Junzi (君子), the Confucian Concept of the ‘Gentleman’, and its Influence on South Korean Land-Use Planning

Kresse, Klaas

doi:10.2307/j.ctv9zcjxq.14

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When taking office in 2012, Mayor Park Won-soon had to cope with the effects of an economic slowdown that led to the double-faced challenge of a reduction of fiscal income and an increasing need for welfare. Additionally, the SMG embraced the sharing policy as a means to reinvigorate community spirit which had been lost during the paradigm shift that occurred during modernization (Kresse, 2019). In order to face these challenges, the SMG introduced the Sharing City Seoul policy, effective on 26 November 2012, after the Seoul Metropolitan Council passed the Sharing Promotion Ordinance.…”

Section: Sharing City Seoul Project An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning and the So-Called ‘Sharing’ Economy / Can Shared Mobility Deliver Equity?/ The Sharing Economy and the Ongoing Dilemma about How to Plan for Informality/ Regulating Platform Economies in Cities – Disrupting the Disruption?/ Regulatory Combat? How the ‘Sharing Economy’ is Disrupting Planning Practice/ Corporatised Enforcement: Challenges of Regulating AirBnB andOther Platform Economies/ Nurturing a Generative Sharing Economy for Local Public Goods and Service Provision

Kim

Brown

Nelson

et al. 2019

Planning Theory & Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sharing economy' technology platforms now encompass housing (most prominently Airbnb); transport (from taxi-replacements Uber and Lyft to short-term rental bicycles and electric scooters); to temporary labor (TaskRabbit). Undoubtedly, more such concepts are being developed, funded, and deployed as we speak. 'Sharing' platform creators describe their work as 'disruptive' and 'innovating in the regulatory sphere' and in many cities have been at odds with both planners and residents as well as competing industries. Planning scholars and practitioners have been caught on the back foot due to the rapid speed at which the 'sharing economy' has emerged and the lack of data available publicly for assessing its scale and how it's affecting the cities we plan. We invited authors to discuss how we ought to conceive of the sharing economy, how we might understand its impacts across people and places, and how planning could or should respond to its emergence and growth. The papers we received span two issues of interface. In this issue, the writing focuses on the planning regulatory response to platforms; and in issue 20.2 we will take up the implications of these platforms for work and labor in the city. These authors connect the 'new' sharing economy to older more endemic forms of informality, to reiterate that in some ways we are still dealing with questions around whether or not informality can be regulated, and also if the extractive platform sharing economy maintains some relationship to the other versions of sharing. What the sharing economy has always done, even before the emergence of large corporations as mediators, is to challenge what Brown calls the "status quo." An important question she asks in her piece for this Interface is whether or not the status quo, in this case the traditional taxi industry, was good to begin with. Brown directly compares ride-share platforms to a taxi industry that has presented significant barriers to African American mobility. While digital infrastructure is still uneven, and ride hailing via apps might result in a user's "delayed mobility", the traditional taxi industry for some people of color in some neighborhoods meant no mobility at all. A question I would also like to raise is how the more visible version of ride-hailing has replaced and possibly displaced the pre-existing informal and underground community mechanisms for how African American or Latinx or Asian immigrants solved mobility problems before, through similar but differently accessed informal ride-sharing strategies (Blasi & Leavitt, Driving Poor, 2006). We as planners are asked to think about allowing for, and being comfortable with allowing the informal to exist and to also question planning's primary impulse to regulatechallenged by any version of the sharing economy. Nelson & Ehrenfeucht reflect that the question of the

show abstract

Section: Sharing City Seoul Project An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%