کاربست رهیافت اقتصاد سیاسی زمین در برنامهریزی شهری | ||
| فصلنامه علمی توسعه پایدار محیط جغرافیایی | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 7، شماره 15، دی 1404، صفحه 1-15 اصل مقاله (879.36 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/sdge.2026.241743.1275 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| رسول رحمت زاده* 1؛ بهزاد ملک پور اصل1؛ غلامرضا کاظمیان2 | ||
| 1گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2گروه مدیریت شهری، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| مقدمه: شهرها تحت تأثیر کنشهای نیروهای اقتصادی و سیاسی رشد و توسعه مییابند و دگرگونیها در فضاهای شهری بیش از آنکه یک فرایند طبیعی باشد، یک پدیده اقتصادی سیاسی است. برنامهریزی شهری به عنوان رشتهای که با توسعه شهر سروکار دارد، تنها به جنبه کالبدی و فنی محدود نمیشود بلکه در بستر اجتماعی، اقتصادی و سیاسی شکل میگیرد. یکی از نقدهای مطرح به برنامهریزی، تمرکز بر مباحث فنی و کمتوجهی به تأثیر قدرتها و بازیگران اقتصادی و سیاسی کلیدی در برنامههای شهری است. باوجود اهمیت دیدگاه اقتصاد سیاسی در جهت درک و تحلیل مسائل شهری از منظر قدرت در برنامهریزی، این دیدگاه هنوز در مطالعات برنامهریزی بهروشنی تبیین نشده است. یکی از دلایل این امر را میتوان پیچیدگی بهکارگیری این دیدگاه دانست، زیرا اقتصاد سیاسی دانشی میانرشتهای بوده و با حوزههای مختلف دانشی از جمله رشتههای اقتصادی، سیاسی، اجتماعی و مدیریتی درگیر است. ازاینرو در مطالعه حاضر تلاش میشود رهیافت اقتصاد سیاسی زمین که هم به مباحث قدرت و اقتصاد سیاسی در برنامهریزی میپردازد و هم پیچیدگیهای دیدگاه اقتصاد سیاسی فضا را ندارد، مورد بررسی و تحلیل قرار گیرد. بدین منظور با تحلیل پژوهشهای انجام شده در این حوزه تلاش میشود چهارچوب مفهومی برای تبیین رهیافت اقتصاد سیاسی زمین با تأکید بر برنامهریزی شهری ارائه گردد. مواد و روشها: ازآنجاییکه مطالعه حاضر به دنبال تبیین رهیافت اقتصاد سیاسی زمین و تشریح ابعاد و مؤلفههای آن است؛ لذا از نوع توصیفی - تحلیلی است و به لحاظ هدف کاربردی و با توجه به نوع دادهها، کیفی بوده و دادهها با روش اسنادی و کتابخانهای گردآوری شده است. برای شناسایی و استخراج منابع پژوهش از دستورالعمل پریزما استفاده شد که در نهایت 42 مطالعه برای انجام تحلیل انتخاب شد که 17 مطالعه داخلی و 25 مطالعه خارجی را شامل میشود. تجزیهوتحلیل دادهها با استفاده از روش تحلیل مضمون و از طریق نرمافزار مکس کیو دا کدگذاری و مضمونهای مربوط به رهیافت اقتصاد سیاسی زمین شناسایی شده است. نتایج و بحث: در سطح نظری رهیافت اقتصاد سیاسی زمین که در دسته نظریات انتقادی برنامهریزی شهری محسوب میشود، به دنبال تبیین تحولات زمین است که در نتیجه کنش قدرتها و بازیگران اقتصادی، اجتماعی و سیاسی برای انباشت سرمایه در زمین رخ میدهد. مبتنی بر این رهیافت، زمین شهری بستری برای انباشت سرمایه و کسب سود است. این امر موجب کالاییسازی زمین شده که از جمله پیامدهای آن میتوان به نابرابری و تضاد طبقاتی، رشد و تراکم بیرویه شهری، سوداگری و رانت زمین و تخریب میراث فرهنگی و طبیعی شهری اشاره کرد. در سطح تحلیلی و بر اساس تحلیل مضمون مطالعات، این رهیافت از دو بعد اصلی تشکیل شده است، یک؛ بعد اقتصاد سیاسی و دو؛ بعد زمینشهری. مؤلفههای بعد اقتصاد سیاسی عبارتاند از: انگیزه و منافع بازیگران، روابط میان بازیگران و شیوه عمل بازیگران و مؤلفههای بعد زمین نیز شامل: مالکیت زمین، بهرهبرداری زمین و مدیریت و سیاستگذاری زمین. نتیجهگیری: در مطالعه حاضر تلاش شد تا با مرور مطالعات انجام شده تصویری دقیقتر از تحولات در زمین شهر در قالب رهیافت اقتصاد سیاسی زمین ارائه شود تا از یکسو توجه صرف برنامهریزی از یک امر فنی و تخصصی به مباحث قدرت و تأثیر بازیگران و نیروهای اقتصادی سیاسی در موضوعات شهری بیشتر جلب شود و از سوی دیگر پیچیدگی دیدگاه اقتصاد سیاسی فضا را کاهش دهد. بدین منظور با تحلیل مطالعات انجام شده در این حوزه چهارچوب مفهومی برای تبیین رهیافت اقتصاد سیاسی زمین در برنامهریزی شهری ارائه شد. بر اساس نتایج پژوهش، رهیافت اقتصاد سیاسی زمین تمرکز بر شناسایی بازیگران کلیدی و ارتباطشان باهم (همکاری یا رقابت) دارد که با استفاده از قدرت و شیوه عمل خود، منافع و انگیزههای خود را با تأثیرگذاری در مؤلفههای زمین یعنی مالکیت، بهرهبرداری و مدیریت و سیاستگذاری زمین، دنبال میکنند که موجب کالاییسازی زمین شده است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| اقتصاد سیاسی زمین؛ برنامهریزی شهری؛ زمینشهری؛ کالاییسازی زمین | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Applying the political economy of land approach to urban planning | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Rasoul Rahmatzadeh1؛ Behzad Malekpourasl1؛ Gholamreza Kazemian2 | ||
| 1Department of Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Urban Management, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction: Cities grow and develop under the influence of economic and political forces, and changes in urban spaces are more of a political-economic phenomenon than a natural process. Urban planning, as a discipline that deals with urban development, is not limited to physical and technical aspects but is also shaped by social, economic, and political contexts. One major criticism of urban planning is the focus on technical issues and the lack of attention to the influence of key economic and political powers and actors in urban plans. Despite the importance of the political economy perspective in understanding and analyzing urban issues from the perspective of power in planning, this perspective has not yet been sufficiently conceptualized in planning scholarship. One possible reason is the complexity associated with applying this perspective, because political economy is an interdisciplinary science and is involved in various fields of knowledge, including economic, political, social, and management disciplines. Therefore, the present study attempts to examine and analyze the political economy of land approach, which addresses both the issues of power and political economy in planning while avoiding the complexities associated with the political economy of space perspective. To this end, the study analyzes existing research to propose a conceptual framework for explaining the political economy of land approach with an emphasis on urban planning. Materials and Methods: The study seeks to explain the political economy of land approach and explain its dimensions and components; Therefore, it adopts a descriptive-analytical design andit is applied in nature and qualitative in terms of data, and the data was collected using document analysis and literature review. The PRISMA guidelines were used to identify and extract research sources, and ultimately 42 studies were selected for analysis, including 17 domestic studies and 25 foreign studies. Data analysis was performed using thematic analysis and coding through MAXQDA software, and themes related to the political economy of land approach were identified. Results and Discussion: At the theoretical level, the political economy of land approach, which is considered a critical theory of urban planning, seeks to explain land developments that occur as a result of the actions of economic, social, and political powers and actors to accumulate capital through land. Based on this approach, urban land is a platform for capital accumulation and profit-making. This has led to the commodification of land, the consequences of which include inequality and class conflict, excessive urban growth and density, profiteering and land rent, and the destruction of urban cultural and natural heritage. At the analytical level, and based on the analysis of the content of the studies, this approach consists of two main dimensions: one; the political economy dimension and two; the urban land dimension. The components of the political economy dimension include: the motivation and interests of actors, the relationships between actors, and the way actors act, and the components of the land dimension include: land ownership, land exploitation, and land management and policy-making. Conclusion: This study aimed to present a clearer picture of the developments in urban land in the form of a political economy of land approach by reviewing the studies conducted, so that on the one hand, the mere attention of planning from a technical and specialized matter to the issues of power and influence of political economic actors and forces in urban issues is drawn more, and on the other hand, the complexity of the political economy of space perspective is reduced. To this end, by analyzing the studies conducted in this area, a conceptual framework was presented to explain the political economy of land approach in urban planning. Based on the results of the research, the political economy of land approach focuses on identifying key actors and their relationships with each other (cooperation or competition) who, using their power and methods of action, pursue their interests and motivations by influencing the components of land, namely ownership, exploitation, management and policy-making of land, this process has led to the commodification of land. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Political Economy of Land, Urban Planning, Urban Land, Land Commodification | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdi, H., Hafeznia, M. R., & Roumina, E. (2023). Investigation of the Reflections of Political Economy on Geographical Spaces, Case Study: Urmia City. Mdrsjrns, 5(4), 484–501.
Adua, L., & and Lobao, L. (2021). The Political-Economy of Local Land-Use Policy: Place-Making and the Relative Power of Business, Civil Society, and Government. The Sociological Quarterly, 62(3), 413–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2020.1756517
Afrahateh, H., & Hajipour, mohmmad. (2016). Political Economy of Space and Regional Balance of Iran. Quarterly Journal of Spatial Economics and Rural Development, 4(14), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.serd.4.14.87
Afrogh, I. (1998). Space and Social Inequality Providing a Model for Spatial Segregation and Its Consequences (Vol. 368). Tarbiat Modares University, Scientific Works Publishing Office.
Bassett, E. (2020). Reform and resistance: The political economy of land and planning reform in Kenya. Urban Studies, 57(6), 1164–1183.
Borhani, K., Rafiian, M., & Meshkini, A. (2017). Urban land use changes and the political economy of space: Presenting a conceptual-integrated model. Iranian Journal of Sociology, 18(3), 86–109.
Büyükcivelek, A. B., Çobanyilmaz, P., & Kutlay, E. (2022). Claiming Urban Form for Liveability: An Analysis of Urban Social Movements in Istanbul. Built Environment, 48(3), 445–467. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.48.3.445
Daffron, S. R., & Caffarella, R. S. (2021). Planning Programs for Adult Learners: A Practical Guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Darabi, H., Ezzatpanah, B., & Hosseinzadeh Dalir, K. (2022). Spatial Analysis of Sustainable Urban Housing Dimensions Based on the Political Economy of Space Approach, Case Study: Kermanshah City. Sustainable City Journal, 5(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.22034/jsc.2022.307600.1551
Debrunner, G., & Kaufmann, D. (2023). Land valuation in densifying cities: The negotiation process between institutional landowners and municipal planning authorities. Land Use Policy, 132, 106813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106813
DeVerteuil, G. (2012). Resisting gentrification-induced displacement: Advantages and disadvantages to “staying put” among non-profit social services in London and Los Angeles. Area, 44(2), 208–216.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2002). Bringing Power to Planning Research: One Researcher’s Praxis Story. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(4), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0202100401
Forester, J. (1982). Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of the American Planning Association, 48(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368208976167
Frangioni, T. (2016). Squatted houses and city politics: Communication and contention in Firenze. Amnis, 15. https://doi.org/10.4000/amnis.2787
Gao, J. (2023). Spatial restructuring and the logic of industrial land redevelopment in urban China: IV. A case study of jointly redevelopment by multi-actors. Regional Sustainability, 4(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2023.02.003
Gao, J., Chen, W., & Yuan, F. (2017). Spatial restructuring and the logic of industrial land redevelopment in urban China: I. Theoretical considerations. Land Use Policy, 68(C), 604–613.
Ghertner, D. A., & Lake, R. W. (Eds.). (2021). Land Fictions: The Commodification of Land in City and Country. Cornell University Press.
Golubchikov, O., & Phelps, N. (2011). The political economy of place at the post-socialist urban periphery: Governing growth on the edge of Moscow. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 36, 425–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00427.x
Haghighat Naini, G., & Mohsenpour, Y. (2022). Explaining the Developments of the Spatial Organization of the Coastal City of Mahmoudabad from the Perspective of the Political Economy of Space. Geography and Urban Planning Perspective of Zagros, 14(51), 137–113.
Hall, R. (2004). A Political economy of land reform in South Africa*. Review of African Political Economy, 31(100), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305624042000262257
Haque, K. N. H. (2012). The political economy of urban space: Land and real estate in Dhaka City [Working paper]. BRAC University. https://dspace.bracu.ac.bd:8443/xmlui/handle/10361/11668
Hataminejad, H., & Abdi, N. (2006). Political economy and urban space. Political and Economic Information.
Ilkhani, L., Shareeatpanahi, M., & Daryabari, S. J. (2023). Analysis the Factors of Affecting Land Use System Changes with Emphasis on the Political Space Economy (Case Study: Lavasan Country, Little Lavasan Rural Country). Geography (Regional Planning), 13(52), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.22034/jgeoq.2024.326340.3542
Imani Shamloo, J., & Rafiian, M. (2016). Power and redefinition of urban planning theory (with emphasis on the political economy of space perspective). Strategic Quarterly, 25(3), e124606.
Irazábal, C. (2018). Counter Land-Grabbing by the Precariat: Housing Movements and Restorative Justice in Brazil. Urban Science, 2(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2020049
Jacobs, K., Atkinson ,Rowland, & and Warr, D. (2024). Political economy perspectives and their relevance for contemporary housing studies. Housing Studies, 39(4), 962–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2022.2100327
Krieger, T., & Leroch, M. (2016). The Political Economy of Land Grabbing. Homo Oeconomicus, 33(3), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41412-016-0022-3
Lashgari, E., Rezaei, M., & Kaviyanpoor, G. (2017). Theoretical Explanation of Functions of Political Power in Urban Space. Geographical Research, 32(2), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.geores.32.2.52
Lees, L. (2014). The Urban Injustices of New Labour’s “New Urban Renewal”: The Case of the Aylesbury Estate in London. Antipode, 46(4), 921–947. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12020
Li, L. H., Wong, S. K., & Cheung, K. S. (2016). Land supply and housing prices in Hong Kong: The political economy of urban land policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614699
Lorzangeneh, M. (2024). The Role of Spatial Political Economy in Shaping Urban Design: Analyzing Alexander Cuthbert’s Theoretical Framework. DIMENSI (Journal of Architecture and Built Environment), 51, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.9744/dimensi.51.2.83-92
Mahmali Abyaneh, H. (2012). Comparative Comparison of Schools of Urban Morphology Studies in Order to Complete It Based on the Analytical System of the School of Political Economy of Space. Armanshahr, 4(7), 159–172.
Meckelburg, R., & Wardana, A. (2024). The political economy of land acquisition for development in the public interest: The case of Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 137, 107017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.107017
Molotch, H. (1976). The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place. American Journal of Sociology, 82(2), 309–332.
Nakanwagi, T. (2022). The political economy of land rights sensitizations: Land rights sensitizations dismantle land conflicts reporting fears among local leaders in Uganda. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31437.31202
Pettit, J., & Mejía Acosta, A. (2014). Power Above and Below the Waterline: Bridging Political Economy and Power Analysis. IDS Bulletin, 45(5), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1759-5436.12100
Qian, J., & An, N. (2021). URBAN THEORY BETWEEN POLITICAL ECONOMY AND EVERYDAY URBANISM: Desiring Machine and Power in a Saga of Urbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 45(4), 679–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12988
Rajabi Sanajerdi, H., & Papli Yazdi, M. H. (2003). Theories of the city and its surroundings. Samt.
Regmi, K. D. (2024). Political economy model of program planning: Adult education for marginalised adults, civil society and democracy. Studies in Continuing Education, 46(3), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2023.2211523
Rithmire, M. (2013). Land Politics and Local State Capacities: The Political Economy of Urban Change in China. The China Quarterly, 216, 872–895. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741013001033
Ruiz, G. (2018). People and urban nature: The environmentalization of social movements in Bogotá. Journal of Political Ecology, 25, 525. https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.23096
Sarwar, R., Darvish, B., & Khaliji, M. (2021). Political Economy and Integrated Management of the Tehran Metropolitan Area. Urban Economics, 6(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.22108/ue.2022.134331.1220
Shatkin, G. (2016). The real estate turn in policy and planning: Land monetization and the political economy of peri-urbanization in Asia. Cities, 53, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.015
Taherian, N., & Parsi, H. (2023). The Dynamics of the Political Economy of Space, Physical Disproportion and Visual Disturbance (Case Study: Shahrdari Street from Tajrish Square to Qods Square). Manzar, 15(63), 52–69.
Vives-Miró, S. (2022). The urbanization of poverty: Rethinking the production of unjust geographies. Fennia - International Journal of Geography, 200(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.103192
Wang, Y., & Bramwell, B. (2012). Heritage protection and tourism development priorities in Hangzhou, China: A political economy and governance perspective. Tourism Management, 33(4), 988–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.10.010
Yiftachel, O., Little, J., Hedgcock, D., & Alexander, I. (Eds.). (2002). The Power of Planning: Spaces of Control and Transformation (Vol. 10). Springer.
Zhang, L. (2011). The political economy of informal settlements in post-socialist China: The case of chengzhongcun(s). Geoforum, 42(4), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.03.003 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 355 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 106 |
||