ارزیابی و معرفی مدل ‏‌های حکمروایی اثربخش برای مناطق کلان‏‌ شهری ایران

به رسمیت شناختن مناطق کلان ‏‌شهری و نیز پرسش از نهادها و ساختارهای متناسب و اثربخش برای مدیریت و حکمروایی این گونه مناطق نزدیک یک قرن دغدغه فکری جدی اندیشمندان این حوزه بوده است. مطالعات نشان می‏‌دهد در مواقعی که مدل‏‌هایی برای تجدید‏سازمان حکومتی این مناطق در ایران پیشنهاد شده‌‏است، بافتار فضایی و سیاسی خاص مناطق کلان‏‌شهری کشور کمتر مورد ملاحظه قرار گرفته‏‌اند. ازاین رو، هدف اصلی این مقاله یافتن آن دسته از مدل‏‌های منطقه‌‏گرایی کلان‏شهری است که با تعریف جغرافیایی از مجموعه‏‌های شهری کلان‏‌شهری و نیز ویژگی‏‌های ساختار سیاسی و مدیریت محلی و منطقه‌‏ای کشور تناسب نسبی دارند. این مقاله بعد از بحث موجز درباره دلایل پرداختن به منطقه‏‌گرایی کلان‏‌شهری، ابتدا به طرح گونه‏‌شناسی‌‏های مختلف درباره منطقه‏‌گرایی کلان‏‌شهری پرداخته و با بررسی تفصیلی چند گونه‏‌شناسی مهم و شناخته شده به فهرست نمودن مدل‏‌ها و اشکال اصلی منطقه‏‌گرایی کلان‏‌شهری می‏‌پردازد. در ادامه تناسب و اثربخشی هر یک از مدل‏‌های منطقه‏‌گرایی کلان‏‌شهری بر حسب دو تعریف عمده از «شهر»، یکی در معنای ناحیه ساخته‌‏شده شهری یا کلان‏‌شهری و دیگری در معنای منطقه عملکردی شهری یا کلان‏‌شهری مورد بررسی قرار می‏‌گیرند. یافته‏‌های تحقیق نشان می‌‏دهد برخی از مدل‏‌های منطقه‏‌گرایی از پیش در کشور مورد استفاده بوده‌‏اند. با این حال از میان تمام مدل‏‌های مورد بررسی تنها سه مدل تاسیس سازمان‏‌های خدماتی منطقه‏‌ای چندمنظوره، شورای منطقه‌‏ای و حکومت منطقه‌‏ای برای اداره یکپارچه مناطق مجموعه‏‌های شهری کلان‏‌شهری تناسب و اثربخشی خواهند داشت.

evaluation and introducing effective models of regionalism for integrated governing of iran’s metropolitan regions

background and objectives: the recognition of metropolitan regions as well as the question of appropriate and effective institutions and structures for the governance of them has been a serious intellectual concern for nearly a century. these pioneering metropolitan scholars argued that the management of contemporary metropolitan areas based on the ideas, methods, structures, and institutions of traditional urban management were no longer effective. a great deal of governmental reorganizations should take place in these areas to address the managerial inefficiencies of these new space realms. the argument for governmental reorganizations and establishing large-scale metropolitan governments was based on the belief that the process of physical growth and development of twentieth century cities has transcended the boundaries of traditional political divisions in such a way that the city and the political boundaries of the historic municipality no longer correspond even to the territory of the built-up urban area. in other words, the city and the built-up urban areas with its horizontal expansion covers a much wider range of traditional political divisions of the municipality and even larger political territories such as county and districts, and this means that there is no correspondence between the built-up territory of the city and its political and governmental organization. this non-compliance poses the greatest managerial challenge for this type of large urban regions, known as political or governmental fragmentation. on the other hand, metropolitan regionalism generally refers to a set of strategies aimed at overcoming the challenge of political and governmental fragmentation. as the metropolitan scholars emphasize, all kinds of strategies and models of metropolitan regionalism are in fact a response to the growth of urban areas beyond the usual administrative-political boundaries, during which the metropolitan areas or regions transcends political boundaries of tens or hundreds of cities, counties and districts. hence, the discussion of governance organization in metropolitan areas in the form of various models and strategies of regionalism has been a topic that has been raised at the same time with the beginning of the first dispersal of cities and sprawl beyond conventional legal-political boundaries in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. all strategies of metropolitan regionalism seek to create a variety of structures or processes to create coordination, cooperation and collaboration between the various territorial and institutional actors in the region in order to mitigate the adverse economic, social, political and environmental effects of political fragmentation. in the last two decades, from when the issue of metropolitan regionalism in iran was discussed with the approval of the bill planning and management of the majmooe-a-shahri of tehran (tehran metropolitan regions) and other major cities in 1995, governments and academics have developed various models and strategies to overcome the challenge of political fragmentation in metropolitan areas, although almost none have been implemented. reviews show that in a significant part of the proposed models for reorganizing the government of these areas, the specific spatial and political context of metropolitan areas in iran have been less considered and therefore, in terms of theoretical and practical criteria for action in any governmental reorganization, the proposals presented suffer from methodological errors.