حاکمیت برنامه بازآفرینی بافت ناکارآمد شهر تهران با رویکرد شبکه

نوع مقاله: مقالۀ پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 پژوهشگر دکتری مدیریت پروژه و ساخت، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

2 دکتری مدیریت پروژه و ساخت. عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس و مدیر گروه مدیریت پروژه و ساخت.

3 استاد دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

4 دکتری حسابداری. استاد گروه حسابداری، دانشکده دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

5 دکتری مدیریت فنّاوری اطلاعات. دانشیار گروه مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

مبحث بافت‌های ناکارآمد و توجه به بهبود فضای زیستی در نواحی فرسوده شهری یکی از مباحث پیچیده و چند‌وجهی در حوزه شهرسازی و مدیریت شهری به شمار می‌رود. نظر به اهمیت بازآفرینی بافت ناکارآمد شهری تاکنون قوانین و مصوبه‌های زیادی سعی در ایجاد شرایط و تسهیل امور مربوط به آن داشته‌اند، اما با این وجود به نظر می‌رسد پیشرفت چندانی در این حوزه صورت نگرفته است. یکی از دلایل قابل ذکر، ماهیت چند تخصصی و متنوع پروژه‌ها همراه با حضور ذی‌نفعان متعدد از نهادهای خصوصی و عمومی در حوزه بازآفرینی بافت ناکارآمد است که هماهنگی و هم‌راستایی عملکرد این ذی‌نفعان موجب پیچیدگی فرایند بازآفرینی می‌‌‌شود. در واقع می‌توان گفت که بازآفرینی بافت ناکارآمد شهری دارای خصوصیات یک طرح1  است که شبکه‌ای از ذی‌نفعان در اجرا و پیش برد اهداف آن دخیل هستند و مطابق مطالعات پیشین یکی از مهم‌ترین عوامل در پیش برد این طرح‌ها مسئله حاکمیت ذی‌نفعان آن است. لذا شناخت حاکمیت این شبکه و نقد آن می‌تواند در موفقیت این طرح‌ها تأثیرگذار باشد. به این منظور، این مقاله با استفاده از روش گروه‌های کانونی میزان تعامل بین هر دو ذی‌نفع شناسایی شده را کمی‌سازی می‌کند و سپس با استفاده از روش تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی که ابزاری قدرتمند برای شناسایی و تحلیل ابعاد مختلف شبکه‌ها محسوب می‌شود، شبکه قدرت حاکم بر سازمان‌ها و نهادهای مرتبط با برنامه بازآفرینی شهر تهران را به منظور بررسی میزان تعامل که یکی از مهم‌ترین ملزومات حاکمیت این شبکه‌هاست، مورد بررسی قرار می‌دهد. در انتها با تمرکز بر ادبیات موضوع و تطبیق نتایج حاصل از تحلیل شبکه اجتماعی با شرایط مطلوب، ضعف‌های وضع موجود را بررسی و رویکرد مناسب حاکمیت را پیشنهاد می‌کند. 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Governance of distressed areas regeneration program of Tehran with network approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amirhossein Mohebifar 1
  • Mohamad Hoseein Sobhiyah 2
  • mojtaba Rafieian 3
  • Yahya Hasas yegane 4
  • Shabaan Elahi 5
4 دکتری حسابداری. استاد گروه حسابداری، دانشکده دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
5 Ph. D. in Management, Associate professor, Tarbiat Modares Unدکتری مدیریت فنّاوری اطلاعات. دانشیار گروه مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرسiversity, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The distressed areas and improvement of living atmosphere is one of the complex and multi-dimensional subjects in the field of urban design and management. Considering the importance of this subject, so may laws and policies have been issued by governments and policy makers; however, a significant improvement has not been observed in this filed. One of the reasons for the lack of development is the multi expertise nature of the regeneration programs and the diversity of projects along with the different stakeholders from private and governmental institutions that need complex coordinating plans. In the other words, the regeneration of deteriorated areas has the attitudes of a program, which a network of stakeholders have essential roles in its achievements and one of the important issues for reaching the end points of the program is governance of these stakeholders. Therefore, recognizing the structure of the stakeholder networks’ governance and criticizing it can lead to the success of these programs. As one of the most important aspects of the regeneration programs’ governance is the collaboration between nodes, this article has quantified the degree of the collaboration between nodes of the stakeholders’ network of Tehran regeneration program by using the focus group method. Then the results have been used as the date for Social Network Analysis (SNA) method which is a great program for analyzing the different aspects of the networks. Then by using SNA, the degree of collaboration of Tehran regeneration program’s governance network is identified and is compared to the ideal form of collaborative governance structure introduced in the literature to make some suggestion for making the improvements.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Regeneration of deteriorated areas
  • social network analysis
  • collaboration
  • network

Agranoff, R. & Mcguire, M. (2001). Big Questions in Public Network Management Reserch. Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, (11): 295–326.

Alexandra, M. & Wellman, B. (2009). Social Network Analysis: An Introduction1. Department of Sociology, University of Toronto June.

Achrol, R. S. (1996). Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing: Toward a network paradigm. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 25(1): 56-71

Bavand. (2003). Studies of the regional space organization 12. Tehran: Department of Architecture and Urban Planning. Tehran: Tehran Municipality.

Bazargan, A. (2016). An Intorduction to Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research Tehran. Tehran: Didavarbook.

Camarinha-Matos, L. M. & Afsarmanesh, H. (2005). Collaborative networks: a new scientific discipline. Journal of intelligent manufacturing, (16): 439-452.

Chowdhury, A. N., Chen, P. H. & Tiong, R. L. (2011). Analysing the structure of public–private partnership projects using network theory. Construction Management and Economics, (29): 247-260.

Driessen, P., et al. (2012). Towards a conceptual framework for the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance–experiences from the Netherlands. Environmental policy and governance, (22): 143-160.

Edelenbos, J. & Klijn, E.H. (2009). Project versus process management in public-private partnership: Relation between management style and outcomes. International Public Management Journal, (12): 310-331.

Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W. (2004). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector, Washington DC, The Brookings Institution.

Hassan, G. F. (2012). Regeneration as an approach for the development of informal settlements in Cairo metropolitan. Alexandria Engineering Journal, (51): 229-239.

Ireland, R. K. & Crum, C. (2005). Supply chain collaboration: How to implement CPFR and other best collaborative practices. Florida: J. Ross Publishing.

Keast, R., Brown, K. & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management Journal, (10): 9-33.

Keast, R. & Mandell, M. P. (2013). Network performance: a complex interplay of form and action. International Review of Public Administration, (18): 27-45.

Keast, R. L. (2003). Integrated public services: The role of networked arrangements. Douglas: James Cook University.

Keast, R. L. & MandellL, M. P. (2014). A composite theory of leadership and management: process catalyst and strategic leveraging theory of deliberate action in collaborative networks.

Klijn, E.H., Reynaers, A.M. & Verweij, S. (2015). PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: FROM START TO FINISH. Available from: https://www.utwente.nl/en/nig/research/archive/2015/panel-13.pdf.

Koppenjan, J. & Klijn, E.H. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks. London: Routledge.

Kort, M. & Klijn, E. H. (2011). Public–Private Partnerships in Urban Regeneration Projects: Organizational Form or Managerial Capacity? Public Administration Review, (71): 618-626.

Lynn JR, L. E., Heinrich, C. J. & HillI, C. J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.

Mandell, M. P. (1994). Managing Interdependencies through Program Structures:A Revised Paradigm. American Review of Public Administration, (24): 99–121.

Mandell, M. P. & Keast, R. 2009. A new look at leadership in collaborative networks: Process catalysts. Public sector leadership: International challenges and perspectives, 163-178.

Mcguire, M. (2002). Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It. Public Administration Review, (62): 599–609.

Meier, K. J., Laurence, J. & O’toole. (2002). Public Management and Organizational Performance: The Impact of Managerial Quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, (21): 629–43.

Meier, K. J. & O’toole, L. J. (2005). Managerial Networking: Issues of Management and Research Design. Administration and Society, (37): 523–41.

Raab, J. & Suikerbuik, S. (2009). Heading Towards a Network Theory of Effectiveness: A Replication with Set-Theoretic Extension of Provan and Milward (1995). Paper presented at the XXIX Sunbelt Conference, 2009 San Diego, CA.

Roberts, P. (2000). The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration. Urban regeneration. London: Sage.

Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G. & Mancini, M. (2011). A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management, (29): 647-660.

Shaol, J., Stafford, A. & Stapleton, P. (2012). Accountability and corporate governance of public private partnerships. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, (23): 213-229.

Sorensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Baskingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International social science journal, (50):17-28.

Stoker, G. (2004). Designing institutions for governance in complex environments: Normative rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted. Economic and Social Research Council Fellowship Paper.

Wood, D. J. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Th eory of Collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2): 139–62.

Agranoff, R. & Mcguire, M. (2001). Big Questions in Public Network Management Reserch. Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, (11): 295–326.

Alexandra, M. & Wellman, B. (2009). Social Network Analysis: An Introduction1. Department of Sociology, University of Toronto June.

Achrol, R. S. (1996). Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing: Toward a network paradigm. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 25(1): 56-71

Bavand. (2003). Studies of the regional space organization 12. Tehran: Department of Architecture and Urban Planning. Tehran: Tehran Municipality.

Bazargan, A. (2016). An Intorduction to Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research Tehran. Tehran: Didavarbook.

Camarinha-Matos, L. M. & Afsarmanesh, H. (2005). Collaborative networks: a new scientific discipline. Journal of intelligent manufacturing, (16): 439-452.

Chowdhury, A. N., Chen, P. H. & Tiong, R. L. (2011). Analysing the structure of public–private partnership projects using network theory. Construction Management and Economics, (29): 247-260.

Driessen, P., et al. (2012). Towards a conceptual framework for the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance–experiences from the Netherlands. Environmental policy and governance, (22): 143-160.

Edelenbos, J. & Klijn, E.H. (2009). Project versus process management in public-private partnership: Relation between management style and outcomes. International Public Management Journal, (12): 310-331.

Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W. (2004). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector, Washington DC, The Brookings Institution.

Hassan, G. F. (2012). Regeneration as an approach for the development of informal settlements in Cairo metropolitan. Alexandria Engineering Journal, (51): 229-239.

Ireland, R. K. & Crum, C. (2005). Supply chain collaboration: How to implement CPFR and other best collaborative practices. Florida: J. Ross Publishing.

Keast, R., Brown, K. & Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management Journal, (10): 9-33.

Keast, R. & Mandell, M. P. (2013). Network performance: a complex interplay of form and action. International Review of Public Administration, (18): 27-45.

Keast, R. L. (2003). Integrated public services: The role of networked arrangements. Douglas: James Cook University.

Keast, R. L. & MandellL, M. P. (2014). A composite theory of leadership and management: process catalyst and strategic leveraging theory of deliberate action in collaborative networks.

Klijn, E.H., Reynaers, A.M. & Verweij, S. (2015). PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: FROM START TO FINISH. Available from: https://www.utwente.nl/en/nig/research/archive/2015/panel-13.pdf.

Koppenjan, J. & Klijn, E.H. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks. London: Routledge.

Kort, M. & Klijn, E. H. (2011). Public–Private Partnerships in Urban Regeneration Projects: Organizational Form or Managerial Capacity? Public Administration Review, (71): 618-626.

Lynn JR, L. E., Heinrich, C. J. & HillI, C. J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.

Mandell, M. P. (1994). Managing Interdependencies through Program Structures:A Revised Paradigm. American Review of Public Administration, (24): 99–121.

Mandell, M. P. & Keast, R. 2009. A new look at leadership in collaborative networks: Process catalysts. Public sector leadership: International challenges and perspectives, 163-178.

Mcguire, M. (2002). Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It. Public Administration Review, (62): 599–609.

Meier, K. J., Laurence, J. & O’toole. (2002). Public Management and Organizational Performance: The Impact of Managerial Quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, (21): 629–43.

Meier, K. J. & O’toole, L. J. (2005). Managerial Networking: Issues of Management and Research Design. Administration and Society, (37): 523–41.

Raab, J. & Suikerbuik, S. (2009). Heading Towards a Network Theory of Effectiveness: A Replication with Set-Theoretic Extension of Provan and Milward (1995). Paper presented at the XXIX Sunbelt Conference, 2009 San Diego, CA.

Roberts, P. (2000). The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration. Urban regeneration. London: Sage.

Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G. & Mancini, M. (2011). A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: Lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management, (29): 647-660.

Shaol, J., Stafford, A. & Stapleton, P. (2012). Accountability and corporate governance of public private partnerships. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, (23): 213-229.

Sorensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Baskingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International social science journal, (50):17-28.

Stoker, G. (2004). Designing institutions for governance in complex environments: Normative rational choice and cultural institutional theories explored and contrasted. Economic and Social Research Council Fellowship Paper.

Wood, D. J. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Th eory of Collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2): 139–62.