تحلیل و گونه‌بندی نگرش نهادگرایانه در برنامه‌ریزی شهری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی، دکترای توسعه اقتصادی و برنامه ریزی منطقه ای دانشگاه لندن

2 مدرس دانشگاه هنر اصفهان

چکیده

نهادگرایی نگرشی اصالتاً اقتصادی است که به عنوان نظریه‌ای برون‌زا، جایگاه ویژه‌ای در بسیاری از رشته‌ها همچون مدیریت، علوم سیاسی، جامعه‌شناسی و ... یافته است. این نگرش از دهه 1990 میلادی با عنوان «گرایش نهادی» در برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه‌ای مطرح شده و می‌توان آن را در کنار نظریه‌های برنامه‌ریزی مبتنی بر مشارکت، از رویکردهای غالب برنامه‌ریزی در دهه‌های اخیر دانست. اهمیت نهادگرایی در برنامه‌ریزی در این است که برنامه‌ریزی خود یک نهاد است که نیازمند شناخت بافتار و زمینه‌های نهادی برای شناسایی مشکلات و تصمیم‌گیری برای حل آن‌هاست. افزون بر آن، پیاده‌سازی تجویزهای برنامه‌ریزی، نیازمند سازوکارهای نهادی است. بنابراین، مقاله حاضر با استفاده از روش توصیفی-تحلیلی، به بررسی آثار اندیشمندان برجسته درباره رابطه نهادگرایی و برنامه‌ریزی می‌پردازد تا به یک گونه‌بندی جامع و مانع از نظریات مختلف درباره این ارتباط دست یابد. گونه‌بندی نهایی، نگرش نهادی نسبت به برنامه‌ریزی را در سه دسته «برنامه‌ریزان نهادی غیر­انتقادی» (نهاد در برنامه‌ریزی)، «برنامه‌ریزان نهادی انتقادی» (طراحی/مداخله نهادی) و «برنامه‌ریزان نهادی مبادله‌ای» (هزینه مبادله برنامه‌ریزی) جای می‌دهد. این دسته‌ها را به ترتیب می‌توان در ذیل رویکردهای نهادگرایانه «جامعه‌شناختی»، «تاریخی» و «انتخاب عقلانی» جای داد. همچنین از منظر الگوواره‌های کلان، این رویکردها به ترتیب در سه دسته «عمل‌گرایانه»، «پسا-اثبات‌گرایانه» و «اثبات‌گرایانه» جای می‌گیرند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis and Typology of Institutionalist Approach in Urban Planning

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Hosseinh Sharifzadegan 1
  • Hossein Ghanouni 2
1 Architecture and Urban Studies Faculty of Shahid Beheshti Unioversity, PhD in Economic Development and Regional Planning from UCL, UK.
2 Instructor at Isfahan University of Arts
چکیده [English]

In recent years, a new wave of emphasis has been emerged on the role of institutional factors in construction of social action in economics, political sciences, organizational sociology, and management. This institutional turn in policy-making and its reflections on planning emphasize that any planning effort is embedded in a unique institutional setting -which has evolved by a certain historical and geographical background- and this setting is making paving the way for new institutional context. Institutionalism is originally an economic approach, which as an exogenous theory has found a prominent role in many fields such as management, political sciences, sociology, etc. Since 1990s, this approach has been discussed in urban and regional planning under "institutional turn" rubric. Since then, this approach has been one of the most discussed topics in urban and regional planning alongside planning theories based on participation (communicative planning theory, consensus-building theory in planning, participative planning theory, etc.). In fact, two main topics of recent academic debate in planning can be distinguished: participation in planning, institutions in planning. The importance of institutionalism in planning comes from the fact that planning is itself an institution; an institution which needs to explore the contextual and institutional settings for identification of issues and problems and making a decision on how to solve/alleviate those problems and issues. Moreover, the implementation of planning prescriptions needs institutional (and organizational) mechanisms. Although institutionalism has been discussed in Political sciences, sociology and especially economics literature of Iran, analysis of planning articles in Iran academia shows that there has been little attention to this influential field of thought in urban and regional planning which has become one of the main topics of discussion in 21st century planning theory. So there is a gap in this sense that should be filled. Therefore, the present article is aimed to do so. Therefore, the present article starts by reviewing the literature, extracting ideas and thoughts of prominent urban and regional academics about the relation of institutionalism and planning by using descriptive analytical method, to introduce a comprehensive typology of ideas about this increasing relationship. The resulting typology, classifies the institutional approach to planning in three categories: non-critical institutionalist planners (institutions in planning), critical institutionalist planners (institutional design/intervention) and transactional institutionalist planners (transaction cost theory of planning). These three categories can be classified according to institutionalist approaches as follows (respectively): sociological institutionalism, historical institutionalism, rational-choice institutionalism. Finally, they can be categorized in pragmatist, post-positivist and positivist paradigms respectively. Each of these institutionalist approaches to planning encompass difference prescriptions in considering institutions in planning thought and action. This article is not aimed to judge which approach is better or more useful. There is the belief that each of these approaches can be useful in different circumstances. The judgment about usefulness of any of these three approaches should be done based on the problems faces, resources in hand and above all, contextual and institutional characteristics of the place that planning intends to change.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Planning
  • Typology
  • historical institutionalism
  • rational-choice institutionalism
  • sociological institutionalism
Albrechts, L (2003), Reconstructing Decision-Making: Planning Versus Politics, Planning Theory, 2, pp.249-268.
Alexander, E. R (1992), A Transaction Cost Theory of Planning, Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(2), pp.190-200.
Alexander, E. R (2005), Institutional Transformation and Planning: From Institutionalization Theory to Institutional Design, Planning Theory, 4(3), pp.209-223.
Alexander, E. R (2007),Institutionalist Perspectives on Planning: Why? Where? How?. In Niraj, Verma (ed). Institutions and Planning, Elsevier, New York, pp.?????.
Beauregard, R. A (2005), Introduction: Institutional Transformations, Planning Theory, 4(3), pp.203-207.
Bolan, R. S (2000), Social interaction and institutional design: The case of housing in the U.S, In: W. Salet, W. G. M. & A. Faludi (Eds), The revival of strategic spatial planning, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences, pp.?????.
Christensen, K (1999),Cities and Complexity: Making Intergovernmental Decisions, Thousand Oaks, Sage, CA.
Davoudi, S (2015), Planning as practive of knowing, Planning Theory, 14(3), pp.316-331.
Davoudi, S (2016), Response to Ernst Alexander's Comments, Planning Theory, 15(2), pp.215-216.
Foldvary, F. E (1998), Dictionary of Free-Market Economics, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.
Hall, P. A & Taylor, R. C. R (1996), Political Science and the Three New Institutionalism, Political Studies, 44(5), pp.936-957.
Healey, P (1986), Planning policies, policy implementation and development plans, The Planner, 72(9), pp.9-12.
Healey, P (1999), Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), pp.111–122.
Healey, P (2007), The New Institutionalism and the Transformative Goals of Planning, In Niraj, Verma (ed). Institutions and Planning, Elsevier, New York, pp.?????.
Healey, P (2005), On the Project of "Institutional Transformation" in the Planning Field: Commentary on the Contributions, Planning Theory, 4, pp.301-310.
Healey, P; McDougall, G & Thomas, M. J (1982), Planning Theory: Prospects for 1980s, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Hodgson, G. M (2004), The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, Routledge, London & New York.
Innes, J. E (1995), Planning Is Institutional Design, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(2), pp.140-3.
Lai, L. W. C (2005), Neo-Institutional Economics and Planning Theory, Planning Theory, 4 (1), pp.7-19.
Mace, A (2013), Delivering Local Plans: Recognising the Bounded Interests of Local Planners within Spatial Planning, Environment & Planning, C, 31(6), pp.1133-1146.
Mandelbaum, S. J (2000), Open Moral Communities, MIT Press, Massachusetts.
Moroni, S (2010), An evolutionary theory of institutions and a dynamic approach to reform, Planning Theory, 9(4), pp.275-297.
Moulaert, F & Cabaret, K (2006), Planning, Networks and Power Relations: Is Democratic Planning under Capitalism Possible?, Planning Theory, 5(1), pp.51-70.
Othengrafen, F & Reimer, M (2013), The Embeddedness of Planning in Cultural Contexts: Theoretical Foundations for the Analysis of Dynamic Planning Cultures, Environment & Planning A, 45(6), pp.1269-1284.
Putnam R. D (1993), The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life, The American Prospect [Internet], (13), pp.35-42.
Rutherford, M (1999), Institutions in Economics: The Old and the New Institutionalism, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Sager, T (2006), The Logic of Critical Communicative Planning: Transaction Cost Alteration, Planning Theory, 5(3), pp.223-254.
Salet, W. G. M (2002), Evolving Institutions: An International Exploration into Planning and Law, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, p.26.
Sanyal, B (2007), DÉJÀ-VU, Planning Theory, 6(3), pp.327-31.
Verma, N (2007), Institutions and Planning, Elsevier, New York.
Webster, C. J (2009), Are Some Planning Transactions Intrinsically Sovereign?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28, p.476.
Williamson, O. E (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Zhang, T (2006), Planning theory as an institutional innovation: then non-linear trajectory of planning theory evolution, City Planning Review, 30(8), pp.9-18.
Tang, Z & Brody, S. D (2009), Linking Planning Theories with Factors Influencing Local Environmental-Plan Quality, Environment & Planning B, 36(3), p.522-537.