英文翻译2020届毕业设计2

1、Belated but grand? The future of public housing in Korea Soo-hyun Kim Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, Sejong University, 98 Gunja-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 143-747, South Korea a r t i c l ei n f o Article history: Received 16 January 2014 Received in revised form date 4 April 2014 Accepted

2、 2 May 2014 Available online 7 June 2014 Keywords: Public housing Public rental housing Housing in Korea Squatter settlements Developmental state a b s t r a c t South Korea is renowned for its burgeoning economy, but its history of public housing is relatively short compared to those of other devel

3、oped countries. Until the end of the 1980s, like other developing coun- tries, squatter settlements were rampant. Following its introduction in 1989, however, public housing has consistently grown, accounting for 5.0% of Korean households as of the end of 2012. Even yet, Korean politicians continual

4、ly compete for votes by claiming that the supply should be further increased by 10%. Though Koreas public housing program got off to a late start, it can be said that it has become quite grand. It has, however, faced complications such as land and funding defi ciencies, which are products of the lat

5、e start. In addition, housing stock and housing market conditions differ from those of other developed coun- tries. This is why better measures such as the utilization of private housing stock are being discussed. ? 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction Korea is among the most economi

6、cally successful coun- tries that have gained independence following World War II. With full-scale economic development beginning in the 1960s, the income per capita (GNI) has increased 130-fold from 155 USD in 1960 to 20,562 USD in 2010 (Statistics Koreadata).However,thedevelopmentofKoreassocialpol

7、- icieshaslagged. While welfarespending inKorea was lowin comparisontoWesternnationswithsimilareconomicback- grounds, the roles of family and community were empha- sized (Kwon, 2009). For this reason, Korea was identifi ed as a developmental welfare state or Confucian welfare state, like other East

8、Asian countries (Lee fax: +82 2 3408 3991. E-mail address: shkimsdisejong.ac.kr 1 The rates of public housing published by the Korean government have been diffi cult to fathom. First of all, that which is called public housing includes houses to be sold 5 or 10 years later. In addition, while the pr

9、oportion of public housing generally compares the number of residence households among total households, it has compared the number of public rental houses from the total houses in Korea. In particular, the number of houses used here means that of registered houses less than that of actual residenti

10、al units. This means that fi gures for public housing are infl ated. This paper used the rate of the number of households residing in public housing from the total number of households. It also distinguishes between currently occupied and under construction. City, Culture and Society 5 (2014) 97105

11、Contents lists available at ScienceDirect City, Culture and Society journal homepage: Saenuri and Democratic United Parties) in the presidential election of December 2012 pledged to increase public hous- ing by more than 10% of all households. In addition, there is fi rm support for the expansion of

12、 public housing from citi- zens, and this is a priority in housing policy measures according to a survey conducted by a Seoul Metropolitan Government affi liated research institute (SDI, 2011a). In another survey conducted in 2012, 77.9% of the participants were in favor of the construction of publi

13、c housing (Kim, Sin, Whitehead Housing Authority Hong Kong data). Unlike Hong Kong, Singapore directly supplies public housing, which promotes leasehold-based homeownership, and in 2010, approximately 89% of all households could reside in publicly supplied owner-occu- pied housing (Housing and Devel

14、opment Board data). These two countries have basically strong interventionist characteristics in housing policy even though they reduce the degree of intervention after Asian Economic Crisis (Chiu, 2006, 2008; Ronald Chen modifi ed by the author. a Includes estimated fi gure. 0 200000 400000 600000

15、800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 Yearly StartTotal Fig. 1. Trends in supplies of public housing by year. Source: Data from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH), Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation (MLIT), modifi ed by the author. 4 LH was responsible for most of the public land

16、and supplied 552 km2of housing land to build 3.3 million units of housing until 2009. In addition, approximately 25% of the metropolitan population lives on public land (LHRI, 2010). S.-h. Kim/City, Culture and Society 5 (2014) 9710599 characteristics of stronger intervention than Taiwan (Chiu, 2006

17、; Kim, 2013). Within the context of these circumstances, the three aspects of the reason why Korea fi rst supplied public hous- ing in 1989, and why Korea has continued to expand supply will be analyzed. Providing alternatives to replace low-cost housing As previously described, squatter settlements

18、 were widely distributed until the early 1980s in Korea. Seoul, facing the most serious housing problems, had 204 large and small squatter settlements serving the useful role of residential space for low-income individuals under the governments consent. There were 84,818 units in such areas, which c

19、orresponded to 8.7% of all houses in Seoul, or about 13% of the population (Kim, 1996). However, as land for constructing middle-class housing virtually disap- peared by the early 1980s, the government attempted to redevelop shantytowns and create high-rise apartments through a new redevelopment sch

20、eme called Joint Redevel- opment Projects, which referred to residents and builders jointly implementing projects. In this project, the owner of the unauthorized housing unit was offered substantial compensation, but these tenants could not fi nd alternative housing with the small amount of relocati

21、on support alone. Sixty-seven squatter redevelopment project areas had been cleared between 1983 and 1989, and the number of resi- dents, mostly tenant households who were involuntarily displanted, was estimated to be 150,000 (Kim, 2010a). This directly led to increased housing costs for low-income

22、indi- viduals, and caused serious social problems in combination with an overall rise in home prices (refer to Shin, 2008). Tenants in redevelopment areas, in particular, began a bit- ter struggle, demanding residential measures such as pub- lichousing.AttheGeneralAssemblyofHabitat International Coa

23、lition in 1987, Korea and South Africa were branded as countries where the most inhumane forced evictions occurred (ACHR, 1991). Therefore, the most direct reason for the introduction of public housing in Korea was that the poor needed alter- native housing as squatter settlements were cleared. This

24、 is also the reason why 17% of newly built homes in the squattersettlementredevelopmentprojectswere assigned as public housing (redevelopment rental housing) directly following the supply of permanent rental housing. Although squatter settlements have now disappeared, the 17% policy is still applied

25、 to redevelopment projects in low-rise,decrepitresidentialareas.Thegovernment raised the proportion of public housing in redevelopment projects to 20% in 2011. Means for strengthening political justifi cation Meanwhile, increasing house and rent prices in Korea would soon lead to political instabili

26、ty. This was because soaring prices during the chronic housing shortage led to political discontent. With this uptrend in price, all of the successive administrations would expand policies in an attempt to stabilize prices. Massive supply policies and speculativedeterrentpoliciesweregeneralpackages

27、(Government Information Agency, 2007). Since the 1990s in particular, whenever prices have risen, ambitious public housing plans were announced, because they have a sym- bolic signifi cance to residential care for the life of the com- mon people. Also during weak political periods, public housing po

28、li- cies were emphasized to obtain public support. As a former military fi gure, President Roh, who took offi ce in 1988, had feeble political support. He promised an interim appraisal of his presidency during the course of the campaign. This meant that he could resign during his term as pres- ident

29、. Koreas fi rst public housing was also therefore intended to strengthen the publics political support. In fact, while he announced plans for 250,000 permanent ren- tal housing units, he highlighted his catch phrase, the Great Era of Ordinary People (Lee, 1995). The Kim Dae-Jung administration also

30、exhibited a simi- lar disposition. The administration, which had focused on dealing with the Asian fi nancial crisis since its start in 1998, needed to engage the ordinary people-centered econ- omy (Park, 2006). A simple pledge was issued during the course of the campaign to resume public housing an

31、d expand it into a million-unit project in 2001. This was immediately after the end of the Asian fi nancial crisis, when house prices and rents began to rebound and citizens complaints were about to increase. Fig. 2. Trends in housing supply. Source: Reconstructed from Databank of Ministry of Land,

32、Infrastructure and Transportation (MLIT). Note: The dotted line indicates the average supply of the period. 100S.-h. Kim/City, Culture and Society 5 (2014) 97105 Public housing as measures to enhance welfare The previous factors support why Koreas public hous- ing was introduced and developed as a c

33、ountermeasure to political and economic crises. However, in contrast there should be an assessment at the active welfare policy level. Effected by the 1997 Asian fi nancial crisis, Korea is more engaged in its welfare policies. Since 1998, Korea has introduced or expanded the national pension, unem-

34、 ployment insurance, health insurance schemes and the livelihood protection system (Choi, 2012; Kwon, 2009). Before the fi nancial crisis, the GDP vs. welfare budget pro- portion was merely 3.3% in 1997, but has increased to 9.5% in 2012 (Lee, 2013). The direction of welfare was expanding to include

35、 the universal nature from past selec- tivism (Kwon, 2005). Of course, it cannot be claimed that these changes are beyond the framework of the develop- mental welfare state model (Kwon, 2009), but this is obvi- ously a different change from the previous passive welfare model. It can be said that the

36、 model is on its way to becomingamodernwelfarestate(Croissant,2004; Hwang, 2012). During the Roh Moo-Hyun administration, public hous- ing increased to occupy 2030% of the total housing supply, which was correlated to the welfare expansion policy. The Roh Moo-Hyun administration stressed that housin

37、g took precedence over other forms of welfare. The administration set a long-term goal for public housing to account for 20% of all housing (MOCT, 2007a). As a result, the government focused on expanding the target tenant groups from the poorest people to also include the fourth income decile, while

38、 attempting to reach the goal of supplying 100,000 public housing units every year. Also, welfare expansion would become a hot political topic during the 2012 presidential election. Though the two primary candidates criticized the opposite partys pol- icies, the competition basically shared similar

39、views on welfare expansion and welfare state construction (The Korea Economic Daily, 11 Dec. 2012). Both parties housing policies viewed housing welfare as a key target (Hankyung TV, 13 Dec. 2012). Accordingly, both parties came up with policies that planned to expand public housing. Similar annual

40、targets aimed for increases of 100,000120,000 units, and the term targets were 10% of all households (Saenuri Party and Democratic United Party presidential election pledges). Characteristics of Koreas public housing Despite its relatively short history, Koreas public hous- ing has a variety of prog

41、rams resulting from gradual changes in the governments policy stance that is replaced every fi ve years. Tenant eligibility, rent levels differ by pro- gram as summarized in Table 2. As can be seen in the table above, tenant public housing qualifi cations differ by program. The programs generally ta

42、rget those below the average income. However, as shown in Fig. 3, the actual tenant income survey analysis indicates that the focus is on low-income tenants; those in the lower 30% of income levels accounted for 80.6% of people in public housing. This fi gure exhibits a higher low-incomeconcentratio

43、nthantheUnitedKingdom (62%), whose poverty density is considered high among European countries (van der Heijden, 2002, p. 334). In the case of the permanent rental housing program that was introduced fi rst, 83.3% of the tenants were either cur- rent or past government welfare recipients (Park et al

44、., 2009).Therefore,permanentrentalhousingapartment complexes can be more similar to welfare facilities than a general defi nition of community. For this reason, discon- nection and isolation from ordinary residential areas has emerged as an important issue within permanent rental housing. Due to the

45、se issues, the following public housing pro- grams focus on social mixing and expanding to accom- modate the lower-middle income tiers. Still, the actual focus remains on low-income tenants. This is because tenants are selected from the higher welfare demand group, which is made up of those affl ict

46、ed by poverty, old age, and disability. This results from the belief that the poorer classes deserve social priority for limited social resources. In addition, Koreas public housing tends to be built on a large-scale on readily available public land located on the outskirts of the city for rapid sup

47、ply. Described as low- income, densely inhabited housing, each permanent rental housing complex has an average of 1086 units (Park et al., 2009, p. 16). Recently constructed national rental housing reaches an average of 668 units. (Lee, Choi, however, supplying public housing has become more challen

48、ging as the current rate is 83%. This implies that it is diffi cult to secure land. In contrast, when other developed countries supplied the most public housing, urbanization rates were between 40% and 80%. There are city-states such as Hong Kong and Singapore differ because the land was, in princip

49、le, state-owned. In most cases, public land for rental housing is rare in metropolitan areas, and especially in Seoul. Second, Korea should consider creating a mass supply of public housing when the market is ripe, or when the hous- ing stock is suffi cient. The period when developed coun- tries sup

50、plied public housing in bulk overlaps with the period following World War II when there was a lack of 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1st2nd3rd4th5th6th NationSeoul Fig. 3. Income distribution of tenant households in public housing. Source: Kim (2010a: 137) 102S.-h. Kim/City, Culture and Society 5 (2014

51、) 97105 housing. On the other hand, Korea is currently at a stage where the number of houses actually exceeds the total number of families. Koreas number of houses per 1000 people 360 units as of 2010 is not any lower than that of other developed countries even when public housing supply volumes wer

52、e at their highest. In addition, there was little change in housing tenure distribution in Korea during the 2000s. The homeownership rate reached the lower 60 percentile, which signifi es that Korea has already been approaching a certain mature status. A recent study also forecasted that Koreas futu

53、re homeownership rate would remain at the present lower 60% level (Park, Baek, Yim, Jeong, its future average economic growth rate throughout the 2010s is expected to be just 3% (OECD, 2011). Finding ways to secure fi nances for such expendi- tures is challenging when the nation has already entered

54、a low-growth phase. In developed countries, public housing expanded when urbanization rates were relatively low, welfare states were expanding and housing stock was insuffi cient. In other words, it was relatively easy to secure land and fi nances for public housing. Korea, however, belatedly initia

55、ted the construction of public housing. The securing of land and fi nances has been challenging, and the nation has already reached a mature stage in terms of its housing stock. Con- sequently, expanding public housing in Korea at the same rate and with the same methods other developed countries use

56、d between 1950 and 1970 seems a daunting task. In particular, politicians and NGOs goals of 20% of house- holds is unrealistic, even though it might hold meaning as political rhetoric. In this sense, the 10% of all households, which both two major political party leaders committed to during the 2012

57、 presidential election, can be considered an appropriate and realistic goal. Most housing policy experts in Korea believe that the 10% goal may stabilize the private rental market (survey of 100 experts in Lim, 2010, p. 180). How to prevent social isolation? Although Koreans tend to believe that mor

58、e public housing is better, accomplishing this task is far from easy, especially considering the stage of the housing market and the possibility of securing land and funding. Too much emphasis on the quantitative goals inevitably leads to large-scale construction on the outskirts of urban areas. How

59、ever,thistypeofapproachleadstosocial disconnection. So, how can public housing stock be increased while averting these side effects? Taking advantage of the exist- ing private housing stock and securing public housing dis- tributed on a small-scale within existing urban areas is a plausible method. This method has been further refi ned in the course of preparing the Seouls 2012 Public Housing Expansion Plan (SMG, 2012). First, to secure public housing within existing urban areas, the current system of redevelopment rental housing should be