바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 0023-3900

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.58 No.2
Citation Share

Comparative Study of Neighborhood Community Reconstruction in Seoul and Beijing: An Action-Theoretical Approach

Korea Journal / Korea Journal, (P)0023-3900; (E)2733-9343
2018, v.58 no.2, pp.113-140
https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2018.58.2.113


(University of Hong Kong)
& (2018). Comparative Study of Neighborhood Community Reconstruction in Seoul and Beijing: An Action-Theoretical Approach. Korea Journal, 58(2), 113-140, https://doi.org/10.25024/kj.2018.58.2.113
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

This paper compares the Seongmisan community in Seoul and the Qinghe Y community in Beijing from an action-theoretical perspective. For this, we distinguish leaders and residents as two actor groups, and consider how they become engaged in neighborhood community reconstruction in terms of push and pull factors. Push refers to “because of” forces such as frustration and anxiety, whereas pull refers to “in order to” forces like ideology and dreams for a better life. The most important finding of this study is that the path-dependent development of community reconstruction in Seoul and Beijing can be explained by the role of leadership and the interaction between leaders and residents. Seongmisan community has been led by a distinctive group from the “386 generation” who are deeply engaged in people-oriented activities. In contrast, the Qinghe Y community has been led by a group of expert sociologists from Tsinghua University. This paper also shows what concrete outcomes have been produced through community reconstruction in each case, and how the leading group and community residents have interacted to bring about change. Based on analysis of these findings, the two cases are compared with respect to their relative strengths and weaknesses. In this paper we also assess the significance of the comparative case study methodology as adopted for this study.

keywords
community reconstruction, social governance, action-theoretical perspective, comparative case study, Seongmisan community in Seoul, Qinghe Y community in Beijing

Reference

1.

An, Jaeheung. 2006. “Methodological Identity of Comparative Method.” Korean Association of International Studies 46.2: 31–56.

2.

Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “For a Public Socioogy.” American Sociological Review 70.1:4–28.

3.

Burawoy, Michael. 2012. “Whither Chinese Sociology?: An Interview with Liping Sun.” Global Dialogue 2.4. Accessed December 25, 2017. http://isa-global-dialogue.net/whither-chinese-sociology-an-interview-with-liping-sun-2.

4.

Chu, In-Young. 2017. “Chinno-ui bunhwa…Seouldae chulsin 386 sedae bunseok gyeolgwa boni” (Differentiation of Those Friendly with Roh: Looking at the Results Analysis of the Seoul National Univerisy Graduates of the 1980s). Jungangilbo. December 16, 2017. http://mnews.joins.com/article/22209601?cloc=joongang.

5.

City of Seoul. 2013. “Seoul, Life, and People: White Paper on the Neighborhood Communities of Seoul.” Accessed November 15, 2017. http://www.seoulmaeul.org.

6.

Engeli, Isabelle, and Christine Rothmayr Allison, eds. 2014. Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptual and Methodological Challenge. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

7.

Faure, Andrew Murray. 1994. “Some Methodological Problems in Comparative Politics.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 6.3: 307–322.

8.

George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennet. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

9.

Han, Sang-Jin. 1991. Jungminiron-ui tamsaek (Searching for a Theory of Middling Grassroots). Seoul: Munjisa.

10.

Han, Sang-Jin. 1998. “The Korean Path to Modernization and Risk Society.” Korea Journal 38.1: 5–27.

11.

Han, Sang-Jin. 2003. Sampalyuk sedae: geu bit-gwa geuneul (386 Generation: Its Brightness and Dark Side). Seoul: Munhaksasang.

12.

Han, Sang-Jin. 2015. Jungmin iron-gwa hanguk sahoe (Middle Grassroots Theory and Korean Society). Seoul: Joongmin Publishers. E-book.

13.

Han, Sang-Jin. 2017a. “Global Risks and Cosmopolitan Citizens in East Asia: A Look at the Fukushima Disaster and Nuclear Power Plant.” Development and Society 46.2:195–225.

14.

Han, Sang-Jin, ed. 2017b. Beyond Risk Society: Ulrich Beck and the Korean Debate. Seoul:Seoul National University Press.

15.

Han, Sang-Jin. 2017c. “The College Students of the 1980s as Distinctive Joongmin in Korea.” Paper presented at the 14th Joongmin Forum. Seoul. December 11.

16.

Han, Sang-Jin. 2018a. “The Historical Context of Social Governance Experiment in East Asia: The Challenges of Risk Society.” Korea Journal 58.1: 12–40.

17.

Han, Sang-Jin. 2018b. “On This Topic: Individualization and Community Reconstruction.”Korea Journal 58.1: 5–11.

18.

Han, Sang-Jin, Young-Hee Shim, and Young-Do Park. 2017. “Jungguk sahoe hyeopchi-ui yuhyeong-gwa teukseong: Beijing-ui sahoe hyeopchi silheom-eul jungsim-euro” (Typology and Characteristics of Social Governance in China). Seoul Institute Working Paper. 2016-cr-22.

19.

Jang, Jing, and Do-Kyung Kim. 2015 “Sahoe geobeoneonseu-ui jogeon, jungguk sahoe geobeoneonseu-ui wiheom-eun eodi-e inneun-ga?” (Conditions of Social Governance, Where Are the Dangers of Chinese Social Governance?). Seonggyun chaina beuripeu (China Brief) 3.4: 110–117.

20.

Kim, Ji-Yeon, and Ji-Han Yoo. 2017. “Seouldae 386-eun jigeum . . . ‘jeongchihwaldong jeokgeukjeok-ilsurok bongsa hwaldong sogeukjeok’” (Where Are the SNU 80’s Graduates Now. . . . The More Active in Political Activity, the Less Active in Service Activities). Chosun Ilbo. December 13, 2017. http://m.news.naver.com/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=102&oid=023&aid=0003337288.

21.

Lachappelle, Francois. 2016. “The Genesis of a Chinese Public Sociologist.” Global Dialogue 6.2. Accessed December 25, 2016. http://isa-global-dialogue.net/thegenesis-of-a-chinese-public-sociologist.

22.

Landman, Todd. (2000) 2008. Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics. New York:Routledge.

23.

Lee, Chang-Gon. 2014. “Seoul seongmisan maeul-eun ‘rieol yutopia’-ui han jeunggeo”(Seongmisan Maeul of Seoul Is an Evidence of a “Real Utopia”). Hankyoreh. July 21, 2014. http://m.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/assembly/844026.html.

24.

Li, Qiang, and Tuohan Wang. 2016. “Social Governance and Qinghe Experiment.”Journal of Chinese Governance 1: 139–156.

25.

Liu, JiaYan, Xiao Yan Tan, and Qing Yi Cheng. 2017「. 转型背景下参与式社区规划的实践和思考—以北京市清河街道Y社区为例」 (Practice and Reflection of Participatory Community Planning under the Background of Transformation:A Case Study of Y Community, Qinghe District in Beijing).『 上海城市规划』(Shanghai City Development Plan). Vol. 2: 23–28.

26.

Merle. Aurore. n. d. “The Role of the Sociologist.” Translated from the French original by Philip Liddell.

27.

Mill, John Stuart. 1843. A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive. London: John W. Parker.

28.

Przeworski, Adam. 1986. “Some Problems in the Study of the Transition to Democracy.” In Capitalism and Social Democracy, edited by O’Donnell et al., 47–63. New York: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Przeworski, Adam, and H. Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: John Wiley.

31.

Rihoux, Benoit, and Heike Grimm, eds. 2006. Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis: Beyond the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide. New York: Springer.

32.

Shen, Yuan. 2008. “Two Pathways for Sociological Intervention.” Current Sociology 56.3: 399–404.

33.

Shim, Young-Hee. 2017. “Individualization Reconsidered from the Experience of Social Governance in Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo.” Paper presented at the Kick-off Seminar of Global Research Network 2017. “Individualization and Community Reconstruction in Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo.” Seoul National University. November 19.

34.

Shim, Young-Hee. 2018. “East Asian Patterns of Individualization and Its Consequences for Neighborhood Community Reconstruction.” Korea Journal 58.1: 41–69.

35.

Shim, Young-Hee, and Sang-Jin Han. 2010. “‘Family-Oriented Individualization’ and Second Modernity: An Analysis of Transnational Marriages in Korea.” Soziale Welt 61.3/4: 237–255.

36.

Shim, Young-Hee. 2013. “Individualization and Community Networks in East Asia: How to deal with Global Difference in Social Science Theories?.” In Theories about and Strategies against Hegemonic Social Sciences, edited by M. Khun and S. Yazawa. Tokyo: Seijo University Center for Glocal Studies.

37.

The 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. 2013. “Decision of the CCCPC on Some Major Issues concerning Comprehensively Deepening the Reform.” Accessed January 15, 2017. http://english.court.gov.cn/2015-10/08/content_22130532.htm.

38.

Wui, Seong-Nam. 2011. “Seongmisan maeul-ui uisa sotong-gwa uisa gyeoljeong”(Communication and Decision Making in Seongmisan Community Village). In Minjujeok uisa gyeoljeong-gwa uisa sotong (Democratic Decision Making and Communication), 33-60. Seoul: Korea Democracy Foundation.

39.

Wui, Seong-Nam, et al. 2013. Seongmisan maeul-ui yeoksa-wa saenggak (History and Thoughts of Seongmisan Community Village). Anyang: Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.

40.

Yan, Ming. 2006. “Achievement and Challenges in the Development of Sociology in China: A Historical Perspective.” Paper presented at a special lecture at Peking University. November 28.

41.

Yoo, Chang-Bok. 2010. Urin maeul-eseo nonda (We Play in the Community Village). Seoul: Ttohana-ui munhwa.

Korea Journal

e-Submission OA Policy