حکمروایی شهری راهبردی مؤثر در جهت توسعه کارآفرینی شهری مورد مطالعه شهر همدان

فصلنامه علمی و پژوهشی پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری

مقاله 9، دوره 13، شماره 49، مرداد 1401، صفحه 125-145   

نوع مقاله: مقاله برگرفته از پایان نامه

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/jupm.2022.5525

نویسندگان

سمیرا سمواتی¹؛ سید حسین بحرینی^{* 2}؛ غلامحسین حسینی نیا³

¹گروه شهرسازی، واحد قزوین، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قزوین، ایران

²استاد گروه شهرسازی، دانشکده شهرسازی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

³دانشیار گروه کسب و کار جدید، دانشکده کارآفرینی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

تاریخ دریافت: 25 شهریور 1399،  تاریخ بازنگری: 23 اسفند 1399،  تاریخ پذیرش: 25 اسفند 1399 

چکیده

در جهان حاضر، شهرها به مکان اصلی فعالیت و رشد اقتصادی تبدیل شده‌اند و ثروتمندترین شهرها آن‌های هستند که زایش دائمی فرایند کارآفرینی را در خود پرورش داده‌اند. این در حالی‌ست که مدیریت شهری ظرفیت‌های لازم را در فراهم کردن منابع، ایجاد انگیزه در شهروندان و بسترسازی برای کارآفرینی شهری دارد. هدف این پژوهش بررسی تأثیر شاخص‌های حکمروایی خوب شهری در جهت توسعه کارآفرینی شهری همدان است و همچنین به بررسی میزان همبستگی بین شاخص‌های حکمروایی مطلوب شهری با کارآفرینی شهری در شهر همدان پرداخته است. این تحقیق از نظر هدف کاربردی و از نظر روش در ردة پژوهش‌های توصیفی قرار می‌گیرد. به منظور گردآوری داده‌ها، از دو شیوه تحلیل اسنادی و پیمایش بهره گرفته شده است. ابزار پژوهش، پرسشنامه می‌باشد. جهت تجزیه‌وتحلیل داده‌های گردآوری‌شده از آزمون همبستگی اسپیرمن و روش معادلات ساختاری تحت نرم‌افزار smart PLS استفاده شده است. بر اساس نتایج آزمون همبستگی اسپیرمن، بین شاخص‌های حکمروایی خوب شهری با کارآفرینی شهری با سطح اطمینان 95% ارتباط معناداری وجود دارد. براساس مقادیر ضرایب همبستگی، کارآفرینی شهری بیشترین ارتباط را با شاخص کارآیی و اثربخشی وکمترین ارتباط را شاخص دیدگاه راهبردی دارد. نتایج معادلات ساختاری نیز نشان داد که میزان تأثیرات شاخص‌های حکمروایی شهری بر کارآفرینی شهری همدان برابر 78% است، بنابراین شاخص‌های حکمروایی بر کارآفرینی شهری همدان تأثیر مثبت و معناداری دارند. از بین شاخص‌های حکمروایی خوب شهری، شاخص‌های تمرکززدایی، کارآیی و اثربخشی، قانونمندی و مشارکت با ضریب بتای 81/0 ،80/0، 78/0 و 77/0 به ترتیب بیشترین تأثیر را بر کارآفرینی شهری همدان دارند. بنابراین، حرکت مدیریت ‌شهری همدان به سمت حکمروایی خوب شهری با رویکرد کارآفرینی، می‌تواند به توسعه کارآفرینی، اشتغال و کاهش بیکاری و در نهایت رشد اقتصاد شهری منجر شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

حکمروایی خوب شهری؛ کارآفرینی شهری؛ قانونمندی؛ مشارکت؛ همدان

عنوان مقاله [English]

Urban governance as an effective strategy for the development of urban entrepreneurship Case study: Hamedan city

نویسندگان [English]

samira samavati¹؛ Hossein Bahraini²؛ Gholamhossein Hosseininia³

¹Department of Urban Planning, Qazvin Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran.

²Prof., Faculty of Urban Development, University of Tehran, Tehran,

³Associate Prof., Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

In the present world, cities have become the main place of economic activity and growth, and the richest cities are those which have developed the permanent birth of the entrepreneurial process. However, urban management has the necessary capacity to provide resources, motivate citizens and lay the groundwork for urban entrepreneurship.The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of good urban governance indicators for the development of urban entrepreneurship in Hamedan and also to investigate the correlation between the indicators of good urban governance and urban entrepreneurship in Hamedan.This research is in the category of descriptive researches in terms of applied purpose and method.In order to collect data, two methods of document analysis and survey have been used. The research tool is a questionnaire.Spearman correlation test and structural equation method under smart PLS software were used to analyze the collected data.According to the results of Spearman correlation test, there is a significant relationship between the indicators of good urban governance and urban entrepreneurship with a 95% confidence level. Based on the values of correlation coefficients, urban entrepreneurship has the most relationship with the index of efficiency and effectiveness and the least relationship with the index of strategic perspective.he results of structural equations also showed that the effect of urban governance indicators on urban entrepreneurship in Hamedan is equal to 78%, so governance indicators have a positive and significant effect on urban entrepreneurship in Hamedan.Among the indicators of good urban governance, decentralization, efficiency and effectiveness, rule of law and participation with beta coefficients of 0.81, 0.80, 0.78 and 0.77 have the most impact on urban entrepreneurship in Hamedan, respectively. Therefore, the move of Hamedan urban management towards good urban governance with an entrepreneurial approach can lead to the development of entrepreneurship, employment and reducing unemployment, and ultimately the growth of the urban economy.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Good Urban Governance, Urban Entrepreneurship, Rule of Law, Participation, Hamedan

مراجع

1. Ács ZJ, Bosma N, Sternberg R. (2008) The entrepreneurial advantage of world cities: evidence from global entrepreneurship monitor data. Jena Economic Research Papers; 2008.
2. Acs ZJ, Glaeser EL, Litan RE, Fleming L, Goetz SJ, Kerr WR, et al. (2011) Entrepreneurship and Urban Success: Toward a Policy Consensus. SSRN Electron J. 2011.
3. Amir Entekhabi, Sh. Hosseini, A. Meysamy, S. (2021) An Analysis of the Relationship between Good Governance and Urban Entrepreneurship Development (Case: Rasht). Journal of Land Geographical Engineering,2021, 4 (7): 206_224
4. Babaei M, Pirannejad A, Khodapanah B, & Lajevardi R. (2020) Urban entrepreneurship development strategies in the social context of Tehran. Majlis & Rahbord. Scientific Quarterly Journal,2020, 26(100):87-117
5. Babaei HazehJan M, Pirannejad A, Mohammad Pourzarandi H, Amiri M. (2017) Identifying Economic Factors Affecting Urban Entrepreneurship (Case Study: Tehran). Economics and Urban Management. 2017 [cited 2021March12]; 5 (1 (17 consecutive)): 83-99.
6. Bosma N, Sternberg R. (2014) Entrepreneurship as an urban event? Empirical evidence from European cities. Reg Stud. 2014;48(6):1016–33.
7. Bzhalava L, Lezhava B, Brekashvili P. (2017) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor : 2016-2017 Georgia Report Global Entrepreneurship Monitor : 2016-2017 Georgia Report Levan Bzhalava , Boris Lezhava , Paata Brekashvili and Irena Melua. 2017;(April 2018):2016–7.
8. Dabson B. (2009) Entrepreneurship as an Economic Development Strategy. In CONFERENCE ON ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; 2009.
9. Ebdali, A., Zabihi, H., & Majedi, H. (2020) Explaining the Conceptual Framework of Good Urban Governance Based on Integrated Urban Management (Case Study: Tehran Metropolis). Journal of New Attitudes in Human Geography,2020, 12(1): 293-309
10. Edizel Ö. (2013) Mega-events as a place marketing strategy in entrepreneurial cities: İzmir’s EXPO 2015 candidacy as a roadmap for hosting EXPO 2020. Town Plan Rev. 2013;84(5):633–58.
11. Entezari J. (2021) Innovative Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: A General Pattern and Messages for Iran. Entrepreneurship Development. [cited 2021March12]; 11 (1): 21- Available from: https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=467712
12. Harvey D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geogr Ann Ser B, Hum Geogr. 1989;71(1):3–17.
13. Hubbard P. (2001) The politics of flow: on Birmingham, globalisation and competitiveness. Sound WISHART-. 2001;167–71.
14. Jenkins P, Wilkinson P. (2002) Assessing the growing impact of the global economy on urban development in Southern African cities: Case studies in Maputo and Cape Town. Cities. 2002;19(1):33–47.
15. Jolink, A. and Niesten E. (2015) This is a repository copy of Toward a Theory of Purpose-Driven Urban Entrepreneurship . White Rose Research Online URL for this paper : Version : Accepted Version Article : Cohen , B and Munoz , PA ( 2015 ) Toward a Theory of Purpose-Driven Urban TOWARDS. 2015;
16. Khajeh Yan, d. Rad, S. (2011) Develop a guiding model of urban management for entrepreneurship development. Journal of Urban Management Studies,2011, 2 ( 3): 119-131
17. Lotfi H, EdalatKhah F, Mirzaei M, Wazirpour Sh. (2010) Urban management and its place in promoting citizens' rights. New Attitudes in Human Geography (Human Geography). 2010 [cited 2021March12]; 2 (1): 101-
18. Madureira AM, Baeten G. (2016) By invitation only : uses and users of the ‘ entrepreneurial city.’2016; 3475. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2016.1157015
19. Madureira AM. (2014) Physical Planning in Entrepreneurial Urban Governance—Experiences from the Bo01 and Brunnshög Projects, Sweden. Eur Plan Stud. 2014;22(11):2369–88.
20. Marissing E Van, Bolt G, Kempen R Van. (2006) Urban governance and social cohesion : Effects of urban restructuring policies in two Dutch cities q. 2006;23(4):279–90.
21. Martí-Costa M, Tomàs M. (2017) Urban governance in Spain: From democratic transition to austerity policies. Urban Stud. 2017;54(9):2107–22.
22. McCann E. (2017) Governing urbanism: Urban governance studies 1.0, 2.0 and beyond. Urban Stud. 2017;54(2):312–26.
23. Mortazavi, M. (2014) Local Management and Urban Governance: A Look at the Structure of Urban Management in Japan, South Korea, Turkey and France, Tehran, Tehran Municipality Studies and Planning Center Pub.2014.p:12
24. Pablo M, Boyd C. (2016) The Making of the Urban Entrepreneur. Calif Manage Rev. 2016;59(1):1–37.
25. Painter J. (1998) Entrepreneurs are made, not born: learning and urban regimes in the production of entrepreneurial cities. Entrep city Geogr Polit regime Represent. 1998;259–73.
26. Polidano C, Hulme D, Minogue M. (1998) Conclusion: Looking Beyond the New Public Management. Beyond New Public Manag. 1998;(January 2021):278–93.
27. Rahmani; Hamed. (2019) Urban Governance: Identifying indicators for the development of urban management in Tehran Municipality. Urban Management Studies, 2019, 10(36): 1-15.
28. Rahimiun A. (2017) In Search of Hamedan Urban Identity, Publications of Road, Housing and Urban Development Research Center, Hamedan Housing and Urban Development Organization, Hamedan.2017.pp: 38-39
29. Rakodi C. (2003) Politics and performance : the implications of emerging governance arrangements for urban management approaches and information systems. 2003;27:523–47.
30. Robinson JA. (2008) Urban entrepreneurship: Patterns and practice. West New Engl Law Rev. 2008.
31. Robinson JA. (2014) Developing business courses that make an impact: Rutgers business school’s urban entrepreneurship and economic development. Ann Entrep Educ Pedagog - 2014. 2014;9781783471:386–9.
32. Rizvandi, M. Rahnavard, F. Sakhdari, K. (2020) Developing a framework for urban entrepreneurship in Iran. Quarterly Journal of Innovation Management in Defense Organizations,2020, 2( 6): 135-160
33. Samsami H, IbrahimNejad A. (2019) The Impact of Economic Policy Uncertainty on Unemployment and Entrepreneurship in the Iranian Economy, Simultaneous Equation System Approach. Economic Research, 2019, 54(4 (:995-1016
34. Sriram V, Mersha T, Herron L. (2007) Drivers of urban entrepreneurship: An integrative model. Int J Entrep Behav Res. 2007.
35. Stewart K. (2006) Designing good urban governance indicators: The importance of citizen participation and its evaluation in Greater Vancouver. Cities. 2006;23(3):196–204.
36. Toma S, Grigore A, Marinescu P. (2014) Economic development and entrepreneurship. Procedia Econ Financ [Internet]. 2014;8(14):436–43. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00111-7
37. UN-HABITAT. (2011) The Economic Role of Cities: United Nations Human Settlements Programme. 2011. 53 p.

 Wu F. (2002)  China’s changing urban governance in the transition towards a more market-oriented economy. Urban Stud. 2002;39(7):1071–93.