مناطق شهری چندمرکزی: همکاری، رقابت یا هم رقابتی؟ (یک تحلیل مروری)

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشگاه مازندران

2 دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده
اهداف: از دهۀ 1990، اصطلاح چندمرکزی به عنوان یک مفهوم راهبردی توجه برنامه­ ریزان و سیاست­ گذاران شهری و منطقه­ ای را به سوی خود جلب کرد. مدافعان این راهبرد ادعا می­ کنند، مناطق چندمرکزی قادرند تعادلی میان رقابت­ پذیری اقتصادی، انسجام اجتماعی و پایداری محیطی برقرار کنند. بر این اساس، پژوهش حاضر سعی دارد با بررسی تطبیقی میان راهبردهای رقابت و همکاری راه سومی را برای درهم آمیختن مزایای هریک در برنامه­ ریزی مناطق شهری چندمرکزی بیابد.
روش پژوهش: مطالعه حاضر با توجه ماهیت و هدف پژوهش، از استدلال منطقی و تطبیقی به عنوان راهبرد و روش ­شناسی پژوهش بهره گرفته است.
یافته­ های پژوهش: یافته­ های پژوهش سه منطق فضایی را برای توجیه راهبردهای رقابت، همکاری و هم ­رقابتی معرفی می­ کند. در حالی که راهبردهای رقابتی بر منطق قلمرویی-رقابتی، مزایای رقابتی هر مرکز و تخصص­ گرایی تکیه دارند، راهبردهای همکارانه در مقابل آن­ها با پیوندهای هم ­افزا و نوآورانه بر مزایای بیرونی شبکه و شبکه ­های شهری تأکید می­ کنند. در نهایت، هم ­رقابتی مبتنی بر نظریات رفتاری و بازی­های غیرهمکارانه و شبکه ­های رقابتی تأکید می­ کند تا بتوانند با مزایای راهبردهای رقابتی و همکارانه نظیر افزایش اندازۀ بازار و غیره به بهبود موقعیت رقابتی دست یابند.
نتیجه­ گیری: پژوهش حاضر، راهبرد هم ­رقابتی را گزینه ­ای مناسب­­تر و اجرایی­ تر برای محیطی پرتنش، رقابتی و نامطمئن در میان شهرهای مناطق چندمرکزی می­ داند. در این راستا، راهبردهای متنوع هم ­رقابتی می­ تواند به دو صورت در مناطق شهری چندمرکزی رخ دهد،  هم­ رقابتی افقی و هم ­رقابتی عمودی. در هم ­رقابتی افقی شهرها در یک عملکرد خاص یا در یک پروژۀ اجرایی مشترک با یکدیگر همکاری می­ کنند، در حالی که در بخش دیگر با یکدیگر به رقابت می­ پردازند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


1. میرجانی، ح. (1389). استدلال منطقی به مثابة روش پژوهش. مجلة صفه، 20 (50)، 50-35.
2. Afuah, A. (2000). How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change? Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 387–404.
3. Albrechts, L. (1998). The Flemish Diamond: Precious gem and virgin area. European Planning Studies, 6(4), 411-424.
4. Albrechts, L. (2001). How to proceed from image and discourse to action: as applied to the Flemish Diamond. Urban Studies, 38(3), 733-745.
5. Alonso, W. (1971). The economics of urban size. Papers of the Regional Science Association International, 26, 67–83.
6. Alonso, W. (1973). Urban zero population growth. Daedalus, 102(4), 191–206.
7. Anas, A., Arnott, R., & Small, K. A. (1998). Urban spatial structure. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(3), 1426–1464.
8. Bailey, N., & Turok, I. (2001). Central Scotland as a polycentric urban region: Useful Planning Concept or Chimera? Urban Studies, 38(4), 697-715.
9. Batten, D. F. (1995). Network cities: Creative urban agglomerations for the 21st century. Urban Studies, 32(2), 313 - 327.
10. Beeson, P. E. (1992). Agglomeration economies and productivity growth. In E. S. Mills, & J. F. McDonald (Eds.), Sources of metropolitan growth (pp. 19-35). New York, Center for Urban Policy Research.
11. Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks — to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426.
12. Bengtsson, M., Eriksson, J., & Wincent, J. (2010). Co-opetition dynamics-an outline for further inquiry. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 20(2), 194–214.
13. Berry, B., & Kim, H. M. (1993). Challenges to the monocentric model. Geographical Analysis, 25, 1-4.
14. Boix, R. (2003). Networks of cities and growth: Theory, network identification and measurement of the network externality, Teaching materials for the European Business Module, University of Firenze, November 2003.
15. Boix, R. (2003, October 15-17). Networks of cities and growth: Theory, network identification and measurement of the network externality. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/.(Accessed October 27, 2018).
16. Boix, R., & Trullen, J. (2007). Knowledge, networks of cities and growth in regional urban systems. Papers in Regional Science, 86(4), 551–574.
17. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.
18. Burger, M. J., & Meijers, E. (2012). Form follows function? Linking morphological and functional polycentricity. Urban Studies, 49(5), 1127-1149.
19. Burger, M. J., Meijers, E. J., Hoogerbrugge, M. M., & Masip Tresserra, J. (2015). Borrowed size, agglomeration shadows and cultural amenities in North-West Europe. European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1090–1109.
20. Camagni, R. (2007) City networks as tool for competitiveness and sustainability. In P. J. Taylor, B. Derudder, P. Saey, & F. Witlox (Eds.), Cities in globalization: Practices, policies and theories (pp. 102-123). London, England: Routledge.
21. Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2004). The city network paradigm: Theory and empirical evidence. In R. Capello, & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Urban dynamics and growth: Advances in urban economics (pp. 495-529). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
22. Camagni, R., Capello, R., & Caragliu, A. (2016). Static vs. dynamic agglomeration economies: Spatial context and structural evolution behind urban growth. Papers in Regional Science, 95(1), 133-158.
23. Capello, R. (2000). The city network paradigm: measuring urban network externalities. Urban Studies, 37(11), 1925-1945.
24. Champion, A. (2001). A changing demographic regime and evolving poly centric urban regions: Consequences for the size, composition and distribution of city populations. Urban Studies, 38(4), 657-677.
25. Clark, W. A., & Kuijpers-Linde, M. (1994). Commuting in restructuring urban regions. Urban Studies, 31(3), 465 - 483.
26. Czakon, W. (2009). Power asymmetries, flexibility and the propensity to coopete: an empirical investigation of SMEs’ relationships with franchisors. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 8(1), 44–60
27. Dieleman, F. M., & Faludi, A. (1998). Randstad, Rhine‐Ruhr and Flemish diamond as one polynucleated macro‐region? Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 89(3), 320-327.
28. Dieleman, F. M., & Musterd, S. (Eds.). (1992). The Randstad: A research and policy laboratory. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.
29. Egermann, M. (2009). The Saxon triangle – a polycentric metropolitan region from an actor-oriented perspective. Urban Research and Practice, 2(3), 269-286.
30. Fernandez, A. S., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222–235.
31. Finka, M., & Kluvankova, T. (2015). Managing complexity of urban systems: A polycentric approach. Land Use Policy, 42, 602-608.
32. Fyall, A., Garrod, B., & Wang, Y. (2012). Destination collaboration: A critical review of theoretical approaches to a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 1(1-2), 10-26.
33. Gnyawali, D. R., & Park, B. J. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650–663.
34. Goess, S., De Jong, M., & Meijers, E. (2016). City branding in polycentric urban regions: identification, profiling and transformation in the Randstad and Rhine-Ruhr. European Planning Studies, 24(11), 2036-2056.
35. Hall, P., & Pain, K. (2006). The polycentric metropolis. Learning from mega-city regions in Europe. London, England: Earthscan.
36. Hohenberg, P. M., & Lees, L. H. (1995). The making of urban Europe, 1000–1994. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Ipenburg, D., & Lambregts, B. (2001). Polynuclear urban regions in North West Europe: A survey of key actor views. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
38. Johansson, B., & Quigley, J. M. (2003). Agglomeration and networks in spatial economies. Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), 165–176.
39. Kloosterman, R. C., & Lambregts, B. (2001). Clustering of economic activities in polycentric urban regions: the case of the Randstad. Urban studies, 38(4), 717-732.
40. Kloosterman, R. C., & Musterd, S. (2001). The polycentric urban region: Towards a research agenda. Urban Studies, 38(4), 623-633.
41. Kluvankova T., & Finka, M., Jilkova, J. (2011). Polycentrism: Institutional innovation in regional management? Ekonomicky Casopis, 59(10), 1050-1066.
42. Kühn, M., Bernt, M., & Colini, L. (2016). Power, politics and peripheralization: Two Eastern German cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(3), 258 - 273.
43. Lambooy, J. (1998). Polynucleation and economic. European Planning Studies, 6, 457–466.
44. Lambregts, B. W. (2009). The polycentric metropolis unpacked: Concepts, trends and policy in the Randstad Holland. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam institute for Metropolitan and International Development Studies.
45. Lambregts, B., & Roling, R. (2005). Synthesis report on the Dutch Spatial Vision Study No. 1. Workshop on Polycentric Territorial Development in NWE. Amsterdam, Netherlands: AMIDSt.
46. Lambregts, B., Kloosterman, R. C., van der Werff, M., Roling, R. W., Kapoen, L. L. (2006). Randstad Holland: Multiple faces of a polycentric role model. In P. Hall & K. Pain (Eds.), The polycentric metropolis: Learning from mega-city regions in Europe (pp. 137–145). London: Earthscan.
47. Luo, Y. (2007). From foreign investors to strategic insiders: Shifting parameters, prescriptions and paradigms for MNCs in China. Journal of World Business, 42(1), 14–34.
48. Meijers, E. (2005). Polycentric urban regions and the quest for synergy: is a network of cities more than the sum of the parts? Urban Studies, 42(4), 765-781.
49. Meijers, E. (2007). Synergy in polycentric urban regions: complementarity, organising capacity and critical mass. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
50. Meijers, E. J., & Burger, M. J. (2015). Stretching the concept of ‘borrowed size’. Urban Studies, 54(1), 269-291.
51. Meijers, E., & Romein, A. (2003). Realizing potential: building regional organizing capacity in polycentric urban regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), 173-186.
52. Meijers, E., Hoogerbrugge, M., & Hollande, K. (2014). Twin cities in the process of metropolisation. Urban Research and Practice, 7(1), 35-55.
53. Meijers, E., Hoogerbrugge, M., & Hollander, K. (2012). A strategic knowledge and research agenda on polycentric metropolitan areas. The Hague, Netherlands: European Metropolitan Network Institute.
54. MEZ (Ministerie van Economische Zaken). (2004). Pieken in de Delta; Gebiedsgerichte Economische Perspectieven (Peaks in the Delta; Regional economic perspectives). The Hague, Netherlands: MEZ.
55. Münter, A., & Volgmann, K. (2014). The Metropolization and Regionalization of the Knowledge Economy in the Multi-Core Rhine-Ruhr Metropolitan Region. European Planning Studies, 22(12), 2542-2560.
56. MVROM (Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer). (2004). Nota Ruimt (National spatial strategy). Den Haag, Netherlands: MVROM.
57. MVROM. (2004). Nota Ruimte (National spatial strategy). Den Haag: MVROM.
58. Nalebuff, B. J., & Brandenburger, A. M. (1997). Co-opetition: Competitive and cooperative business strategies for the digital economy. Strategy and Leadership, 25(6), 28–33.
59. Olof Berg, P., & Björner, E. (Eds.). (2014). Branding Chinese Mega-cities: Policies, practices and positioning. Cheltenhamn, England: Edward Elgar.
60. Park, B. J., Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Impact of coopetition in the alliance portfolio and coopetition experience on firm innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 26(8), 893–907.
61. Parr, J. (2004). The polycentric urban region: A closer inspection. Regional Studies, 38(3), 231-240.
62. Parr, J. B. (2002). Agglomeration economies: Ambiguities and confusions. Environment and Planning A, Economy and Space, 34, 717–731.
63. Pasquinelli, C. (2013). Competition, cooperation and co-opetition: Unfolding the process of inter-territorial branding. Urban Research and Practice, 6(1), 1–18.
64. Pathak, S. D., Wu, Z., & Johnston, D. (2014). Toward a structural view of co-opetition in supply networks. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 254–267.
65. Phelps, N., Fallon, R., & Williams, C. (2001). Small firms, borrowed size and the urban-rural shift. Regional Studies, 35, 613–624
66. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York, NY: Free Press.
67. Priemus, H. (1994). Planning the Randstad: Between economic growth and sustainability. Urban Studies, 31(3), 509-534.
68. Priemus, H. (1998). The Randstad and the Central Netherlands Urban Ring: Planners waver between two concepts. European Planning Studies, 6(4), 443–456.
69. Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.
70. Reicher, C., Kunzmann, K. R., Polivka, J., Roost, F., Utku, Y., & Wegener, M. (2011). Zukunftswege und besondere Potenziale der Raumentwicklung: Die Ruhrbanität, [Paths to the future and special potential in spatial development: The Ruhrbanity], In C. Reicher, K. R. Kunzmann, J. Polivka, F. Roost, & M. Wegener (Eds.). Schichten einer Region. Kartenstücke zur räumlichen Struktur des Ruhrgebietes (pp. 217–233). Berlin, Germany: Jovis.
71. Ritala, P., Golnam, A., & Wegmann, A. (2014). Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon.com. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 236-249.
72. Scott, A. J. (1988). Metropolis: From the division of labour to urban form. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
73. SMUL. (1994). Landesentwicklungsplan Sachsen [State development plan for Saxony]. Dresden, Germany: Druckhaus Dresden Gmb H.
74. Stamboulis, Y. A. (2007). Towards a systems approach to innovation systems and policy. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 3(1), 42–55.
75. Taylor, P. J. (2014). Competition and cooperation between cities in globalization. In P. Ni, & Z. Qiongjie (Eds.), urban competitiveness and innovation (pp. 139-156). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
76. Tidstrom, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261–271.
77. Trullen, J., & Boix, R. (2001). Economia della conoscenza e reti cittadine [Knowledge economy and city networks]. Sviluppo Locale, 8(18), 41-60.
78. Van der Werff, M., Lambregts, B., Kapoen, L., & Kloosterman, R. C. (2005). POLYNET Action 1.1 – Commuting and the Defi nition of Functional Urban Regions: The Randstad. London, England: Institute of Community Studies/The Young Foundation and Polynet Partners.
79. Van Meeteren, M., Boussauw, K., & Derudder, B. (2016). Flemish Diamond or ABC-Axis? The spatial structure of the Belgian metropolitan area. European Planning Studies, 24(5), 974-995.
80. Van Meeteren, M., Poorthuis, A., Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2015). Pacifying Babel's Tower: A scientometric analysis of polycentricity in urban research. Urban Studies, 53(6), 1278–1298.
81. Vanhaverbeke, W. (1998). An economic analysis of the Flemish Diamond. European Planning Studies, 6(4), 425-442.
82. Vapola, T. J., Tossavainen, P., & Gabrielsson, M. (2008). The battleship strategy: The complementing role of born globals in MNC's new opportunity creation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 1–21.
83. Wang, Y. (2008). Collaborative destination marketing: Understanding the dynamic process. Journal of Travel Research, 47(2), 151-166.
84. Zheng, X. P. (2007). Economies of network, urban agglomeration, and regional development: A theoretical model and empirical evidence. Regional Studies, 41(5), 559–569.
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
نام را وارد کنید.
نشانی پست الکترونیکی را به درستی وارد کنید.
وابستگی سازمانی را به درستی وارد کنید.
توضیحات را وارد کنید (حداقل 50 حرف)
CAPTCHA Image
شناسه امنیتی را به درستی وارد کنید.