Abstract This paper focuses on the dynamic mechanism of gated communities and spatial interaction between communities and urban space. In order to elaborate not only the macro factors ranging from global scale to national and city-wide scale, but also the local social network of different actors, the authors construct the framework of dynamic mechanism of gated communities, with a multi-dimensional and multi-scale perspective. Concerning the theoretical research, they find out that normally the western scholars adopt five conventional approaches, including globalization and post-Fordism, neo-liberalism public strategies, public choices and institutional economics, social segregation and social conflict, as well as space, culture and power, when they analyze this process. For the domestic empirical research, the development of gated communities could be contributed to the interaction and conflict of different domestic actors including markets, power and civil society. This paper, firstly, explains the formation and development of gated communities in global discourse by establishing the framework about their dynamic mechanism; secondly, five conventional approaches will be demonstrated, and the correlative normative research paradigms of western research will be presented; thirdly, this paper depicts the development of gated communities in USA, Latin America and China. Fourthly, a spirited debate on whether the gated communities are positively related to segregation or not. The authors compare the arguments of both sides from social structure and regime as well as individual behaviors and attitudes. Finally, the authors review the recent correlative domestic researches, and pose several suggestions for better theoretical and empirical researches in China, which are: (1) adopting normative research paradigm which is originated from the five global conventional approaches; (2) concentrating on the local embeddedness especially the cultural and institutional elements which could be the breaking points; (3) employing more comparative analysist.
2010, Vol. 25 
