The State's Role in Gentrification: Beyond the Co-Optation and Repression Dichotomy

This paper examines the local state’s role in the gentrification process. I compare two cases where gentrification pressure is high and the state has a significant stake in gentrification—Downtown Los Angeles and the old neighborhoods within the city of Seoul. On a superficial level, the state seems inclusive in Los Angeles and willing to incorporate voices that rally against gentrification, and the state in Seoul seems to be exclusive, and at times violently repressive. These two cases seem to align well with the existing social movement theory that projects a trend towards a “Social Movement Society”, exclusively, in the Western world, where social movements are much more prevalent, yet are contained and co-opted (Meyer and Tarrow, eds., 1998).

However, this literature can inhibit scholars from taking seriously the double role of the state that simultaneously co-opts and represses. In so doing, it can create a false dichotomy between the role of the Western and the non-Western state in governing gentrification. Contrary to this view, through participant observation in both cities, I come to unveil the underlying similarities of the two states’ roles in controlling dissent. I analyze how both states 1) mask their involvement in repression, and 2) delegitimize dissenting voices to avoid a legitimacy crisis.

Focusing on similarities on the abstract level will help scholars of urban sociology to better articulate the theories of the role of the local state in facilitating gentrification, which has been under-theorized despite the early attempt by Logan and Molotch (1987) to bring the state back in with their ‘growth machine’ thesis. With comparative case study, the point is not to discern the degree of state’s involvement in various cases but to identify types of involvement of the state that will further serve as a stepping-stone for elaborating the theory of gentrification.