مناطق شهری چندمرکزی: همکاری، رقابت یا هم رقابتی؟ (یک تحلیل مروری)

جغرافیاوتوسعه ناحیه ای

مقاله 9، دوره 17، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 32، شهریور 1398، صفحه 249-281   

نوع مقاله: علمی- پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/geography.v17i1.71654

نویسندگان

صدیقه لطفی^{* 1}؛ مجتبی شهابی شهمیری²؛ ساسان روشناس²

¹دانشگاه مازندران

²دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

اهداف: از دهۀ 1990، اصطلاح چندمرکزی به عنوان یک مفهوم راهبردی توجه برنامه­ ریزان و سیاست­ گذاران شهری و منطقه­ ای را به سوی خود جلب کرد. مدافعان این راهبرد ادعا می­ کنند، مناطق چندمرکزی قادرند تعادلی میان رقابت­ پذیری اقتصادی، انسجام اجتماعی و پایداری محیطی برقرار کنند. بر این اساس، پژوهش حاضر سعی دارد با بررسی تطبیقی میان راهبردهای رقابت و همکاری راه سومی را برای درهم آمیختن مزایای هریک در برنامه­ ریزی مناطق شهری چندمرکزی بیابد.
روش پژوهش: مطالعه حاضر با توجه ماهیت و هدف پژوهش، از استدلال منطقی و تطبیقی به عنوان راهبرد و روش ­شناسی پژوهش بهره گرفته است.
یافته­ های پژوهش: یافته­ های پژوهش سه منطق فضایی را برای توجیه راهبردهای رقابت، همکاری و هم ­رقابتی معرفی می­ کند. در حالی که راهبردهای رقابتی بر منطق قلمرویی-رقابتی، مزایای رقابتی هر مرکز و تخصص­ گرایی تکیه دارند، راهبردهای همکارانه در مقابل آن­ها با پیوندهای هم ­افزا و نوآورانه بر مزایای بیرونی شبکه و شبکه ­های شهری تأکید می­ کنند. در نهایت، هم ­رقابتی مبتنی بر نظریات رفتاری و بازی­های غیرهمکارانه و شبکه ­های رقابتی تأکید می­ کند تا بتوانند با مزایای راهبردهای رقابتی و همکارانه نظیر افزایش اندازۀ بازار و غیره به بهبود موقعیت رقابتی دست یابند.
نتیجه­ گیری: پژوهش حاضر، راهبرد هم ­رقابتی را گزینه ­ای مناسب­­تر و اجرایی­ تر برای محیطی پرتنش، رقابتی و نامطمئن در میان شهرهای مناطق چندمرکزی می­ داند. در این راستا، راهبردهای متنوع هم ­رقابتی می­ تواند به دو صورت در مناطق شهری چندمرکزی رخ دهد،  هم­ رقابتی افقی و هم ­رقابتی عمودی. در هم ­رقابتی افقی شهرها در یک عملکرد خاص یا در یک پروژۀ اجرایی مشترک با یکدیگر همکاری می­ کنند، در حالی که در بخش دیگر با یکدیگر به رقابت می­ پردازند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

رقابت؛ همکاری؛ هم رقابتی؛ مناطق شهری چندمرکزی

مراجع

1. میرجانی، ح. (1389). استدلال منطقی به مثابة روش پژوهش. مجلة صفه، 20 (50)، 50-35.

2. Afuah, A. (2000). How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change? Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 387–404.

3. Albrechts, L. (1998). The Flemish Diamond: Precious gem and virgin area. European Planning Studies, 6(4), 411-424.

4. Albrechts, L. (2001). How to proceed from image and discourse to action: as applied to the Flemish Diamond. Urban Studies, 38(3), 733-745.

5. Alonso, W. (1971). The economics of urban size. Papers of the Regional Science Association International, 26, 67–83.

6. Alonso, W. (1973). Urban zero population growth. Daedalus, 102(4), 191–206.

7. Anas, A., Arnott, R., & Small, K. A. (1998). Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(3), 1426–1464.

8. Bailey, N., & Turok, I. (2001). Central Scotland as a polycentric urban region: Useful Planning Concept or Chimera? Urban Studies, 38(4), 697-715.

9. Batten, D. F. (1995). Network cities: Creative urban agglomerations for the 21st century. Urban Studies, 32(2), 313 - 327.

10. Beeson, P. E. (1992). Agglomeration economies and productivity growth. In E. S. Mills, & J. F. McDonald (Eds.), Sources of metropolitan growth (pp. 19-35). New York, Center for Urban Policy Research.

11. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks — to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426.

12. Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010). Co-opetition dynamics-an outline for further inquiry. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 20(2), 194–214.

13. Berry, B., & Kim, H. M. (1993). Challenges to the monocentric model. Geographical Analysis, 25, 1-4.

14. Boix, R. (2003). Networks of cities and growth: Theory, network identification and measurement of the network externality, Teaching materials for the European Business Module, University of Firenze, November 2003.

15. Boix, R. (2003, October 15-17). Networks of cities and growth: Theory, network identification and measurement of the network externality. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/.(Accessed October 27, 2018).

16. Boix, R., & Trullen, J. (2007). Knowledge, networks of cities and growth in regional urban systems. Papers in Regional Science, 86(4), 551–574.

17. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

18. Burger, M. J., & Meijers, E. (2012). Form follows function? Linking morphological and functional polycentricity. Urban Studies, 49(5), 1127-1149.

19. Burger, M. J., Meijers, E. J., Hoogerbrugge, M. M., & Masip Tresserra, J. (2015). Borrowed size, agglomeration shadows and cultural amenities in North-West Europe. European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1090–1109.

20. Camagni, R. (2007) City networks as tool for competitiveness and sustainability. In P. J. Taylor, B. Derudder, P. Saey, & F. Witlox (Eds.), Cities in globalization: Practices, policies and theories (pp. 102-123). London, England: Routledge.

21. Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2004). The city network paradigm: Theory and empirical evidence. In R. Capello, & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Urban dynamics and growth: Advances in urban economics (pp. 495-529). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

22. Camagni, R., Capello, R., & Caragliu, A. (2016). Static vs. dynamic agglomeration economies: Spatial context and structural evolution behind urban growth. Papers in Regional Science, 95(1), 133-158.

23. Capello, R. (2000). The city network paradigm: measuring urban network externalities. Urban Studies, 37(11), 1925-1945.

24. Champion, A. (2001). A changing demographic regime and evolving poly centric urban regions: Consequences for the size, composition and distribution of city populations. Urban Studies, 38(4), 657-677.

25. Clark, W. A., & Kuijpers-Linde, M. (1994). Commuting in restructuring urban regions. Urban Studies, 31(3), 465 - 483.

26. Czakon, W. (2009). Power asymmetries, flexibility and the propensity to coopete: an empirical investigation of SMEs’ relationships with franchisors. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 8(1), 44–60

27. Dieleman, F. M., & Faludi, A. (1998). Randstad, Rhine‐Ruhr and Flemish diamond as one polynucleated macro‐region? Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 89(3), 320-327.

28. Dieleman, F. M., & Musterd, S. (Eds.). (1992). The Randstad: A research and policy laboratory. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.

29. Egermann, M. (2009). The Saxon triangle – a polycentric metropolitan region from an actor-oriented perspective. Urban Research and Practice, 2(3), 269-286.

30. Fernandez, A. S., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222–235.

31. Finka, M., & Kluvankova, T. (2015). Managing complexity of urban systems: A polycentric approach. Land Use Policy, 42, 602-608.

32. Fyall, A., Garrod, B., & Wang, Y. (2012). Destination collaboration: A critical review of theoretical approaches to a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 1(1-2), 10-26.

33. Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650–663.

34. Goess, S., De Jong, M., & Meijers, E. (2016). City branding in polycentric urban regions: identification, profiling and transformation in the Randstad and Rhine-Ruhr. European Planning Studies, 24(11), 2036-2056.

35. Hall, P., & Pain, K. (2006). The polycentric metropolis. Learning from mega-city regions in Europe. London, England: Earthscan.

36. Hohenberg, P. M., & Lees, L. H. (1995). The making of urban Europe, 1000–1994. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

37. Ipenburg, D., & Lambregts, B. (2001). Polynuclear urban regions in North West Europe: A survey of key actor views. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.

38. Johansson, B., & Quigley, J. M. (2003). Agglomeration and networks in spatial economies. Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), 165–176.

39. Kloosterman, R. C., & Lambregts, B. (2001). Clustering of economic activities in polycentric urban regions: the case of the Randstad. Urban studies, 38(4), 717-732.

40. Kloosterman, R. C., & Musterd, S. (2001). The polycentric urban region: Towards a research agenda. Urban Studies, 38(4), 623-633.

41. Kluvankova T., & Finka, M., Jilkova, J. (2011). Polycentrism: Institutional innovation in regional management? Ekonomicky Casopis, 59(10), 1050-1066.

42. Kühn, M., Bernt, M., & Colini, L. (2016). Power, politics and peripheralization: Two Eastern German cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(3), 258 - 273.

43. Lambooy, J. (1998). Polynucleation and economic. European Planning Studies, 6, 457–466.

44. Lambregts, B. W. (2009). The polycentric metropolis unpacked: Concepts, trends and policy in the Randstad Holland. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam institute for Metropolitan and International Development Studies.

45. Lambregts, B., & Roling, R. (2005). Synthesis report on the Dutch Spatial Vision Study No. 1. Workshop on Polycentric Territorial Development in NWE. Amsterdam, Netherlands: AMIDSt.

46. Lambregts, B., Kloosterman, R. C., van der Werff, M., Roling, R. W., Kapoen, L. L. (2006). Randstad Holland: Multiple faces of a polycentric role model. In P. Hall & K. Pain (Eds.), The polycentric metropolis: Learning from mega-city regions in Europe (pp. 137–145). London: Earthscan.

47. Luo, Y. (2007). From foreign investors to strategic insiders: Shifting parameters, prescriptions and paradigms for MNCs in China. Journal of World Business, 42(1), 14–34.

48. Meijers, E. (2005). Polycentric urban regions and the quest for synergy: is a network of cities more than the sum of the parts? Urban Studies, 42(4), 765-781.

49. Meijers, E. (2007). Synergy in polycentric urban regions: complementarity, organising capacity and critical mass. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

50. Meijers, E. J., & Burger, M. J. (2015). Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size’. Urban Studies, 54(1), 269-291.

51. Meijers, E., & Romein, A. (2003). Realizing potential: building regional organizing capacity in polycentric urban regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), 173-186.

52. Meijers, E., Hoogerbrugge, M., & Hollande, K. (2014). Twin cities in the process of metropolisation. Urban Research and Practice, 7(1), 35-55.

53. Meijers, E., Hoogerbrugge, M., & Hollander, K. (2012). A strategic knowledge and research agenda on polycentric metropolitan areas. The Hague, Netherlands: European Metropolitan Network Institute.

54. MEZ (Ministerie van Economische Zaken). (2004). Pieken in de Delta; Gebiedsgerichte Economische Perspectieven (Peaks in the Delta; Regional economic perspectives). The Hague, Netherlands: MEZ.

55. Münter, A., & Volgmann, K. (2014). The Metropolization and Regionalization of the Knowledge Economy in the Multi-Core Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Region. European Planning Studies, 22(12), 2542-2560.

56. MVROM (Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer). (2004). Nota Ruimt (National spatial strategy). Den Haag, Netherlands: MVROM.

57. MVROM. (2004). Nota Ruimte (National spatial strategy). Den Haag: MVROM.

58. Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1997). Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy and Leadership, 25(6), 28–33.

59. Olof Berg, P., & Björner, E. (Eds.). (2014). Branding Chinese Mega-cities: Policies, practices and positioning. Cheltenhamn, England: Edward Elgar.

60. Park, B. J., Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Impact of coopetition in the alliance portfolio and coopetition experience on firm innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 26(8), 893–907.

61. Parr, J. (2004). The polycentric urban region: A closer inspection. Regional Studies, 38(3), 231-240.

62. Parr, J. B. (2002). Agglomeration economies: Ambiguities and confusions. Environment and Planning A, Economy and Space, 34, 717–731.

63. Pasquinelli, C. (2013). Competition, cooperation and co-opetition: Unfolding the process of inter-territorial branding. Urban Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–18.

64. Pathak, S. D., Wu, Z., & Johnston, D. (2014). Toward a structural view of co-opetition in supply networks. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 254–267.

65. Phelps, N., Fallon, R., & Williams, C. (2001). Small firms, borrowed size and the urban-rural shift. Regional Studies, 35, 613–624

66. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York, NY: Free Press.

67. Priemus, H. (1994). Planning the Randstad: Between economic growth and sustainability. Urban Studies, 31(3), 509-534.

68. Priemus, H. (1998). The Randstad and the Central Netherlands Urban Ring: Planners waver between two concepts. European Planning Studies, 6(4), 443–456.

69. Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.

70. Reicher, C., Kunzmann, K. R., Polivka, J., Roost, F., Utku, Y., & Wegener, M. (2011). Zukunftswege und besondere Potenziale der Raumentwicklung: Die Ruhrbanität, [Paths to the future and special potential in spatial development: The Ruhrbanity], In C. Reicher, K. R. Kunzmann, J. Polivka, F. Roost, & M. Wegener (Eds.). Schichten einer Region. Kartenstücke zur räumlichen Struktur des Ruhrgebietes (pp. 217–233). Berlin, Germany: Jovis.

71. Ritala, P., Golnam, A., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon.com. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 236-249.

72. Scott, A. J. (1988). Metropolis: From the division of labour to urban form. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

73. SMUL. (1994). Landesentwicklungsplan Sachsen [State development plan for Saxony]. Dresden, Germany: Druckhaus Dresden Gmb H.

74. Stamboulis, Y. A. (2007). Towards a systems approach to innovation systems and policy. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 3(1), 42–55.

75. Taylor, P. J. (2014). Competition and cooperation between cities in globalization. In P. Ni, & Z. Qiongjie (Eds.), urban competitiveness and innovation (pp. 139-156). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

76. Tidstrom, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261–271.

77. Trullen, J., & Boix, R. (2001). Economia della conoscenza e reti cittadine [Knowledge economy and city networks]. Sviluppo Locale, 8(18), 41-60.

78. Van der Werff, M., Lambregts, B., Kapoen, L., & Kloosterman, R. C. (2005). POLYNET Action 1.1 – Commuting and the Defi nition of Functional Urban Regions: The Randstad. London, England: Institute of Community Studies/The Young Foundation and Polynet Partners.

79. Van Meeteren, M., Boussauw, K., & Derudder, B. (2016). Flemish Diamond or ABC-Axis? The spatial structure of the Belgian metropolitan area. European Planning Studies, 24(5), 974-995.

80. Van Meeteren, M., Poorthuis, A., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2015). Pacifying Babel's Tower: A scientometric analysis of polycentricity in urban research. Urban Studies, 53(6), 1278–1298.

81. Vanhaverbeke, W. (1998). An economic analysis of the Flemish Diamond. European Planning Studies, 6(4), 425-442.

82. Vapola, T. J., Tossavainen, P., & Gabrielsson, M. (2008). The battleship strategy: The complementing role of born globals in MNC's new opportunity creation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 1–21.

83. Wang, Y. (2008). Collaborative destination marketing: Understanding the dynamic process. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 151-166.

84. Zheng, X. P. (2007). Economies of network, urban agglomeration, and regional development: A theoretical model and empirical evidence. Regional Studies, 41(5), 559–569.