1

Please  cite  as:  

Wissink,  B.  &  A.  Hazelzet  (2016)  'Bangkok  living:  Encountering  others  in  a  gated  urban  field',  

Cities,  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.08.016.  

Bangkok Living: Encountering Others in a Gated Urban Field

This paper reflects on the social effects of gated living in Bangkok. Income inequalities in this

little-researched Thai capital are among the highest in the world, while income groups live highly

segregated and often behind walls and gates. According to one dominant criticism, this ‘enclave

urbanism’ prevents intergroup encounters, thus undermining mutual understanding and solidarity.

This view seems consistent with recent observations that prejudices between income groups in

Bangkok are high. Reporting on research on the social networks of Bangkok’s various residential

groups, we reflect on the role of the city’s gated urban structure in this polarization. We conclude

that social networks in poor neighborhoods are close-knit while neighborhood contacts in high-

income areas are sparse. We also conclude that encounters between different income groups do

take place, with exception of the super-rich. And while our research does not show negative

attitudes towards others in general, it does indicate a potentially problematic stigmatization of low-

income neighborhoods.

Key words: Enclave urbanism, Gated community, Segregation, Encounter, Social network

analysis, Bangkok

1. Introduction

Meet Khun Chat (44). In 2003, together with his stay-at-home wife, he left his inner-city

condominium and moved to Baan Ladprao, an exclusive suburban mubanchatsan – the Thai

version of a gated housing estate (Askew, 2002). The expensive Lexus and enormous villa

mirror his success as an entrepreneur in the electronics industry. Currently he tries to replace

the live-in maid. Khun Chat moved to Baan Ladprao because it is close to his family, and

relatively close to work. The safety of this gated estate was another reason. The community

itself was not so important; Khun Chat has no desire to connect with his neighbors. It is good

that they are respectable citizens, but for socializing he turns to work relations and family.

2

Also meet Khun Rungrote (36). With his family of four he lives in Wararak, a middle class

mubanchatsan in Rangsit, just north of Bangkok. Khun Rungrote works at an electronics firm.

His neighbors are nurses, clerks, and policemen. Many have young children. Khun Rungrote

moved here two years ago, because he wanted to live closer to work. The houses are much

smaller than in Baan Ladprao, but the community is gated as well. As in Baan Ladprao, the

streets are empty during daytime, but later children play and neighbors have a chat. Every

month, fifteen neighborhood families meet for dinner and drinks. They have become friends

and Khun Rungrote is happy to live here.

Now meet Khun Vichai (39). His home is in 70 Rai, the legalized part of the informal Khlong

Toei harbor settlements1. Khun Vichai lives in a small wooden house together with his wife,

two children, two brothers and their wives. Living here all his life, many neighbors are

childhood friends. Khun Vichai wants to stay here. Every day he meets friends, and every

week they eat together. Home is close to his work at the port as well. In general Khun Vichai

is happy, but he is concerned about security. He agrees with the walls around the slum;

bandits might steal their belongings. The fact that strangers can easily pass the gate does not

worry him. His neighbors are alert and people here take care of each other.

Welcome to Krung Thep Maha Nakhon, or Bangkok; capital of Thailand, and city of

contrasts. Ancient temples stand next to shiny office towers, classy condominium complexes

alternate slums, and construction workers eat at roadside stalls next to suited businessmen and

-women. These contrasts result from a highly dynamic national economy that recorded an

astonishing growth of just below 8% between 1960 and 1997, and just above 4% thereafter.

The city has grown well beyond its initial boundaries into a forty-by-forty kilometer urban

field. With production factors in a few hands, and contacts between business and politics very

close, some families grew immensely rich (Suehiro, 1992; Duangmanee, 2016). Economic

growth also created new middle classes (Ockey, 1999, 2004; Shiraishi, 2006), and it attracted

domestic and foreign migrants, thus feeding cheap labor into Bangkok’s economy (Boccuzzi,

1 See Askew (2002, pp. 139-169) for a discussion of Bangkok’s informal settlements in general, and Khlong Toei in

particular.

3

2012; Keyes 2014). Bangkok thus became one of the most unequal cities in the world, both in

income (UN-Habitat, 2012: 69) and wealth (Duangmanee, 2016).

Bangkok’s housing market mirrors these contrasts. Poor workers like Khun Vichai live close

to their work in informal settlements or shared shophouses. The middle classes have moved to

the suburbs, into endless mubanchatsan like Wararak and Baan Ladprao. Extensive market

segmentation and uniform housing types have created a remarkable uniformity of income

groups within these housing estates. In addition, there are many condominium complexes;

high-end in inner-city locations and low-end in the suburbs. The city’s super-rich live on

extensive private estates. Thus, Bangkok’s residential market is highly segmented with

segregated income groups in diverse types of urban enclaves that are often walled and gated.

As has been well reported, over the last decade Bangkok has seen dramatic political conflicts

between so-called Red Shirt and Yellow Shirt movements (Montesano, Pavin & Aekapol,

2012). While these conflicts directly result from an inter-elite struggle over the control of the

country, it does feed on wealth and income inequalities as well (Pasuk & Baker, 2012;

McCargo & Ukrist, 2005; McCargo, 2005; Stent, 2012; Keyes, 2014). The effects of these

struggles for Bangkok are profound, as the city has become the crucible for long-lasting and

sometimes deadly political occupations. Mediation between both camps is not only hampered

by disparate political interests, but also by intergroup prejudices relating to the hierarchical

nature of Thai society (Mulder, 2000; Stent, 2012), and associated forms of power and

inequality (Boccuzzi, 2012; Stent, 2012; Thongchai, 2014; Keyes, 2014; Pasuk & Baker,

2016). Thus, supporters of the urban-based Yellow Shirt movement are depicted as self-

interested middle-class and elite voters, who ‘know better’ what is good for the country. They

are resented as ammat – a term from the old Thai feudal society for aristocrat or lord – as they

get treated better than others through ‘double standards’ in court decisions and politics, and

they think they deserve this. Meanwhile the migrant and rural-based Red Shirt supporters are

depicted as khon ban nok (‘villagers’) or phrai – the feudal term for serf that the Red Shirts

also use themselves to depict the injustice of their situation. They are looked down upon as

ignorant, uneducated, and stupid, are insulted as ‘buffaloes’ – a very rude remark in Thai –

and are seen unfit to vote as they can easily be swayed by ‘dark forces’ like former populist

prime minister Thaksin.

4

Possibly, these prejudices also relate to the highly segregated housing setting of Bangkok, as

this might prevent exposure to people with different backgrounds. This suggestion is certainly

supported by the alarmist literature on private urban governance (Pow, 2015), which argues

that gated enclaves hinder intergroup encounters, thus threatening community and solidarity

(Frug, 1999; Young, 2000; Caldeira, 2000; Sennett, 2007). With this paper we reflect on the

relevance of this assumption for Bangkok through the following research questions: Does

enclave urbanism in Bangkok prevent intergroup encounters; and does this result in negative

intergroup perceptions? We answer these questions in nine sections. We will first present

theories on the social effects of gated housing estates, before confronting these with the

literature on encounters. We translate the conclusions from that discussion in a design for

research in Bangkok. An introduction to our research neighborhoods is then followed by a

presentation of our findings. We answer the research questions in the concluding section.

2. Enclave urbanism and the ‘narrative of loss’

The urban studies literature describes today’s city with apprehension (Judd, 2005; Prakash,

2010; Pow, 2015). According to Amin & Thrift (2002, p. 32), the idol of this literature is the

“authentic city, held together by face-to-face interaction whose coherence is now gone”. They

describe a ‘narrative of decline’ that interprets social cohesion as a result of propinquity, and

assumes that in today’s cities, with diminishing propinquity, social cohesion is disappearing.

Similarly, Forrest & Kearns (2001, p. 2126) observe “a common belief that there is less social

cohesion now than in some (usually) unspecified period”. These alarmist views on urban

cohesion are mirrored by discussions on public space in terms of decline and loss (Hajer &

Reijndorp, 2001). Crawford (1999, p. 23) argues that a ‘narrative of loss’ guides this

discussion, which “contrasts the current debasement of public space with golden ages and

golden sites.” This “inevitably culminates in the contemporary crisis of public life and public

space, a crisis that puts at risk the very ideas and institutions of democracy itself”.

Over the last decades, the dystopian framing of urban development through this ‘narrative of

loss’ is reinforced by ideas about the ‘splintering’ of cities, and the related radicalization of

class segregation. Well-quoted authors like Castells (1996) and Graham & Marvin (2001)

suggest that the transition to a post-industrial or network society is supported by new

techniques of spatial separation adding to the already problematic nature of cities. The result

is a new form of urbanism – enclave urbanism – in which cities are restructured as

patchworks of enclaves, each home to a selected group or activity (Wissink et al, 2012).

5

Essential to this emerging enclave urbanism is the introduction of social, legal and physical

boundaries, relating to differentiated regimes of public and private governance. And while

premium enclaves are well connected by privatized infrastructures, others are increasingly

cut-off. Through regulated access, enclave urbanism creates new forms of in- and exclusion.

The urban studies literature has been especially focused on the emergence of residential

enclaves, and more specifically on gated communities as new affluent residential enclaves

(e.g. Atkinson & Blandy, 2006). There has been some attention for variation in this literature,

with Blakely & Snyder (1997) for instance discerning three types of gated communities.

However, attention for diversity is overshadowed by a generic interpretation of gated

communities across cities and countries (Hogan et al, 2012; Pow, 2015). Studies mostly start

from a universal definition of gated communities that takes the U.S. gated community as its

theoretical model; for instance through the often-quoted definition by Atkinson & Blandy

(2006, p. viii) of gated communities as “walled or fenced housing developments, to which

public access is restricted, characterized by legal agreements which tie the residents to a

common code of conduct and (usually) collective responsibility for management”. Starting

from such ‘objective’ definitions, studies then observe a spread of gated communities over the

rest of the world (e.g. Atkinson & Blandy, 2006; Glasze et al, 2006) including Asia (e.g.

Connell, 1999; Hogan & Houston, 2002; Leisch, 2002; Wu, 2005; Waibel, 2006; Pow, 2009;

Hogan et al, 2012).

There is considerable attention for the social effects of gated communities. While some argue

that these effects can be positive (e.g. Foldvary, 1994; Salcedo and Torres, 2004; Manzi and

Smith-Bowers, 2005), overall the literature is overwhelmingly negative (Pow, 2015).

Criticism especially focuses on two aspects. First, when gated communities provide urban

services like electricity, water, education, and security, the quality of these services in

‘leftover’ spaces breaks down. Therefore, exclusion from enclaves can entail exclusion from

amenities (Graham & Marvin, 2001, but see Hendrikx & Wissink, 2016). Second, enclave

urbanism hinders face-to-face contacts between groups; contacts seen as constitutive for

social coherence (Frug, 1999; Young, 2000; Caldeira, 2000, Sennett, 2007). The rich retreat

to the pseudo-public spaces of shopping malls, gated communities and leisure parks, leaving

behind less fortunate citizens. This undermines the public sphere, as groups that do not meet

will not understand each other.

6

Iris Marion Young (2000, p. 211) has been one of the strong advocates of these criticisms (see

Wissink, Schwanen & Van Kempen, 2016). In her view, class segregation results in “an entire

way of life in which relatively well-off people can conduct nearly all of their everyday

activities insulated from encounters with those less well-off”. This magnifies privileges by

offering residents a collective space of comfort and security. Services like schools, shops and

transportation in these neighborhoods are superior, and social capital here is larger (e.g.

Wilson, 1987). According to Young (2000), segregation also obscures these privileges, since

the well-off are not confronted with the circumstances of the less well-off. Enclave urbanism

thus endangers solidarity and social stability for at least three reasons: it diminishes public

spaces thereby limiting encounters with ‘others’; it impedes communication between

members of different groups; and as a result, the wealthier lose their sense of solidarity with

less well-off citizens.

3. Divided spaces, divided citizens: an old discussion

The critical stance towards gated communities feeds on earlier work on the dissolution of

social bonds in industrial cities. Sociologists like Tönnies, Simmel, and Wirth argued that the

cohesive relationships of villages and towns disappeared in industrial cities, as here the

locations of work, residence, and recreation were spatially separated. With fewer contacts,

strong relationships could not be sustained, causing a ‘loss of community’. In response,

urbanists like Perry and Howard and sociologists like Cooley, Park and Burgess discussed

physical conditions that could support community development. Clarence Perry’s

‘neighborhood unit scheme’ codified the emerging consensus: moral bonds, safety,

neighborliness, and convenience should be stimulated through the mixed organization of

urban functions and social life in neighborhoods. ‘Neighborhood’ and ‘community’ thus

became bound: neighborhoods imply communities; communities presuppose neighborhoods.

For decades, this assumption that mixed communities are crucial for social integration has

been challenged. Admittedly, an extensive literature shows that some groups like the elderly

(Wissink & Hazelzet, 2012), children (Matthews & Limb, 1999), working class residents or

localites (Webber, 1964), and people with lower education and income (Guest & Wierzbicki,

1999) maintain a strong neighborhood orientation. But research also shows that other groups

like people with higher education and incomes (Fischer, 1982) and middle class professionals

or cosmopolites (Webber, 1964) predominantly have contacts outside the neighborhood.

Furthermore, and partly related, people of the same neighborhood do not necessarily have

7

mutual networks (Van Kempen & Wissink, 2014). Boal (1982) finds no social integration

between Catholic and Protestant neighbors in Belfast. Wissink & Hazelzet (2012) report

limited social interaction between different income groups in mixed neighborhoods in Tokyo.

And Arthurson (2007) shows that property owners and renters have limited social contacts in

Australian neighborhoods.

In today’s world of ‘mobilities’ and flows, a community is not necessarily limited to a locality

like the neighborhood either (Urry, 1995). Amin & Thrift (2002) stress that there are many

types of communities, and that only some are localized within neighborhoods. After all, the

place of residence is not the only location where encounters take place and social bonds can

grow (Van Kempen & Wissink, 2014). In addition, school, work, consumption, transport and

leisure spaces might be important as well. Clammer (1997) shows that consumption places in

Tokyo are central for social integration. Ara Wilson (2004) argues that modern shopping

malls in Bangkok are podiums for the development of subcultures, resulting in increased

social diversity. And Helen Wilson (2011) studies the public bus as a potential place for

encounters with others. Hajer & Reijndorp (2001) conclude that we have to look for ‘new

public domain’ in unexpected places. The neighborhood square might lose this function, but

the railway station could take its place. Such conclusions align with a rich literature on

‘spaces of encounter’ (Leitner, 2012) or ‘contact zones’ (Pratt, 2007), studying the possible

outcomes of encounters in various meeting places: it could result in cosmopolitanism, but it

might just as well increase prejudices and retraction.

This broad and critical literature has far-reaching implications for critical writings on enclave

urbanism, as it shows that in a world of increased real and virtual mobilities, ‘sedentarist’

assumptions about spaces and social integration should be carefully scrutinized (Sheller &

Urry, 2006). Residential segregation does not necessarily impede encounters with ‘others’ as

these could take place in ‘spaces of encounter’ or ‘contact zones’ beyond the residential

neighborhood as well. Obviously, the actual realization of such encounters strongly depends

on local characteristics of social practices in specific cities. Young, for instance, draws

heavily on experiences in the U.S. with its very specific urban structure and transportation

characteristics; it remains to be seen if these are valid in other cities as well (Douglass,

Wissink & Van Kempen, 2012; Hogan et al, 2012; Wissink, Schwanen & Van Kempen,

2016). Thus, as Salcedo & Torres (2004) argue, gated communities might increase the

potential for encounters if they are located in proximity to low-income neighborhoods. In

8

some cities, informal economies in the borderland between enclaves might support

opportunities for encounter (Iossifova, 2015). Clearly, there is an urgent need for research into

actual activity patterns of groups in gated urban fields (Graham & Marvin, 2001; Kenna &

Dunn, 2009; Cséfalvay & Webster, 2012; Van Kempen & Wissink, 2014).

4. Researching encounters in Bangkok

Reflecting on urban life in gated Bangkok, with this paper we aim to contribute to this task.

Our research will especially focus on social networks, encounters, and the neighborhood.

Bangkok offers an interesting location for this research. This city may not be as

‘superdiverse’ (Vertovec, 2007) as some of its Western counterparts, but with its long history

of migration – first of Chinese (Skinner, 1957) and more recently of ethnoregional groups like

the Thai-Lao of northeastern Isan and Muslims from South Thailand (Keyes, 2014), as well as

Burmese and Laotian foreign nationals – cultural diversity in the city has grown remarkably.

As we have seen, economic development has resulted in very high income differences as well,

with income groups living highly segregated and often behind walls and gates. Against the

background of considerable prejudices, the question if these groups meet each other is highly

relevant.

Unfortunately there is little empirical research in Bangkok on this topic in English. Askew

(2002) provides a great discussion of social life in informal settlements, lower middle-class

mubahnchatsan and condominium towers, but does not analysis encounters outside of these

residential types. Daniere et al (2002) study social capital, but only look at low-income

communities, in relation to environmental practices. Unger (1998) studies Thai social capital,

but he focuses on economic practices and not urban social networks. And the contributions in

Tanabe (2008) discuss community development in Thailand, but they only discuss

marginalized groups. Together with the Faculty of Architecture of Chulalongkorn University

in Bangkok, we therefore set up a mixed research group of Dutch and Thai junior and senior

researchers to conduct surveys in the springs of 2005 and 2008, so before the polarization of

the Thai political conflicts of the last decade (see Wissink, Dijkwel & Meijer, 2006 for an

initial presentation of research findings). In 2015 and 2016 we revisited Bangkok for

additional expert interviews. In view of the preceding literature, we split up the research

question in four parts: 1) What is the role of the neighborhood in social networks? 2) What is

the intensity of interaction within the neighborhood? 3) Are there mixed encounters in public

meeting places? 4) What are the perceptions of other groups and other neighborhoods?

9

These questions necessitate diverse research designs. Our research into the social networks of

neighborhood inhabitants (questions 1 and 2) was inspired by the social network research of

Claude Fischer (1982) and Barry Wellman (1999). In line with their work, we chose to collect

data through closed-question questionnaires. We compiled a questionnaire that includes

questions on resident characteristics (income, age and household composition), reasons for

living in the neighborhood, contacts with neighbors, and contacts with others. As a result of

residential segregation in Bangkok, a selection of different types of neighborhoods helps to

select respondents from different income groups. As we wanted to include a broad range of

resident groups in our research, we decided to do research in four types of neighborhoods:

informal settlements, low- to middle class mubanchatsan, middle- to high middle class

mubanchatsan and condominium complexes (both high- and low-income). The selection of

the research neighborhoods within these types was guided by the advice of Thai experts in our

team, as well as existing contacts with developers (see next section). We selected ten

neighborhoods (Figure 1) and collected 368 questionnaires.

Figure 1 Research neighborhoods in Bangkok.

10

In response to the third question, we acknowledged that every city has its own ‘spaces of

encounter’ or ‘contact zones’ (Van Kempen & Wissink, 2014). In Bangkok, for instance,

intergroup encounters hardly take place in transport, as this is highly segregated: “Each mode

of transportation is associated with a particular class of urban resident: the bus with the poor;

the Skytrain, private care, or taxi with the middle class; and the chauffeured car with the elite”

(Boccuzzi, 2012: 87). But the city has many alternative meeting places. Next to the ‘usual’

spaces like shopping mall food courts and parks, many are typical for Bangkok: the wet

markets outside mubanchatsan in suburban Bangkok, for instance, have diverse visitors;

temples are visited by diverse income groups; and while restaurants have a clear income

segregation, roadside food stalls have a diverse clientele, reflecting the importance of street

food in Thai culture. Together with the Thai researchers in our team, we selected four typical

Thai ‘spaces of encounter’: a park, a suburban market close to the entrance of various

mubanchatsan, a local food stall, and a shopping mall food plaza. Here we conducted an

additional survey with basic questions on personal and household characteristics like income,

age, and education. Located in different places of the city, these spaces were outside the

research neighborhoods. In total we collected 435 questionnaires.

In response to the fourth question, we added questions on the perception of others and other

neighborhoods to the neighborhood questionnaire (for further information, see the section

‘Perceptions of others’). For an adequate interpretation of the questionnaire results, in each

neighborhood we interviewed a limited amount of residents, like Khun Chat, Khun Rungrote

and Khun Vichai, whom we met at the start of this paper.

5. The research neighborhoods

Through contacts with NGOs in Khlong Toei district we selected two informal settlements on

land of the Port Authority: 70 Rai community – the neighborhood of Khun Vichai – which

has been upgraded so that residents have formal contracts; and Lock 1, 2, 3 community,

which is informal (Figure 1). Houses here vary from small wooden shacks to relatively well-

maintained brick row houses, while neighborhood facilities are basic. According to our

research, the average household consists of 5.8 persons, with extremes going as high as

twenty people in houses that are no bigger than 30 m2. Many activities spill over to the street

causing a lively atmosphere. Most respondents are born in Khlong Toei and do not expect to

11

leave. The dominant reasons to live here are ‘living close to work’ (58%) and ‘living close to

the family’ (55%). All other factors play a minor role.

Contacts with real estate developers guided the selection of two condominium complexes:

suburban Sunisa apartments located near Don Muang airport, and Baan Chan off Thong Lor

road in the Sukhumvit area (Figure 1). Monthly rents at Sunisa ranged from 1.100 to 2.500

Baht (28 – 63 Euro) for an average 20 m2, while sale prices at Baan Chan are in the 4.0 – 8.5

Million Baht (100.000 – 220.000 Euro) range for 70 – 150 m2. Household sizes are small (4.0

persons at Sunisa, 2.9 persons at Baan Chan). A strong motivation for residential choice in

both complexes was ‘living close to work’ (60% and 55% respectively) while ‘safety’ was

more important for residents of Baan Chan (56%) and ‘affordability’ a good second for

Sunisa (51%). Strikingly, 40% and 55% of the residents did not expect to live in their current

home in three years time (in all other neighborhoods this was < 5%), suggesting that

condominiums are not a preferred housing type in Bangkok.

Mubanchatsan are the third neighborhood type in the research. In Bangkok, the rich and poor

live in mubanchatsan (but not the super-rich as they have their own private estates), and the

government even builds mubanchatsan type neighborhoods for the very poor (Askew, 2002).

In 2004 about 65% of all newly registered houses were located within a mubanchatsan (GHB,

2005) and an estimated 25% of all houses in Greater Bangkok were located in mubanchatsan.

While these neighborhoods are physically separated through walls, gates can be permeable

and price levels vary starkly. Contacts with developers resulted in the selection of five

commercial mubanchatsan and one government project. For the purpose of this article the six

neighborhoods are divided in two groups. Two mubanchatsan projects (Warangkul and

Wararak, the neighborhood of Khun Rungrote) and the government project (Khlong Saam)

together make up the low to middle income mubanchatsan group. They have row houses

starting at 84 m2, basic facilities, and are all located in the far north of Bangkok (Figure 1).

The other group consists of three projects (Golden Lanna, Baan Ramintra and Baan Ladprao

where Khun Chat lives) representing higher-middle class mubanchatsan. These projects

contain single detached houses of up to 480 m2, have luxurious facilities, and are close to

important infrastructure nodes. Prices ranged from 400.000 Baht (10.000 euro) for Khlong

Saam and 0.9 – 1.7 M Baht (23.000 – 45.000 Euro) for Warangkul to 10 – 25 M Baht

(250.000 – 640.000 Euro) for Baan Ladprao. The high-end projects have slightly older

residents (37.4 against 34.4) and bigger households (5.0 against 3.3). While ‘security’ is the

12

dominant motivation to live in the high-end mubanchatsan (57%), it is much less important in

the low-end projects (30%). The same goes for ‘proximity to work’ (46% against 26%). In the

high-end projects, 39% of the households have live-in maids, against 2% in low-end projects.

6. Social contacts within the neighborhood

Our first research question addresses social contacts within these neighborhood types. Figure

2 suggests that residents of informal settlements have considerably more contacts with

neighbors than residents of other neighborhoods. Furthermore, residents in high-end

mubanchatsan have fewer contacts with neighbors than residents in low-end ones. In line with

earlier research elsewhere (e.g. Guest & Wierzbicki, 1999), the general rule seems to be that

richer families have fewer neighborhood contacts. However, other variables might play a role

as well; more affluent households, for instance, might spend less time in their neighborhoods

due to work and other obligations (Blokland, 2003). In this regards, Khun Arisara, a resident

of a high-income mubanchatsan, strikingly declares that she has “absolutely no desire to get

to know [her] neighbors. It is good enough to know that they are decent, trustworthy people

who do not bother my family”. However, for Khun Sirichai, another resident of a high-

income mubanchatsan, “contact with neighbors is good” and he and his wife see themselves

as “village elders”. But apart from kin, he knows most of his contacts from work, as he works

seven days a week. Condominium residents, have the fewest contacts; even fewer than

residents of the high-end mubanchatsan. This confirms previous research that high-rise living

is detrimental to social involvement (e.g. Woolever, 1992; Gifford, 2007).

Figure 2 Contacts with other households.

To test the effect of personal characteristics – income, gender, ethnicity, age and length of

residence – as well as the ‘neighborhood type’ on the probability of extensive personal

networks within the neighborhood, we used a multivariate regression. With this regression

model we analyzed the probability that residents have neighborhood contacts with more (1) or

fewer (0) than five households (a somewhat arbitrary threshold set with our Thai colleagues).

13

We included ‘neighborhood type’, as this might be a predictor in its own right. Age, gender,

ethnicity and length of residence all appear to have no significant impact on the amount of

contacts (p > 0.05), but household income and ‘neighborhood type’ do. Residents with a

monthly household income below 20.000 Baht (500 Euro) have a significantly higher

probability of having more neighborhood contacts than higher income groups (p < 0.05).

After controlling for income, ‘neighborhood type’ also has a significant impact on the extent

of people’s contacts; the probability of having contacts with more than five households

increases significantly for people living in informal settlements, but decreases for

condominium inhabitants. Thus, these findings indicate that the residential environment is a

predictor for ‘neighboring’ in its own right next to income. The Wald statistical test – which

determines the relative weight of each variable – indicates that ‘household income’ (28.0) has

a bigger impact on the probability of having more contacts than ‘neighborhood type’ (19.3).

7. The intensity of neighborhood contacts

The number of contacts does not tell us much about the intensity of those contacts. Therefore,

residents were asked about the frequency of greeting neighbors, having dinner together,

receiving help in the past year and borrowing things from/to neighbors (Table 1).

Table 1 Intensity of social interactions with neighbors.

% within

Neighbourhood

Greeting Dinner Received help Borrowing

At least

once a

day

Less than

once a

day

At least

Once a

week

Less than

once a

week

Never

Yes No

At least

Once a

week

Less than

once a

week

Informal settlements 97.4 2.6 26.3 50.0 23.7 85.7 14.3 86.8 13.2

Lower middle-class to

middle-class Mubahn

72.1 27.9 30.8 16.4 52.7 80.4 19.6 63.7 36.3

Lower middle-class

condo

40.0 60.0 15.0 17.5 67.5 43.6 56.4 25.0 75.0

Higher middle-class

condo

54.1 45.9 15.8 21.1 63.2 51.3 49.7 48.6 51.4

Upper middle-class to

upper-class Mubahn

50.0 50.0 12.7 25.5 61.8 78.2 21.8 46.4 53.6

Total 68.6 31.4 23.7 25.6 50.7 74.0 26.0 60.0 40.0

14

As for ‘greeting’, residents of informal settlements show most social involvement, as almost

all respondents greet their neighbors every day. Meanwhile, in low-end mubanchatsan

residents greet their neighbors frequently as well. These outcomes might reflect a greater

sociability among lower income groups, but the residential environment itself may influence

this as well, since lower income groups in condominiums greet their neighbors least of all.

‘Having dinner’ is probably an even better indicator for the intensity of contacts, as it is more

intimate and time-consuming than greeting. In none of the neighborhood types, it is common

to have dinner with neighbors on a weekly basis. However, again it is most common in

informal settlements, and again residents of lower income mubanchatsan have dinner with

neighbors more often than in other neighborhoods apart from informal settlements. Upper-

income residents and condominium residents again show less social involvement with

neighbors.

Table 1 provides an overview of the number of times that neighbors ‘received help in the past

year’. Strikingly, this is more common in condominiums than elsewhere. Again, the informal

settlements and low-income mubanchatsan show the highest sociability, but this time the

high-end mubanchatsan are not far behind. However, according to Khun Chat, receiving help

is uncommon in one of Bangkok’s exclusive mubanchatsan. “If I see my neighbors I will

greet them, but when I am not home for a few days, I bring my dog to a kennel!”

‘Borrowing things to or lending from neighbors’ is our last indicator in Table 1. The results

again point in the same direction. Condominium residents hardly ever borrow things from

neighbors, while residents of informal settlements almost all rely on each other. However, it

should be noted that higher incomes might reduce the need to borrow things from others,

because this makes it possible to stock up or send the maid out for groceries, while access to

convenience stores differs a lot between these neighborhoods as well. The difference between

the two types of mubanchatsan regarding ‘borrowing’ and ‘having received help’ appears to

point to this possible role of income. Overall, these outcomes confirm that both ‘income’ and

‘neighborhood type’ impact on social involvement with neighbors.

15

8. ‘Spaces of encounter’ and social contacts

Our third research question considers intergroup encounters. We asked our neighborhood

respondents about their contacts with people from different income groups (Figure 3). Our

analysis suggests that residents of all neighborhood types have contact with people from

different income groups at least once a day. Unfortunately, the research does not clarify the

type of interaction nor its location. Thus, these contacts could take place either inside or

outside the neighborhood. Pow (2015) for instance stresses the presence of non-resident labor

in gated communities; these are obviously structured by existing power inequalities, but they

can be meaningful nonetheless. In our sample, 43% of the high-income households have live-

in personnel, which might influence their number of contacts with other income groups. But it

could also be the case that different income groups meet regularly outside the neighborhood.

Figure 3 Contacts with other income groups.

In order to find out if intergroup encounters are common in ‘spaces of encounter’ outside the

neighborhood we conducted a survey at four meeting places: a market, a park, a food court

and a food stall. Figure 4 illustrates the wide variety of people at these four locations. People

were asked for personal characteristics (like income). Also, they had to indicate whether they

believed that other people at that location had primarily similar or different incomes, and we

also asked whether they talked to other visitors to these areas. Table 2 illustrates that most

respondents do have contact with others in these locations, but social interaction diminishes

with increasing income. Strikingly, well-off respondents with monthly household incomes

above 100.000 Baht (2.500 Euro) also filled out our questionnaires, but there were too few of

them in our sample to include them in the calculations. Obviously, this can have diverse

reasons. First of all, of course this group is smaller, but additionally, the rich might not visit

these spaces of encounter, or they might not want to participate in the research. Both our

respondents and expert contacts argued that it is unlikely that the super-rich would visit these

places, thus supporting the first explanation.

16

Figure 4 Income groups at various places.

Table 2 Contact with others at mixed meeting places outside the neighborhood. Do you talk to the people who come here

Yes (sometimes) Never

<10,000 Bath 60.3% 39.7%

10,001-20,000 Bath 62.4% 37.6%

20,001-50,000 Bath 51.9% 48.1%

50,001-100,000 Bath 50.0% 50.0%

Obviously, these outcomes are only a very first step, and there is an urgent need for additional

ethnographic research into the precise behavior of groups in Bangkok’s ‘spaces of encounter’.

Such research should for instance show in detail which types of encounters take place, which

strategies to avoid encounters might be drawn upon, how encounters are conditioned by social

rules and the power inequalities that are involved, and how these contribute to positive or

negative views of others. But we do conclude that Bangkok’s highly segregated urban space

does not thwart intergroup encounters. People can and do meet at other places than their

residential neighborhood. However, while our research was inconclusive about higher income

groups, it did suggest that the super-rich are not present in these ‘spaces of encounter’, a

conclusion that is in line with research into the super-rich elsewhere (Atkinson, 2015; Koh et

al, 2016). As these ‘spaces of encounter’ outside the neighborhood are strongly determined by

local habits, they certainly deserve more attention in the future.

9. Perceptions of others

“I have learned that normal and friendly people live in Khlong Toei. The slums are not

dangerous at all, rather cozy, lively and thrilling. You can just enter these neighborhoods and

17

walk around and nothing will happen” (Wissink, Dijkwel & Meijer, 2006). Nat, a student of

the Department of Housing who cooperated in our research project, laughs shyly when he

sums up his surprised impressions of the informal settlements of Khlong Toei during our final

research meeting. Nat had signed up for our survey in 70 Rai and Lock 1,2,3 but initially he

did not seem too keen and it took many phone calls to organize a joint neighborhood visit.

Nat’s remarks explained his reluctance: he was a little worried. Unknown, unloved!

It took us by surprise. We had visited Khlong Toei’s communities often, and they seemed

anything but dangerous. But his remarks also intrigued us as they directly related to one of

our core topics and the fourth sub question of our research: how do groups in Bangkok

perceive ‘others’ and other neighborhoods? According to the criticism on enclave urbanism,

Bangkok’s segmented nature provides a breading ground for prejudices, and this is confirmed

by the literature on intergroup prejudices that we discussed above. If the criticism on enclave

urbanism is correct, we should find negative perceptions of others and other neighborhoods in

our research. However, the outcomes of our survey only partly support that assumption.

Table 3 Perceived attractiveness of neighborhoods. Type of neighbourhood Perception

by others

Perception

by residents

High middleclass mubahnchatsan 2.08 1.59

Low middleclass mubahnchatsan 3.21 3.21

High middleclass condominium 3.53 3.08

Low middleclass condominium 3.96 3.23

Informal settlement 4.65 2.66

First, using image boards, we asked our respondents to rate the attractiveness of the five

neighborhood types including their own on a scale of 1 to 5. Table 3 illustrates that each of

the resident groups rate the high middle class mubanchatsan highest. Based on the selected

indicators, this is actually the only type that is generally considered a positive living

18

environment. Strikingly, a low middle class mubanchatsan is preferred over a high middle

class condominium, which again reflects resentment towards condominiums. The

condominium residents themselves share this negative judgment. Informal settlements are

least attractive to all respondents, except to the inhabitants themselves who are much more

positive about their neighborhood than others. While perceptions of the own neighborhood

come close to general perceptions, this is not the case for residents of informal settlements.

Table 4 Perception on residents of other neighborhoods.

Does this negative attitude of others regarding informal settlements only regard the

neighborhood, or does it also concern its inhabitants? According to the criticism of enclave

urbanism, we might find negative attitudes towards residents of other neighborhoods and thus

other social groups. In order to examine this, we asked respondents to make an assessment of

the inhabitants of each of the neighborhood types regarding four indicators: social interaction;

level of mutual support; willingness to provide financial support to the less fortunate; and

Perception on

people in

informal

settlements

Perception on

people in

lower/middle

middle-income

mubahn

Perception on

people in lower

middle-income

condominiums

Perception on

people in higher

middle-income

condominiums

Perception on

people in higher

middle-income to

upper-income

mubahn

Informal settlement residents 2.13 2.75 2.59 3.38 2.96

Lower/middle middle-income

mubahn residents

3.04 2.68 3.23 3.36 2.92

Lower middle-income condo

residents

3.19 2.94 3.28 3.35 2.71

Higher middle-income condo

residents

2.81 2.58 3.01 2.97 2.79

Higher middle-income to upper-

income mubahn residents

3.04 2.81 3.07 3.24 2.54

Mean all groups without

residents themselves

3.02 2.77 2.98 3.33 2.85

19

crime rates. The questions use a five-point scale, ordered in such a way that answers closer to

‘1’ indicate a positive reply, ‘3’ indicates a neutral attitude, and ‘5’ a negative perception.

Table 4 presents the mean of the scores for these four questions together, as well as the score

for resident opinions regarding their own neighbors.

Strikingly, according to Table 4, peoples’ attitudes towards each other are in line with self-

perceptions. Residents of informal settlements are the only exception, as they are more

positive about themselves than others are. At the same time, however, the general perception

of these other residents is still neutral and not negative. And even more remarkably, residents

of higher middle-income condominiums are perceived more negatively than informal

settlement dwellers. So, in light of the literature, it is striking that our survey does not find a

negative attitude towards any group of residents of the selected neighborhoods. We may have

expected that attitudes towards the very poor or wealthy would be more negative, but the

general attitude appears to be relatively neutral (‘3’). This could be explained by cultural

benevolence or reluctance to say negative things about others in a questionnaire. Such an

interpretation would certainly be in line with our earlier discussion of prejudices between

income groups in Bangkok. However, on the basis of the current survey alone it is hard to

come to a conclusion and there is certainly need for further research.

10. Conclusions

Our research shows remarkable differences between the social lives in Bangkok’s various

neighborhood types. In line with earlier research on neighborhood bonds, generally lower

income groups have more neighborhood contacts. In informal settlements and low middle-

income mubanchatsan, neighborhood social life is rich and thriving. Residents of high-end

mubanchatsan have fewer contacts inside the neighborhood, although our interviews indicate

that these affluent residents do have a thriving social life outside the neighborhood.

Condominium living generally appears to be detrimental for neighboring as well.

Regarding contacts with others, our research suggests that residents of all neighborhood types

meet different income groups. Partly, these contacts take place within the residential

neighborhood; for instance when non-resident labor services affluent residents in high-end

mubanchatsan. But our analysis of ‘spaces of encounter’ suggests that different income

groups also meet outside the residential neighborhood, with the possible exception of the very

rich; a conclusion that would be in line with recent literature on strategies of the super-rich to

20

negotiate difference (Atkinson, 2015; Koh et al, 2016). Further research into ‘spaces of

encounter’ should give a more detailed account of the emergence of intergroup contacts.

Discussing intergroup perceptions, we found that perceptions of other neighborhoods were in

line with the image of neighborhood inhabitants themselves, with one big exception: while

outsiders have a negative perception of informal settlements, the inhabitants themselves are

much more positive. That impression was echoed by Nat’s remarks on Khlong Toei in the

previous section. In modern day marketing terms: the informal settlements of Bangkok have

an image problem. However, at the same time our research did not indicate that this negative

attitude also translated into negative attitudes between groups. However, in view of our earlier

discussion of the literature on negative prejudices in Bangkok, we suggested that this might

result from research biases. Here, additional research is certainly necessary.

So, what is the answer to our main research questions: Does enclave urbanism in Bangkok

prevent intergroup encounters; and does this result in negative intergroup perceptions? Our

research suggests that enclave urbanism and class segregated in Bangkok do not prevent

intergroup encounters, although our research was inconclusive on the rich; the super-rich,

however, are unlikely to be present at these mixed ‘spaces of encounter’. Local spatial

practices like eating at food stalls have survived urban transformations, and in today’s gated

urban field of Bangkok, people from different groups can and do meet. Furthermore, our

research did not find negative intergroup perceptions, but in view of the recent literature on

intergroup prejudices in Bangkok we have suggested that this might be a research bias. Our

research, however, did show a clear prejudice against informal neighborhoods. As Nat found

out, “you can just enter these neighborhoods and walk around; nothing will happen”. But

maybe, in the end nobody will make this trip?!

Eventually, this does present a problem. In Bangkok’s highly unequal economy, the poor

work for affluent residents in low-paid jobs as maids, cleaners, gardeners, drivers, or guards.

While this translates into regular encounters between the rich and the poor – either in the

residential neighborhood of higher income groups, or in ‘spaces of encounter’ elsewhere – it

does not give affluent citizens any reason to visit enclaves in the city where the poor live.

Thus, the poor know the rich quite well, and also aspire to their lifestyles and residential

neighborhoods, reflecting our conclusion that exclusive mubanchatsan are the preferred

residential neighborhood for all social groups, including residents of informal settlements. But

21

at the same time, the rich do not have any reason to visit the neighborhoods where the poor

live, do not have any knowledge of their housing situation, and imagine these unknown parts

of the city with fear. The intergroup prejudices that we observed earlier in this paper might

just have their source in these uneven economic and socio-spatial conditions.

Acknowledgements

This paper reports on surveys conducted in collaboration with the Department of Housing of

Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok during the springs of 2005 and 2008, and follow up

research in 2015 and 2016. We thank dr. Kundoldibya Panitchpakdi and her colleagues and

students at Chulalongkorn University for their contributions to the project. Renske Dijkwel,

Marleen van Kuijl, Paulien Lasterie, Ronald Meijer and Vivianne Sonnega were part of the

research team as master students of Utrecht University, while Bart de Jong and Esther Tange

helped managing the project. Grants from City University of Hong Kong (Project Nos.

7200461/POL and 7004343/POL) and the EFL Foundation (The Netherlands) financially

supported the work described in this paper. We thank the anonymous reviewers and editors

for their insightful comments on an earlier draft.

References

Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (2002) Cities: Reimagining the Urban (Cambridge, Polity Press).

Arthurson, K. (2007) Social mix and social interaction: do residents living in different

housing tenures mix? Paper for the conference of the European Network for Housing

Research, Rotterdam, 25-28 June 2007.

Askew, M. (2002) Bangkok: Place, Practice and Representation (London, Routledge).

Atkinson, R. (2015) Limited exposure: social concealment, mobility and engagement with

public space by the super-rich in London, Environment and Planning A, 48(7), pp. 1302-

1317.

Atkinson, R. & Blandy, S. Eds. (2006) Gated Communities (New York, Routledge).

Blakely, E.J. & Snyder, M.G. (1997) Fortress America: Gated Communities in the United

States (Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press).

Blokland, T. (2003) Urban Bonds: Social Relationships in an Inner City Neighbourhood

(Cambridge, Polity Press).

Boal, F.W. (1982) Segregating and mixing: space and residence in Belfast, in: F.W. Boal &

J.N.H. Douglas (Eds) Integration and Division: Geographical Perspectives on the

Northern Ireland Problem, pp. 249-280 (London, Academic Press Inc).

22

Boccuzzi, E. (2012) Bangkok Bound (Chiang Mai, Silkworm Books).

Caldeira, T.P.R. (2000) City of Walls: Crime, Segregation, and Citizenship in São Paulo

(Berkeley CA, University of California Press).

Castells M. (1996) The rise of the network society. The information age: economy, society

and cul ture Vol ume 1, Blackwell, Oxford, etc.

Clammer, J. (1997) Contemporary Urban Japan: A Sociology of Consumption (Oxford,

Blackwell).

Connell, J. (1999) Beyond Manila: walls, malls and private spaces, Environment and

Planning A, 31(3s), pp. 417-439.

Crawford, M. (1999) Blurring the boundaries: public space and private life, in: J. Chase, M.

Crawford & J. Kaliska (Eds) Everyday Urbanism, pp. 22-35 (New York, The Monacelli

Press).

Cséfalvay, Z. & Webster, C. (2012) Gates or no gates? A cross-European enquiry into the

driving forces behind gated communities. Regional Studies, 46(3), pp. 293-308.

Daniere, A., Takahashi, L.M. & Naranong, A. (2002) Social capital, networks, and

community environments in Bangkok, Thailand, Growth and Change 33(4), pp. 453-484.

Douglass, M., Wissink, B. & Van Kempen, R. (2012) Enclave urbanism in China: questions

and interpretations, Urban Geography, 33(2), pp. 167-182.

Duangmanee Laovakul (2016) ‘Concentration of land and other wealth in Thailand’, in:

Pasuk Phongpaichit & Chris Baker (Eds) Unequal Thailand: Aspects of Income, Wealth

and Power, pp. 32-42 (Singapore, NUS Press).

Fischer, C.S. (1982) To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City

(Chicago, University of Chicago Press).

Foldvary, F. (1994) Public Goods and Private Communities: The Market Provision of Social

Services (Aldershot, Edward Elgar).

Forrest, R. & Kearns, A. (2001) Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood, Urban

Studies, 38(12), pp. 2125-2143.

Frug, G.E. (1999) City Making: Building Communities without Building Walls (Princeton NJ,

Princeton University Press).

Gifford, R. (2007) The consequences of living in high-rise buildings, Architectural Science

Review 50(1), pp. 2-17.

GHB [Government Housing Bank] (2005) Annual report 2004 (Bangkok, GHB). Retrieved

on 1 March 2005 at www.ghb.co.th/documents/Annual%20Report%202004_EN.pdf.

23

Glasze, G., Webster, C. & Frantz, K. Eds. (2006) Private Cities: Global and Local

Perspectives (New York, Routledge).

Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures,

Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition (London, Routledge).

Guest, A.M., & Wierzbicki, S.K. (1999) Social ties at the neighborhood level: two decades of

GSS evidence, Urban Affairs Review, 35(1), pp. 92-111.

Hajer, M. & Reijndorp, A. (2001) In Search of New Public Domain: Analysis and Strategy

(Rotterdam, NAi Publishers).

Hendrikx, M. & Wissink B. (2016) ‘Welcome to the club! An exploratory study of service

accessibility in commodity housing estates in Guangzhou, China, Social & Cultural

Geography. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2016.1181197.

Hogan, T., Bunnell, T, Pow, C.P., Permanasari, E. & Morhshidi, S. (2012) Asian urbanisms

and the privatization of cities, Cities, 29(1), pp. 59-63.

Hogan, T. & Houston, C. (2002) ‘Corporate cities: urban gateways or gated communities

against the city? The case of Lippo City, Jakarta’, in: T. Bunnell, L. Drummond & H.

Chong (Eds) Critical Perspectives on Cities in Southeast Asia, pp. 243-264 (Tokyo, Brill

Academic Publishers).

Iossifova, D. (2015) Borderland urbanism: seeing between enclaves, Urban Geography,

36(1), pp. 90-108.

Judd, D.R. (2005) Everything is always going to hell: urban scholars as end-time prophets,

Urban Affairs Review, 41(2), pp. 119-131.

Kenna, T.E. & Dunn, K.M. (2009) The virtuous discourses of private communities,

Geography Compass, 3(2), pp. 797-816.

Keyes, Ch. (2014) Finding Their Voice: Northeastern Villagers and the Thai State (Chiang

Mai, Silkworm Books).

Koh, S.Y., Wissink, B. & Forrest, R. (2016) ‘Reconsidering the super-rich: variations,

structural conditions and urban consequences’, in: I. Hay & J. Beaverstock (Eds)

Handbook on Wealth and the Super-Rich, pp.18-40 (Cheltenham; Norhampton, MA:

Edward Elgar Publishing).

Leisch, H. (2002) Gated communities in Indonesia, Cities, 19(5), pp. 341-350.

Leitner, H. (2012) Spaces of encounters: immigration, race, class, and the politics of

belonging in small-town America, Annals of the Association of American Geographers,

102(4), pp. 828-846.

24

Manzi, T. & Smith-Bowers, B. (2005) Gated communities as club goods: segregation or

social cohesion? Housing Studies, 20(2), pp. 65-98.

Matthews, H. & Limb, M. (1999) Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review

and prospect, Progress in Human Geography, 23(1), pp. 61-90.

McCargo, D. (2005) Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand, The Pacific

Review, 18(4), pp. 499-519.

McCargo, D. & Ukrist Pathmanand (2005) The Thaksinization of Thailand (Copenhagen,

NIAS Press).

Montesano, M.J., Pavin Chachavalpongpun & Aekapol Chongvilaivan Eds. (2012) Bangkok,

May 2010: Perspectives on a Divided Thailand (Singapore, ISEAS Publishing).

Mulder, N. (2000) Inside Thai Society: Religion, Everyday Life, Change (Seattle, University

of Washington Press).

Ockey, J. (1999) ‘Creating the Thai middle class’, in: M. Pinches (Ed) Culture and Privilege

in Capitalist Asia, pp. 231-251 (London and New York, Routledge).

Ockey, J. (2004) Making Democracy: Leadership, Class, Gender, and Political Participation

in Thailand (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press).

Pasuk Phongpaichit & Baker, Ch. (2012) ‘Thailand in Trouble: Revolt of the Downtrodden or

Conflict among Elites’, in: M.J. Montesano, Pavin Chachavalpongpun & Aekapol

Chongvilaivan (Eds) Bangkok, May 2010: Perspectives on a Divided Thailand, pp. 214-29

(Singapore, ISEAS Publishing).

Pasuk Phongpaichit & Baker, Ch. Eds. (2016) Unequal Thailand: Aspects of Income, Wealth

and Power (Singapore, NUS Press).

Pow, C.P. (2009) Gated Communities in China: Class, Priviledge and the Moral Politics of

the Good Life (London, Routledge).

Pow, C.P. (2015) Urban dystopia and epistemologies of hope, Progress in Human

Geography, 39(4), pp. 464-485.

Prakash, G. Ed. (2010) Noir Urbanism: Dystopic Images of the Modern City (Princeton NJ,

Princeton University Press).

Pratt, M.L. (2007) Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (London and New

York, Routledge).

Salcedo, R. & Torres, A. (2004) Gated communities: walls or frontier? International Journal

of Urban and Regional Research, 28(1), pp. 27-44.

Sennett, R. (2007) The open city, in: R. Burdett & D. Sudjic (Eds) The Endless City, pp. 290-

297 (London, Phaidon Press).

25

Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006) The new mobilities paradigm, Environment and Planning A,

38(2), pp. 207–226.

Shiraishi, T. (2006) The third wave: Southeast Asia and middle-class formation in the making

of a region, in: P.J. Katzenstein & T. Shiraishi (Eds) Beyond Japan: The Dynamics of

Eastasian Regionalism (Ithaca, Cornell University Press).

Skinner, G.W. (1957) Chinese Society in Thailand: An Analytical History (Ithaca NY, Cornell

University Press).

Stent, J. (2012) ‘Thoughts on Thailand’s Turmoil: 11 June 2010’, in: M.J. Montesano, Pavin

Chachavalpongpun & Aekapol Chongvilaivan (Eds) Bangkok, May 2010: Perspectives on

a Divided Thailand, pp. 15-41 (Singapore, ISEAS Publishing).

Suehiro, A. (1992) Capitalist development in post-war Thailand: commercial bankers,

industrial elite, and agribusiness groups, in: R. McVey (Ed) Southeast Asian Capitalists,

pp. 35-64 (Ithaca, SEAP).

Tanabe, S. (2008) Imagining Communities in Thailand: Ethnographic Approaches (Chiang

Mai, Mekong Press).

Thongchai Winichakul (2014) ‘The monarchy and anti-monarchy: two elephants in the room

of Thai politics and the state of denial’, in: Pavin Chachavalpongpun (Ed) “Good Coup”

Gone Bad: Thailand’s Political Developments since Thaksin’s Downfall, pp. 79-108

(Singapore, ISEAS).

UN-Habitat (2012) State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of Cities (Nairobi, UN-

Habitat).

Unger, D. (1998) Building Social Capital in Thailand: Fibers, Finance and Infrastructure

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Urry, J. (1995) Consuming Places (London, Routledge).

Van Kempen, R. and B. Wissink (2014) Between Places and Flows: Towards a New Agenda

for Neighbourhood Research in an Age of Mobility, Geografiska Annaler: Series B,

Human Geography, 96(2), pp. 1-14.

Vertovec, S. (2007) Super-diversity and its implication, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), pp.

1024-1054.

Waibel, M. (2006) The production of urban space in Vietnam’s metropolis in the course of

transition: internationalization, polarization and newly emerging lifestyles in Vietnamese

society, Trialog, 89(2), pp. 43-48.

Webber, M.M. (1964) Urban place and the nonplace urban realm, in: M.M. Webber, J.W.

Dyckman, D.L. Foley, A.Z. Guttenberg, W.L. Wheaton & C.B. Wurster (Eds)

26

Explorations into Urban Structure, pp. 79-153 (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania

Press).

Wellman, B (1999) Networks in the global Village: Life in Contemporary Communities

(Boulder, Westview Press).

Wilson, W.J. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public

Policy (Chicago, Chicago University Press).

Wilson, A. (2004) The Intimate Economies of Bangkok (Berkeley etc., University of

California Press).

Wilson, H.F. (2011) Passing propinquities in the multicultural city: the everyday encounters

of bus passengering, Environment and Planning A, 43(3), pp. 634-649.

Wissink, B., Dijkwel, R. & Meijer, R. (2006) Bangkok boundaries: social networks in the city

of mubanchatsan, Nakhara Journal of Oriental Design and Planning, 1(2), pp. 59-74.

Wissink, B. & Hazelzet, A.J. (2012) Social Networks in Neighbourhood Tokyo, Urban

Studies, 49(7), pp. 1527-1549.

Wissink, B., Schwanen, T & Van Kempen, R. (2016) Beyond Residential Segregation:

Introduction, Cities, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.08.010. Wissink, B., Van Kempen, R., Li, S.M. & Fang, Y. (2012) Introduction: Living in Chinese

Enclave Cities, Urban Geography, 33(2), pp. 161-166.

Woolever, C. (1992) A contextual approach to neighbourhood attachment, Urban Studies,

29(1), pp. 99-116.

Wu, F. (2005) Rediscovering the ‘gate’ under market transition: from work unit compounds

to commodity housing estates, Housing Studies, 20(2), pp. 235-254.

Young, I.M. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford, Oxford University Press).