The Role of Good Governance in Reducing Spatial Segregation (Case Study: Tabriz Metropolitan)

جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری

Article 8, Volume 3, Issue 1 - Serial Number 4, September 2016, Pages 121-132   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/gusd.v3i1.28222

Author

Isa Piri^*

University of Zanjan

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
Spatial segregation in Tabriz metropolitan physically indicates some poor infrastructure indexes such as lack of arterial transportation networks, lack of water supply and sewage networks, inadequate housing, increasing and inhumane density, lack of service per capita, but from a social and cultural perspective, it is the vehicle of marginal identity that in interacting with separated physical space, has created incommensurability of context and margin in Tabriz metropolitan and most of Iran's metropolitans. The concept of spatial segregation involves a long term process of community's maturity in some city areas that challenge the city integrity. This segregation is an outcome of communities losing in the game of modern urban planning. Therefore it is a historical form and it happens throughout time. The physical and environmental renewal projects in recent decades could not have an effect on reducing the spatial segregation and still more than 6 percent and over 20 percent of population of the city remain in the area that display incommensurability of context- margin.
2. Theoretical Framework
Economic and social factors impose some conditions on metropolis that they form some spatial convergence or divergence and it could be reinforced or weakened by the state's plans. From a historical view or power and knowledge genealogy, spatial segregation is rooted in voluntary and mandatory factors, in other words voluntary or mandatory intentions of different groups to separate their selves in the square. And even in the different periods corresponding with three different dimensions that it is: 1- economic order or economic structure, 2- state and order of political structure, 3- social – life scene. Alongside the modernism process, spatial segregation phenomenon has accepted diverse geographical forms and patterns. From a spatial view, segregation shift from city center to the suburbs is one of the outcomes of modernity. In other words, the segregation phenomenon in the lord and vassal period or feudalism, before having tangible or increasing geographical form, is an indication of disinclination of interaction between feudal groups with other groups. This situation occurs while they live in the same quarters and alleys and residential segregation is more limited and social life scene is not under the contrast of spatial segregation. Good governance discourse is the inherent element in cooperation between civil society and political society and also between state and citizens. By the way, it is rooted in New Public Management (NPM), which is response to welfare state. The essence of governance is the relation between and among state and non- state forces and formation and stewardship of formal and informal rules that they regulate public sphere and it is the scene that the state has interact with social and economic actors for making decisions. It also involves values, institutes and processes that guide people and organizations in the direction of public purposes, decision making and legitimation. Good city governance is based on plural city policy. If we see the plural city policy through the communitarian action theory of Habermas, we can better explain it. Life- world has been discussed at the interpersonal or intrapersonal levels, using speech- action in the communitarian action process. Life – world has been used as background of knowledge. City actors have to criticize their traditional life – world by using their rational power.
3. Methodology
This article is descriptive – analytical. The methodology of article is inductive reasoning and experimental benchmark. The article assess the relation between independent variable (good governance) and dependent variable (spatial segregation) using survey method. By using the Likert pattern (absolutely agree 5, absolutely dissident 1), in one questionnaire, the article presents the evaluating questions. Pearson correlation test was used to assess the hypothesis.
4. Results and Discussion
Given that each of the two variables of good governance and plural city policy( independent) and reducing of spatial segregation(dependent) have been assessed in distance level, Pearson correlation and linear regression were used to evaluate their relation. Alpha's average is .739. The results of the Pearson and regression tests show that there are relations between the variables.
5. Conclusion
The spatial base of late cultural changes are significant in weakening centrality and centralism. Formation of widespread fields of diversification and plurality in the city's physical geography, have been confronted in the traditional city integrated management concept in face of serious challenge. Therefore access to integrity and city solidarity is necessary for transition of traditional patterns to the way of good governance with interaction of communities, state, market and private sector that is inspiring for unity in diversity. Physical spatial segregation in Tabriz metropolitan involves 6 percent of city and more than 20 percent of city population. Good governance with indexes such as participation, responsibility, rule of law, empowerment, justice and equity show the interaction and solidarity of constructer elements of city in the base of social and cultural identity and bring about progress of city plural policy alongside of physical dimension.

Keywords

Good governance; spatial segregation; plural policy; Tabriz

References

1. افراخته ح.، و عبدلی، ا. (1388). جدایی‌گزینی فضایی و نابهنجاری‌های اجتماعی بافت فرسوده: مطالعۀ موردی محلۀ باباطاهر شهر خرم‌آباد. نشریۀ تحقیقات کاربردی علوم جغرافیایی، 10(13)، 53-81

2. پیری، ع. (1390). تبیین علمی حکمروایی مطلوب و کارایی ارتباطی شهر مطالعۀ موردی: کلان‌شهر تبریز. (پایان‌نامۀ دکتری). دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز

3. تانکیس، ف. (1388). فضا، شهر و نظریۀ اجتماعی؛ مناسبات اجتماعی و شکل‌های شهری. ترجمۀ حمیدرضا پارسی و آرزو افلاطونی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران

4. دبیرخانۀ ستاد ملی توانمندسازی سکونتگاه‌های غیر رسمی. (1384). سند ملی توانمندسازی سکونتگاه‌های غیر رسمی

5. حقیقی، ش. (1387). گذار از مدرنیته؟ نیچه، فوکو، لیوتار، دریدا. تهران: آگه

6. شکویی، ح. ( 1382). فلسفه‌های محیطی و مکتب‌های جغرافیایی. تهران: گیتاشناسی

7. شفیعی، م. (1384). نظریۀ کنش ارتباطی (جهان‌زیست و سیستم) و نقد اجتماعی– سیاسی. دوفصلنامۀ دانش سیاسی، 1(2)، 149-166

8. عبداللهیان ح.، و اجاق، ز. (1386). بازتولید عقلانیت سنتی و خصلت‌های عقلانیت ارتباطی در حوزۀ عمومی ایرانی. فصلنامۀ انجمن ایرانی مطالعات فرهنگی و ارتباطات، 2(7)، 43-59

9. کرایب، ی. (1388). نظریۀ اجتماعی کلاسیک؛ مقدمه‌ای بر اندیشۀ مارکس، وبر، دورکهیم، زیمل. ترجمۀ شهناز مسمی‌پرست. تهران: آگه

10. فکوهی، ن. (1383). انسان‌شناسی شهری. تهران: نشر نی

11. لش، ا. (1388). جامعه‌شناسی پست‌مدرنیسم. ترجمۀ حسن چاوشیان. تهران: نشر مرکز

12. مشکینی، ا.، و رحیمی، ح. (1390). جدایی‌گزینی فضایی در مادرشهرها: تحلیلی بر جغرافیای اجتماعی مادرشهر تهران. برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا (مدرس علوم انسانی )، 15(72)، 85-107

13. نوذری، ح. (1389). بازخوانی هابرماس؛ درآمدی بر آراء، اندیشه‌ها و نظریه‌های یورگن هابرماس. تهران: چشمه.

14. هاروی د. (1387). شهری‌شدن سرمایه؛ چرخۀ دوم انباشت سرمایه در تولید محیط مصنوع. ترجمۀ عارف اقوامی‌مقدم. تهران: اختران

15. Ahmed, I. (1999). Governance and the international development community: Making sense of the Bangladesh experience. Contemporary South Asia, 3(3), 295-309

16. Baud, I., & Dhanalakshmi, R. (2007), Governance in urban environmental management: Comparing accountability and performance in multi- stakeholder arrangements in south India cities. Cities, 24(2), 133-147

17. Buizer, M., & Van Herzele, A. (2012). Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 93-101

18. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action; life world and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarty, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press

19. Hillier, B., & Vaughan L. (2007).The city as one thing, in the “Review The spatial syntax of urban segregation". Progress in Planning, 67, 205-294

20. Hugo, R., Alexis V., Claudio F., Marcela S., Andreas, S., & Ellen B. (2012). Assessing urban environmental segregation (UES): The case of Santiago de Chile). Ecological Indicators, 23, 76-87

21. Hyden, G., Court, J., & Mease, K. (2004). Making sense of governance: Empirical evidence from sixteen developing countries. Boulder: Lynne Rienner

22. Marrising, E. V., Bolt, G., & Kempen, R. V. (2006). Urban governance and social cohesion: Effects of urban restructuring policies in two Dutch cities, Cities, 23(4), 279-290

23. Rakodi, P. (2003). Politics and performance: The implications of emerging governance arrangements for urban management approaches and information systems. Habitat International, 27, 523-547

24. Roberts S. M., Wright, S., & O’Neil, P. H. (2007). Good governance in the Pacific? Ambivalence and possibility. Geoforum, 38, 967-984

25. Sadashiva, M. (2008). Effects of civil society on urban planning and governance in Meysore, India (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technical university of Dortmund, Dortmund

26. Stoker, G. (1998). Public–private partnerships and urban governance. London: SAGE Publication

27. UNDP. (1997). Governance for sustainable human development. Retrieved from www.undp.org

28. Williams D., & Young T. (1994). Governance, the World Bank, and liberal theory. Political Studies, 42(1), 84-100