عنوان مقاله [English]
Kurdistan province is one of the border provinces of the country with a large border population. The natural and morphological conditions of the villages, along with the distance from the center and the lack of economic diversity, have created a difficult living situation for the border villages of this province. The study area is the villages of Khavomirabad and Zarivar rural districts in the west of Marivan county, one of the ten counties of Kurdistan province at the zero point of the border with Iraq. The distance from the center and the low efficiency of agricultural production have led to the spread of poverty, unemployment and migration along with an increase in the tendency to informal activities (trafficking) in the region. At the same time, the geographical location and the similarity of cultural and social conditions with the people across the border have created a favorable situation for the creation of a border market.
Due to this high potential of the region in cross-border trade, along with the official customs of Bashmaq, in 1390, border markets for the villagers of these villages were established to reduce informal activities, improve livelihood, and slow down the rural-urban migration rate. Now, after eleven years of activity of these markets, the field situation shows the lack of favorable impact and the quality and low performance of the markets in the process of development and deprivation in the region. This matter is the main problem of the current research that tries to find and explain the research problem.
The present quantitative-qualitative research is applied in terms of purpose and is descriptive-analytical in terms of research method. In this research, the documentary method in the theoretical section and the survey method based on interviews and the distribution of questionnaires in the field section have been used to collect information. According to the comprehensive approach of the research, an attempt was made to identify the problems and weaknesses of the market from all stakeholders. Therefore, the two groups of villagers as the main stakeholders and officials related to the establishment and management of the market were interviewed using the non-probable snowball sampling method. In order to collect information, in addition to group discussion, semi-structured interviews were used. Then, through analysis, the interviews using the fundamental theory technique; Extracted and in the form of a questionnaire on a five-point Likert scale, the degree of agreement of rural residents with them was assessed. The statistical population of this study consists of heads of households in the villages of western rural areas (Khavomirabad and Zarivar) in Marivan county. Due to the size of the region and the difficulty of access, 20% of all villages were selected as sample villages by lottery method and questionnaires were distributed by village classification method and simple random sampling among heads of households to determine the sample size first, from the formula Cochran and then using the correction method from among 5223 households, 360 households were selected to distribute the questionnaires.
Marivan county is one of the ten counties of Kurdistan province in the west of the province. This county has six villages; two villages, Khavomirabad and Zarivar, are in the vicinity of Iraq. Khavomirabad village has 11407 thousand people and 2736 households, and Zarivar village has 2486 households and 9733 thousand people.
Results and discussion
The findings show the aggregation of the research variables into five main factors, which had the most significant impact on the lack of favorable influence of the market. In total, these factors explain 82% of the variances, which shows that the factor analysis is satisfactory.
The first factor is the most critical in explaining the unsuccessful performance of the market by explaining 33.2% of variances and loading 20 indicators. Eighteen indicators of this factor are related to the view and performance of managers and development planners of the region and market management officials; so, this factor can be called "management failures". 20.2 variances explain the second factor, and the accumulation of 10 indicators in itself is the second important and effective factor in the unsuccessful performance of the market. Of the ten indicators this factor accumulated, eight are related to the lack or absence of services and accommodation and welfare facilities. Therefore, this factor can be called "weakness in services, facilities and amenities and accommodation in the market". The third factor explaining 11.7 variances and loading ten indicators is the third important factor explaining the market failure. Nine out of ten indicators uploaded in this factor are related to the shortcomings of the villagers' participation, activities and views. Therefore, this factor can be called "weakness in the participation and cooperation of local people". The fourth factor is formed by explaining 9.82% of the variances and loading six indicators. The factor is the "low quality of rural development in the region", and the fifth factor includes 7.7 total variance and four indicators. Three of four indicators indicate the weakness and inappropriateness of market location, so this factor can be called the "inappropriate location" of the market.
Summarizing the problems identified through factor analysis in five main factors showed that in addition to internal factors and inadequacies of the market such as weakness and lack of services, infrastructure and accommodation and welfare facilities, managerial inadequacies, inappropriate location, external factors, such as the low level of rural development in the region and the weakness in the participation and cooperation of local people have also contributed to such a situation. Among these, management failures had the highest number of loaded indices and the highest amount of explained variance.
The results of the path analysis test showed that the factor of inappropriate location has the most direct impact, the factor of managerial failure has the most indirect impact, and in general, managerial failures have the greatest impact on poor market performance.