آسیب‌شناسی موانع تحقق حکمروایی خوب شهری در شهرهای میانی مطالعه موردی: شهر نیشابور

علیرغم گذشت بیش از پنج دهه از زمان مطرح‌شدن حکمروایی خوب شهری به‌عنوان شیوه برتر اداره امور شهری، این الگو در شهرهای ایران به‌خصوص در شهرهای میانی و کوچک، تحقق‌نیافته است. از همین رو در پژوهش حاضر به آسیب‌شناسی حکمروایی خوب شهری از منظر نهادینه‌سازی آن در شهرهای میانی بامطالعه موردی شهر نیشابور پرداخته‌شده است. رویکرد روش‌شناختی پژوهش از نوع کیفی مبتنی بر مصاحبه نیمه ساخت‌یافته از خبرگان و متخصصان آشنا به موضوع در شهر نیشابور است که از طریق انجام 30 مصاحبه پیاده‌سازی شده است. روش تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده‌ها، بر مبنای تکنیک‌های تحلیل محتوای کیفی ازجمله کدگذاری مرحله‌ای است که در پایان از طریق روش اسنادی و مطابقت و ارجاع‌دهی به پژوهش‌های موجود، تکمیل‌شده است. بر اساس نتایج به‌دست‌آمده، عوامل موثر بر عدم تحقق حکمروایی خوب شهری در شهر نیشابور شامل 87 مقوله اولیه، 11 کد تفسیری و 4 کد تبیینی است. کدهای تبیینی، در چهار حوزه عمده یعنی «موانع ساختاری»، «موانع فردی»، «موانع کنش ارتباطی» و «موانع زیرساختی» طبقه‌بندی شدند. درنهایت این نتیجه به دست آمد که تحقق حکمروایی خوب شهری ابتدا نیازمند الزاماتی است که این الزامات بیشتر در حوزه ساختاری قرار دارند تا با تاثیرگذاری بر روی ابعاد دیگر از ناکارآمدی مدیریت شهری، بتوانند الگوی حکمروایی خوب شهری را در شهرهای میانی نهادینه کنند.

Pathology of Barriers to Good Urban Governance in Middle Cities Case Study: Neyshabur City

Extended AbstractIntroductionAlthough more than five decades have passed since the introduction of good urban governance as the superior method of managing urban affairs, this model has not been realized in Iranian cities, especially in middle cities. Existing studies indicate the role of political, institutional, structural, managerial and cultural factors in this inefficiency. However, a review of research related to the pathology of good urban governance reveals three gaps in studies in this area. First, the challenges of not achieving good urban governance are often overlooked or ignored at the level of small and mediumsized cities. Second, existing studies in the pathology of nonrealization of urban governance have mentioned obstacles that are themselves the result of underlying conditions and other structural factors that these factors and conditions have not been carefully studied. Also, the existing studies have not looked at the issue of governance through the lens of urban development policy and have paid no attention to the context and context of urban policy in the pathology of good urban governance. Therefore, in the present study, the pathology of good urban governance from the perspective of its institutionalization in the management system and policymaking of middle cities has been studied with a case study of Neyshabur city. MethodologyThe methodological approach of the research is of a qualitative type based on semistructured interviews with experts and specialists familiar with the subject in the city of Neyshabor, which has been implemented through 30 interviews. The process was done in such a way that first the specialists who had the highest level of knowledge and experience in the field of good urban governance and were also familiar with the issues and problems of Neyshabor were identified. Then, by conducting a semistructured interview with six openended questions, the contexts and factors affecting the inefficiency of good urban governance at both macro (country level) and local (Neyshabor city) levels were discussed. In terms of institutional status, the members of the experts consist of three groups, including academic experts, managers and specialists based in organizations related to Neyshabor urban management, and activists of nongovernmental organizations and NGOs. The interview questions, based on the urban development policymaking system, study both macro and local factors affecting the lack of good urban governance. The data analysis method is based on qualitative content analysis techniques, including stepbystep coding, which was completed at the end through a documentary method and matching and referring to existing research. Step coding consists of three main ones, each of which is identified by a type of code. Descriptive codes include initial categories that are derived directly from the content analysis of interviews. Interpretive codes are the result of merging and categorizing the initial categories, and finally, explanatory codes include fundamental factors. In this study, the stepbystep coding process was performed in reverse over three rounds. Results and discussionBased on the obtained results, the factors affecting the nonrealization of good urban governance in Neyshabor include 87 initial categories, 11 interpretive codes and 4 explanatory codes. Interpretive codes include such as institutional weaknesses, politicization of the urban development process, inefficiency of legal and judicial mechanisms governing the country’s urban planning system, inefficiency of mechanisms for monitoring the urban development process, lack of integrated urban management system, organizational management weaknesses, profiteering, awareness and education weakness, weak relationships between actors and stakeholders, economic and technological weaknesses. Explanatory codes were classified into four main areas: structural barriers, individual barriers, communication action barriers and infrastructural barriers. A significant point in the pathology of the lack of good urban governance is that first, more attention should be paid to the fundamental and root factors and not only to obvious and superficial ones such as weak participation, weak citizenship culture, lack of integrated management and etc. are not enough and the role of macrostructures reproducing these factors should not be overlooked. Second, all factors and contexts lead to the strengthening of each other in a cohesive and integrated manner and turn the realization of urban governance into a confusing mess. ConclusionThe results of this study made it clear that the failure to achieve good urban governance is primarily rooted in structural barriers that include institutional, political, legal, regulatory and managerial structures. Each of these dimensions, in turn, indicates major weaknesses in urban development policy and management models. Therefore, overcoming the existing challenges in the urban management system of the country is possible only by making fundamental changes in these macrostructures. Besides structural barriers, three other areas, namely, individual barriers, communication action barriers and infrastructural barriers, were also considered in this study, and in general, an attempt was made to diagnose good urban governance with a newer and more uptodate classification. The complexity of the factors of lack of good urban governance and their interaction with each other concerning political, social, economic and institutional contexts, makes the implementation of good urban governance in practice a major challenge for the country’s cities and despite numerous studies, remains as an attractive slogan to justify the actions of city managers. Finally, based on the results of the present study, it should be acknowledged that the realization of good urban governance first requires requirements that these ones are in the structural field to affect other dimensions of urban management inefficiency, to be able to institutionalize model good urban governance in middle cities.