نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی
1 دانشیار برنامهریزی شهری دانشگاه خوارزمی
2 استادیار برنامهریزی شهری دانشگاه تربیتمدرس
3 دانشیار برنامهریزی منطقهای دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
4 دکتری برنامهریزی شهری دانشگاه خوارزمی
عنوان مقاله [English]
In spite of political nature of planning decisions by many contemporary thinkers, a few attempts were carried out to establish relations between global planning strategies and political theories. It is important that the test of political thought in various planning strategies can make clear hidden political interests and methods in planning process. Until now, different policies and strategies have taken by governments in the South countries for encountering with informal settlements and their residential societies. Their formation, decline and stability are related to establishment of various dialogues for development and planning such as globalization, neo-liberalization, structural adjustment policies and democracy.
This research has an analytical method and it is based on realistic analysis on recognition of the nature and mechanisms of the informalization of space and using documentary research. In this analysis, the phenomenon of informalization of space occurs based on interactions of individuals and groups (government, local leaders and people) and decisions and their motivations in terms of strategies and tactics in dealing with global currents. At the macro level, political and economic policies of governments and circumstances such as political concentration, political instability, war, conflict, colonization and political confusion are in relation to global processes like globalization, neo-liberalism and structural adjustment policies and democracy in southern states. In middle level, actions and reactions and decision making of state and various stakeholders resulted by process of macro level has social and spatial effects and circumstances.
Results and discussion
The measures of urban planning have failed to produce urban space. In recognition of the failure of the government to make urban spaces, ordinary people have the potential to generate their desirable urban spaces by creative spatial practices. Experiences have indicated that among the official planners, ordinary people to the authorities and professionals tend to produce variations and differences rather than homogeneous spaces. Ordinary people have the ability to produce living spaces out of abstract spaces via adaptation and extending spaces for their daily cultural activities and practices. Definitely, it seems that state has not sufficient ability and liability to regulate urban space and forced urban residents to use their liabilities in shaping urban space by creating networks, coalitions and associations. With emphasis on the role of the alliance as a space practice in the production of urban space, we can say "spatial practices for various hidden forces that can distract homogeneous space towards their own goals, produce a dramatized space that is lived space of residents in informal settlements. Thus, in relation to the production of space, it can be argued that neoliberal ideology has changed perception of urban space because people in peri-urban areas look for places for the now and future investment. In addition to reducing the role of government in providing land and housing, it shows that poor people continue to struggle for affordable access to land for housing. Finally, this process leads to disputes over urban space. In fact, globalization intensifies competition for urban land. First, when demand is rapidly increasing, urban land is become scarce. On the other hand, a large percentage of urban migrants have been absorbed and created new economic opportunities by globalization. They cannot pay the price of urban land. In such circumstances, they have no option except to use their own initiative to have access to urban land, which finally have been lead to competition for urban land with government officials. In this regard, urban residents use their own everyday strategies although are not limited to informal land tenure, as the tools for access to land; they organize themselves in alliance to bargaining because they often have been completely excluded in urban decision processes and lobbying on competitive urban land. On the other hand, the involvement of government officials has attempted to control competition corruption, self-help housing, evictions and spatial development as spatial strategies of urban space.
Analysis of the experiences of countries has indicated some arguments. First, global processes have found out different forms in different countries; as space of the Southern have not been appropriate background to realize spaces of global flows due to colonization, war and political conflicts and resulted in informalization of space. Second, informal land and housing markets is provided not only among the poor but also in competition among the middle class even elite competition in the Third World. Third, in these countries, the problem is not formal and informal, but is the distinction between informalization of the poor and the middle class, but in both of them, the place of this informalization is mainly in the peri-urban areas. Fourth, approach of the right to the city can be addressed as an optimized approach to the rights of working-class groups and challenges in an informal urban background. Given the right to the city, decentralization of power from elites to the poor should be the first step, what Lefebvre called Utopia is a style of thinking that is possible in all regions of the world. Urban-based programs must have mechanisms for gathering the demands of the people. The right to the city is a gradual and procedural category. Adopting such an approach helps us achieve the right to produce life space and the right to have spaces everyday life in the city. Achieving this right provides a city with two components of access to urban resources and spaces and the quality of urban life and decision making of residents as active subject not the political object of institutionalized for all classes.
18. Afroogh, Emad, 1998, Space and Social Inequality, Tarbiat Modares University Press, Tehran. (In Persian)
19. Arse Consulting Engineers, 2015, Preparing Planning for Informal Settlement in Tehran and Empowering Their Communities with Emphasis on Urban Improvement, Iranian Civil and Urban Improvement Company, Ministry of Roads and Urban Development.(In Persian)
20. Atahari, Kamal et al., 2000, Marginalization in Iran, Urban Management Jornal, First Year, Summer 79, pp. 82. (In Persian)
21. Baski, Soheila, 1996, Informal Housing, Abadi Journal, No. 32, p. 89.(In Persian)
22. Berner, E., 1997, Defending a Place in the City: Localities and the Struggle for Urban Land in Metro Manila, Quezon City, Ateneo De Manila University Press.
23. Blaikie, Norman, 2014, Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation, Translated by Hassan Chavoshian, Ney Publishing, Tehran. (In Persian)
24. Brenner, N., 1999, Globalisation As Reterritorialization: The Re-Scaling of Urban Governance in the European Union, Urban Studies, 36, PP. 431–451.
25. Brown, T., 2005, Contestation, Confusion and Corruption: Market Based Tenure Reforms in Zambia, In Sandra Evers, Marja Spierenburg and Harry Wels, (Eds). Competing Jurisdictions, Settling Land Claims in Africa, PP. 79-102.
26. Castells, 1983, The City and the Grassroots, Edward Arnold.
27. Cox, Robert, W., 1986, Neorealism and Its Critics Social Forces, States and World Order, Byand International Relations Theory, New York: Columbia University Press.
28. . Devas, Nick, 2016, Urban governance, voice, and poverty in the developing world, Translated by Hossein Hatami Nejad, Nouroddin Rahmati and Akram Shahidi, Azarakhsh Publication, Tehran. (In Persian)
29. De Certeau, M., 1984, The Practice of Everyday Life, University of Californiapress.
30. Etesamiipour, Mohsen, 2002, Physical Spatial Organization of Informal Settlements; Case Study: Saadi Town of Shiraz, Master of Urban Planning, Shiraz University. (In Persian)
31. Gottdiener , Mark and Budd, Leslie , 2011, Key Concepts in Urban Studies, translated by Dr. Abdolreza Adhami, Bahman Borna Publishing, Tehran. (In Persian)
32. Hagiopan, F., 1994, Traditional Politics Against State Transformation In Brazil, In Migdal J State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third Word, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, PP. 36-64.
33. Harvey, David, 2012, A Brief History of Neoliberalism , Translated by Mahmoud Abdullahzadeh Publishing Dat, Tehran. (In Persian)
34. Howard, Allen M. 2003, Cities in Africa, Past and Present: Contestation, Transformation, Discourse [Online], Canadian Journal of African Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2/3, PP. 197-235. available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4107238 accessed 30 march 2010].
35. Harrell B., et al., 1976, Community Leadership and the Transformation if Freetown, Mouton Publisher, 1978.
36. Hatami Nejad, Hossein and Naseh Abdi, 2007, Political Economy and Urban Space, Political-Economic Information, No. 237-238 - pp. 196-205. (In Persian)
37. Harvey, D., 2008, The Right to the City, New Left Review, No. 53, PP. 23–40.
38. Harvey, D., 1987, Flexible Accumulation Through Urbanisation; Reflections on «Postmodernism» in the American City, Antipode, No. 19, PP. 260-86.
39. IranDost, Kiomars, 2012, Poverty, Informal Settlements, Urban Security, Policy Making Journal, Third Year, Issue 1, pp. 159-181. (In Persian)
40. Keivani, R., and Werna, E., 2000, Refocusing the Housing Debate in Developing Countries From a Pluralist Perspective, Habitat International, No. 25, PP. 191-208.
41. Konadu Agyemang, K., 2001, Structural Adjustment Programs and Housing Affordability in Accra, Ghana, Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, No. 45, PP. 528-544.
42. Jenkins, H., 2009, Confronting the Challenges of a Participatory Culture, Media Education for the 21st Century, Cambridge: MIT Press.
43. Lefebvre, H., 1991, The Production of Space, Blackwell Publishing Translated Bydonald Nicholson-Smith.
44. Loxley, J., 1990, Structural Adjustment in Africa: Reflections on Ghana and Zambia, Review of African Political Economy, No. 47, PP. 8–27.
45. Mitchell, D., 2003, The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space, New York and London: The Guilford Press, PP. 122-127.
46. Moyo, S., 2007, Land in the Political Economy of African Development, Alternative Strategies for Reform, African Development, XXXII, No. 4, PP. 1-34.
47. Moyo, S., and Sukume, C., 2004, Agricultural Sector and Agrarian Development Strategy, A Paper Prepared for World Bank (Zimbabwe).
48. Moyo, S., and Yeros, P., 2005, Land Occupations and Land Reform in Zimbabwe: Towards the National Democratic Revolution, In Sam Moyo and Paris Yeros (Eds) Reclaiming the Land: The Resurgence of Rural Movements in Africa, Asia and Latin America, London, Zed Books.
49. Nejati Hosseini, Seyyed Mahmood, 2011, Urban Politics and Urban Diplomacy (From Theory to Experience), Journal of Historical Sociology, Volume III, Number 2, pp. 117-142.(In Persian)
50. Sheikhi, Mohammad, 2001, Explaining the Process of Formation and Transformation of informal Settlements around the Metropolis of Tehran, Case Study: Nasimshahr, Golestan, Ph.D. in Urban Design, Faculty of Fine Arts under the guidance of Esfandiar Zardasht, University of Tehran, Tehran. .(In Persian)
51. Soja, E., 2000, Postmetropolis, Blackwell, Malden, MA.
52. Saunders, Peter, 2013, Social Theory and Urban Question, Translated by Mohammad Sharepour, Tisa Publishing, Tehran. .(In Persian)
53. Saei, Ahmad, 2008, Globalization and its Relation to Poverty, Journal of Politics, Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Science, 38 Period, No. 1, pp. 71-101. (In Persian)
54. Ockey, J., 1997, Weapons of the Weak: Democracy and Resistance to Eviction in Bangkok Slum Communities [Online], Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, Vol. 12, No. 1, PP. 1-25. downloaded from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41056952 [accessed 20 march 2012].
55. Pahal, R., 1984, Divisions of Labour, Basil Blackwell.
56. Purcell M., 2014, Rancière and Revolution, Space and Polity, Vol. 18, No. 2, PP. 168-181, doi: 10.1080/13562576.2014.911591.
57. Purcell, M., 2002, Excavating Lefebvre: The Right to the City and Its Urban Politics of the Inhabitant, Geojournal 58: 99-108 [Accessed 30 June 2010], Qual Sociol, No. 29, PP. 507–530.
58. Rafiei, Minoo and Ali Chegini, 1996, International Housing Indicators, Housing Economics Bulletin, No. 18, pp. 31-41. (In Persian)
59. Ruland, J., 1992, Urban Development in Southeast Asia: Regional Cities and Local Government, Westview, Boulder Co.
60. Roy, A., and Alsayyad, N., (Eds), 2004, Urban Informality: Transnational Perspectives Fom the Middle East, South Asia and Latin America.
61. Tonnelat, S., 2010, The Sociology of Urban Public Spaces (In Territorial Evolution and Planning Solution: Experiences From China and France), Paris, Atlantis Press
62. Townroe, P. M., 1996, New Economic Roles: The Changing Structure of the City Economy, In: N. HARRIS and I, FABRICIUS (Eds) Cities and Structural Adjustment, PP. 13–29, London: UCL Press.
63. Yeoh B., 1996, Contesting Space: Power Relations and the Built Urban Environment in Colonial Singapore, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.