What are the Factors Encouraging Neighbourhood Associations to Assume Roles in Urban Governance?

  • Jung Wook KimEmail author
Original Paper


This study addresses the research question: ‘What factors encourage neighbourhood associations to assume the roles of a service provider and a local government partner in urban governance?’ For that purpose, a survey with the title ‘Understanding the Roles of Neighbourhood Associations in Urban Governance’ was conducted with 154 representatives of neighbourhood associations in Seoul. Social capital theory, government failure theory, and third-party government theory offered a starting point in formulating hypotheses on the relationships between neighbourhood interactions, community characteristics, and the roles played by neighbourhood associations. This study finds that the social capital created by neighbourhood interactions and community characteristics facilitates neighbourhood associations to play the roles in urban governance.


Neighbourhood association Service provider Government partner Urban governance 


  1. Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  3. Bae, K. B., & Sohn, H. (2017). Factors contributing to the size of nonprofit sector: Tests of government failure, interdependence, and social capital theory. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Scholar
  4. Beebeejaun, Y., & Grimshaw, L. (2011). Is the ‘New Deal for Communities’ a new deal for equality? Getting women on board in neighborhood governance. Urban Studies, 48(10), 1997–2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi, K., & Chang, Y. D. (2002). The potentiality and reinforcement of forming the apartment’s community as a regional community for self-governing. Korean Local Government Studies, 38, 159–180.Google Scholar
  6. City of Portland. (2016). Neighborhood small grants program. Retrieved 12 April 2016 from
  7. Coston, J. M. (1998). A model and typology of government–NGO relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(3), 358–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Craw, M. (2017). Institutional analysis of neighborhood collective action. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 707–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. East Portland Neighborhood Office. (2016). Small grant program. Retrieved 12 April 2016 from
  10. Eun, N. (2004). Actual conditions of the management and performance types of managerial works on the multi-family housing. Housing Studies Review, 12(2), 213–238.Google Scholar
  11. Eun, N., & Kwak, D. (2005). A study on the resident committee revitalization of multi-family housing. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 16(1), 37–45.Google Scholar
  12. Graddy, E., & Wang, L. (2009). Community foundation development and social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 392–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groves, J. R. (2006). All together now? An empirical study of the voting behaviors of homeowner association member in St. Louis County. Review of Policy Research, 23(6), 1199–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haddad, M. A. (2011). A state-in-society approach to the nonprofit sector: Welfare services in Japan. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haurin, D. R., Dietz, R. D., & Weinberg, B. A. (2003). The impact of neighborhood homeownership rates: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Journal of Housing Research, 13(2), 119–151.Google Scholar
  16. Institute for Digital Research and Education at UCLA. (n.d.a). Stata data examples: Negative binomial regression. Retrieved 28 May 2016 from
  17. Institute for Digital Research and Education at UCLA. (n.d.b). Stata data examples: Poisson regression. Retrieved 28 May 2016 from
  18. Internal Revenue Service. (1972). Revenue rule 72-102. Retrieved 22 July 2015 from
  19. Jang, H. S., & Kim, J. W. (2017). Transforming Seoul: Rethinking neighborhood. In Korea Institute of Public Administration (Ed.), Korean cases in public administration for training and practice (pp. 137–164). Seoul: Daeyoung Munhwasa.Google Scholar
  20. Jung, K., Jang, H. S., & Seo, I. (2016). Government-driven social enterprises in South Korea: Lessons from the social enterprise promotion program in the Seoul Metropolitan Government. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(3), 598–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kang, S., Lee, B., Kim, J., & Lee, J. (2014). A typological approach to the community management and activation plans for apartment complexes. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 25(2), 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelleher, C., & Lowery, D. (2004). Political participation and metropolitan institutional context. Urban Affairs Review, 39(6), 720–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim, J. W., & Jang, H. S. (2017). Why do residents participate in neighborhood associations? The case of apartment neighborhood associations in Seoul, Korea. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(8), 1155–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim, J. W., Jang, H. S., & Dicke, L. (2017). Civic health generated by neighborhood associations in Seoul, Korea: A consideration of internal and external advocacy roles. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 39(4), 543–576.Google Scholar
  25. King, K. N. (2004). Neighborhood associations and urban decision making in albuquerque. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Korea Appraisal Board. (n.d.). Actual transaction cost of housing. Retrieved 21 May 2016 from
  27. Kwak, D. (2007). A study on condominium community revitalization through resident participation in Korea. Ph.D. Dissertation, Chung Ang University, Seoul, South Korea.Google Scholar
  28. Lee, Y., & Kim, J. (2012). A study on the problems and improvements of housing management: Focused on the worker’s opinions of management. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 23(2), 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marschall, M. J. (2004). Citizen participation and the neighborhood context: A new look at the coproduction of local public goods. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsunaga, Y., Yamauchi, N., & Okuyama, N. (2010). What determines the size of the nonprofit sector? A cross-country analysis of the government failure theory. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 180–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCabe, B. C. (2005). The rules are different here: An institutional comparison of cities and homeowners associations. Administration & Society, 37(4), 404–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McCabe, B. C. (2006). Privatizing urban services through homeowners associations: The potential and practice in phoenix. International Journal of Public Administration, 29, 837–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCabe, B. C. (2011). Homeowners association as private governments: What we know, what we don’t know, and why it matters. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 535–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCabe, B. C., & Tao, J. (2006). Private governments and private services: Homeowners associations in the city and behind the gate. Review of Policy Research, 23(6), 1143–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKenzie, E. (1998). Homeowner associations and california politics: An exploratory analysis. Urban Affairs Review, 34(1), 52–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKenzie, E. (2005). Constructing the pomerium in Las Vegas: A case study of emerging trends in American gated communities. Housing Studies, 20(2), 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ministry Of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport of South Korea. (n.d.). Silguraega gonggae system [Actual transaction cost of housing]. Retrieved 21 May 2016 from
  38. Nelson, R. H. (2005). Private neighborhoods and the transformational of local government. Washington D.C.: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  39. Nelson, R. H. (2011). Homeowners associations in historical perspective. Public Administration Review, 71(4), 546–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: Thinking about social change in America. In J. S. Ott & L. A. Dicke (Eds.), The nature of the nonprofit sector (3rd ed., pp. 237–246). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rankin, B. H., & Quane, J. M. (2000). Neighborhood poverty and the social isolation of inner-city African American families. Social Forces, 79(1), 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Real Estate 114 of South Korea. (n.d.). Housing price calculator. Retrieved 21 May 21 2016 from
  43. Rodriguez, G. (n.d.). Poisson models for count data. Generalized linear models. Retrieved 28 May 2016 from
  44. Ross, B. H., & Levine, M. A. (2011). Urban politics: Cities and suburbs in a global age (8th ed.). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  45. Salamon, L. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 16, 29–49.Google Scholar
  46. Seoul Community Support Center. (2014). Seoulsi Maeulgongdongche Jiwonsaup Sunggwabogosuh [Performance Report on Community Building Policy in Seoul], Seoul: Seoul Community Support Center.Google Scholar
  47. Seoul Development Institute. (2010). Improvement of the publicness of apartment complex management. Seoul: Seoul Development Institute.Google Scholar
  48. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (n.d.). Management fees. Retrieved 20 May, 2016 from
  49. Seoul Statistics. (2016). InGu [population]. Retrieved 20 May 2016 from
  50. Sheller, D. S. (2014). Neighborhood governments and their role in property values. Urban Affairs Review, 51(2), 290–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shrestha, M. K. (2013). Internal versus external social capital and the success of community initiative: A case of self-organizing collaborative governance in Nepal. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2010). Approaches to social research (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Stanley, J., Stanley, J., & Hensher, D. (2012). Mobility, social capital and sense of community: What value? Urban Studies, 49(16), 3595–3609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tanwattana, P. (2012). Significance of institutionalization and changes of Chonaikai (neighborhood association) in Japanese Society. 政策科学, 19(2), 113–128.Google Scholar
  55. Tao, J., & McCabe, B. C. (2012). Where a hollow state casts no shadow: Homeowner associations in local governments. American Review of Public Administration, 42(6), 678–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Houwelingen, P. (2012). Neighborhood associations and social capital in Japan. Urban Affairs Review, 48(4), 467–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Woo, Y., & Webster, C. (2014). Co-evolution of gated communities and local public goods. Urban Studies, 51(12), 2539–2554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoon, S. (2002). An exploratory study on the single people time use and leisure behavior. Journal of Korean Home Management Association, 20(6), 209–217.Google Scholar
  59. Young, (1989a). Government failure theory. In J. S. Ott & D. Luechauer (Eds.), The nature of nonprofit sector (2nd ed., pp. 151–153). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  60. Young, (1989b). Third party government. In J. S. Ott & D. Luechauer (Eds.), The nature of nonprofit sector (2nd ed., pp. 336–339). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Incheon InstituteIncheonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations