Cities 27 (2010) S35–S42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Housing, social capital and community development in Seoul

Seong-Kyu Ha
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Chung-Ang University, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The nature of Korea’s tenure system and its future development has become an increasingly important
Received 25 April 2009 aspect of housing policy and community development. A major question being posed is what are the
Received in revised form 5 October 2009 implications of housing tenure differences in social capital for housing (estate) development? Are there
Accepted 21 March 2010
differences in levels of social capital between ‘homeowners and tenants’ as well as ‘public rental tenants
Available online 30 April 2010
and private rental tenants’? The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast elements of social cap-
ital across different housing tenures in the Seoul Metropolitan Region. Using the results of 260 question-
Keywords:
naires and we assess three commonly recognized elements of social capital: social trust, norms and
Housing
Social capital
networks. Respondents from across different tenure types reported differences in feelings of acceptance
Housing tenure in the neighborhood, and involvement in formal and informal networks. This study found that some of
Community development the elements of social capital differed significantly between housing tenures and that housing tenure
Seoul was also relevant to negative perceptions of socio-economic diversity in the area. This article concludes
housing tenure is relevant to the development of neighborhood-based social capital and that this needs to
be considered by those involved in implementing housing (estate) development and sustainable commu-
nities in Seoul.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
There was general agreement that there was a need for high
level of housing production, in order to eliminate shortage, to
remove the poor houses and to provide for the rapidly growing
number of households in urban Korea. In fact, there has been a very
high housing output. Most low-density residential areas in the
1960s and 1970s gave way to high-density development. This
marked the beginning of a boom in high-rise apartment construc-
tion in Seoul Metropolitan Region.
Since 1980s, this visible signs of high-rise development might
be inevitable for large cities given that available land scare and
very expensive and that escalating housing prices, coupled with a
very population density. Massive high-rise apartments in other re-
cently developed new towns or newly developing areas seem to
dominate the urban landscape. Although many of the apartment
estates with large, tall towers touted the concept of a self-con-
tained community and attempted to introduce a human scale in
their design, their gigantic physical size alone was not conducive
to such ideals. Consequently, many of the traditional neighborhood
characteristics that had been cherished over the years have either
disappeared altogether or are only sporadically practiced (Kim and
Choe, 1997).
Since the 1970s the tenure norms also have changed substan-
tially. Tenure refers to whether occupants own or rent their home.
E-mail address: ha1234@cau.ac.kr
The nature of Korea’s tenure system and its future development has
become an increasingly important aspect of housing policy. This is
mainly because of the increasing attention given to the question of
equity in housing. In Korea, a deep social significance is attached to
owning one’s own house. However, a renter in Korea suffers many
inconveniences because of the absence of well-defined laws and
regulations dealing with the landlord–tenant relationship.
There is evidence that housing is an important dimension of
people’s lives and that there may be an association between
housing tenure and social capital (Putman, 1998). Much of the per-
tinent research has focused on comparing homeowners with other
tenure types, and explores their neighborhood connections. In this
study, a major question being posed is: what are the implications
of housing tenure differences in social capital for housing (estate)
development?
The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast elements
of social capital across different housing tenures in the Seoul
Metropolitan Region (SMR). Using the results of 260 questionnaires
and we assess perceptions of conflict across housing tenures and
between socio-economic groups, feelings of acceptance and
belonging in the local neighborhood, and levels of involvement in
local formal and informal networks.
Social capital and housing tenure
Housing policies can improve social connectedness directly
through enabling households to ‘put down roots’ in an area so that

0264-2751/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cities.2010.03.004
S36 S.-K. Ha / Cities 27 (2010) S35–S42
they can form social relationships based on place and develop a
sense of belonging and attachment to neighborhood, if they wish.
This could include assistance with home purchase and rental
arrangements enabling tenants to experience sufficient control
over their circumstances so that they can stay in place.
Much of the pertinent research has focused on comparing
homeowners with other tenure types, and explores their neighbor-
hood connections. Social capital has been a relatively recent devel-
opment in theory and research. Social capital has several
adolescent characteristics: it is neither tidy nor mature. Putman
(2000, p. 19), who is arguably its leading proponent, suggests that
‘social capital refers to connections among individuals – social net-
works and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise
from them. He conceives of social capital as a resource that evolves
at the community level and is a distinctly social feature that is re-
flected in the structure of social relationships. Putnam focuses on
the capacity of communities to cooperate for mutual benefit and
argues that State intervention can be detrimental to the develop-
ment of social capital (Putnam, 1995).
Bourdieu sees capital in three guises: as economic capital, as
cultural capital, and as social capital. For him, social capital is
‘‘made or potential resources which are linked to possession of a
durable network of institutionalized relationships of mutual
acquaintance and recognition – or in other words, to membership
in a group (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 248). Bourdieu illustrates social cap-
ital as a form of capital possessed by members of a social network
or group. Through connections among the members, the capital
can be used by members as credits. In this sense, social capital is
a collective asset endowing members with credits, and it is main-
tained and reinforced for its utility when members continue to in-
vest in the relationship. In terms of Bourdieu’s conception of social
capital, he focuses on the way in which an individual’s housing ten-
ure, which is also socio-economically determined, may affect their
experience of neighborhood-related social capital.
There has been considerable debate about how to operational-
ize and measure social capital (Lochner et al.,1999; Paldam,
2000; Macinko and Starfield, 2001; Stone and Hughes, 2002;
Harpham et al., 2002). With respect to the social capital within
neighborhoods, the vast majority of studies have used solely quan-
titative measures of social capital. Within the quantitative tradi-
tion there have also been considerable differences in the actual
measures of social capital used, with a wide variety of measures
spanning voting behavior, voluntary group membership, trust
and informal socializing, through to more complex consideration
of social networks and the resources available through them.
This study represented a response to Putman’s call to explore
the various dimensions of social capital. Specifically, the study
objectives were to identify and contrast elements of social capital
across different housing tenures in Seoul. Social capital is now
deployed as a concept in many different fields. There are reliable
data and evidence that housing is an important dimension of peo-
ple’s lives and that there may be an association between housing
tenure, community development, and social capital (Hugman and
Sotiri, 2001). There have been various attempts to pinpoint the
use of social capital in terms of housing tenure and community
development.
Much of relevant research found that homeowners tend to be
more involved in their local community networks (Ditkovsky and
van Vliet, 1984; Winter, 1994; Hiscock, 2001) and those in own-
er-occupied properties had a stronger sense of neighborhood cohe-
sion than those in social rented properties (Macintyre and Ellaway,
1999; Hiscock, 2001; Winter, 1994; DiPasquale and Glaeser, 1999).
Some research has focused on comparing homeowners with other
tenure types, and explores their neighborhood connections. Rohe &
Basolo’s work has strongly shaped that homeownership creates
incentives to improve one’s local area, as the value of the home
High levels of
social capital
I II
Owner Renter
III IV
Low levels of
social capital
Fig. 1. Levels of social capital by tenure types.
is tied to the quality of the community (Rohe and Basolo, 1997).
It is also argued that homeownership provides a barrier to geo-
graphical mobility (Glaeser and Sacerdote, 2000; Reingold et al.,
2001). Homeowners felt more part of their neighborhood commu-
nity than compared to social housing tenants in UK (Hiscock,
2001).
However, according to Ziersch and Arthurson (2007), overall the
findings indicate that housing tenure is pertinent to the develop-
ment of neighborhood-related social capital. Private rental tenants
fared worst on a number of the social capital indicators. They ar-
gued that the development of social capital varies between public
and community housing tenants. In addition, some differences in
social networks have been found amongst public housing tenants,
depending on whether their housing is clustered together or scat-
tered (interdispersed) more widely amongst homeowners.
In a comparison study of scattered site and clustered public
housing located within one wealthy suburb in Washington, DC,
Kleit (2001) found that residents interdispersed amongst home-
owners had broader social networks than clustered residents,
and that these networks extended beyond the immediate neigh-
borhood. Alternatively, where public residents were clustered to-
gether they were more reliant on those who lived close by.
There are a few studies on the issue of social capital in terms of
housing tenure in Seoul. Not much research has focused on com-
paring homeowners with other tenure types, and explores their
neighborhood connections on social capital and housing tenure
in Korea. Some studies in Korea suggest that the estates for home-
owners tend to be more involved in their local community net-
works such as joining local organizations working to solve local
problems and in local social interactions (Chun, 2004; Seo, 2007;
Chung, 2006). Chun (2004) observed that in terms of demographic
characteristics, people with children are likely to participate more
in the local community than are those without children.
This study explores the experiences of residents across a range
of housing tenures (homeowner, private rental, long-term public
rental, 5-year public rental) living in a socio-economically diverse
Seoul neighborhood. This study provides some insight into ‘the dif-
ferences in levels of social capital between non-homeowning
tenures’.
From the literature, it is possible to identify a number of pro-
posed conceptual component elements that individually and to-
gether are believed to constitute social capital. This can be
conceptualized in terms of networks, norms, and social trust that
facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefits. As
shown in Fig. 1, different housing tenures vary in the levels of so-
cial capital by tenure group.
Housing development and social capital
Mass apartment construction
In urban areas, the maze of narrow alleys lined by single or two-
storey houses, which characterize the old residential areas, was
 S.-K. Ha / Cities 27 (2010) S35–S42 S37

Table 1
Dwelling stock by housing types in Korea (1980–2005) (units: no. of dwelling units, %).

Whole country Urban areasa SMR

1980 2005 1980 2005 1980 2005
Detached house 4652,127 (87.46) 3984,954 (31.89) 2515,439 (79.98) 517,472 (43.20) 1271,246 (77.22) 1040,748 (18.79)
Apartment 373,710 (7.03) 6626,957 (53.03) 363,124 (11.55) 542,611 (45.30) 223,666 (13.59) 3238,781 (58.47)
Row house 161,795 (3.04) 1164,251 (9.31) 151,953 (4.83) 41,734 (3.48) 99,761 (6.06) 888,827 (16.06)
etcb 131,248 (2.47) 718,665 (5.77) 114,417 (3.64) 95,782 (7.84) 51,575 (3.13) 307,965 (5.58)
Total 5318,880 (100.00) 12,494,827 (100.00) 3144.933 (100.00) 1197,599 (100.00) 1646,248 (100.00) 5539,321 (100.00)

Sources: National Statistical Office, Population and Housing Census, various years.
a
Urban areas include small cities (Eup) with 20,000–50,000 people.
b
Dwelling units in the building not intended for human habitation and living quarters other than housing units.

frequently interrupted by a group of match-box shaped giant
blocks. Since the mid-1970s, high-rise apartments were under con-
struction as part of an urban renewal project, particularly in the
form of the planned development of ‘Danchi’ housing. ‘Danchi’
generally means an estate, and normally refers to a housing (apart-
ment) estate in Korea.
Given the explosive population growth and limited land for res-
idential use in most of large cities in Korea, the governments con-
tinued to push towards the construction of high-rise apartments.
High-rise apartment living was alien to most people in Korea. Until
the late 1960s, most people were accustomed to single-family
dwelling units, either detached or attached, with a small area serv-
ing as an inner courtyard. When city governments were heavily in-
volved in urban redevelopment projects in the 1980s, the
construction of apartment buildings was dramatically increased.
In fact, the traditional land use pattern was mainly responsible
for creating social networks and a unique sense of neighborhood.
Traditionally single-family home is the predominant form of
housing in Korea. Approximately 87% of housing stock were sin-
gle-storey family dwellings dominated the distribution of all hous-
ing types in urban areas until the 1970s. But since the early 1980s,
however, this traditional housing type has been quickly replaced
by high-rise apartments (Table 1). The substantial increase in the
form of apartments in urban areas is remarkable in that while only
7% were represented by this type of housing development in 1980,
its share among all housing types were drastically increased to 58%
by 2005. This vertical development pattern might be a certain out-
come for large cities, especially Seoul, given that available land has
become scare and rapid urbanization process. There does seem to
be significant trend towards a changing of housing norms and
sense of neighborhood in Korean society.
A number of urban and housing renewal projects in low-income
residential areas cut across many city blocks often destroying an
already existing harmonious physical and social environment,
and leaving a hazardous working and living atmosphere in their
wake. Surprisingly, 100% of the housing in the urban renewal areas
in Seoul is apartment uniformly. It seems to be that housing re-
newal projects destroy the neighborhood environment including
social cohesion, feelings of acceptance, and sense of community
participation in formal and informal networks. The Joint Redevel-
opment Project is a typical example of disorderliness urban devel-
opment (Ha, 2004; Ha, 2007).
The current cityscape and socio-economic environment of
many traditional cities is a culmination of the 100 years of growth
and development, although most of the intense growth has oc-
curred during the last three decades. It is not surprising to notice
that modern skyscrapers command their spatial dominance next
to single-storey residential houses, while pre-industrial sectors
coexist with modern high-tech industrial sectors. There appear to
have been a golden opportunity lost in terms of developing attrac-
tive, traditional Korean cities. The opportunity was the period suc-
ceeding the tragic Korean civil war, when most of the cities were
completely devastated.
Active leadership and societal guidance could have reshaped
the city into a more harmonious configuration of the classic and
traditional cities. In many large cities in Korea, the concerted ef-
forts the government in orchestrating the development of large-
scale apartment estates during the last three decades seems to
have granted to the degeneration of the long-standing neighbor-
hood social mosaic.
In addition, sequential influences stemming from a fast rate of
urbanization also added to this steady decline. The governments
tried for many years to prohibit squatting and shack-building. They
drove away people who tried to settle informally in and around cit-
ies. Many have also cleared and demolished areas of slum and
squatter settlement, or helped private interests to do it.
Urban renewal projects have been producing mass housing,
especially multi-dwellings. Housing renewal areas maintained a
higher density than other areas. The urban renewal project has
contributed to supply fairly good quality of mass housing and to
alleviate the housing problem. However there were rising criti-
cisms on the breakdown of community, including social capital
such as strong sense of neighborhood cohesion and high involve-
ment of community network. At this stage I would like to raise
questions: what does social capital work in these newly developed
housing estates? And is social capital available in equal abundance
in apartment estates?
Neighborhood socio-economic diversity and housing tenure
Designing an empirical investigation
Using the results of 230 questionnaire survey, we assess percep-
tions of conflict across housing tenures and between socio-eco-
nomic groups, feelings of acceptance and belonging in the local
neighborhood, and levels of involvement in local formal and infor-
mal networks.
In this study, in order to get more useful data and information
and to make comparisons between the homeowners and public
housing tenants an investigation of the four apartment estates in
Seoul (2 private apartment estates and 2 public apartment estates)
was carried out by means of interviews with household heads and
field surveys for 3 weeks (between December 1 and December 21,
2008). The case study areas selected were four typical residential
areas by tenure group in Seoul (Fig. 2).
Systematic sampling was used to choose the households to be
interviewed and the number of interviews in the study areas was
230 (57 homeowners, 73 private rentals,1 100 public rentals). One
1
Seventy-three private rental tenants were belong to Chonse. Chonse is a rent
system in which the tenant pays a lump sum to the landlord and gets the money back
when he/she leaves. The earned interest on the chonse constitutes the landlord’s
rental income.
S38 S.-K. Ha / Cities 27 (2010) S35–S42

through the housing subscription scheme. While the Korea Na-

Fig. 2. Administrative boundary of Seoul and location of study areas.
interview took an average of 30 min. Only the household heads were
interviewed because an appreciable number of interviewees other
than household heads or housewives were unable to answer clearly
the questions about involvement of formal and informal network,
regularity of socializing with neighbors, and feelings of acceptance
and belonging in the local neighborhood.
Socio-economic characteristics of apartment estate and findings
In Korea, the estates have a very important function within the
housing market. They provide affordable housing opportunities,
particularly public housing estates, which allow low-income
households to have relatively spacious and hygienic homes. Due
to the very limited residential land available in Seoul, high-rise
apartment estates are one alternative to accommodate more fam-
ilies. The social–economical, social–demographical and physical
characteristics influence the estate environment.
There are several types of public rental housing program by ren-
tal period (Table 2). Fifty-year rental housing was designed for re-
lief recipients, the urban poor displaced from urban redevelopment
projects, and disabled people who do not own homes. However,
the government has not built this type of long-term rental unit,
as well as permanent rental housing, since the early 1990s because
of heavy financial burdens. And 5-year rental housing is the most
popular kind of public rental housing. It is designed for those on
low-incomes who do not own houses, but have saved money
tional Housing Corporation (KNHC) and local governments build
this form of rental housing, private companies have been much
more prolific in constructing 5-year public rental housing using
National Housing Fund loans.
The average monthly income of households in the private hous-
ing estates was 4811,250 won ($ 3701) compared to the 1703,600
won ($ 1310) for long-term public rental housing residents of
study areas and 3762,046 won ($ 2894) for salary and wage earn-
ers in 2008. The average floor space per dwelling in public housing
(50-year public rental) was 17.6 pyung (58 m2), which was much
smaller than the owner occupied apartment (50.56 pyung or
167 m2)in the study area and the national average for dwelling
units, which was 25.3 pyung (83.8 m2) in 2005 (Table 2).
For the normative dimension, a high level of social capital is
indicated by particularized trust, unity and reciprocity. High levels
of social capital are associated with high levels of trust, unity
and reciprocity in informal networks, such as the community at
large, local groups and associations (Granovetter, 1973; Coleman,
1988).
Questionnaire respondents were asked to what extent they
agreed that ‘‘do you agree that your next door can be trusted?”
Agreement was measured on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10,
with high score indicating levels of perceptions of acceptance. Ta-
ble 3 indicated that homeowners were the highest relationship of
mutual trust with their next-door neighbor and most people in
the community.
In terms of their own feelings of acceptance in the area the
majority of respondents in homeowners and 50-year public rental
tenants felt accepted in the area. Homeowners felt the most accep-
tances, followed by 50-year rental tenants, then 5-year public ren-
tal tenants and private rental tenants. There were no significant
differences in the extent of feelings of acceptance and satisfaction
between the private rental tenants and 5-year public rental tenants
(Table 4 and 5). With respect to the feeling of trust and feeling of
community norms, 50-year public rental tenants and homeowners
felt relatively higher score than private rental tenants and 5-year
public rental tenants. There were no significant differences on feel-
ing of trust and norms between the private rental and 5-year pub-
lic rental (Tables 6 and 7). Homeowners and 50-year public rental
tenants were more likely to be involved in connections and net-
works. Those in 50-year public rental tenants were the most likely
to be in a networks and socializing with neighbors (Table 8).

Table 2
Characteristics of households by tenure types.

Characteristics of households Homeowner Private rental 50-year public rental 5-year public rental Total
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Monthly income of households(won) (US $) 4811,250 (3701) 3858,750 (2968) 1703,600 (1310) 2150,000 (1654) 3408,769 (2622)
Duration of residence(average) 9.06 4.78 11.28 3.64 7.13
Average floor area (pyung)(m2) 50.56 (166.85) 29.18 (96.29) 17.62 (58.15) 22.52 (74.32) 32.25 (106.43)
Age of Household heads 61.30 48.34 64.42 55.24 56.55
Household size (person) 3.40 3.70 2.86 3.36 3.37

Notes: 1 pyung is equivalent to 3.3 m2.

1 US dollar is equivalent to 1300 won in December 28, 2009.

Table 3
Agreement of mutual trust.

Homeowner Private rental 50-year public rental 5-year public rental Total
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N
Do you agree that your next-door neighbor can be trusted 7.81 57 6.33 72 7.28 50 6.46 50 6.93 229
Do you agree that most people in your community can be trusted 6.84 55 5.89 71 6.57 49 6.22 50 6.34 225

Note: A Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10, with high score indicating levels of agreement of mutual trust.
 S.-K. Ha / Cities 27 (2010) S35–S42 S39

Table 4
Feeling of acceptance and belonging.

Homeowner Private rental 50-year public rental 5-year public rental Total
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N
I feel fully accepted as a member of the area 7.26 57 5.85 72 7.14 50 5.88 50 6.49 229

Note: A Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10, with high score indicating levels of acceptance.

Table 5
Satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the area.

Homeowner Private rental 50-year public rental 5-year public rental Total
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N
Does your estate have a reputation for being a safe place? 3.93 57 3.51 73 3.80 50 3.76 50 3.73 230
Does your area have a reputation for being a safe place? 3.58 57 3.49 73 3.64 50 3.69 48 3.59 228

Note: A Likert scale from 1 to 5, with high score indicating strong agree.

Table 6
Feeling of trust.

Homeowner Private rental 50-year public rental 5-year public rental Total
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N
By helping others you help yourself in the long run 6.79 57 5.57 72 7.16 50 5.66 50 6.24 229
Taken part in a community project 5.47 57 4.25 73 6.34 50 3.70 50 4.89 230
Feel free to speak out even when disagreeing with others 8.21 57 6.95 73 7.60 50 7.04 50 7.42 230

Note: A Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10, with high score indicating levels of perceptions of trust.

Table 7
Feeling of community norms.

Homeowner Private rental 50-year public rental 5-year public rental Total
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N
Feel safe walking down the street after dark 7.55 56 6.82 73 7.86 50 6.90 50 7.24 229
Dumping trash 2.14 57 3.63 73 3.04 50 3.64 50 3.13 230
Vandalism 2.26 57 3.36 72 2.62 50 3.43 49 2.94 228
Urinate in the street 2.12 57 3.00 71 2.44 48 3.06 49 2.67 225
Noise pollution 3.40 57 4.67 73 3.58 50 5.02 50 4.20 230
Juvenile delinquency 2.70 57 3.32 72 3.51 47 4.67 48 3.49 224

Note: A Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10, with high score indicating levels of feeling of community norms.

Table 8
Neighborhood connections and network.

Homeowner Private rental 50-year public rental 5-year public rental Total
Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N
People around here share the same values 7.16 57 5.86 73 8.28 50 6.54 50 6.86 230
If dispute with neighbors, will seek mediation 3.88 57 3.49 73 5.31 49 4.20 49 4.13 228
Enjoying living among people of different lifestyles 6.98 56 5.88 73 7.30 50 6.10 49 6.51 228
A stranger moving in would be accepted by neighbors 7.29 56 5.80 70 7.04 47 6.33 48 6.56 221
Done favor for a sick neighbor 5.09 57 4.95 73 6.00 48 4.84 49 5.18 227
At work I frequently take the initiative to what needed to be done 6.88 57 6.29 73 7.34 50 6.90 50 6.80 230

Note: A Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10, with high score indicating levels of neighborhood connections and network.

Analysis of our data suggested there are some differences in the
levels and pattern of responses to social capital across different
residential estates and communities. However, it appears that so-
cial capital in general is higher in homeowner estate and 50-year
public rental estate compared with private rental and 5-year public
rental.
Homeowners and 50-year public rental tenants reported the
greatest degree of feelings of acceptance, community norms, and
neighborhood connections and network, with private rental ten-
ants and 5-year public rental tenants reporting lesser degrees of
social capital. This was an interesting finding given homeowners
and 50-year public rental tenants socialized to a similar extent
with neighbors.
What do the findings suggest about the relationship between
housing tenure and the elements of social capital investigating in
our study? Overall the analysis indicates that residents’ experi-
ences of social capital differed depending on their tenure and dura-
tion of residence. In terms of public housing estates, 5-year public
S40 S.-K. Ha / Cities 27 (2010) S35–S42

High levels of Table 9

social capital Preference on the mixing social housing and non-social housing within the same
estate.

Homeowner Private 50-year 5-year

rental public public
I II rental rental
(50-year public
(Homeowners)
rental tenants) Opposition to the mixing social 28 30 16 14
housing and non-social 49.1% 41.1% 32.0% 28.0%
Owner Renter housing within the same
estate
To mix social housing and non- 11 12 12
IV social housing in different 19.3% 16.4% 24.0% 11
III (private rental block within the same 22.0%
tenants and 5- estate
year public rental
To mix social housing and non- 3 4 6
tenants)
social housing in different 5.3% 5.5% 12.0% 6
floor of the same building 12.0%
Low levels of within same estate
social capital Mixing indiscriminately 15 26 14 18
26.3% 35.6% 28.0% 36.0%
Fig. 3. Levels of social capital by tenure types in Seoul.
others 0 1 2 1
0.0% 1.4% 4.0% 2.0%
Total 57 73 50 50
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
rental tenants reported lesser degrees of social capital than 50-year
public rental. Even though the same public rental estates, the dura-
tion of residence make a considerable impact on levels and degree a racially homogeneous nation, it is difficult to see any racial dis-
of social capital in Seoul. crimination.2 But a form of social exclusion between income groups
As shown in Fig. 3 different housing tenures vary in the range of has come to light.
levels of social capital by tenure types. Fig. 3 illustrates that social Several questions are indicative of levels of social mix (5-point
capital differed substantially depending on tenure, but the dura- scale from ‘‘strongly agree” to ‘‘strongly disagree”). 49% of home-
tion of residence is a major contributing factor of social capital owners agreed that it is undesirable to mix social housing and
building in Korean context. non-social housing within the same estate compared with 28% of
5-year public rental tenants (Table 9). With respect to mixing so-
Social capital and community development cial housing and non-social housing within the same estate, public
rental tenants tend to have more positive response relatively than
Social capital includes community cohesion, connectedness, homeowners and private rental tenants (Table 10).
reciprocity, fellowship and commonly accepted rules. When social Some people recognized that social housing would give a nega-
capital is undercapitalized, the result is high levels of mistrust. It tive impact to the neighborhood. Non-social housing residents
cannot be created instantly, and the very fact of trying to con- speculate that because of neighboring social housing in line with
sciously create it or direct it can create resistance. People resist the negative impression on poverty, there has been relative decline
being instrumentalized for even the best of reasons. Social capital in the value of their housing. One of most crucial findings is that
takes time to develop, and is inherently non-transferable (Flora about half of homeowners have a negative view on social mix: a
and Flora, 1993). The average duration of residence in 5-year pub- mixture of social housing and non-social housing within same
lic rental tenants was about 3.6 years compared with 11.3 years of community would become an issue. It is apparent that they have
50-year public rental and 9.1 years of homeowners (Table 2). The no intention of getting along well with their poor neighbors, and
findings indicate that the longer residents live in the estate, the they are likely to think it is desirable for similar income group to
higher they should have score of social capital. live in the same neighborhood. It means ‘‘birds of feather flock
In order to multiply social capital, particularly community together.”3
cohesion and fellowship, several community-planning tools are
useful for awareness building, problem diagnosis, and dialogue 2
With respect to the ethnic-like categories of mutual prejudice, regionalism in
and participation in decision-making. These tools can be used from South Korean society is typified by the term jiyeok gamjeong (which translates to
the pre-planning through to the evaluation stages of the planning ‘‘regional sentiment”), something more closely defined as discrimination against a
process. specific region. Jiyeok gamjeong has driven people to vote for candidates and political
parties based on specific regional origins alone. This, therefore, caused long-lasting
Relatively familiar or self-explanatory tools include community
divisions that have historically undermined national solidarity by provoking political
meetings, field trips, public hearings and role-playing. And to cre- cleavages and fostered economic alienation between regions. Although jiyeok
ate a ‘‘sense of place” and foster connection among residents, the gamjeong is substantively different from racial discrimination in multiethnic societies,
physical characteristics of neighborhoods must draw people to- in the context of South Korea’s ethnic homogeneity, regional discrimination exhibits
comparable traits.
gether and encourage an atmosphere of security and pride among 3
The social housing estates for the poor do seem isolate from their neighboring
residents of the public estate community. middle income housing areas. And in the case of mixed income group estates, there
are some conflicts between the poor and the middle income families. One of vivid
examples was that wire entanglements stretched between public rental apartments
Social capital and social mix
and privately owned apartments within the same housing estate in Seoul in order to
close up a road. The residents of privately owned apartments dislike public housing
The concept of social capital has been focused on issues of social residents who pass through their complexes. Children in public housing take the road
exclusion amongst disadvantaged groups (Butler and Robson, to school, passing the privately owned apartments, saving them more than 10 min.
2001; Halpern, 2005). An example of social exclusion in Western Public rental housing parents have requested access to the road. However, residents
of privately owned apartments have restricted access by setting up barbed wire. The
society might include conscious or unconscious racial discrimina- residents of public rental apartments were considered a nuisance to the middle-
tion, restricted access to higher education, and use of ‘old boy net- income neighborhood. This resulted in a lawsuit being filed by residents of the public
works’ of the distribution of top jobs (Jordan, 1996). Since Korea is rental apartments (see Hankeoyrae 21, 2006; Ha, 2007).
 S.-K. Ha / Cities 27 (2010) S35–S42
Table 10
Response on Social mix.
Homeowner
Mean
Mixing public rental and owner occupied within the same estate 2.82
Mixing the poor and the rich with the same estate 3.40
Mixing in education in the community 3.02
Planning guidance for the balanced communities
Contemporary urban and community regeneration policies
have a common aim of balancing ‘social mix’, or creating commu-
nities with a blend of residents across a range of income levels and
different housing tenure types including public housing and, pri-
vate rental and owner-occupied housing. The Korean government
believes that it is important to help create mixed and inclusive
communities, which offer a choice tenure. In Korea, two major
strategies are commonly adopted to achieve a more balanced social
mix. First, in the case of residential development projects by the
public sector, 40% of newly developed land should be used only
for rental housing construction. And local planning authorities
should encourage and plan to achieve the housing mix through ur-
ban redevelopment and housing environment improvement pro-
jects, 17% and 20% of redeveloped housing should be constructed
rental housing respectively. Second, the housing authorities pur-
chase some number of housing across a range of already estab-
lished privately developed neighborhoods for use as public
housing. Local planning authorities should encourage the develop-
ment of mixed and balanced communities. They should ensure that
new housing developments help to secure a better social mix
(housing mix) by avoiding the creation of large areas of housing
of similar characteristics.
In the Korean context, balancing social mix reflects minimizing
socio-tenurial polarization and locational disadvantage. Social
polarization is used to refer to a specific process of differentiation
between people on the basis of social class or social stratum.
Where this class polarization is associated with higher income peo-
ple being clustered in home ownership and lower income people
being clustered in the public rental tenures, it is called socio-tenur-
ial polarization. And there is also socio-tenurial marginalization,
which identified a clustering and ‘locking in’ of lower income peo-
ple in the public rental tenures. Therefore the links between ‘inclu-
sive communities’ and ‘social mix’ are based on interdependence or
mutual dependence. The concept of social mix can refer to a mixing
of people in given space (region, neighborhood, and housing es-
tate) on the basis of diverse or different social classes or socio-eco-
nomic statues, tenures, and household or family types.
In the study area (estate) of Sadang, there were various types of
tenure mixed including homeowners, private rental tenants and
public rental tenants. About half of homeowners responded by say-
ing ‘‘they oppose to the mixing social housing and non-social hous-
ing within the same estate” compared 15% of public rental tenants.
This is one of crucial issues that locating residents with different
income levels in the same estate (neighborhood) may raise aware-
ness of class differences and create tensions, rather than the sought
after social cohesion.
Building sustainable communities
A sustainable community seeks a better quality of life for all its
residents. And rather than being a fixed thing, a sustainable com-
munity is continually adjusting to meet the social and economic
needs of its residents while preserving the environment’s ability
to support it (Bridger and Luloff, 2001). In Korea, the most impor-
tant issue in the poor communities, particularly public housing es-
S41
Private rental 50-year public rental 5-year public rental Total
N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N
57 2.84 73 3.26 50 3.32 50 3.03 230
57 3.37 73 3.30 50 3.28 50 3.34 230
57 3.57 72 3.44 50 3.52 50 3.39 229
tates and neighborhood, is how to adjust the social and economic
needs and how to tackle the problems of social exclusion and lack
of social capital. Sustainable community development implies that
we address not only the ‘‘hard” urban environmental issues such as
transportation, land use, and air quality, but also the ‘‘soft” issues
such as social mix and social capital. Social sustainability is another
way of discussing sustainable community development in urban
Korea. Social sustainable community members are able to: enjoy
a sense of belonging; enjoy freedom from discrimination; enjoy
freedom from social exclusion, fear, and security of person; and
improve their knowledge.
Conclusions
The emphasis of the study was to explore elements of social
capital of residents in a range of housing tenures in a diverse area.
Analyses of questionnaire survey suggest that there are differences
in the levels and pattern of responses to social capital across differ-
ent communities. The results of the empirical analysis strongly
confirms that social capital is higher in both homeowners and
long-term (50-year) public rental tenants compared with private
rental and short-term (5 year) public rental tenants. It would be
an interesting finding that the long-term public rental tenants felt
more part of their neighborhood community than compared to pri-
vate rental tenants and short-term public housing tenants.
The evidence strongly indicates that the duration of residence
make the most considerable impact on levels and degree of social
capital in the Korean context. It appears that social capital takes
time to develop, and is inherently non-transferable.
Some generalization can be made about large housing estates in
Korea, particularly in Seoul. The physical layout is mainly the
same: high-rise and high-density multi- family apartments and
some positive points can be detected in terms of mass housing pro-
duction. But unfortunately negative points can also be ignored:
– Many non-public housing people (homeowners) have a nega-
tive view on social mix: a mixture of public housing and non-
public housing within same community would become an
issue.
– Stigmatization of an estate can be consequence of social
exclusion.
– Tenants in the 5-year public housing rental have weak unified
feeling and relationships compared to the 50-year public rental
properties.
These findings challenge the continuing theme within the ideals
set for social mix, that propinquity between poor and better off
residents generating social capital.
Due to the ineffectiveness of most past and present efforts,
there should be conceptual change in what government should
do to improve housing conditions for lower income group. The role
of the public sector in housing should be clearly different from that
of the private sector. Not only from the point of view of efficiency
but also from that of equity, it is highly desirable that current pub-
lic housing development, particularly short-term public housing,
should be completely modified in order to build social capital. Im-
plicit throughout most discussions of social capital is a sense of
S42 S.-K. Ha / Cities 27 (2010) S35–S42
personal and collective efficacy. In Korea, the development of social
capital requires the active and willing engagement of citizens
within a participative community.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Chung-Ang University
Grants in 2008.
References
Bourdieu, P (1986) The forms of capital. In The Handbook of Theory and Research for
the Sociology of Education, JG Richardson (ed.), pp. 241–258. Greenwood Press,
New York.
Bridger, JC and Luloff, AE (2001) Building the sustainable community: is social
capital the answer? Sociological Inquiry 71(4), 458–472.
Butler, T and Robson, G (2001) Social capital, gentrification and neighbourhood
change in London: a comparison of three south London neighbourhoods. Urban
Studies 38, 2145–2162.
Chun, HS (2004) A study on the social capital of apartment complex in large cities.
Korean Journal of Sociology, Korean Sociological Association 38(4), 215–249.
Chung, JE (2006) Accumulative process of social capital at the upper class’
apartment complex in a Korea Metropolitan City. – Survey Findings on L
Apartment complex. MA Thesis, Yonsei University, Korea.
Coleman, JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology 94, S95–S121.
DiPasquale, D and Glaeser, EL (1999) Incentives and social capital: are homeowners
better citizens? Journal of Urban Economics 45, 354–384.
Ditkovsky, OV and van Vliet, W (1984) Housing tenure and community
participation. Ekistics 307, 345–348.
Flora, CB and Flora, JL (1993) Entrepreneurial social infrastructure: a necessary
ingredient. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
529(September), 48–58.
Glaeser, EL and Sacerdote, B (2000) The social consequences of housing. Journal of
Housing Economics 9, 1–23.
Granovetter, M (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78,
1360–1380.
Ha, Seong-Kyu (2004) Housing renewal and neighborhood change as a
gentrification process in Seoul. Cities 21(5), 381–389.
Ha, Seong-Kyu (2007) Housing regeneration and building sustainable low-income
communities in Korea. Habitat International 31(1), 116–129.
Halpern, D (2005) Social Capital. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Hankeoyrae 21 (2006), Vol. 603, April 4, 2006, p. 82 (Weekly magazine, in Korean).
Harpham, T, Grant, E and Thomas, E (2002) Measuring social capital within health
surveys: key issues. Health Policy and Planning 17, 106–111.
Hiscock, R (2001) Are mixed tenure estates likely to enhance the social capital of
their residents? In Housing Studies Association Conference, Cardiff, 3–4 September.
Hugman, R and Sotiri, M (2001) Housing, social capital and stronger communities.
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Jordan, B (1996) A Theory of Poverty and Social Exclusion. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Kim, J and Choe, S-C (1997) Seoul: The Making of a Metropolis. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Kleit, RG (2001) Neighborhood relations in suburban scattered-site and clustered
public housing. Journal of Urban Studies 23, 409–430.
Lochner, K, Kawachi, I and Kennedy, BP (1999) Social capital: a guide to its
measurement. Health and Place 5, 259–270.
Macinko, J and Starfield, B (2001) The utility of social capital in research on health
determinants. Milbank Quarterly 79, 387–427.
Macintyre, S and Ellaway, A (1999) Neighbourhood cohesion and health in socially
contrasting neighbourhoods: implications for the social exclusion and public
health agendas. Unpublished paper. MRC Social and Public Health Science Unit,
Glasgow.
Paldam, M (2000) Social capital: one or many? Definition and measurement. Journal
of Economic Surveys 14, 629–653.
Putnam, RD (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy 6(1), 65–78.
Putman, RD (1998) Foreword to the housing policy debate issue on ‘social capital’:
its importance to housing and community development. Housing Policy Debate
9, v–viii.
Putman, RD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
Simon and Schuster, New York.
Reingold, D, Van Ryzin, GG and Ronda, MM (2001) Does urban public housing
diminish the social capital and labor force activity of its tenants? Journal of
Policy Analysis & Management 20, 485–504.
Rohe, W and Basolo, V (1997) Long term effects of homeownership on the self-
perception and social interactions of low-income persons. Environment and
Behaviour 29, 793–819.
Seo, JN (2007) The relationship between apartment complex type and social capital.
Ph.D. Thesis, Chung-Ang University, Korea.
Stone, W and Hughes, J (2002) Social capital: empirical meaning and measurement
validity. Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Winter, I (1994) The Radical Homeowner: Housing Tenure and Social Change. Gordon
& Breach, Basel.
Ziersch, A and Arthurson, K (2007) Social networks in public and community
housing: the impact on employment outcomes. Urban Policy and Research 23(4),
429–446.