IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/chosxx/v38y2023i8p1482-1511.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ending gated communities: the rationales for resistance in China

Author

Listed:
  • Colleen Chiu-Shee
  • Brent D. Ryan
  • Lawrence J. Vale

Abstract

Although gated communities (GCs) have spread globally, their prevalence in China is often attributed to China’s unique tradition of gated living. In 2016, China announced policy recommendations intending to end GCs, which faced societal resistance. To elucidate the nature of this resistance, we interviewed experienced Chinese officials, practitioners, and scholars—who, inevitably, were themselves GC residents. They challenge the policy in two ways: policy-rejectors justify gating as common sense and stress risks of ungating, whereas policy-sympathizers understand the policy shift but doubt its feasibility. Their rationales reveal ingrained cognitive dissonance and entrenched state-society tension. Such sentiments that resist ungating collectively create practical and ideological barriers to mitigating housing segregation. China’s GCs showcase how private production of civic goods prioritizes market rules and promotes individual values. China’s failure in ungating suggests that the prevalence of privately produced communities can justify exclusion, normalize “gated mindsets,” and reinforce socioeconomic and spatial inequalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Colleen Chiu-Shee & Brent D. Ryan & Lawrence J. Vale, 2023. "Ending gated communities: the rationales for resistance in China," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(8), pages 1482-1511, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:chosxx:v:38:y:2023:i:8:p:1482-1511
    DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2021.1950645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02673037.2021.1950645
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02673037.2021.1950645?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:chosxx:v:38:y:2023:i:8:p:1482-1511. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/chos20 .

    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.