تحلیل تطبیقی مدل‌های حکمروائی مناطق کلان‌شهری: تعادل میان تمرکز و تمرکززدایی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه برنامه ریزی منطقه ای، دانشکده شهرسازی، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

2 کارشناس ارشد برنامه ریزی شهری و منطقه ای، گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده شهرسازی، دانشکدگان هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

تمرکززدایی با هدف بهبود خدمات عمومی، قدرت را از دولت مرکزی به سطوح محلی منتقل می­کند. این پژوهش مدل­های حکمرانی کلان‌شهرها را از منظر تفرق و یکپارچگی بررسی کرده و تأثیر تمرکززدایی مالی، اداری و سیاسی بر کارایی خدمات عمومی را تحلیل می­کند. با استفاده از نظریه داده­بنیاد و ابزار MAXQDA، داده­های کیفی از منابع منتشرشده بین مهروموم‌های ۱۹۸۱ تا ۲۰۲۴ تحلیل شدند. یافته­ها نشان می­دهند که مدل تفرق، کیفیت خدمات و پاسخگویی محلی را بهبود می­بخشد، اما ممکن است نابرابری اقتصادی و هزینه­ها را افزایش دهد. در مقابل، مدل یکپارچه با بهره­گیری از صرفه­جویی­های مقیاس، این چالش­ها را کاهش داده و کارایی را تقویت می­کند. برای حکمرانی مؤثر کلان‌شهرها، تعادل پویا بین تمرکززدایی و تمرکز، همراه با شفافیت و مشارکت شهروندی، توصیه می­شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Comparative Analysis of Governance Models of Metropolitan Areas: The Balance Between Decentralization and Centralization

نویسندگان [English]

  • Elnaz Baghernezhad 1
  • Elnaz Nikbakht 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Regional Planning, School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Master of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Urban Planning, School of Urban Planning, College of fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Decentralization is a governance approach intended to improve the alignment of public services with local needs and preferences. By transferring power, responsibilities, and functions from central governments to local authorities, decentralization’s promise is to empower lower levels of government to address specific regional requirements. In metropolitan areas, however, decentralization introduces complexities due to variations in  degree and type , resulting in diverse governance structures that fall between the extremes of fragmentation and integration. These governance models significantly impact the efficiency and effectiveness of public service delivery. Therefore, a central research question arises: which governance model in metropolitan areas—fragmentation or integration—ensures maximum efficiency while minimizing negative consequences through the optimal application of financial, administrative, and political decentralization? This study investigates the role of governance structures in mitigating the disadvantages of decentralization and enhancing public service delivery in metropolitan areas. Grounded theory was employed as the research methodology, featuring open, axial, and selective coding for qualitative data analysis. The analysis was supported by MAXQDA software, which facilitated the evaluation of decentralization across various dimensions within metropolitan contexts. Data collection included a comprehensive review of theoretical and empirical literature, incorporating Persian and English scholarly articles and books published between 1981 and 2025. During the open coding phase, decentralization-related issues in metropolitan areas were identified and coded. In the axial coding phase, two major categories were established: the advantages and disadvantages of decentralization. This process was also applied to explore different forms of governance within metropolitan areas, leading to two main categories: fragmentation and integration of governance structures at the metropolitan level. The analysis of fragmentation focused on its benefits and drawbacks, while the examination of integration highlighted the pros and cons of metropolitan governance. From horizontal and vertical perspectives on metropolitan decentralization, advantages and disadvantages were further divided into two subcategories: governance system integration as a regional government (decentralization from the national level) and governance system integration as a regional authority above local governments. In the selective coding phase, overlapping categories and their interrelationships were systematically analyzed to address the study’s main research question. The findings illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of fragmented and integrated governance models. Fragmented governance structures improve decentralization by enhancing public service quality, fostering independence and accountability at the local level, and driving economic competitiveness. However, these structures often face challenges such as increasing economic disparities and higher welfare service costs. Integrated governance models effectively address these drawbacks by leveraging economies of scale and fostering regional collaboration. Integrated governance improves service efficiency while minimizing decentralization’s limitations. Effective metropolitan governance requires a dynamic balance between decentralization and centralization. This balance should be informed by the unique characteristics of each region, prioritizing transparency, accountability, and participatory decision-making processes. In conclusion, decentralization provides a vital framework for responsive governance. Its success relies on integrating decentralized autonomy with centralized coordination, tailored to the socio-economic and cultural contexts of metropolitan areas. Transparency and inclusivity are essential for achieving balanced, efficient, equitable, and sustainable service delivery within urban regions, making this dynamic equilibrium the cornerstone of effective metropolitan governance

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Decentralization
  • Fragmentation
  • Integration
  • Metropolitan Areas
  • MAXQDA

مراجع

  • آخوندی، عباس و برک‌پور، ناصر (1389). راهبردهای استقرار نظام حکمروایی در منطقه کلان‌شهری تهران. فصلنامه علمی راهبردی. 18(4). / http://doi.org//20.1001.1.10283102.1389.18.4.9.0
  • - اسدی، ایرج (1398). ارزیابی تجدید سازمان حکمروایی پیشنهادی برای مدیریت یکپارچه مناطق کلان‏شهری ایران. نشریه هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی، 24(1)، 57-70. - http://doi.org// 10.22059/jfaup.2019.285323.672303
  • - شهبازی، مهرداد، یگانه، منصور و بمانیان، محمدرضا (1399). شناسایی عوامل کالبدی-فضایی مؤثر بر سرزندگی محیطی در فضاهای باز مجموعه مسکونی از دیدگاه طراحان و ساکنین؛ مطالعه موردی: مجتمع‌های مسکونی شهر تهران، معماری و شهرسازی آرمان‌شهر، (13)30، 117-137 http://doi.org//10.22034/aaud.2019.189635.1903
  •  Akhundi, A., & Barkpour, N. (2010). Strategies for establishing a governance system in the Tehran metropolitan regio ]Rahbordhaye esteghrar-e nezam-e hokmravayi dar mantaqe-ye kalanshahri-ye Tehran [. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 18(4), 45–68. http://doi.org//20.1001.1.10283102.1389.18.4.9.0 (In Persian).
  •  Asadi, I. (2019). Evaluation of the proposed governance reorganization for integrated management of metropolitan areas in Iran ]Arzyabi-ye tajdid-e sazman-e hokmravayi-ye pishnahadi baraye modiriyat-e yekparche-ye manateq-e kalanshahri-ye Iran[. Fine Arts: Architecture and Urban Planning Journal, 24(1), 57–70. http://doi.org// 10.22059/jfaup.2019.285323.672303 (In Persian)
  •  Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (Eds.). (2006). Decentralization and local governance in developing countries: A comparative perspective. MIT Press.
  •  Bahl, R., & Linn, J. F. (1992). Urban public finance in developing countries. Oxford University Press.  Bahl, R. (1999). Fiscal decentralization as development policy. Public Budgeting & Finance, 19(2), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0275-1100.1999.01163.x
  •  Bahl, R., & Bird, R. (2008). Subnational taxes in developing countries: The way forward. Public Budgeting & Finance, 28(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5850.2008.00914.x
  •  Bahl, R. (2011). Financing metropolitan cities. In Local government finance: The challenges of the 21st century (pp. 285–308). United Cities and Local Governments.
  •  Bahl, R. (2013). The decentralization of governance in metropolitan areas. In R. Bahl, J. Linn, & D. Wetzel (Eds.), Financing metropolitan governments in developing countries (pp. 85–106). Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
  •  Barlow, I. M. (1991). Metropolitan government. Routledge.
  •  Bird, R., & Slack, E. (2004). Fiscal aspects of metropolitan governance (ITP Paper No. 0401). Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto. Available via ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24137638_Fiscal_Aspects_of_Metropolitan_Governance
  •  Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1980). The power to tax: Analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge University Press
  •  Canare, T. (2021). Decentralization and development outcomes: What does the empirical literature really say? Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, 237(2), 111–151. https://doi.org/10.7866/HPE-RPE.21.2.5
  •  Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Merrill.  Davoodi, H., & Zou, H. F. (1998). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: A cross-country study. Journal of Urban Economics, 43(2), 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1997.2042
  •  Dinh Thanh, S., Nguyen, C. P., Duy-Tung, B., Binh, N. Q., & Van, D. T. B. (2023). Spatial spillover effects of fiscal decentralization on governance and public administration quality. Regional Studies, 57(3), 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2078801
  •  Duque, J. C., Lozano‐Gracia, N., Patino, J. E., & Cadavid, P. R. (2021). Institutional fragmentation and metropolitan coordination in Latin American cities: Are there links with city productivity? Regional Science Policy & Practice, 13(4), 1096–1129. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12314
  •  Eaton, K. (2022). Multilevel governance and the external strategies of subnational governments in Latin America. Regional & Federal Studies, 32(3), 353–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2021.1875448
  •  European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON). (2020). Polycentric territorial structures and territorial cooperation: Polycentric development potentials [Policy brief]. ESPON. https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/ESPON_policy_brief_polycentricity_071016_FINAL_0.pdf
  •  Faguet, J. P. (2004). Does decentralization increase government responsiveness to local needs?: Evidence from Bolivia. Journal of Public Economics, 88(3–4), 867–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00185-8
  •  Faguet, J. (2009). Governance from below in Bolivia: A theory of local government with two empirical tests. Latin American Politics and Society, 51(4), 29–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2009.00063.x
  •  Foremny, D. (2024). Tax decentralization, preferences for redistribution, and regional identities [Working paper]. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4741088
  •  Gracio, F. E., Kartono, D. T., & Suharto, D. G. (2023). The challenges of economic decentralization: A systematic literature review against research trends for 2013–2023. Review of Economics and Finance, 21(1), 1288–1294. https://refpress.org/ref-vol21-a141/
  •  Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Closed awareness. In Awareness of dying (pp. 29–46). Aldine Publishing Company.
  •  Goodman, C. B. (2020). Political fragmentation and economic growth in U.S. metropolitan areas. Journal of Urban Affairs, 43(9), 1355–1376. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2020.1742578
  •  Harrison, J., Hoyler, M., Derudder, B., Liu, X., & Meijers, E. (2023). Governing polycentric urban regions. Territory, Politics, Governance, 11(2), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2022.2083011
  •  Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.
  •  Henderson, A., & Medeiros, M. (2021). Identities and attitudes to decentralization in multi-level states: understanding the territorial scales of political life. Comparative European Politics, 19(2), 139. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/s41295-020-00229-y
  •  Hooghe, L., Marks, G., & Schakel, A. H. (2010). The rise of regional authority: A comparative study of 42 democracies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852170
  •  Holzhacker, R. L., Wittek, R., & Woltjer, J. (2015). Decentralization and governance for sustainable society in Indonesia. In R. L. Holzhacker, R. Wittek, & J. Woltjer (Eds.), Decentralization and governance in Indonesia (pp. 3–29). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22434-3_1
  •  Klink, J. (2008). Recent perspectives on metropolitan organization, functions and governance. In E. Rojas, J. Cuadrado-Roura, & J. M. Fernández Güell (Eds.), Governing the metropolis: Principles and cases (pp. 77–136). Inter-American Development Bank & David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies.
  •  Kyriacou, A. P., & Roca-Sagalés, O. (2021). Fiscal decentralization and governance quality: A review of the literature and additional evidence. In Handbook on decentralization, devolution and the state (pp. 322–336). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839103285.00027
  •  Kubal, M. R. (2006). Contradictions and constraints in Chile's health care and education decentralization. Latin American Politics and Society, 48(4), 105–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2006.tb00367.x
  •  Lee, J. (2001). A grounded theory: Integration and internalization in ERP adoption and use (Publication No. AAI3016318) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska–Lincoln]. ETD Collection for University of Nebraska–Lincoln. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI3016318
  •  Lee, S., & Wang, S. (2023). Impacts of political fragmentation on inclusive economic resilience: Examining American metropolitan areas after the Great Recession. Urban Studies, 60(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980211064455
  •  Litvack, J., & Seddon, J. (Eds.). (2000). Decentralization briefing notes. World Bank Institute Working Papers. The World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/873631468739470623/pdf/multi-page.pdf
  •  Luo, Z., Hu, X., Li, M., Yang, J., & Wen, C. (2019). Centralization or decentralization of environmental governance—Evidence from China. Sustainability, 11(24), 6938. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246938
  •  Marks, G., Hooghe, L., & Schakel, A. H. (2008). Measuring regional authority. Regional and Federal Studies, 18(2–3), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597560801979464
  •  Manasan, R. G., & Mercado, R. G. (1999). Regional economic growth and convergence in the Philippines: 1975–1997 (Discussion Paper No. 1999-13). Philippine Institute for Development Studies. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/187399/1/pidsdps9913.pdf
  •  Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  •  Oates, W. E. (1993). Fiscal decentralization and economic development. National Tax Journal, 46(2), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1086/NTJ41789013
  •  Oates, W. E. (2005). Toward a second-generation theory of fiscal federalism. International Tax and Public Finance, 12, 349–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-005-1619-9
  •  OECD. (2006). OECD territorial reviews: Stockholm, Sweden. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-territorial-reviews-stockholm-sweden-2006_9789264022539-en.html
  •  OECD. (2007). OECD territorial reviews: Madrid, Spain. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-territorial-reviews-madrid-spain-2007_9789264038486-en.html
  •  OECD. (2009a). OECD territorial reviews: Copenhagen, Denmark. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-territorial-reviews-copenhagen-denmark-2009_9789264060036-en.html
  •  OECD. (2009b). OECD territorial reviews: Toronto, Canada. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-territorial-reviews-toronto-canada-2009_9789264079410-en.html
  •  Omara, A., & Tauda, G. (2023). Developing tourism in Indonesia through functional asymmetrical decentralization. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Business Law and Local Wisdom in Tourism (ICBLT 2022) (Vol. 721, p. 157). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-93-0_19
  •  Onofrei, M., Bostan, I., Cigu, E., & Vatamanu, A. F. (2023). Ensuring budgetary resources at the level of local communities in the current social-economic context: Evidence for Romanian municipalities. Economies, 11(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11010022
  •  Polishchuk, L. (2018). Decentralization in Russia: Impact on quality of governance. In M. Kimenyi & P. Meagher (Eds.), Devolution and development: Governance prospects in decentralizing states (pp. 307–344). Ashgate.
  •  Prud’homme, R. (1995). The dangers of decentralization. The World Bank Research Observer, 10(2), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/10.2.201
  •  Qian, Y., & Weingast, B. R. (1997). Federalism as a commitment to preserving market incentives. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(4), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.83
  •  Qiao, B., Martínez-Vázquez, J., & Xu, Y. (2008). Growth and equity tradeoff in decentralization policy: China's experience. Journal of Development Economics, 86(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.05.002
  •  Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Gill, N. (2003). The global trend towards devolution and its implications. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 21(3), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1068/c02
  •  Rodden, J. (2004). Comparative federalism and decentralization: On meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics, 36(4), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150172
  •  Ruano, J. M., & Profiroiu, M. (2016). Conclusions: Intergovernmental networks and decentralisation in Europe. In J. M. Ruano & M. Profiroiu (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of decentralisation in Europe (pp. 477–495). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32437-1_18
  •  Sajida, S., Muluk, M. R. K., & Durrety, S. F. (2025). Trends, issues, and future directions of decentralization in unitary state research: Bibliometric analyses from 1975–2024. In The 2024 AAPA-EROPA-AGPA-IAPA Joint Conference (pp. 262–285). KnE Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v10i4.18040
  •  Schneider, A. (2003). Decentralization: Conceptualization and measurement. Studies in Comparative International Development, 38(3), 32–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686198
  •  Seabright, P. (1996). Accountability and decentralization in government: An incomplete contracts model. European Economic Review, 40(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(95)00055-0
  •  Shah, A. (2006). Corruption and decentralized public governance (Policy Research Working Paper No. 3824). World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/153481468177556563/pdf/wps3824.pdf
  •  Shah, A. (2007). A practitioner’s guide to intergovernmental fiscal transfers. In R. Boadway & A. Shah (Eds.), Intergovernmental fiscal transfers: Principles and practice (pp. 1–53). World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/216941468339553694/a-practitioners-guide-to-intergovernmental-fiscal-transfers
  •  Shahbazi, M., Yeganeh, M., & Bamanian, M. (2020). Identification of physical-spatial factors influencing environmental vitality in open spaces of residential complexes from the perspective of designers and residents: Case study of residential complexes in Tehran ] Shenasaei-ye avamel-e kalbadi–fazayi-ye moasser bar sarzandegi-ye mohiti dar fazaha-ye baz-e majmooe-ye maskooni az didgah-e tarahan va sakenin; motale'e-ye moredi: Mojtama'ha-ye maskooni-ye shahr-e Tehran [. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Development, 13(30), 117–137. http://doi.org//10.22034/aaud.2019.189635.1903 (In Persian)
  •  Shair-Rosenfield, S. (2022). Shared rule as a signal of central state commitment to regional self-rule. Regional & Federal Studies, 32(3), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2021.1960512
  •  Slack, E. (2000). A preliminary assessment of the new city of Toronto. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 23(1), 13–29. https://idjs.ca/images/rcsr/archives/V23N1-SLACK.pdf
  •  Smoke, P. J., Gómez, E. J., & Peterson, G. E. (Eds.). (2006). Decentralization in Asia and Latin America: Towards a comparative interdisciplinary perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/decentralization-in-asia-and-latin-america-9781845420307.html
  •  Stansel, D. (2005). Local decentralization and local economic growth: A cross-sectional examination of US metropolitan areas. Journal of Urban Economics, 57(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2004.08.002
  •  Stren, R. (2007). Urban governance in developing countries: Experiences and challenges. In R. Hambleton & J. Gross (Eds.), Governing cities in a global era: Urban innovation, competition and democratic reform (pp. 57–69). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230608795_5
  •  Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839
  •  Trejo Nieto, A. B., Niño Amezquita, J. L., & Vasquez, M. L. (2018). Governance of metropolitan areas for delivery of public services in Latin America. REGION, 5(3), 49–73. https://doi.org/10.18335/region.v5i3.224
  •  Von Braun, J., & Grote, U. (2002). Does decentralization serve the poor? In E. Ahmad & V. Tanzi (Eds.), Managing fiscal decentralization (pp. 68–96). Routledge.
  •  Weingast, B. R. (1995). The economic role of political institutions: Market-preserving federalism and economic development. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 11(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a036861
  •  Xie, D., Zou, H. F., & Davoodi, H. (1999). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in the United States. Journal of Urban Economics, 45(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1998.2095
نشریه هنرهای زیبا: معماری و شهرسازی
دوره 30، شماره 1
خرداد 1404
صفحه 37-54

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار