Shi & Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling & Hong Kok Wang, 2022. "Sustainable Collective Action in High-Rise Gated Communities: Evidence from Shanxi, China Using Ostrom’s Design Principles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-21, November.
    2. Zheng Wang & Jie Shen & Xiang Luo, 2023. "Can residents regain their community relations after resettlement? Insights from Shanghai," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(5), pages 962-980, April.
    3. Shengchen Du & Hongze Tan, 2023. "Communities in Transitions: Reflection on the Impact of the Outbreak of COVID-19 on Urban China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Danielle Labbé & Gabriel Fauveaud, 2022. "Institutional straddling: Negotiating micro-governance in Hanoi’s new urban areas," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(4), pages 933-949, June.
    5. Karin Grundström & Christine Lelévrier, 2023. "Imposing ‘Enclosed Communities’? Urban Gating of Large Housing Estates in Sweden and France," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Ling Li & Wayne Xinwei Wan & Shenjing He, 2021. "The Heightened ‘Security Zone’ Function of Gated Communities during the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Changing Housing Market Dynamic: Evidence from Beijing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    7. Jinliao He & Yuan Zhang & Zhenzhen Yi, 2023. "Towards resilient neighbourhood governance: social tensions in Shanghai’s gated communities before and during the pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Yiru Jia & Nicky Morrison & Franziska Sielker, 2023. "Delivering common property in Chinese contractual communities: Law, power and practice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(16), pages 3272-3293, December.
    9. Shengchen Du & Hongze Tan, 2022. "Location Is Back: The Influence of COVID-19 on Chinese Cities and Urban Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Zhilin Liu & Sainan Lin & Tingting Lu & Yue Shen & Sisi Liang, 2023. "Towards a constructed order of co-governance: Understanding the state–society dynamics of neighbourhood collaborative responses to COVID-19 in urban China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(9), pages 1730-1749, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel Fu Keung Wong & He Xue Song, 2008. "The Resilience of Migrant Workers in Shanghai China: the Roles of Migration Stress and Meaning of Migration," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 54(2), pages 131-143, March.
    2. Moroni, Stefano & Antoniucci, Valentina & Bisello, Adriano, 2016. "Energy sprawl, land taking and distributed generation: towards a multi-layered density," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 266-273.
    3. Sara Santos Cruz & Paulo Pinho, 2009. "Closed Condominiums as Urban Fragments of the Contemporary City," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(11), pages 1685-1710, November.
    4. Fred E. Foldvary, 2011. "Contract, Voice and Rent: Voluntary Urban Planning," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Åke E. Andersson & Charlotta Mellander (ed.), Handbook of Creative Cities, chapter 25, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Francesco Minora, 2013. "Collective institutions towards habitability: roles, strategies and forms of governance," Euricse Working Papers 1352, Euricse (European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises).
    6. Peter Gordon & Wendell Cox, 2014. "Modern cities: their role and their private planning roots," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 8, pages 155-173, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Levent Taş & Esra Burcu Sağlam, 2020. "New Trends and Socio-Spatial Relations in Gated Communities," Journal of Economy Culture and Society, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 62(0), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Yoonseuk Woo & Chris Webster, 2014. "Co-evolution of gated communities and local public goods," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(12), pages 2539-2554, September.
    9. Aron Gooblar, 2002. "Outside the Walls: Urban Gated Communities and their Regulation within the British Planning System," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 321-334, April.
    10. Alessi Louis De, 1998. "Reflections on Coase, Cost, and Efficiency," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-22, March.
    11. F. Frederic Deng, 2002. "Ground Lease-Based Land Use System versus Common Interest Development," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 190-206.
    12. Stefano Moroni, 2014. "Towards a general theory of contractual communities: neither necessarily gated, nor a form of privatization," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 3, pages 38-65, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Yilan Xu, 2017. "Mandatory savings, credit access and home ownership: The case of the housing provident fund," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(15), pages 3446-3463, November.
    14. Stefano Moroni, 2011. "Land-use Regulation for the Creative City," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Åke E. Andersson & Charlotta Mellander (ed.), Handbook of Creative Cities, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Fulong Wu, 2009. "Land Development, Inequality and Urban Villages in China," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(4), pages 885-889, December.
    16. Ali Cheshmehzangi, 2018. "The Changing Urban Landscape of Chinese Cities: Positive and Negative Impacts of Urban Design Controls on Contemporary Urban Housing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Carolyn Cartier, 2002. "Transnational Urbanism in the Reform-era Chinese City: Landscapes from Shenzhen," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(9), pages 1513-1532, August.
    18. Ying Wang & Nick Clarke, 2021. "FOUR MODES OF NEIGHBOURHOOD GOVERNANCE: The View from Nanjing, China," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 535-554, May.
    19. Peter Boettke & Christopher Coyne & Peter Leeson, 2011. "Quasimarket failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 209-224, October.
    20. Fulong Wu, 2002. "China's Changing Urban Governance in the Transition Towards a More Market-oriented Economy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(7), pages 1071-1093, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:57:y:2020:i:8:p:1642-1659. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.