& Justice
Conflict
Theory
Conflict theory is a sociological perspective that argues society exists in a continuous state of tension and struggle due to competition for limited resources such as power, wealth, prestige, and opportunities.
Conflict theory emphasizes that social order is maintained not by consensus or harmony, but through domination and control exercised by the powerful over subordinate groups.
This perspective suggests that inequality, social divisions, and class struggles drive historical and social change, as different groups continually compete to maximize their advantages and secure greater shares of resources.
The conflict is rooted in...
-
Structural inequalities in wealth, status, housing access, and decision-making power.
-
Stigmatization of public housing residents as undeserving or inferior.
-
Unequal spatial privileges (e.g., exclusive access to Han River views).
-
Fragmented governance in housing complexes, where homeowners and renters are managed under separate legal systems.
-
A zero-sum perception that public housing inclusion reduces property values or infringes on homeowners' rights.
C. Wright Mills
C. Wright Mills argues that homeowners constitute a "power elite," a privileged group that actively protects and perpetuates their social and economic advantages. They achieve this through their substantial influence over local policies, zoning decisions, political processes, and resource allocation.
According to Mills, homeowners leverage their decision-making authority, political connections, and economic resources to ensure their interests are prioritized, often at the expense of less powerful or marginalized groups. This elite status enables them to shape communities to maintain property values, reinforce socioeconomic segregation, and preserve their privileged position within society, further deepening existing inequalities.
Ralf Dahrendorf
Ralf Dahrendorf argues that social conflict arises primarily from unequal authority relations between dominant and subordinate groups within society. Applying this perspective to housing, Dahrendorf identifies homeowners as possessing significant authority and control over local governance and policy-making processes, while renters are largely excluded from meaningful participation.
This exclusion leaves renters dependent on external intervention by city officials or governing bodies, rather than enabling them to shape decisions directly. As a result, renters experience limited autonomy and powerlessness, intensifying tensions and conflict between these two groups.
Structural Inequalities in
South Korea’s Public Housing System
South Korea’s housing landscape is marked by a pronounced polarization between elite upper-class homeowners and lower-class renters. This stark divide underscores deep socioeconomic inequalities, revealing significant differences in quality of life, stability, and opportunities based on housing tenure and class.
Research by Kim and Jeon (2025) highlights that public rental housing in Korea has increasingly been perceived in a negative light, becoming strongly associated with "slum-like conditions, social exclusion, and stigma." Such negative perceptions have contributed to entrenched discrimination against rental housing residents, who often find themselves marginalized socially, economically, and politically. Renters are commonly stereotyped, excluded from community decision-making processes, and face barriers to social integration.
This stigma surrounding public rental housing has created a cycle of perpetual structural inequality deeply embedded in systemic biases, institutional practices, and discriminatory attitudes. Residents of rental housing consistently face reduced access to quality education, employment opportunities, healthcare services, and community resources, which further entrenches their socioeconomic disadvantage.
In response to these inequalities, South Korean lawmakers attempted to implement ‘social mix’ policies, designed to integrate residents of diverse economic backgrounds into mixed-income neighborhoods. However, these solutions inadvertently exacerbated existing issues. Due to uneven and segregated placement of social housing units within affluent neighborhoods, residents in subsidized housing were made highly visible and easily identifiable, reinforcing stigmatization rather than alleviating it. Consequently, these initiatives often heightened discriminatory practices, exclusionary behaviors, and social divisions rather than fostering genuine integration and equality.
Sociological Solutions
Possible Solutions:
Pepper-potting design: evenly distribute public units within private complexes to eliminate spatial segregation and reduce stigma.
Incentivize integration: Offer financial or density bonuses to homeowners who accept quality public units in desirable areas.
Unify governance structures: Merge legal frameworks to allow renters a voice in housing management decisions.
Anti-discrimination enforcement: Ban rules excluding renters from shared amenities; encourage joint community-building activities.
Expand affordable housing supply: Reduce overreliance on mixed projects by building diverse public housing citywide.
Institutionalize conflict resolution: Create mediation bodies and task forces to guide policy adjustments and resolve disputes constructively.
Pepper-potting design
An effective strategy to address spatial segregation and housing-related stigma involves evenly distributing public housing units within privately-owned residential complexes.
By integrating affordable public units seamlessly alongside private housing, communities can promote socioeconomic diversity and foster genuine social integration. This inclusive approach eliminates clear physical boundaries between socioeconomic groups, thereby reducing the visibility of public housing residents and dismantling negative stereotypes associated with their living arrangements.
Additionally, an even distribution helps ensure equal access to shared community amenities, resources, and services, further diminishing disparities and improving overall social cohesion.
Incentivize Integration
One effective approach to encouraging socioeconomic integration in housing is to incentivize private homeowners and developers to accommodate quality public housing units within desirable neighborhoods. This can be achieved by offering attractive incentives such as financial subsidies, tax credits, or density bonuses.
Financial subsidies or tax breaks directly reward homeowners and developers for including public housing units in their developments, offsetting potential costs or perceived risks. Density bonuses, on the other hand, allow developers to build additional market-rate units beyond standard zoning limits in exchange for including affordable housing. Such incentives make integration economically attractive and viable, prompting greater acceptance of public housing within upscale or otherwise exclusive communities.
Unifying Governance Structures
Unifying governance structures involves merging or harmonizing existing legal frameworks to empower renters with a meaningful voice in housing management and community decision-making processes.
By establishing inclusive governance models that integrate renters alongside homeowners within housing management bodies or resident councils, renters can participate actively in decisions affecting their daily lives, such as maintenance, services, community development, budgeting, and policy-making.
Creating this unified structure fosters greater transparency and accountability, ensures more equitable representation, and balances power dynamics traditionally dominated by homeowners.
Anti-discrimination Enforcement
Effective anti-discrimination enforcement involves establishing clear regulations and oversight mechanisms to prohibit discriminatory practices that exclude renters from accessing shared amenities and community spaces.
Authorities should explicitly ban rules or policies by homeowners' associations or private housing complexes that deny renters equal access to communal facilities, such as gyms, parks, pools, community centers, or recreational spaces.
Additionally, policymakers should implement active monitoring and reporting systems to ensure compliance, backed by penalties or sanctions for violations. Alongside these regulatory measures, communities should actively promote and incentivize joint community-building activities that include both homeowners and renters.
Expanding Affordable Housing Supply
Expanding the affordable housing supply involves increasing the development of diverse public housing options across the entire city, rather than relying primarily on mixed-income projects.
While mixed projects are beneficial, an overreliance on them alone can inadvertently lead to uneven integration, limited supply, or intensified stigma. Therefore, policymakers should proactively develop a broad range of public housing types to ensure comprehensive coverage and availability.
A citywide strategy helps prevent the concentration of poverty and associated stigmas in particular areas, offering renters a wider array of neighborhoods, each providing varying opportunities, amenities, and community environments.
Anti-discrimination Enforcement
Institutionalizing conflict resolution involves establishing dedicated mediation bodies, advisory committees, and task forces specifically designed to manage housing-related tensions and guide policy adjustments constructively.
These mediation entities would provide neutral spaces where stakeholders can collaboratively address disagreements, disputes, and grievances in a structured and fair manner. Such institutions would facilitate dialogue, encourage mutual understanding, and foster compromise by providing professional mediation and conflict resolution services.
Additionally, task forces comprising diverse representatives could identify systemic issues, propose targeted policy reforms, and monitor the implementation and effectiveness of housing policies.
Sociological Polarization
These housing conflicts are not isolated but systemic, reflecting deeper class divisions. Conflict theory reveals how power struggles over resources like space, status, and governance manifest in urban redevelopment. But managed well, these conflicts can become catalysts for policy innovation, fostering spatial equity and social integration in Seoul’s rapidly evolving housing landscape.
Opposers (Upper-Class Homeowners)
View public rental residents as economically and socially inferior, reinforcing class stigma within mixed housing complexes. Fear of declining property values, reduced exclusivity (e.g., Han River views), and “unfair burden” (e.g., shared amenities, taxes) due to forced integration.
Resent government-imposed inclusion policies that they feel violate their property rights and undermine earned spatial privilege. See renters as outsiders who haven’t contributed financially, yet receive access to the same living environment and amenities. Oppose shared governance, preferring to retain control over housing decisions without input from non-owners.
Supporters (Lower-Class Renters / Equity Advocates)
Argue that public housing integration is necessary to ensure equitable access to safe, well-located homes for all citizens. View “social mix” policies as a step toward breaking spatial segregation and class-based urban planning.
Demand equal dignity and access to amenities regardless of income or ownership status. Criticize fragmented governance that excludes renters from decision-making, seeing it as systemic disenfranchisement. Frame resistance by homeowners as a form of institutionalized elitism and inequality preservation.