Suchergebnisse

The problem of antisocial behavior (ASB) undermines the life quality of urban residents. While many previous studies on ASB focused on the solutions, little effort has been dedicated to finding out the social determinants of the levels of ASB problems in private housing communities, especially in high-rise residential settings in Asian cities. Previous empirical research suggests that ASB seriousness can be a function of poor neighborliness, community detachment and management efficacy. Yet, the link between housing tenure mix and ASB problems has been underexplored in the literature. In this light, a multilevel design with hierarchical modeling was employed to test the hypothesized direct and indirect (moderation) effects of housing tenure mix on the perceived seriousness of ASB in neighborhoods. The dataset came from a structured questionnaire survey of 592 residents living in 17 private high-rise housing communities in Tseung Kwan O, Hong Kong. The results indicated that the seriousness of the ASB problem was largely dependent on poor neighborliness and community detachment. A higher level of renting in a housing community was also found to amplify perceived ASB seriousness, and enhance the influence of poor neighborliness on ASB seriousness. The research findings highlight the importance of tenure mix in predicting the degree of ASB proliferation in a housing community.

AbstractExisting literature on China's neoliberal urbanism is preoccupied with its institutional incentives and political‐economy dynamics, which are characterized by state dominance through sponsorship and supervision of capital‐market operations that drive pro‐growth aspirations and gentrification strategies. Meanwhile, society, confronted with brutal neoliberal production of urban space, is vulnerable to dispossession and displacement. In this article, we draw upon an ethnographic study conducted at the Higher Education Mega Centre (HEMC) of Guangzhou in an attempt to revisit China's neoliberal urbanism beyond the Marxian political‐economy repertoire, and shift the theoretical focus from production to consumption. In an institutionalized neoliberal context, the state–market–society nexus is closely intertwined—a process that manifests itself as the entangling of state and market, the establishment of a market society, the reflexive effects between neoliberalization and Chinese urban entrepreneurialism, and the capital‐centric rule in urban (re)development. In particular, the socioeconomic and sociospatial contradictions in the HEMC case indicate aggressive and insatiable production of urban space, which has been led by the entrepreneurial local state, but is bounded by the market‐oriented and capital‐centric rules of institutionalized neoliberalization. The article concludes by calling for pragmatic reflection on the 'hard' neoliberal urbanism of the global South.

Abstract
Under the prevailing land‐leasehold system, the Hong Kong government is thought to be the dominant supplier of land for housing development and for economic transformation. These characteristics make Hong Kong a "property state," to use a concept developed by Anne Haila. However, the protection of private property rights has long been a core value in the city. As a result, private developers and investors have endeavored to build up their own land banks, enabling private‐profit‐oriented entities to dominate the land supply market for housing development. This article supplements previous works on land monopoly in Hong Kong. While previous works focused mainly on the role of the property lobby in the disposal of new land by the government, this article offers another perspective on land monopoly, based on the case of underutilized land resources in the New Territories of Hong Kong. By focusing on growth coalitions and the projects that they introduce to boost growth and enhance land values, this article provides insight into the political economy of urban development in Hong Kong. In light of the soaring property prices in the city, the Hong Kong government planned to open up the suburbs to affordable housing; yet, the government's initiative has been hindered by the strong opposition of the owners of suburban land (including brownfield sites and abandoned agricultural land). In this article, we argue that these landowners with vested land interests are anti‐growth coalitions rather than pro‐growth coalitions. We demonstrate how the city's growth machine is subverted by the hoarding of land in the suburbs by a small group of people.