IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v51y2014i12p2539-2554.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-evolution of gated communities and local public goods

Author

Listed:
  • Yoonseuk Woo

    (Soongsil University, Republic of Korea)

  • Chris Webster

    (University of Cardiff, UK)

Abstract

Gated communities are often seen as steps towards the privatization of the public realm. This is too simple a characterization, however: privately and publicly governed infrastructure and services exist and adapt symbiotically. There is little empirical research focusing on the co-evolution of private and public neighbourhoods. In this paper we focus on a specific question that has not yet been answered: does the spatial pattern of privately supplied public goods co-evolve with the pattern of publicly supplied public goods? We examine this question through a case study of Seoul, where club residential communities are common enough to test co-evolution hypotheses. We identify co-evolutionary relationships between club goods supplied in condominiums and public goods supplied by municipalities and market. We also find evidence of Tieboutian intra-urban market and show how the substitution of club goods for positive urban externalities seems to weaken the influence of general accessibility on residential locational behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:51:y:2014:i:12:p:2539-2554
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098013510565
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098013510565
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098013510565?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. Evan McKenzie, 2003. "Common‐interest housing in the communities of tomorrow," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1-2), pages 203-234.
    2. Hochman, Oded, 2011. "Efficient agglomeration of spatial clubs," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 118-135, January.
    3. Rodrigo Salcedo & Alvaro Torres, 2004. "Gated Communities in Santiago: Wall or Frontier?," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 27-44, March.
    4. Fred E. Foldvary, 1994. "Public Goods And Private Communities," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 167.
    5. Cornes,Richard & Sandler,Todd, 1996. "The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521477185, October.
    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. Webster, Chris & Wu, Fulong & Zhang, Fangzhu & Sarkar, Chinmoy, 2016. "Informality, property rights, and poverty in China’s “favelas”," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 461-476.

    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. Fred E. Foldvary, 2005. "Geo-Rent: A Plea to Public Economists," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 2(1), pages 106-132, April.
    2. Chris Webster & Renaud Le Goix, 2005. "Planning By Commonhold," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(4), pages 19-23, December.
    3. Adrienne La Grange, 2014. "Hong Kong's Gating Machine," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 251-269, March.
    4. Zoltán Cséfalvay, 2011. "Searching for Economic Rationale behind Gated Communities," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(4), pages 749-764, March.
    5. Bryon Carson, 2021. "Alain Bertaud, Order Without Design: How markets shape cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 2018. Xiv + 419 pages. USD 40.00 (cloth)," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 34(4), pages 517-522, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Edna Tusak Loehman & Richard Kiser & Stephen J. Rassenti, 2014. "Cost Share Adjustment Processes for Cooperative Group Decisions About Shared Goods: A Design Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 1085-1126, September.
    8. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "New roads to international environmental agreements: the case of global warming," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 7(4), pages 391-414, December.
    9. Ingrid Ott & Stephen J. Turnovsky, 2006. "Excludable and Non‐excludable Public Inputs: Consequences for Economic Growth," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(292), pages 725-748, November.
    10. Andrew B. Whitford & Derrick Anderson, 2021. "Governance landscapes for emerging technologies: The case of cryptocurrencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1053-1070, October.
    11. Acocella Nicola & Di Bartolomeo Giovanni, 2013. "Population location, commuting and local public goods: A political economy approach," wp.comunite 0105, Department of Communication, University of Teramo.
    12. Kverndokk, Snorre & Figenbaum, Erik & Hovi, Jon, 2020. "Would my driving pattern change if my neighbor were to buy an emission-free car?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    13. Cornes Richard & Sandler Todd, 2000. "Pareto-Improving Redistribution and Pure Public Goods," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 169-186, May.
    14. David Kelsey & Frank Milne, 2006. "Externalities, monopoly and the objective function of the firm," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 29(3), pages 565-589, November.
    15. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    16. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    17. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Wolfgang Buchholz & Wolfgang Peters, 2007. "Justifying the Lindahl solution as an outcome of fair cooperation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 157-169, October.
    19. Clemens Heuson & Wolfgang Peters & Reimund Schwarze & Anna-Katharina Topp, 2015. "Voluntary International Climate Finance Under The Post-Kyoto Framework: The Strategic Consequences Of Different Modes Of Funding," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(03), pages 1-26.
    20. Mr. Kenneth Rogoff & Yuanchen Yang, 2022. "A Tale of Tier 3 Cities," IMF Working Papers 2022/196, International Monetary Fund.

    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:51:y:2014:i:12:p:2539-2554. 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.