What are the political consequences of vacant homes? While housing inequality and speculation have received growing attention in political science, the democratic implications of housing vacancy remain understudied. This study examines how vacancy, which has become an increasingly visible marker of demographic decline and spatial marginalization, affects voter turnout across 252 administrative districts in South Korea between 2016 and 2022. The analysis reveals a consistent and statistically significant negative relationship between housing vacancy and turnout. Vacancy not only reflects structural disadvantage but also undermines political efficacy, social capital, and local mobilization networks. These findings suggest that vacancy is more than an economic indicator; it functions as a spatial mechanism of political disengagement. This study underscores the importance of incorporating built environment conditions into models of political behavior and invites further research on how material decline shapes democratic participation at the territorial margins.
AbramsonPaul R.1983. Political Attitudes in America: Formation and Change. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
2.
AndersonChristopher J.BeramendiPablo. 2008. “Income, Inequality, and Electoral Participation.” In Democracy, Inequality, and Representation: A Comparative Perspective, edited by BeramendiPabloAndersonChristopher J., 278–311. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
3.
AnsellBen.2014. “The Political Economy of Ownership: Housing Markets and the Welfare State.” American Political Science Review108 (2): 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000045
4.
ArundelRowanRonaldRichard. 2021. “The False Promise of Homeownership: Homeowner Societies in an Era of Declining Access and Rising Inequality.” Urban Studies58 (6): 1120–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019895227
5.
BaeYooilJooYu-Min. 2019. “The Making of Gangnam: Social Construction and Identity of Urban Place in South Korea.” Urban Affairs Review56 (3): 726–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419827645
6.
BoulianneShelleyOserJenniferHoffmannChristian P.. 2023. “Powerless in the Digital Age? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Political Efficacy and Digital Media Use.” New Media and Society25 (9): 2512–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231176519
7.
BradyHenry E.VerbaSidneySchlozmanKay Lehman. 1995. “Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation.” American Political Science Review89 (2): 271–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082425
8.
CampbellAngusConversePhilip E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
CitrinJack.1974. “Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government.” American Political Science Review68 (3): 973–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959141
11.
CohenCathy J.DawsonMichael C.. 1993. “Neighborhood Poverty and African American Politics.” American Political Science Review87: 286–302. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939041
12.
ColemanJames S.1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
13.
CoxGary W.FivaHans J.KingMette-Eli Midtgard. 2024. “Bound by Borders: Voter Mobilization Through Social Networks.” British Journal of Political Science54 (4): 1216–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123424000164
14.
DesmondMatthew.2016. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New York: Crown.
15.
DonoMarcosAyanianArinTauschNicole. 2025. “A Fight Against All Odds? The Causal Effects of Perceived Political Efficacy and Protest Repression on Motivation to Engage in Normative and Non-normative Climate Protest.” Journal of Environmental Psychology106: 102697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102697
16.
ElderElizabeth M.EnosRyan D.MendelbergTali. 2023. “The Long-Term Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage on Voting Behavior: The ‘Moving to Opportunity’ Experiment.” American Political Science Review118 (2): 988–1004. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000692
17.
Estrada-CorreaVanesaJohnsonMartin. 2012. “Foreclosure Depresses Voter Turnout: Neighborhood Disruption and the 2008 Presidential Election in California.” Social Science Quarterly93 (3): 559–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00889.x
18.
FinifterAda W.1970. “Dimensions of Political Alienation.” American Political Science Review64 (2): 389–410. https://doi.org/10.2307/1953840
19.
FinniganKara S.LavnerMark. 2012. “A Political Analysis of Community Influence over School Closure.” The Urban Review44: 133–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-011-0179-9
20.
FosterKevin A.SmithRyan J.BellBeth A.ShawThomas C.. 2019. “Testing the Importance of Geographic Distance for Social Capital Resources.” Urban Affairs Review55 (1): 231–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417714895
21.
GayClaudine. 2012. “Moving to Opportunity: The Political Effects of a Housing Mobility Experiment.” Urban Affairs Review48 (2): 147–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087411426399
22.
GimpelJames G.SchuknechtJason E.. 2003. “Political Participation and the Accessibility of the Ballot Box.” Political Geography22 (5): 471–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(03)00029-5
23.
GolioA. J. 2025. “Whose Neighborhood Now? Gentrification and Community Life in Low-Income Urban Neighborhoods.” Social Problems: spaf014. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaf014
24.
HanSeungwoo.2022. “Identifying the Roots of Inequality of Opportunity in South Korea by Application of Algorithmic Approaches.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications9: 18. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-01026-y
25.
HanSeungwoo.. 2024a. “Housing Wealth and Political Outcomes: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis at the Local Level in South Korea.” Japanese Journal of Political Science25 (2): 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S146810992400001X
26.
HanSeungwoo.. 2024b. “Trust and Needles: How Perceptions of Inequality Shape Vaccination in South Korea.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications11: 1329. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03858-w
27.
HanSeungwoo.. 2025. “Homeownership, Income and Social Trust: Exploring Dynamics Between Homeownership, Income, and Individuals’ Perceptions of Autonomy and Social Trust in South Korea.” Social Indicators Research176: 569–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03481-x
28.
HanSeungwooKwonHyeok Young. 2023. “Inequality, Social Context, and Income Bias in Voting: Evidence from South Korea.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research35 (2): edad018. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad018
29.
HanSeungwooYoung KwonHyeok. 2024. “Home Ownership, House Prices, and Belief in Meritocracy: Evidence from South Korea and 34 Countries.” Political Studies72 (3): 1071–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217231176677
30.
HindmanDouglas B.YamamotoMiyase. 2011. “Social Capital in a Community Context: A Multilevel Analysis of Individual- and Community-Level Predictors of Social Trust.” Mass Communication and Society14 (6): 838–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.611608
31.
HuckfeldtRobert R.1979. “Political Participation and the Neighborhood Social Context.” American Journal of Political Science23 (3): 579–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111030
32.
LeeDong OkBrunnStanley D.. 1996. “Politics and Regions in Korea: An Analysis of the Recent Presidential Election.” Political Geography15 (1): 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/0962-6298(95)00002-X
33.
LeeJae-EunParkYunmiNewmanGalen D.. 2023. “Twenty Years of Research on Shrinking Cities: A Focus on Keywords and Authors.” Landscape Research48 (7): 884–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2023.2201492
34.
LeeYookyungHanSeungwoo. 2024. “Perceptions of Inequality and Loneliness as Drivers of Social Unraveling: Evidence from South Korea.” Scientific Reports14: 16922. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76555-y
35.
LeeYookyungHanSeungwoo. 2025a. “Mapping the Landscape of Land Inequality: A Multi-Level, Data-Driven Exploration of Land Inequality in South Korea’s Urban and Regional Spheres.” PLoS ONE20 (3): e0320252. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320252
36.
LeeYookyungHanSeungwoo. 2025b. “From Greenery to Community: Exploring the Mediating Role of Loneliness in Social Cohesion.” npj Urban Sustainability5: 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-025-00194-z
37.
LeeYookyungYuInheeHanSeungwoo. 2024. “Reimagining Urban Spaces: The Role of Makerspaces in Regenerating ‘Maker City Sewoon.’.” Urban Governance4 (4): 274–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2024.11.001
38.
LührmannAnnaLindbergStaffan I.. 2019. “A Third Wave of Autocratization Is Here: What Is New About It?” Democratization26 (7): 1095–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029
39.
McCabeBrian J.2016. No Place Like Home: Wealth, Community, and the Politics of Homeownership. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
40.
MoonWoojin.2005. “Decomposition of Regional Voting in South Korea: Ideological Conflicts and Regional Interests.” Party Politics11 (4): 579–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068805054981
41.
PardelliGiovanniKustovAndrey. 2025. “More Turnover, Less Turnout? Domestic Migration and Political Participation Across Communities.” British Journal of Political Science55: e57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342500002X
42.
PikettyThomas.2020. Capital and Ideology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
43.
PortmanJames.2024. “What Is the Value in an Empty Home? A Perspective from Action on Empty Homes and the Global Empty Homes Network.” City28 (5–6): 1079–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2024.2390754
44.
PutnamRobert D.1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
45.
PutnamRobert D.. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
46.
RaychaudhuriTanikaDavidsonHenryJones-CorreaMichael. 2024. “Shared Space and Civic Engagement: Block Parties and Voter Turnout in Philadelphia.” Urban Affairs Review61 (3): 658–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874241270041
47.
RohMiyoungWeonSoyoon. 2022. “Living Arrangement and Life Satisfaction of the Elderly in South Korea.” Social Indicators Research160: 717–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02443-3
48.
RosenstoneSteven J.HansenJohn Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
49.
RossCatherine E.MirowskyJohn. 1999. “Disorder and Decay: The Concept and Measurement of Perceived Neighborhood Disorder.” Urban Affairs Review34 (3): 412–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/107808749903400304
50.
SampsonRobert J.2012. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
51.
SampsonRobert J.RaudenbushStephen W.. 1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Sociology105 (3): 603–51. https://doi.org/10.1086/210356
SkoganWesley G. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Cities. New York: Free Press.
54.
SleeGillianDesmondMatthew. 2021. “Eviction and Voter Turnout: The Political Consequences of Housing Instability.” Politics and Society51 (1): 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323292211050716
55.
StapperEverardus WilhelmusDuyvendakJan Willem. 2020. “Good Residents, Bad Residents: How Participatory Processes in Urban Redevelopment Privilege Entrepreneurial Citizens.” Cities107: 102898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102898
56.
Van MaasakkersMichielOhJaecheolKnoxEric. 2020. “Shrinking Democracy? Analyzing Participatory Planning for Vacancy and Abandonment in Ohio.” Journal of Urban Affairs42 (8): 1242–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1694414
57.
VerbaSidneySchlozmanKay LehmanBradyHenry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
58.
WacquantLoïc. 2008. Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
59.
WiedemannAndreas.2024. “Redistributive Politics Under Spatial Inequality.” Journal of Politics86 (3): 1013–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/729969
60.
WillbanksChristopherShepherdMichael E.. 2025. “Texas in the Rear-View Mirror? How the Democratic Party Ignores Rural America and Underperforms in Elections.” Political Behavior. OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-025-10045-3
61.
WilsonWilliam Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
