تغییر نهادی ساختار حکمروایی اجرای برنامه‌های فضایی با تاکید بر هزینه مبادله؛ مورد مطالعاتی طرح تفصیلی شهر اصفهان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

گروه برنامه ریزی و طراحی شهری و منطقه ای، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: هزینه مبادله که برخاسته از اقتصاد نهادگرا است، با مفهوم کارایی مرتبط است. یکی از وظایف برنامه‌ریزان، افزایش کارایی فرایند برنامه‌ریزی است، به همین دلیل شناسایی عوامل مؤثر بر هزینه مبادله همچون هزینه‌های جست‌وجوی اطلاعات، مذاکره، ایجاد و اعمال ساز­و­کارهای نظارتی حائز اهمیت است. زیرا از این طریق است که برنامه‌ریزان می‌توانند با تکیه بر طراحی نهادی ساختارهای حکمرانی، هزینه مبادله را کاهش دهند. طرح تفصیلی در نظام برنامه‌ریزی ایران، برنامه‌ای است که بازیگران متعددی از جمله شهروندان و شهرداری در طول سال با آن درگیر هستند. هدف این مقاله کاهش هزینه‌های مبادله برای بازیگران مختلف درگیر در فرایند طرح تفصیلی است که از طریق شناسایی عوامل موثر بر ایجاد هزینه مبادله در فرایند طرح تفصیلی شهر اصفهان، تعیین عوامل کلیدی و تولید سناریو‌های امکان‌پذیر با سازگاری بالا برای ساختار حکمروایی طرح محقق خواهد شد.
مواد و روش‌ها: این پژوهش از نوع مورد‌پژوهی قلمداد می‌شود. روش‌های گردآوری و تحلیل به ­کار­رفته در این پژوهش کیفی و کمی و در مجموع ترکیبی است. عوامل موثر بر هزینه مبادله از تحلیل مضمون مصاحبه‌های صورت‌گرفته با بازیگران کلیدی در نرم‌افزار اطلس حاصل شد. در ادامه، پرسش‌نامه‌ ماتریس تاثیرات متقابل بر اساس نظرات خبرگان تکمیل و محتوای آن با استفاده از روش میک‌مک تحلیل شد، تا از میان این عوامل پنج عامل کلیدی موثر بر هزینه مبادله شناسایی شوند. برای عوامل کلیدی، وضعیت‌های مختلفی در نظرگرفته شد که بر اساس دیدگاه خبرگان در مورد تاثیر این وضعیت‌ها بر یکدیگر و با استفاده از نرم‌افزار سناریوویزارد، سناریوهای با سازگاری بالا برای ساختار حکمروایی طرح شناسایی شدند.
نتایج و بحث: کل هزینه‌هایی که برای تدوین طرح تفصیلی انجام می‌شود هزینه مبادله است. این هزینه‌ها شامل مواردی همچون حقوق کارمندان بخش عمومی درگیر طرح، شرکت‌های مشاور مرتبط با طرح، هزینه‌های زمانی مشارکت‌کنندگان در فرایند تدوین طرح تفصیلی است. عوامل موثر بر ایجاد هزینه مبادله در فرایند طرح تفصیلی اصفهان در سه مقوله کلان محیط نهادی، کیفیت حکمروایی و سرمایه دسته‌بندی می‌شوند که زیرمجموعه آن‌ها ۲۳ عامل قرار دارند. در این بین، ۵ عامل قوانین و مقررات، دیوان‌سالاری، اعتماد میان بازیگران، سطح مشارکت و دسترسی به اطلاعات به عنوان عوامل کلیدی شناسایی شدند. با توجه به وضعیت‌های مختلفی که برای این عوامل در نظرگرفته شد، برای کمینه‌کردن هزینه مبادله ساختار حکمروایی طرح تفصیلی سه سناریو با سازگاری بالا شناسایی شدند که یکی از آن‌ها در راستای تمرکز­زدایی و دو سناریوی دیگر به دنبال تمرکز­گرایی در ساختار حکمروایی طرح تفصیلی است.
نتیجه‌گیری: مقایسه عوامل موثر بر هزینه مبادله‌ی حاصل از تحلیل مضمون با آنچه از مبانی نظری به ­دست آمده نشان می‌دهد گرچه در دسته‌بندی و بیان عوامل تفاوت‌هایی وجود دارد اما ماهیت عوامل یکسان است. عوامل کلیدی موثر بر هزینه مبادله که با نظر خبرگی از میان این عوامل انتخاب شدند، بیشتر معطوف به مراحل اجرا و نظارت بر اجرا و بازنگری طرح تفصیلی هستند. فرایند سناریو نویسی برای ساختار حکمروایی طرح تفصیلی در راستای کاهش هزینه مبادله در این پژوهش، در قیاس با پژوهش‌های مشابه که صرفا به تحلیل هزینه مبادله پرداخته بودند، و انجام طراحی نهادی به شیوه‌ای نظام‌مند و قابل فهم، شکاف موجود دانش در این زمینه را تکمیل نمود. در هر سه سناریوی تولید‌شده، وضعیت یا حالات هر پنج توصیف‌گر یک سناریو، هم‌جهت یا هم‌راستا هستند به شکلی که برآیند آنها یک سناریوی کاملا تمرکز­گرا یا کاملا تمرکز­زدا را شکل می‌دهد. شرایط رخ‌داده بیانگر این است که حکمروایی کاربری زمین شهری با استفاده از الگوهایی میسر است که اجزاء آن با هم سازگار باشند و از یک منطق واحد تبعیت کنند. این الگوها یکی از دو حالت تمرکز­گرا و تمرکز­زدا هستند که در دوران معاصر و شهرهای مختلف سابقه تاریخی دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The institutional change in governance structure of spatial plans highlighting the transaction cost: a case study of detailed plan of Isfahan City

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ehsan Malekipour
  • MohammadHossein Sharifzadegan
Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Faculty of Urban and Regional Design and Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: The transaction cost (TC) is rooted in institutional economics, and is related to the concept of efficiency. One of the tasks of planners is to promote the efficiency of the planning process. Thus, identification of effective factors for producing TC including searching for information, negotiation, creating and application of monitoring mechanisms is important. Because through this, planners can rely on the institutional design of governance structures to reduce TC. In this regard, since 1990, efforts have begun in urban planning in the world. Many key actors including citizens are engaged with detailed plans in Iran’s planning system. The aim of the present paper is to reduce the TC of Isfahan’s detailed plan for different actors by introducing the effective factors for creating TC in the plan, determining the key factors among them, and developing possible scenarios with high consistency for the governance structure of the plan in order to pave the way for redesigning this process.
Material and methods: In this study, data collection and data analysis methods were qualitative and quantitative, thus it is a mixed-method research. Effective factors on TC were determined through thematic analysis of interviews conducted with key actors of detailed plan by using Atlas ti. The questionnaire of cross-impact matrix was filled by experts and their data were analyzed using structural analysis and the MicMac method in order to determine five key factors/descriptors among all. For each key factor, various variants were considered. Based on the experts’ opinions about the impact of these variants on each other as the input of ScenarioWizard, possible scenarios with high consistency were developed for the governance structure of the detailed plan.
Results and discussion: As preparing detailed plan encompasses both searching and information costs and also bargaining and decision costs to reach an acceptable agreement with other parties about land development rights, the whole costs of preparing a detailed plan are TC. The costs of monitoring the plan such as costs related to article 100 of municipality law, are also TC. Affecting factors in creating TC in the process of Isfahan detailed plan is categorized into three broad themes of the institutional environment, quality of governance, and capital. These three categories include 23 effective factors among which five factors of rules and regulations, bureaucracy, trust between actors, level of participation and access to information are recognized as key factors/descriptors. Considering different variants devoted to these factors, three scenarios with high consistency were developed for governance structure of detailed plan. One of these scenarios is toward less concentration and the others is seeking more concentration in planning system.
Conclusion: Comparing the effective factors of TC resulted from this research with that of theoretical background showed that although there are differences in categorizing and naming the factors, their nature is the same. The key effective factors were identified through the expert panel. The total effective factors are mostly related to the implementation, monitoring, and revision phases of the detailed plan, in contrary to producing phase. The scenario writing process for the governance structure of the detailed plan to reduce its TC and conducting institutional design systematically and understandably in this research, fill the present gap in the body of knowledge. In three developed scenarios the variants of each five variables/descriptors are in one direction, forming a completely concentrated or deconcentrated scenario. Such a situation emphasizes the fact that the governance of urban land use is possible through patterns or systems formed of consistent elements and follows a unified logic. These patterns are either toward more concentration or deconcentration in the planning system which has a historic background in the present era in different cities.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • transaction costs
  • detailed plan of Isfahan
  • thematic analysis
  • governance structure
  • institutional design

مراجع

Alexander, E.R., 1992. A transaction cost theory of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association. 58(2), 190-200.
Alexander, E.R., 2001a. Governance and transaction costs in planning systems: A conceptual framework for institutional analysis of Land-Use planning and development control-the case of Israel. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 28(5), 755-776.
Alexander, E.R., 2001b. A transaction-cost theory of land use planning and development control: Towards the institutional analysis of public planning. The Town Planning Review. 72(1), 45-75.
Alexander, E.R., 2005. Institutional transformation and planning: from institutionalization theory to institutional design. Planning Theory. 4(3), 209-223.
Alexander, E.R., 2007. Institutionalist perspectives on planning: why? Where? How? In N. Verma (Ed.), Institutions and planning.
Amiri, H. and Rezapour, Z., 2017. Social capital: limiting assets or transfer parameters? Transaction costs with an economic approach. Bi-Quarterly Journal of Comparative Economics: Fall and winter 2014, First Year - No 2.
Asgari, N., 2012. Transaction in the process of mass housing construction in Iran. Strategy Quarterly, Fall 2012 - No 64.
Bromiley, P. and Harris, J., 2006. Trust, transactions cost economics, and mechanisms. 10.4337/9781847202819.00014.
Buitelaar, E., 2004. A transaction-cost analysis of the land development process. Urban Studies, 41(13), 2539-2553. doi:10.1080/0042098042000294556
Buitelaar, E., 2008. The cost of land use decisions: applying transaction cost economics to planning and development: Wiley Online Books.
Challen, R., 2000. Institutions, transaction costs, and environmental policy: institutional reform for water resources, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Coggan, A. Buitelaar, E. Whitten, S. and Bennett, J., 2013. Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: who bears what and why? Ecological Economics, 88(C), 222-231.
Coggan, A. Whitten, S. M. and Bennett, J., 2010. Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1777-1784.
Collins, M., and Frank J., 1991. A methodology for measuring transaction costs. Financial Analysts Journal 47 (2): 27-36.
Cuypers, I., Hennart, J., S., Brian S.; and Ertug, Gokhan. Transaction cost theory: past progress, current challenges, and suggestions for the future. (2021). Academy of Management Annals. 15, (1), 111-150. Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/6603.
Daneshpour, Z., 2017. An introduction to planning theories with emphasis on urban planning. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University.
Drazen, A. and Masson, P. R., 1994. Credibility of policies versus credibility of policymakers. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 735-754.
Davis, L. E, North, D. C. and Smorodin, C., 1971. Institutional change and american economic growth, cup archive.
Ducos, G. and Dupraz, P., 2007. The asset specificity issue in the private provision of environmental services: Evidence from agri-environmental contracts. 8th International Meeting of the Association for Public Economic Theory, 2007 Vanderderbilt University, Nashville.
Ducos, G. Dupraz, P. and Bonnieux, F., 2009. Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52, 669-687.
Dufek, L., 2013. Measuring private transaction costs of public procurement: case of the czech republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 61(2), 317-325.
Falconer, K. and Saunders, C., 2002. Transaction costs for sssi and policy design. Land Use Policy, 19, 157-166.
Forester, J. 1987. Planning in the face of conflict: negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation. Journal of the American Planning Association 53(3):303-314 · doi: 10.1080/01944368708976450
Gambetta, D., 1988. Trust: making and breaking cooperative relations, blackwell.
Ghanooni, H., 2017. Analysis of the effects of rent government on urban planning based on institutional thinking (isfahan case study). (PhD), Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran.
Group, T. A. C., 2006. Transaction costs of water markets and environmental policy instruments. The Allen Consulting Group.
Gulati, R., 1995. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of management journal, 38, 85-112.
Harrison, A. J. 1977. Economics and land-use planning. London: Croom Helm.
Healey, P., 1998. Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. The Town Planning Review, 1-21.
Heikkila, E. J., 2000. The economics of planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Hubbard, D. W., 2014. How to measure anything: finding the value of "intangibles" in business. Wiley.
Jin, X., Zhang, G., Ke, Y. and Xia, B., 2018. Factors influencing transaction costs in construction projects: a critical review. Proceedings of the 20th international symposium on advancement of construction management and real estate, 23-25 October 2015, Hangzhou, China, 949-958. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-0855-9-84.
Kachra, A. and Schnietz, K., Opportunism. Encyclopedia Britannica, 23 Dec. 2013, https://www.britannica.com/topic/opportunism. Accessed 23 December 2021.
Kelly, E. J. and Kaminskienė, N., 2016. Importance of emotional intelligence in negotiation and mediation. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 2(1), 55-60. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icj.2016.07.001
Kenton, W., 2009. Knowledge Capital. Available at https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/knowledge-capital.asp
Lai Wai Chung, L., 1994. The economics of zoning: A literature review and analysis of the works of Coase. Town Planning Review, 65(1), 77–98.
Lai, S., Liu, H., and Lan, I., 2020. Planning for urban redevelopment: a transaction cost approach, International Journal of Urban Sciences, DOI:10.1080/12265934.2020.1850323.
Libecap, G. D., 1989. Contracting for Property Rights, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
McCann, L., 2013. Transaction costs and environmental policy design. Ecological Economics, 88, 253-262. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.012
Mettepenningen, E. van Huylenbroeck, G., 2009. Factors influencing private transaction costs related to Agri-environmental Schemes in Europe. In: Bruwer, F. van der Heide, M. (Eds.), Multifunctional Rural Land Management: Economics and Policies.ptions, 2008 International Congress, August 26-29.
Mettepenningen, E. and Beckmann, V. and Eggers, J., 2011. Public transaction cost of agri-environmental schemes and its determinants - Analysing stakeholders’ involvement and Mundula,Luigi," The hidden costs of urban and territorial planning", IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 603, Issue 5, 1 September 2019, Perceptions. Ecological Economics, 70, 641-650.
Petraki, A., 2020. The transaction costs manual What is behind transaction cost figures and how to use them.
Mundula, L., 2019. The hidden costs of urban and territorial planning, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 603, Issue 5, 1 September 2019
Nilsson, Fredrik Olof Laurentius, 2009. Transaction costs and agri-environmental policy measures: are preferences influencing policy implementation? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(6), 757-775.
North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Cambridge University Press.
Rorstad, P.K., Vatn, A., Kvakkestad, V., 2007. Why do transaction costs of agricultural policies vary? Agricultural Economics 36 (1), 1–11.
Cheung, S.N.S., 1998. “The Transaction Cost Paradigm: Presidential Address Western Economic Association”, Economic Inquiry, 36(4) pp. 514–21, 1998.
Sadeghi, H., Vafaei Yeganeh, R., Ghaffari, H. and Masaeli, A., 2010. Estimating the trend of Transaction costs in the Iranian economy with fuzzy logic approach. Quarterly Journal of Economic Research (Sustainable Growth and Development). Fall 2011, Tenth year, No 3.
Schwarcz, Steven L., 2007. Explaining the Value of Transactional Lawyering. Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance; Stanford Vol. 12, Iss. 2,  (Spring 2007): 486-535.
Shahab, S. Clinch, J. P. and O’Neill, E. 2018a. Accounting for Transaction Costs in Planning Policy Evaluation. 70, 263-272. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.028.
Shahab, S. Clinch, J. P. and O'Neill, E., 2018b. Estimates of Transaction Costs in Transfer of Development Rights Programs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(1), 61-75. doi:10.1080/01944363.2017.1406816
Shahab, S., Clinch, J. P. and O'Neill, E., 2019. An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Transaction Costs in Transferable Development Rights Programmes. Ecological Economics, 156, 409-419. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.018
Shahab, S., 2021. Transaction Costs in Planning Literature: A Systematic Review. Journal of Planning Literature, 1-12, DOI: 10.1177/08854122211062085
Shahab, S., and Viallon, F.-X., 2021. Swiss land improvement syndicates: ‘Impure’ Coasian solutions? Planning Theory, 20(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220923629
Sharifzadegan, M., and Abootalebipour, M., 1387. Reducing Transaction Cost through Spatial Planning for Optimizing Urban Services Centers (Case Study of Tehran’s Fruits Squares in District 5), Economic Researches, 43(83).
Simon, H., 1972. Theories of Bounded Rationality. Decision and organization, 1, 161-176.
Stiglitz, J. E., 2000. Formal and informal institutions. Social capital: A multifaceted perspective, 2000, 59-68.
Suematsu, C., 2014. Transaction Cost Management: Strategies and Practices for a Global Open Economy: Springer.
Verma, N., 2007. Institutions and Planning: Elsevier.
Tan, A. W. K., and Theodorou, P. (2009). Strategic information technology and portfolio management: IGI Global.
Tisdell, Clement., 2004. Transaction Costs and Bounded Rationality - Implications for Public Administration and Economic Policy. University of Queensland, Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Papers.
Webster, C. J., 1998. Public choice, Pigouvian and Coasian planning theory, Urban Studies, 35, pp. 53–75.
Webster, C. and Lai, L. W. C., 2003. Property rights, planning and markets: managing spontaneous Cities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Wee Kwan Tan, A. and Theodorou, P., 2009. Strategic Information Technology and Portfolio Management. Idea Group Inc (IGI). pp. 254–. ISBN 978-1-59904-689-1
Williamson, O. E., 1979. Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations. The Journal of Law & Economics, 22(2), 233-261.
Williamson, O. E., 1981. The Modern Corporation: Origins, Evolution, Attributes. Journal of Economic Literature, 19(4).
Williamson, O. E., 1997. Transaction Cost Economics: How it Works, where it is headed: Institute of Management, Innovation & Organization, University of California, Berkeley.
Williamson, O. E., 2000. The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613.
Woodward, R. T. and Kaiser, R. A., 2002. Market Structures for USA. Water Quality Trading. Review of Agricultural Economics, 24, 366-383.
Young, S., 2013. Transaction Cost Economics. Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer Link. pp. 2547–2552. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_221. ISBN 978-3-642-28035-1. Retrieved 2020-11-01
Yousuf, A., 2017. Transaction Costs: A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Engineering and Management Sciences, January 2017. doi: 10.21791/IJEMS.2017.3.1.
فصلنامه علوم محیطی
دوره 20، شماره 3
1401
صفحه 227-250

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار