Abstract
The housing reform that started in 1978 has resulted in the proliferation of multi-owned property (MOP) in China. Unfortunately, Chinese MOP owners have been slow to embrace building care culture. Within this background, this book chapter aims to explore the following two questions. First, what are the institutional barriers to engaging MOP owners with management activities? Second, under the same institutional system, what are the determinants of participation behaviour of MOP owners in management? For the first question, the book chapter presents a brief but critical review of the Chinese institutional system by comparing it with those of other Asian countries. For the second question, it conducts an empirical study of owner participation by using data extracted from the Chinese General Society Survey 2010. The findings in this chapter have implications for the formulation of government policies which aim to promote owner participation in management.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
An owner association is an organisation consisting of all owners of an MOP development. It can represent owners to deal with management affairs related to the development.
- 2.
The data were from The Survey Report of Property Management in Beijing published by the Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, The report can be downloaded from the website of http://www.bjjs.gov.cn/publish/portal0/tab662/info87440.htm (accessed on 2015-09-19).
- 3.
The data were from Da yoo Newspaper Guangzhou, http://news.dayoo.com/guangzhou/201311/05/73437_33328726.htm (accessed on 2015-09-19).
- 4.
The Property Law of China is regarded as the foundation of property rights law.
- 5.
An urban resident committee is a grassroots government organisation which is responsible for community governance.
- 6.
The original Conway and Hachen’s (2005) analytic framework summarised four categories of factors. The fourth category is grievance. Conway and Hanchen (2005) argued that one’s grievance towards management can provoke participation behaviours. However, our data did not contain any information on owners’ grievance. Therefore, the variable owners’ grievance is omitted by this research.
- 7.
The CGSS 2010 data set and its questionnaire were downloaded from the website of the Chinese National Survey Data Archive (http://www.cssod.org/index.php?r=projects/view&id=60132134 accessed in 2015-07-30). The details of its sampling process can be found on the webpage of Chinese General Social Survey (http://www.chinagss.org/index.php?r=index/sample accessed in 2015-07-30).
- 8.
The residential properties owned by rural households are often under the single ownership arrangement.
- 9.
The CGSS 2010 did not distinguish households in multi-owned residential properties and households from single-owned residential properties. Therefore, this study used the criterion of forming an owners association to exclude the cases which were not owners of multi-owned residential properties.
- 10.
Theoretically, a person’s self-efficacy is measured by his or her perception of personal influence on the final management outcome. However, there was no such information in the CGSS 2010. In Conway and Hachen’ (2005) study, they used ‘whether or not a respondent is a registered vote’ as a proxy for self-efficacy. Following their approach, this study used ‘whether or not an owner voted in the election for members of urban resident committee’ as a proxy of self-efficacy.
- 11.
Sampson et al. (1997) argued that one construct of group-efficacy is neighbourly mutual trust’. Unfortunately, there was no such information on ‘neighbourly mutual trust’ in the CGSS 2010. Therefore, the author used ‘trust of people’ as a proxy of ‘neighbourly mutual trust’.
- 12.
There was significant differences between the fourth and the last income group (p-value=0.01<0.05, the Value of B was1.028, the value of Exp (B) was 2.794).
References
Chen, L., and H. Mostert. 2007. The Unavoidable Necessity of Formalizing Condominium Ownership in China: A Pilot Study. Asian Journal of Comparative Law 2 (1): 1–30.
Cheng, P. 2013. A Study on Owners Committee in State-Market-Society Perspective: Based on the Community Ethnographic Investigation in B City. Journal of Public Management 10 (3): 75–89.
Conway, B.P., and D.S. Hachen. 2005. Attachments, Grievances, Resources, and Efficacy: The Determinants of Tenants Association Participation Among Public Housing Tenants. Journal of Urban Affairs 27 (1): 25–52.
Deng, F. 2014. Why Couldn’t the Neighbourhood Committee Replace HOA in China? Working paper. Chongqing: Chongqing Technology & Business University.
Guo, R.X., D.L. Li, and J. Li. 2008. Research on Special Maintenance Fund Management Based on Condominium Ownership Theory. Construction Economy 12: 20–21.
Huang, X.X. 2013. State Strategic Actions at the Grass-Roots Levels and Community Process: A Community Story of Autonomous Governance by the Owners of Nanyuan. Society 4: 148–175.
Li, L.M., and S.M. Li. 2013. Becoming Homeowners: The Emergence and Use of Online Neighborhood Forums in Transitional Urban China. Habitat International 38: 232–239.
Liu, A. 2012. The Dilemma Faced by the Owners’ Committee. Urban Problems 03: 98–102.
Ostrom, E. 1999. Design Principles and Threats to Sustainable Organisations That Manage Commons. Paper Presented at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis W99-6 Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change, Indiana University.
Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science 277 (5328): 918–924.
Talo, C., T. Mannarini, and A. Rochira. 2014. Sense of Community and Community Participation: A Meta-analytic Review. Social Indicator Research 117: 1–28.
Tomba, L.G. 2005. Residential Space and Collective Interest Formation in Beijing’s Housing Disputes. The China Quarterly 184: 934–951.
Wang, F. 2013. Determinants of the Effectiveness of Chinese Homeowner Associations in Solving Neighbourhood Issues. Urban Affairs Review 50: 311–339.
Wang, J.S., and J. Wu. 2010. A Study of Maintenance Funds Management Problems and Their Solutions. Modern Property 9 (11): 23–25.
Wang, H.S., and W. Ying. 2011. Visible and Invisible State in Grass-roots Society: Episodes in a Commercial Housing Enclave. Sociological Studies 1: 63–95.
Yau, Y. 2010. Sense of Community and Homeowner Participation in Housing Management: A Study of Hong Kong. Urbani izziv 21 (1): 126–135.
Yau, Yung. 2011. Collectivism and Activism in Housing Management in Hong Kong. Habitat International 35 (2): 327–334.
———. 2014. Perceived Efficacies and Collectivism in Multi-owned Housing Management. Habitat International 43: 133–141.
Yip, N.M., and Y.H. Jiang. 2011. Homeowners United: The Attempt to Create Lateral Networks of Homeowners’ Associations in Urban China. Journal of Contemporary China 20 (72): 735–750.
Yip, N.M., R.G. Huang, and X.Y. Sun. 2014. Homeowners’ Activism and the Rule of Law in Urban China. China Journal of Social Work 7 (2): 175–188.
Zhu, Y.S. 2015. Toward Community Engagement: Can the Built Environment Help? Grassroots Participation and Communal Space in Chinese Urban Communities. Habitat International 46: 44–53.
Zhu, Y.S., W. Breitung, and S.M. Li. 2012. The Changing Meaning of Neighborhood Attachment in Chinese Commodity Housing Estates: Evidence from Guangzhou. Urban Studies 49 (11): 2439–2457.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gao, L.W. (2018). Promoting Owner Participation in Management. In: Altmann, E., Gabriel, M. (eds) Multi-Owned Property in the Asia-Pacific Region. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56988-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56988-2_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-56987-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-56988-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)