Institutions, culture, and sustainable development

,

Property Management

ISSN: 0263-7472

Article publication date: 1 May 2006

412

Citation

Ho, D.C.W. and Lai, L.W.C. (2006), "Institutions, culture, and sustainable development", Property Management, Vol. 24 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2006.11324caa.001

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2006, Emerald Group Publishing Limited


Institutions, culture, and sustainable development

Institutions, culture, and sustainable development

Being part of resource management, the professional arena of property management has been significant in making a contribution to the paradigm of “sustainable development” or “sustainability”. In the literature on sustainable development, there has been little rigorous analysis of the factors of institutional arrangements, culture, or the specificities of property management as a significant link in resource use, conservation, and enhancement.

In this context, a special issue of Property Management in Volume 24 is dedicated to the exploratory research on “Institutions, culture and sustainable development” sponsored partly by a grant under the strategic research theme “Sustainable Cities” by the University of Hong Kong.

The special issue aims to promote interdisciplinary research on the arena of sustainability and property management in terms of institutional arrangements, culture, history and various facets of property management broadly understood as resource planning, management and development. The response to the call for papers collected allows the production of a double-issue.

The previous issue (No.2 of Vol. 24) covers three domains, namely:

  1. 1.

    theorising property management as a vehicle for sustainable development;

  2. 2.

    energy use and conservation; and

  3. 3.

    water resource management.

Collecting eight theoretical papers, this particular issue (No. 3 of Vol. 24) covers other areas of research interest, namely:

  • modelling sustainable development (the paper by Lai et al. and by Liu);

  • environmental planning policies (the papers by Staley and by Winstanley); and

  • building and property management (the papers by Ho et al. and by Hastings et al.).

As five papers have their foci on Hong Kong, this particular issue would inform those who are interested in just this peculiar highly globalised cross-cultural entity faces the challenges posed by the notion of sustainable development in terms of land management and urban planning (Lai et al.; Ho); building management (Ho et al.); property management (Hastings), an attempt to apply the concept of “anti-commons” used by Buchanan and Yoon in the Journal of Law & Economics to evaluate the use of resources in “common areas” in private residential buildings in Hong Kong; and conservation (Winstanley). However, this collection of articles has more to say on general principles and theories.

In terms of the concept of culture, Liu’s work addresses the idea of harmony in Chinese culture, arguing that as interests shift over time, so does the harmony. In terms of institutional approach, there is a rough differentiation between a voluntarist market-friendly approach, represented by the works of Lai et al.; Staley; and Ho, and a “regulatory” approach as presented by Ho et al.; Hastings et al. and Winstanley. Batty raises the point that while exclusivity may be essential to resource conservation, that could only be enforced within the context of public cooperation. In other words, both inclusion and exclusion are significant institutional issues.

There is no specific work that advocates a comprehensive top-down approach to sustainability. Winstanley critically evaluates the ad hocism in the conservation policies in Hong Kong but does not prescribe any blue print. The works of Ho et al. and Hastings et al., based on their understanding of alternative property rights regimes, propose that better property management sanction by government regulation should be fostered to tackle problems associated with communal property rights.

Staley’s work on the US planning regime exposes some problems in an agenda that is hostile to the market. The work by Lai et al. offers a “win-win” approach to sustainable development for Hong Kong that does not specify the end results or content but the institutional features for innovations that are conducive to sustainable development. This approach is consistent with that taken by Ho who argues that planning by contract is a means to attract innovations in the land market, Batty.

The two country reviews by Li et al. are informative about the state of affairs of sustainable growth in China.

Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Research Group on Sustainable Cities of The University of Hong Kong for the research pertaining to this special issue.

Daniel C.W. Ho, Lawrence W.C. LaiGuest Editors

Related articles