مسکن، سرمایه اجتماعی و توسعه جامعه در سئول

The nature of Korea’s tenure system and its future development has become an increasingly important aspect of housing policy and community development. A major question being posed is what are the implications of housing tenure differences in social capital for housing (estate) development? Are there differences in levels of social capital between ‘homeowners and tenants’ as well as ‘public rental tenants and private rental tenants’? The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast elements of social capital across different housing tenures in the Seoul Metropolitan Region. Using the results of 260 questionnaires and we assess three commonly recognized elements of social capital: social trust, norms and networks. Respondents from across different tenure types reported differences in feelings of acceptance in the neighborhood, and involvement in formal and informal networks. This study found that some of the elements of social capital differed significantly between housing tenures and that housing tenure 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 communities in Seoul.

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 construction 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 recently 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-contained 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 substantially. Tenure refers to whether occupants own or rent their home. 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 pertinent 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.

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 different 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 private 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 production. But unfortunately negative points can also be ignored: – Many non-public housing people (homeowners) have a negative 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 public housing development, particularly short-term public housing, should be completely modified in order to build social capital. Implicit throughout most discussions of social capital is a sense of personal and collective efficacy. In Korea, the development of social capital requires the active and willing engagement of citizens within a participative community.