عوامل موثر بر ناکارآمدی نظام تقسیمات کشوری در سطح محلی (موردمطالعه: شهرستان ارومیه)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد گروه جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی روستایی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

پژوهش حاضر با هدف بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر ناکارآمدی نظام تقسیمات کشوری در سطح محلی در شهرستان ارومیه انجام شده است. این پژوهش به لحاظ هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش‌، کیفی است. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد که نخست، نظام تقسیمات کشوری به‌عنوان فرآیندی پیچیده و چندبعدی در سطح محلی تحت تأثیر مستقیم سیاست‌های نظام متمرکز عمل کرده و منجر به شکل‌گیری یک سیستم کارآمد نشده است. سپس نظام تقسیمات کشوری در قالب عواملی همچون سیاست‌های تمرکزگرایی، ضعف توجه به الزامات محلی ـ منطقه‌ای در تدوین قوانین، نگاه تک‌ساحتی در قانون تقسیمات کشوری، حاکمیت ملاحظات امنیتی ـ سیاسی، دخالت ذی‌نفوذان رسمی و غیررسمی، ضعف توجه به ساختار محیط طبیعی و اکولوژیک، ضعف توجه به جغرافیای فرهنگی، ضعف توجه به موقعیت مکانی در تعیین مرکزیت سیاسی و عدم وجود کارشناس متخصص تقسیمات کشوری در  سطح محلی دچار ناکارآمدی شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Factors Affecting Inefficiency of the Country Divisions System at the Local Level (Case Study: Urmia County)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Vaheed Riahi 1
  • Hssan Afrakhteh 2
  • Shamsi Salehpour 3
1 Geography & Rural Planning, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Geography & Rural Planning, Kharazmi Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
3 Phd Student of Geography & Rural Planning, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Introduction
Despite the role of national divisions to strengthen country identity, balancing ethnic and cultural spatial distribution of citizens, and its relative overlap with geographical conditions, fertilization capacities within the place, providing conditions for people's participation in political fate, economic, social and cultural, delivering optimal services and optimize the needs of the people, the basis of national, regional and local development; studies show that the political organization of space in Iran and especially at the local level is faced with challenges and injuries such as the lack of functional structural unity and geographical heterogeneity, the heterogeneous structure of management at the local level, uncertainty of the council system and low levels powerless in the structure of division country system which has led to the ineffectiveness of the system of  country division. Although 81 years have passed since the enactment of the law of civil division, the law and its subsequent amendments has not failed to play a fundamental role in the political organization of space and overcome on territorial flaws and provide local-level benefits. The damage is clearly visible based on the observation of the field in the Urmia County. This county, despite its huge natural resources, economic, social and cultural, the development level is very low and civil divisions in line with the management and development of this county at the local level is inefficient. Given the inefficiencies of the country divisions, the purpose of this study is to identify factors which make the country divisions system at the local level in Urmia inefficient.
Methodology
This study is practical and is based on qualitative method. In this regard, a case study has been used to conduct research. Research participants are 95 professionals and experts from related organizations in rural and city affairs (including municipality, Agricultural - Jihad Organization, Governor General of West Azerbaijan Province, Governor and etc.). Data collection method is based on deep and semi-structured interviews. The sampling method was based on snowball sampling. Finally, the collected data was analyzed using the Grounded theory as a qualitative approach.
 
 
Results and discussion
Urmia county division has changed and is in a state of instability. The system of existing divisions at the local level is ineffective due to severe functional disorders, spatial, physical, economic, social and cultural, the weakness in development opportunities in geographic spaces, unequal distribution of services, the concentration of money, wealth and management in cities, slowing down the information dissemination process, entering executive systems in the sovereignty of villages and the abandonment of the local management systems. An overview of the status of the local level in Urmia county, according to the civil divisions indicates that the divergence and dispersion of the administrative structure of the local level executive with a divergent and dispersed structure of national divisions and has exacerbated the conflicts of the division system and management at this level.
 
Conclusion
The country divisions of system and the governing spirit on the local level not only do not provide administrative political needs, economic, social, cultural and environmental of Urmia county villages, but also the villages of this county by increasing the upgrade to a higher level and urban integration, as well as the development of state institutions and the weakness of local-level efficiency cause informal settlements and the formation of the phenomenon of spatial conflict. If the divisions country of system at the local level does not fit with the geographic and territorial features, capital, power and management in urban spaces are not prevented, and the ineffectiveness is shaped by the complete transformation of villages over time causing destruction of environment and developing a negative view towards rural areas.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • rural settlements
  • Country Divisions
  • Local Level
  • Urmia
 
  1. Ansell, Christopher K.; Palma, G.D (2002), On Restructuring Territoriality: Europe and North America, Cambridge University Press
  2. Ahmadi, A., Ahmadipour, Z. (2005), The role of country divisions in the development of regions, with emphasis on spatial competition, Political Development Policy second volume of the Proceedings of the Conference on Policy and Management. [In Persian]
  3. Ahmadipour, Z. (2001), Sustainability of public safety in the context of country divisions, Proceedings and lectures at the General Security and National Unity Conference, Security department of the Interior Ministry, First Edition, Tehran. [In Persian]
  4. Ahmadipour, Z.; Ghanbari, A.; Hafez Nia, M. R. (2010), The Effect of National Divisions on the Development of Geographic Spaces (Case Study: Zanjan Province), Quarterly Journal of Humanities, Planning and Space, 14(4), 61-39. [In Persian]
  5. Ahmadipour, Z.; Rahnama, M.; Roomina, E. (2011), The Role of the System of Political Divisions in National Development (Case Study: Iran), ), Lecturer Humanities – Planning and Space planning, Vol 15, No 2, Pp 17-39.[In Persian]
  6. Ahmadipour, Z.; Ghanbari, Q.;  Karami, Q. (2014), Political organization of space, Geographic Organization of the Armed Forces Publication, Third Edition, Tehran.[In Persian]
  7. Ahmadipour, Z; Mansourian, A. (2006), Political divisions and instability in Iran (1285-1357), Journal of Geopolitical Quarterly, 2(1), 62-89. [In Persian]
  8. Ahmadipour, Z.;  Mirzaie Ta'ray, M. (2010), The role Sense of place in the political organization of space, Geographical Quarterly, Environmental Planning, 21.[In Persian]
  9. Ahmadipour, Z; Ghanbari, Q; Ameley, A. (2009), Analysis of Factors Affecting the Promotion of the Levels of country Divisions (Case Study: Fars Province), Geopolitical Quarterly, Fifth Year. 1, 47-29. [In Persian]
  10. Ahmadipour, Z; Mirashkaran, Y; Mohammadi, H. R (2009), The role of the geography of power and support in the formation of a new border divided after the Islamic Revolution (county level), Lecturer Humanities – Planning and Space planning, 1(13), 41-20.[In Persian]
  11. Ali Mohammadi, A; Ameley, F; Ghanbari, G (2008), The feasibility of the GIS in establishing and determining the centrality of the political administrative units (Case study: Karaj city), Journal of Geopolitics, 4(1), 177-200.[In Persian]
  12. Akhundi, A.; Barakpur, N.; Taherkhani, H.; Asadi, A.; Basirat, M. (2006), Political and Management Fragmentation at Tehran Metropolitan Area Administration: Implications and Strategies, Second seminar in the capital construction. https://www.civilica.com/Paper-SCT02-SCT02_035.html.[In Persian]
  13. Azami, H; Dabiri, A.A (2011), Analysis of elements of the political security threat in the of country divisions system of Iran, Lecturer Humanities – Planning and Space planning, 15(4), 83-63.[In Persian]
  14. Blacksell, M. (2006), Political Geography, New York: Routledge Cox, Kevin R & ETC, The Sage Handbook of Political Geography Bangalore, India: CEPHA Imagine Pvt.
  15. Baluchi, M; Lotfi, H (2017), Investigating the country divisions system in Iran: Case study of Semnan province in order to provide a scientific model based on geographical variables, New attitudes in human geography, tenth, first issue, 16-43.[In Persian]
  16. Crane, K; Lal. R; Martin. J (2008), iran’s political, demographic, and economic vulnerabilities; Rand Institute, Santa Monica.
  17. Center for Statistics of Iran (2016).[In Persian]
  18. Esmailzadeh, H; Salehpour, Sh; Ghasemian, Z; Mazaheri, A (2018), Factors affecting the production of space in pericarpic areas (Case study: Urmia city), Urban Planning Geography Research, 6(1), 54-23.[In Persian]
  19. Ezzati, E (2006), Geopolitics, side Publishing, Sixth Edition, Tehran.[In Persian]
  20. Finer, H (1971), The Theory and Practice of Modern Government, 4th edition. New York, Methoen
  21. Glassner, M; Chuck, F (2004), Political Geography, John Wiley and Sons,Inc, Third Edition.
  22. Gottmann, J (1975). Evolution of the concept of territory; Social Science Information, Vol. 14(3/4), 29-47.
  23. Gholami, B; Ahmadi, S. A; Khalidi, H (2015), Political organization of space and regional challenges in Iran (case study: Ilam and West Azarbaijan provinces), Journal of Planning and Space Design, Nineteenth, 2, 120-89.[In Persian]
  24. Gholamrezaei, Y; Hassanabadi, D (2017),  Investigating and analyzing of the system of country divisions in Iran with emphasis on scientific and geographical variables: Case study of Sistan and Baluchestan province, Geography Journal (Regional Planning), 8(1), 298-277.
  25. Hafeznia, M. R; Kavianirad, M (2004), New Horizons in Political Geography, side Publications, Tehran.[In Persian]
  26. Hafeznia, M. R (2014), Political Geography of Iran, side Publishing, Tehran.[In Persian]
  27. Hafeznia, M.R (2000), Fundamentals of Social Political Studies 1, Organization of domains and religious schools abroad, First Edition, Qom.[In Persian]
  28. Hassanabadi, D; Gholamrezaee, Y; Najafi, A; Farajeh, A (2017), Investigating and analyzing of the country divisions system in Iran with emphasis on scientific and geographical variables:  Case study of Sistan and Baluchestan province, Geography Journal (Regional Planning), 8(1), 277-298.[In Persian]
  29. Kazemian, G. R (2005), Explaining of Relationship between the Governance & Power Structure and  Organization of Space in the tehran metropolitan Region(A try to Medeling). PhD thesis of geography and urban planning, Supervisor: Akbar Pahrizkar, Tarbiat Modares University, Department of Geography School of Humanities, tehran.[In Persian]
  30. Kooheshkaf, N (2005), Development trend in Kurdish regions of Iran before and after the revolution; Proceedings of Iran, Identity, Nationality, Ethnicity by Hamid Ahmadi, Institute for Research and Development of the Humanities, Tehran.[In Persian]
  31. Karimipour, Y (2002), Introduction to  Country divisions of Iran, The first volume Status quo, Iranian Geographic Society Publications, University of Tehran.[In Persian]
  32. Mohammad Pour, A (2011),  Out of the Philosophical and Practical Foundations of Combined Research in Social Sciences and Behavioral Sciences, Publication of Sociologists, Third Edition, Tehran.[In Persian]
  33. Muir, R (2000), A new income on political geography, Translation: Valley of the Mirahidar and Yahya Rahim Safavi,  Geographic Organization of the Armed Forces, Tehran.[In Persian]
  34. Mirshekaran, Y (2013), Finding Pattern of Political Organization of Space in Unitary Systems with Emphasis on Iran, PhD thesis of Political Geography, Supervisor: Dr. Zahra Ahmadipour, Geography Department of Humanities Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University.[In Persian]
  35. Mirheidar, D (2002), Principles of Political Geography, Publications side, Tehran.[In Persian]
  36. Mirheidar, D; Zaki, G (2002), Investigating regional geographic and political feasibility study in Iran, Journal of Geographical Research, 42, 49-64.[In Persian]
  37. Mohajerani, A.A; Shiryan, A (2014), The Effect of Changing the Country Divisions of an Area on its Population Thoughts (Isfahan Province), Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1). 234-211.[In Persian]
  38. Newman D; Anssi, P (1998), Fences and neighbours in the postmodern world: boundary narratives in political geography. Progress in Human Geography 22(2), 186-207.
  39. Pike A; Rodríguez, P. A; Tomaney, J (2007), What Kind of Local and Regional Development and for Whom? Regional Studies, 41(9), 1253–1269.
  40. Pilevarr, A.A (2016), The effects of country divisions on urban disparities in the northern Khorasan, Geography and Environmental Sustainability, 19, 16-1.[In Persian]
  41. Pourmousavi, S.M; Mirzadeh Kowshahi, M; Rahnama Gharekhanbagloo, J (2008), Political organization of space and functional cultural areas in Iran, Geopolitical Quarterly, 4(3), 75-101.[In Persian]
  42. Rahimi, M; Mahkouee; H; Khadem Al-Husseini, A; Shamsuddini, A (2018), The study of the political organization of space in the country's settlements (Case study: Kashan), Journal of Regional Planning, 8(30), 102-89.[In Persian]
  43. Rezaian, A (1380), Management Principles, Publications side, Tehran.[In Persian]
  44. Roumina, E (2011), Explaining of the Political Management of Space in  the Centralized Unitary Systems ; Case Study: Iran, Phd dissertation on political geography,  Supervisor: Mohammad Reza Hafezia Nia, of Humanities Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran.[In Persian]
  45. Rostaei, Sh (1998), spatial organization of settlement system and its role in regional balance(Case study: E.Azarbaijan), Phd dissertation on human geography, Supervisor: Hossein Shokooei, School of Humanities Tarbiat Modares University,tehran.[In Persian]
  46. Rahnema, M; Ahmadipour, Z (2003), Ranking of the system of country divisions, Journal of Geographical Research, 70 and 69, 48-35.[In Persian]
  47. Rashidi, M; AliPour, A; Hussein, W; Shukri, R; Saeidzadeh, M (2016), Geopolitical Pathology of the system of country divisions of Iran in terms of land use, Journal of Political Geographical Research, 1(3), 186-155.[In Persian]
  48. Shakour, A; Zangi Abadi, A; Karimi Ghotbabadi, F (2014), Necessities and reasons for provincial divisions in Iran with a regional approach (Case study: Fars province), Regional Planning, 4(15), 12-1.[In Persian]
  49. Sarrafee, M; Nejati, N (2014), New regionalism approach in order to promote Iran's space development management system, Journal of Human Geography Research, 46(4), 877-857.[In Persian] 
  50. Sayfaddini, F; panahandeh khah, M (2010), Challenges and obstacles to regional development planning in Iran, Human Geography Research, 42(73), 98-83.[In Persian]
  51. Smith, N (2000), 'Scale', in R. Johnston & Others, the Dictionary of Human Geography, Oxford. Blackwell
  52. Strauss, A; Corbin, J (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research, London, Sage Publications.
  53. Tumanyan, D (2005), The ways of local-self government system development in the republic of Armenia, Policy Papers of the Armenian Team in the Framework of the South Caucasus Regional Project.
  54. Taheri, A (1991), Local Governments and Decentralization, Qomes Publications, Tehran.[In Persian]
  55. Wisie, H (2013), Income on local government, Publication of the Segment, First Printing, Tehran.[In Persian]
  56. Zachary, N.Sc (2007), New Geopolitics of the Northwest Passage and Implications for Canadian Sovereignty, George Washington University.
  57. Zo I Lin, HAJDU (1987), Administrative Division and Administrative Geography in Hungary, CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Discussion Papers, 3, 1-58.