Residential Enclosure, Power and Relationality: Rethinking Sociopolitical Relations in Southeast Asian Cities

Abstract

As in many other areas around the globe, enclosed residential spaces have proliferated in Southeast Asia since the 1990s. Recent publications have presented such gated communities as ‘porous enclaves', implying multiple socio‐spatial dynamics of movements through gates and walls. However, the enclave model does not suffice for analyzing the relational dynamics generated by enclosed residential estates. The concept of ‘ecotonal space' and social geography are used to show, in the case of Cambodia's capital Phnom Penh, that the enclosure and its borders are producers and products of multiple social, spatial, economic and political relations, both symbolic and material. Property developers assert their position as an emerging elite in the city's society and politics, a process based on different types of everyday relations they have with the inhabitants of their residential estates and territorial institutions. The enclosed residential estate can serve as a resource for deploying new power relations. Consubstantial with the neopatrimonial nature of the Cambodian economy and politics, this process is a response to the opacity and uncertainty of real estate markets and urban development.

The variegated role of the state in different gated neighbourhoods in China

“…However, Kirby (2006) suggests paying more attention to these enclosed residential developments as they are contextualised in local society and politics. Furthermore, Fauveaud (2016) reinforces 2 this point of view in a recent study, considering gated communities to have a diversity of developments and heterogeneous meanings. First, the variation in land rights, local development strategies and the power of territorial institutions; second, the diverse development contents, such as functions and locations; third, consumers' choices on housing and public goods; and finally, the interplay of different stakeholders during the production and governance of the enclosed space (ibid).…”

“…Nevertheless, concerning changing local governance, Fauveaud (2016) points out that gated communities are produced by specific social and political drives, and proposes a closer look at the process that shapes gated community development.…”

“…Additionally, the burgeoning literature based on Asian countries has tended to see the development of contemporary gated communities as a way of modernising urban space, as, for instance, in Vietnam where it is part of urban mega-project development (Labbé and Boudreau, 2015). In the Philippines, gated developments are associated with newer urban areas (Ortega, 2012), and in Cambodia, enclosed residential estates reflect symbolic and material urban development produced by new power relations between developers and local authorities (Fauveaud, 2016).…”

“…From this point of view, private governance is encouraged by local governments for piloting a way through urban changes, representing an evolution of collective cost arrangements (Foldvary, 1994). Nevertheless, concerning changing local governance, Fauveaud (2016) points out that gated communities are produced by specific social and political drives, and proposes a closer look at the process that shapes gated community development.…”

The Meaning of “Private Governance” in Urban China: Researching Residents’ Preferences and Satisfaction

“…Burgeoning research has concentrated on gated residential neighbourhoods, ranging from masterplanned estates in Australia (McGuirk and Dowling 2007), gated communities in North America (Low 2003, Kirby 2008 and Europe (Webster 2002, Raposo 2006, Cséfalvay 2011, Hirt 2012, enclaves for the global elite in Singapore (Pow 2011), to porous space in the Philippines (Fauveaud 2016). Scholars have defined these gated residential neighbourhoods as forms of private governance wherein homeowners create their own covenants and contract private firms for professional management (McKenzie 1994, Gordon 2004).…”