IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v48y2011i16p3599-3612.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common Interest Development and the Changing Roles of Government and Market in Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Simon C. Y. Chen

Abstract

World-wide, common interest development (CID) and its governance, homeowners’ associations (HOAs), are developing rapidly. However, numerous conflicts have given rise to the need to redefine governmental and market roles in current HOA governance. This paper examines the successful development of the NangKang Software Park (NKSP) in Taiwan and draws conclusions for alternative government and other parties involved in neighbourhood management. There are several factors contributing to NKSP’s success, one being early governmental participation in the institutional design, which assisted in minimising potential conflicts. Another is NKSP’s external property management company, whose rent-seeking incentives were hindered through market competition. A third element of NKSP’s success was its HOA’s human resource management in its industrial neighbourhood. The results from this study suggest that HOA governance may be very suitable for industrial districts and may also provide a globally applicable solution for CID and HOA development.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon C. Y. Chen, 2011. "Common Interest Development and the Changing Roles of Government and Market in Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(16), pages 3599-3612, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:48:y:2011:i:16:p:3599-3612
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098010394687
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098010394687
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098010394687?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. Fred Foldvary, 2005. "Planning By Freehold," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(4), pages 11-15, December.
    2. Barrie Needham & Erik Louw, 2006. "Institutional Economics and Policies for Changing Land Markets: The Case of Industrial Estates in the Netherlands," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 75-90, March.
    3. Barzel,Yoram, 1997. "Economic Analysis of Property Rights," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521597135, February.
    4. Evan McKenzie, 2003. "Common‐interest housing in the communities of tomorrow," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1-2), pages 203-234.
    5. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    6. Richard N. Langlois & Nicolai J. Foss, 1999. "Capabilities and Governance: The Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 201-218, May.
    7. Fred E. Foldvary, 1994. "Public Goods And Private Communities," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 167.
    8. Michael Ball, 1998. "Institutions in British Property Research: A Review," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(9), pages 1501-1517, August.
    9. Tullock, Gordon, 1971. "Public Decisions as Public Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(4), pages 913-918, July-Aug..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Zoltán Cséfalvay, 2011. "Searching for Economic Rationale behind Gated Communities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(4), pages 749-764, March.
    2. Saltz, Ira S. & Capener, Don, 2016. "60 Years Later and Still Going Strong: The Continued Relevance of the Tiebout Hypothesis," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 46(1).
    3. 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.
    4. Fanyu Chen & Zi Wen Vivien Wong & Siong Hook Law, 2024. "Brain drain: what is the role of institutions?," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 51(3), pages 605-628, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Mark Lubell & Richard C. Feiock & Edgar E. Ramirez De La Cruz, 2009. "Local Institutions and the Politics of Urban Growth," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 649-665, July.
    7. 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.
    8. van der Ploeg, Frederick, 2006. "The Making of Cultural Policy: A European Perspective," Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, in: V.A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 34, pages 1183-1221, Elsevier.
    9. Richard J. Cebula, 2009. "Migration and the Tiebout‐Tullock Hypothesis Revisited," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 541-551, April.
    10. Peter Boettke & Christopher Coyne & Peter Leeson, 2011. "Quasimarket failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 209-224, October.
    11. Pythagoras Petratos, 2015. "Infrastructure and Financial Innovation," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 471-478, October.
    12. Richard Cebula, 2002. "Net interstate population growth rates and the Tiebout-Tullock hypothesis: New empirical evidence, 1990–2000," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 30(4), pages 414-421, December.
    13. Vahabi,Mehrdad, 2019. "The Political Economy of Predation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107591370, January.
    14. Alexander W. Salter, 2020. "Private Prerogative, Public Purpose: Political Entrepreneurship and Management in Frederick the Great’s Anti-Machiavel," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 35(Spring 20), pages 1-28.
    15. Brown Matthew & Cardiff-Hicks Brianna, 2018. "The Tragedy of the Uncommons," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 1-22, July.
    16. Ennio E. Piano, 2019. "State capacity and public choice: a critical survey," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 178(1), pages 289-309, January.
    17. Polcyn, Jan, 2017. "Edukacja jako dobro publiczne - próba kwantyfikacji [Education as a public good – an attempt at quantification]," MPRA Paper 76606, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2017.
    18. Michael Makovi, 2019. "Government vs. Governance: Libertarianism and Private Communities," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 34(Spring 20), pages 39-57.
    19. Simonson, Matthew J., 2022. "Tax Deductions & Interstate Migration," Master's Theses and Plan B Papers 330265, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    20. Eric Charmes, 2009. "On the Residential `Clubbisation' of French Periurban Municipalities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(1), pages 189-212, January.

    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:sae:urbstu:v:48:y:2011:i:16:p:3599-3612. 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.