This study examines intergenerational wealth transfer and class reproduction strategies centered on Gangnam housing, drawing from in-depth interviews with senior residents and their adult children. The senior upper-middle class residents of Gangnam, who acquired residential properties early during the district’s development and accumulated significant wealth, engage in class reproduction by transferring assets—primarily Gangnam real estate—to their adult children. This practice emerges as a response to rising labor market insecurity and increasing housing market polarization, which make it difficult for their children to secure residency in Gangnam independently. This article makes three key arguments. First, it emphasizes that class reproduction strategies extend beyond young adulthood, continuing over the life course into middle age. Second, it highlights that intergenerational wealth transfer requires persistent collaboration and sustained efforts between generations. Third, it argues that family strategies aimed exclusively at sharing scarce urban resources, such as Gangnam’s high-priced real estate, exemplify class- and space-based social closure, thereby functioning as a mechanism that perpetuates social inequality.
AalbersB (2008) The financialisation of home and the mortgage market crisis. Competition and Change12(2): 148–166.
2.
AalbersB (2016) The Financialization of Housing: A Political Economy Approach. Routledge.
3.
AalbersBChristophersB (2014) The housing question under capitalist political economies. Housing, Theory and Society31(4): 422–428.
4.
AdkinsLCooperMKoningsM (2021) Class in the 21st century: Asset inflation and the new logic of inequality. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space53(3): 548–572.
5.
AnsellB (2014) The political economy of ownership: Housing markets and the welfare state. American Political Science Review108(2): 383–402.
6.
ArundelR (2017) Equity inequity: Housing wealth inequality, inter and intra-generational divergences, and the rise of private landlordism. Housing, Theory and Society34(2): 176–200.
7.
ArundelRHochstenbachC (2020) Divided access and the spatial polarization of housing wealth. Urban Geography41(4): 497–523.
8.
BeckUBeck-GernsheimE (2001) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and Its Social and Political Consequences. Sage.
9.
BegleyJ (2019) Parent housing wealth, credit constraints, and homeownership transitions. Journal of Housing Research28(1): 51–79.
10.
BourdieuP (1987) Distinction a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge.
11.
BourdieuP (1998) The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Stanford University Press.
12.
BridgeG (2006) It’s not just a question of taste: Gentrification, the neighbourhood and cultural capital. Environment and Planning A38(10): 1965–1978.
13.
CharlesKHurstE (2002) The transition to homeownership and the black-wealth gap. Review of Economics and Statistics84(2): 281–297.
14.
ChooHY (2021) Speculative homemaking: Women’s labour, class mobility and the affect of homeownership in South Korea. Urban Studies58(1): 148–163.
15.
ChungJH (2016) A critical examination of South Korean manager moms: English language education practices in a context of truncated lifelong learning. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, UK.
16.
DesmondM (2016) Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. Broadway.
17.
DipasqualDGlaeserE (1999) Incentives and social capital: Are homeowners better citizens?Journal of Urban Economics45(2): 354–384.
18.
DrutaORonaldR (2017) Young adults’ pathways into home ownership and the negotiation of intra-family support: A home, the ideal gift. Sociology51(4): 783–799.
19.
FingermanLKimKMDavisM, et al. (2015) “I’ll give you the world”: Socioeconomic differences in parental support of adult children. Journal of Marriage and Family77(4): 844–865.
20.
FleckensteinTLeeSC (2024) Labour market dualisation and social protection in South Korea: Searching for a new social contract and growth model. LSE Public Policy Review3(2): 1–10.
21.
ForrestRHirayamaY (2015) The financialisation of the social project: Embedded liberalism, neoliberalism and home ownership. Urban Studies52(2): 233–244.
22.
GelézeauV (2008) Changing socio-economic environments, housing culture and new urban segregation in Seoul. European Journal of East Asian Studies7(2): 295–321.
23.
GuisoLJappelliT (2002) Private transfers, borrowing constraints and the timing of homeownership. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking34(2): 315–339.
24.
HanSW (2022) Spatial stratification and socio-spatial inequalities: The case of Seoul and Busan in South Korea. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications9(1): 1–14.
25.
HardieHSeltzerA (2016) Parent–child relationships at the transition to adulthood: A comparison of black, Hispanic, and white immigrant and native-born youth. Social Forces95(1): 321–353.
26.
HeldermanAMulderC (2007) Intergenerational transmission of homeownership: The roles of gifts and continuities in housing market characteristics. Urban Studies44(2): 231–247.
27.
HochstenbachCAalbersB (2024) The uncoupling of house prices and mortgage debt: Towards wealth-driven housing market dynamics. International Journal of Housing Policy24(4): 642–670.
28.
HochstenbachCBotermanR (2017) Intergenerational support shaping residential trajectories: Young people leaving home in a gentrifying city. Urban Studies54(2): 399–420.
29.
JohnsonMKBensonJ (2012) The implications of family context for the transition to adulthood. In: BoothABrownSLLandaleNS, et al. (eds) Early Adulthood in a Family Context. Springer, pp.87–103.
30.
KangJYAbelmannN (2011) The domestication of South Korean pre-college study abroad in the first decade of the millennium. Journal of Korean Studies16(1): 89–118.
31.
KangYH (2012) Any one parent will do: Negotiations of fatherhood among South Korean “wild geese” fathers in Singapore. Journal of Korean Studies17(2): 269–297.
32.
KimPH (2024) Polarizing Dreams: Gangnam and Popular Culture in Globalizing Korea. University of Hawaii Press.
33.
KooHG (2022) Privilege and Anxiety: The Korean Middle Class in the Global Era. Cornell University Press.
34.
KooHGLeeYJ (2006) Wild geese fathers’ and a globalised family strategy for education in Korea. International Development Planning Review28(4): 533–553.
35.
LangleyP (2020) Assets and assetization in financialized capitalism. Review of International Political Economy28(2): 382–393.
36.
LeeSH (2021) “I am still close to my child”:Middle-class Korean wild geese fathers’ responsible and intimate fatherhood in a transnational context. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies47(9): 2161–2178.
37.
LettP (1998) In Pursuit of Status: The Making of South Korea’s “New” Urban Middle Class. Harvard University Asia Center.
38.
McKeeK (2012) Young people, homeownership and future welfare. Housing Studies27(6): 853–862.
39.
ManzoLDrutaORonaldR (2019) Supported home ownership and adult independence in Milan: The gilded cage of family housing gifts and transfers. Sociology53(3): 519–537.
40.
ParkB-GJangJB (2018) The Gangnam-ization of Korean urban ideology. In: DoucetteJParkB-G (eds) Developmentalist Cities? Interrogating Urban Developmentalism in East Asia. Brill, pp.134–161.
41.
ParkSJ (2007) Educational manager mothers: South Korea’s neoliberal transformation. Korea Journal47(3): 186–213.
42.
ParkinF (1983) Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. Columbia University Press.
43.
PikettyT (2014) Capital in the 21st Century. Harvard University Press.
44.
RapoportA (1985) Thinking about home environments: A conceptual framework. In: AltmanIWernerCM (eds) Home Environments. Springer, pp.255–286.
45.
RonaldRArundelR (2023) What about families, housing and property wealth in a neoliberal world? Editors’ response to reviewers. International Journal of Housing Policy23(4): 847–854.
46.
RonaldRLennartzC (2018) Housing careers, intergenerational support and family relations. Housing Studies33(2): 147–159.
47.
SaundersP (1990) A Nation of Homeowners. Routledge.
48.
SavageMAllenCAtkinsonR, et al. (2010a) Focus article. Housing, Theory and Society27(2): 115–161.
49.
SavageMSilvaEWardeA (2010b) Dis-identification and class identity. In: SilvaEWardeA (eds) Cultural Analysis and Bourdieu’s Legacy: Settling Accounts and Developing Alternatives. Routledge, pp.60–74.
50.
ShinHBKimSH (2016) The developmental state, speculative urbanisation and the politics of displacement in gentrifying Seoul. Urban Studies53(3): 540–559.
51.
SironiMFurstenbergF (2012) Trends in the economic independence of young adults in the United States: 1973–2007. Population and Development Review38(4): 609–630.
52.
SohnJYOhSK (2019) Explaining spatial distribution of the middle class: A multiple indicator approach with multiple explanatory dimensions. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy12(4): 871–905.
53.
SonnJWShinHB (2020) Contextualizing accumulation by dispossession: The state and high-rise apartment clusters in Gangnam, Seoul. Annals of the American Association of Geographers110(3): 864–881.
54.
Tsz-mingO (2018) Pathways to homeownership among young professionals in urban China: The role of family resources. Urban Studies55(11): 2391–2407.
55.
Van GentWDamhuisRMusterdS (2023) Gentrifying with family wealth: Parental gifts and neighbourhood sorting among young adult owner-occupants. Urban Studies60(16): 3312–3335.
56.
YangMJ (2012) The making of the urban middle class in South Korea (1961–1979): Nation-building, discipline, and the birth of the ideal national subjects. Sociological Inquiry82(3): 424–445.
57.
YangMJ (2018) The rise of ‘Gangnam style’: Manufacturing the urban middle class in Seoul, 1976–1996. Urban Studies55(15): 3404–3420.
58.
YooIHKooIH (2008) Do Children Support Their Parents’ Application for the Reverse Mortgage? A Korean Case. KDI School of Public Policy and Management Working Paper Series 08-03. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1095549 (accessed 20 February 2025).
59.
ZhangLBianY (2021) Parental “love” on time: Strength and timing in homeownership transfer. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment36: 113–129.
