نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استاد دانشکده جغرافیای دانشگاه تهران
2 عضو هیات علمی گروه جغرافیا دانشگاه یزد
3 استاد گروه جغرافیای دانشگاه تربیت مدرس
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Globalism discourse has been becoming a dominant discourse in many countries and has been influenced governance patterns in different spatial levels through state intermediation in recent years. According to this perspective, the primary aim of this article is to explain consequences of Globalism discourse on the pattern of territorial governance of Tehran metropolis. For the purpose of this article, Critical Discourse Analysis which is a qualitative method has been used for data analysis. Discourse analysis of national development plans shows that particular macro-economic structures and condition, especially decreasing economic growth coupled with increasing fiscal deficits, uprising inflation and expanding public expenditures has gradually forced State to shift form Developmental State discourse to Globalism State discourse through discursive articulation, discursive institutionalization and discursive operationalization processes during 1990-2014. According to Globalism discourse, State has gradually retreated from the provision of some public goods and transferred them to Tehran Municipality. Transfer of financial and administrative responsibilities from State to the Municipality has led it to rentier urban management model because of transferred financial constraints and lack of anti-rent urabn movements. Consequently, these processes intensify the Municipality’s territoriality and then, give emphasis to space and territory in the Municipality’s financial system. Territorial coding and territorial assemblage are two main instruments of the Municipality for territorialization strategies, for reaction to its increasing territoriality and for capturing more spatial territory. Existing cities in Tehran metropolitan area compete to capture more space in the same way, making it difficult to achieve a participatory management model of regional issues.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
13. کاظمیان، غلامرضا. 1383. تبیین رابطه ساختار حاکمیت و قدرت شهری با سازمانیابی فضا: تلاش برای طراحی مدل (نمونه منطقه کلانشهری تهران). رساله دکتری جغرافیا و برنامهریزی شهری. استاد راهنما: دکتر اکبر پرهیزگار. دانشگاه تربیتمدرس، دانشکده علوم انسانی، گروه جغرافیا، تهران.
22. واندایک، تئون.ای. 1382. مطالعاتی در تحلیل گفتمان: از دستور متن تا گفتمانکاوی انتقادی. گروه مترجمان، تهران، انتشارات مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات رسانه.
24. Allmendinger, Ph., Haughton G. 2009. Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway, Environment and Planning, 41, 617-633.
25. Begg, I. 2002. Investability: The Key to Competitive Regions and Cities? RegionalStudies, 36(2): 187-193.
26. Brenner, N. 2002. Decoding the Newest “Metropolitan Regionalism” in the USA: A Critical Overview. Cities, 19 (1): 3–21.
27. Brenner, N. 2004. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
28. Collin, J., Léveillée J., Poitras C. 2002. New Challenges and Old Solutions: Metropolitan Reorganization in Canadian and U.S. City–Regions, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(3): 317–332.
29. David, H. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford university press, Oxford.
30. Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. Longman Group Ltd., UK.
31. Heinelt, H., Kübler, D. 2005. Metropolitan governance: capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place. Routledge Ltd., Oxon.
32. Hulst, R., and Montfort, R. 2007. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Europe. Springer Ltd, Netherlands.
33. Larner, W. 2003. Neoliberalism?. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21, 509-512.
34. Leitner, H., Jamie P., and Sheppard E.S. 2007. Contesting Neo-liberalism: Urban Frontiers. The Guilford Press, New York.
35. Lidström, A. 2007. Territorial Governance in Transition. Regional & Federal Studies, 17 (4): 499-508.
36. Meshkini A., and Rahimi H. 2011. Changes in Population Settlement Pattern in Urban System of Tehran Province (1966 to 2006). Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 4 (7): 371-382.
37. O’Riordan. T., and Church, C. 2001. Globalism, Localism and Identity. Earthscan Publications Ltd., UK.
38. Pacione, M. 2005. Urban geography. Routledge ltd., Oxon.
39. Paltridge, B. 2008. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Continuum Ltd., London.
40. Peck, J., and Tickell, A. 1994. Searching for a New Institutional Fix: the After-Fordist Crisis and the Global-Local Disorder. In Amin, A. Post- Fordism: A Reader, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
41. Peet, R., and Hartwick, E. 2009. Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives. 2nd ed., the Guilford Press, New York.
42. Pierre, J. 1999. Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics. Urban Affairs Review, 34(3): 372-396.
43. Pike, A., Rodriguez-Pose, A., and Tomaney J. 2007. What Kind of Local and Regional Development and for Whom? Regional Studies, 41, 1253–1269.
44. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. Gilles Deleuze. Accessible at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/.
45. Stiglitz, J. 2003. Globalization and The Economic Role of The State in the New Millennium. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12 (1): 3-26.
46. Stone C.N. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
47. Willis, K., Smith, A., and Stenning A. 2008. Social justice and neoliberalism. In Smith, A., Stenning, A., Willis, K. 2008. Social justice and neo-liberalism: Global perspectives. Zed books Ltd, London, pp.1-15.
48. Wise, J.M. 2005. Assemblage. In Charles, J.S. Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts. Cromwell Press, Trowbridge.
49. Wodak, R. 2002. Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 36, 5-31.
.
)