سنجش و ارزیابی قابلیتهای همافزایی فضایی - اقتصادی مناطق کلان-شهری (مورد پژوهی منطقه کلانشهری تهران) | ||
| پژوهشهای دانش زمین | ||
| مقاله 9، دوره 14، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 53، 1402، صفحه 134-154 اصل مقاله (1.6 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/esrj.2023.101377 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سعید ضرغامی؛ جمیله توکلی نیا* | ||
| گروه جغرافیای انسانی و آمایش، دانشکده علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| یکی از استراتژیهای توسعه منطقهای توجه به سیاستهای همافزایی جهت نیل به توسعه اقتصادی، مبتنی بر استراتژیهای برد - برد متکی بر مزیتهای همکارانه است. منطقه کلانشهری تهران با وجود ظرفیتها و قابلیتهای گوناگون در زمینه منابع انسانی و استقرار بیش از دوازه هزار بنگاه تولیدی عملکرد مطلوبی با توجه به این ظرفیتها نداشته است. این امر بازنگری در سیاستگذاری را با توجه به قابلیتهای همافزایی گوشزد مینماید. منطقه کلانشهری به دلیل نقش مهم و قلب تپنده اقتصادی کشور به عنوان محدوده مورد مطالعه انتخاب گردید. روش پژوهش کمی است. جهت سنجش قابلیتهای همافزایی از شاخصهای ضریب تخصصی شدن، تمرکز، انباشت، تنوع گرایی و خوشهای شدن و برای سنجش روابط کارکردی که جنبهای دیگر از همافزایی اقتصادی است، از تحلیل شبکه و پیوندهای درون صنعتی استفاده شده است. نتایج پژوهش نشان میدهد ضریب تخصصی شدن فعالیتهای تولیدی در تهران کاهش اما در سایر شهرستانهای افزایش یافته است. این امر در مورد تمرکزگرایی نیز صادق است. از سوی دیگر توزیع فضایی بنگاههای گرایش به سمت توزان در منطقه کلانشهری دارد که زمینه را برای توسعه بنگاههای تولیدی به دلیل ایجاد زمینه همافزایی فراهم میکند. ضریب خوشهای شدن به عنوان یکی از برآیندهای اقتصادی نشان میدهد که عمده بنگاههای تولیدی منطقه، گرایش به سمت خوشهای شدن دارند. گرایش به شکلگیری روابط کارکردی و ایجاد مراکز ضعیف شواهدی دیگر از قابلیت منطقه کلانشهری در راستای توسعه همافزا است. در نهایت میتوان بیان داشت که مزیتهای گوناگون، انباشتگی و تنوع کارکردی از قابلیتهای مهم جهت همافزایی فضایی - اقتصادی است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| تخصصگرایی؛ تنوع گرایی؛ خوشهای شدن؛ منطقهکلانشهری؛ همافزایی فضایی - اقتصادی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Assessing and evaluating the spatial-economic synergy potentials of metropolitan reigns (Case study: Tehran metropolitan region) | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| saeid zarghami؛ Jamileh Tavakolinia | ||
| Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction In the field of regional synergistic development, synergy is defined as the cooperation, interaction, and benefit of subsystems from the benefits of interactions. Synergy is achieved through collaboration and complementarity and requires a high level of interaction to create the necessary network correlations to compensate for interdependence. Hence, regional synergy refers to regional cooperation, close communication, and continuity of interaction. Therefore, it can be said that regional amplification is the interaction between regions and a combination of cooperation and competition between regions, which aims to achieve an optimal system in which the effects of two or more structures or functions of a partner and each other. Consistently more than the sum of the effects of individual components and functions alone, various studies have explored the concept of synergy in the development of multicenter regions, ecosystems and energy, social theories, national and regional innovation systems, and economies of scale. Urban accumulation, regional growth, business development, have been used. But what has not been evaluated is the application of this concept in the field of economic development, especially in metropolitan areas of developing countries, which are still involved in imbalance, lack of integration, functional coherence and unbalanced distribution of activities. The metropolitan area of Tehran is no exception to this rule. Due to the significant concentration of manpower, resources and economic enterprises, this region is known as the beating heart of the country, which can play the role of a locomotive and railroad for national development. Materials and methods The research method is quantitative. The research index has been determined according to the theoretical foundations and research background. To conduct the research, about twelve thousand companies were located in the metropolitan area of Tehran based on 28 active ISIC codes. Then, the flow of goods between the cities of the region was collected and analyzed based on the information of the Road Authority using network analysis. In order to analyze the internal relations of firms, based on the output data table, the two-region method was prepared and the relations between manufacturing firms were evaluated. Results and discussion The study of industry specialization shows that the activities of radio, television and communication devices, energy production, computer and engineering activities, tobacco products and mining have the highest level of specialization over a period of twenty years. On the other hand, the study of the degree of specialization of activities shows that the coefficient of specialization of activities has decreased. This means that the cities of the province have a tendency towards similarity in industrial activities, which creates the ground for increasing synergy. A study of the spatial distribution of industries in 1975 shows that food and beverage products, other non-metallic mineral products, fabric metal products, rubber and plastic products have the most homogeneous spatial distribution in the metropolitan area, respectively. In 1995, the spatial distribution of industries tended to be more balanced, and thirteen disciplines of industrial activity tended to be more balanced in the region. Fabric metal products, construction of machinery and equipment, rubber and plastic products, food and beverages have the highest spatial balance between industries in the metropolitan area. Spatial analysis of industrial enterprises shows that the industrial enterprises of the province, affected by the factor of access and mobility of production factors, tend to disperse. In other words, the expansion of industries corresponding to the expansion of the communication network has taken place, and the returns caused by the scale in the cities of Rey, Karaj, Savojbolagh, Pakdasht, next to Tehran, have attracted economic enterprises to these cities. In terms of spatial concentration of employment, in 1996, the city of Tehran had 84% of the employment of industrial enterprises, which after two decades, this amount has decreased and reached 45.42%. In contrast, the share of other cities in the metropolitan area of Rey (9/22), Karaj (8/04), Pakdasht (6/86) and Savojbolagh (6/27) has increased. The study of the degree of clustering of economic activities in the metropolitan area shows that food and beverage products, other non-metallic mineral products, construction of machinery and equipment, machinery and electrical appliances, metal fabric products, manufacturing Chemical materials and products, rubber and plastic products, medical tools, optics, textiles, have the highest rate of spatial clustering among the industrial enterprises of the province, respectively. The study of employment of industrial enterprises shows that ten fields of industrial activity constitute about 80% of employment and 78% of the number of industrial workshops in the province. Conclusion The results show that the metropolitan area of Tehran has various economic and spatial capabilities to achieve economic development. Examination of indicators such as specialization, centralism, accumulation, diversity and clustering as a result of synergy shows that if the desired policies in this area of the metropolitan area, the ability It plays an irreplaceable role in the development of the national economy. The study of the place specialization index shows that Tehran is still known as the most specialized city in the metropolitan area. However, over time, other cities have also increased in terms of specialization. The distribution of manufacturing enterprises in the region, according to Moran statistics, shows that after two decades, the spatial distribution of enterprises tends to become clustered. In addition, the spatial distribution of enterprises has been in line with the trend of expanding the communication axes of metropolitan areas. In examining the space accumulation index, which analyzes the situation of the whole industry with respect to continuous space, they tend to be one-sided. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Specialization, Diversification, Clustering, Metropolitan Region, Spatial-Economic Synergy | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
-Balassa, B., 1961. The Theory of Economic Integration, Homewood, p. 176-186. -Beers, D. and Biswas, W.K., 2008. A regional synergy approach to energy recovery: The case of the Kwinana industrial area, Western Australia, Energy conversion and Management, v. 49(11), p. 3051-3062. -Belussi, F. and Sedita, S.R., 2009. Life cycle vs. multiple path dependency in industrial districts. European Planning Studies, v. 17(4), p. 505-528. -Benway, D.J., 2019. Measuring Economic Diversity: The Hachman Index, 2019, Gardner Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Research Brief. February 2019. -Bermejo Carbonell, J. and Werner, R.A., 2018. Does foreign direct investment generate economic growth? A new empirical approach applied to Spain. Economic Geography, v. 94(4), p. 425-456. -Borozan, D., 2017. Internal migration, regional economic convergence, and growth in Croatia, International Regional Science Review, v. 40(2), p. 141-163. -Boschma, R.A. and Frenken, K., 2006. Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of economic geography, v. 6(3), p. 273-302. -Boschma, R. and Martin, R., 2010. The handbook of evolutionary economic geography. Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 23-59. -Boschma, R. and Frenken, K., 2011. The emerging empirics of evolutionary economic geography. Journal of economic geography, v. 11(2), p. 295-307. -Boschma, R. and Frenken, K., 2018. Evolutionary economic geography, The new Oxford handbook of economic geography, p. 213-229. -Brenner, T., 2004. Local industrial clusters: existence, emergence and evolution, v. 20, Routledge, p. 1-49. -Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F., 2009. Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of economic geography, v. 9(4), p. 439-468. -Brouder, P. and Eriksson, R.H., 2013. Tourism evolution: On the synergies of tourism studies and evolutionary economic geography, Annals of Tourism Research, v. 43, p. 370-389. -Capello, R., Caragliu, A. and Fratesi, U., 2017. Advances in regional growth forecasting models: Conceptual challenges and methodological responses, International Regional Science Review, v. 40(1), p. 3-11. -Chen, Y., Nie, H., Chen, J. and Peng, L., 2021. Regional industrial synergy: potential and path crossing the “environmental mountain”, Science of the Total Environment, v. 765, p. 142-154. -Crociata, A., Agovino, M., Russo, A. and Quaglieri Domínguez, A., 2018. Creative workforce and economic development in precrisis Europe: Main trends and causality relationships, International Regional Science Review, v. 41(4), p. 448-479. -Cowell, M., 2010. Polycentric regions: comparing complementarity and institutional governance in the San Francisco Bay area, the Randstad and Emilia-Romagna, Urban Studies, v. 47(5), p. 945-965. -De Long, J.B. and summers, L.H., 1991. Equipment investment and economic growth, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, v. 106(2), p. 445-502. -Dosi, G., 1984. Technical Change and Industrial Transformation. Basingstoke and London: MacMillan, p. 1-24. -Dosi, G., 1997. Opportunities, incentives and the collective patterns of technological change, The economic journal, v. 107(444), p. 1530-1547. -Franceschi, F., Mussoni, M. and Pelloni, G., 2009. A note on new measures of agglomeration and specialization, p. 213-256. -Fernald, J.G., 1999. Roads to prosperity? Assessing the link between public capital and productivity. American economic review, v. 89(3), p. 619-638. -Garretsen, H. and Martin, R., 2010. Rethinking (new) economic geography models: taking geography and history more seriously, Spatial Economic Analysis, v. 5(2), p. 127-160. -Gertler, M.S., 1997. the invention of regional culture, In: R. Lee and J. Wills (eds) Geographies of Economies, London: Arnold, v. 47-58, p. 213-217. -Harrison, A., 1996. Openness and growth: A time-series, cross-country analysis for developing countries, Journal of development Economics, v. 48(2), p. 419-447. -Hassink, R. and Gong, H., 2019. New economic geography, The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies, p. 1344-1355. -Iammarino, S. and McCann, P., 2006. The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers, Research policy, v. 35(7), p. 1018-1036. -Jacobs, J., 1969. The Economy of Cities (London: Jonathan Cape), p. 127-139. -Jin, D.J. and Stough, R.R., 1998. Learning and learning capability in the Fordist and post-Fordist age: an integrative framework. Environment and Planning A, v. 30(7), p. 1255-1278. -Johansson, B. and Quigley, J.M., 2004. Agglomeration and networks in spatial economies, In Fifty years of regional science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 165-176. -Johnsen, H.C.G. and Ennals, R., 2012. Creating collaborative advantage: Innovation and knowledge creation in regional economies, Gower Publishing, p. 125-127. -Jopke, C., Kreyling, J., Maes, J. and Koellner, T., 2015. Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: Bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns, Ecological indicators, v. 49, p. 46-52. -Ke, S. and Feser, E., 2010. Count on the growth pole strategy for regional economic growth? Spread–backwash effects in Greater Central China. Regional Studies, v. 44(9), p. 1131-1147. -Ke, Sh., He, M. and Yuan, Ch., 2014. Synergy and co-agglomeration of producer services and manufacturing: A panel data analysis of Chinese cities. Regional Studies, v. 48(11), p. 1829-1841. -Kopczewska, K., Churski, P., Ochojski, A. and Polko, A., 2017. Measuring regional specialisation: A new approach, Springer, p. 197- 262. -Kourtit, K., Nijkamp, P. and Stough, R.R., 2018. Modeling regional growth and innovation. -Krugman, P., 1991. Increasing returns and economic geography, Journal of political economy, v. 99(3), p. 483-499. -Krugman, P., 1998. What's new about the new economic geography? Oxford review of economic policy, v. 14(2), p. 7-17. -Krugman, P., 1995. Development, geography and economic theory, MIT Press, Boston, p. 3-7. -Krugman, P., 2008. The Increasing Returns Revolution in Trade and Geography (Nobel Prize Lecture), p. 1-12. -Leydesdorff, L. and Porto-Gomez, I., 2019. Measuring the expected synergy in Spanish regional and national systems of innovation, The Journal of Technology Transfer, v. 44(1), p. 189-209. -Li, G. and Fang, C., 2018. Spatial econometric analysis of urban and county-level economic growth convergence in China, International Regional Science Review, v. 41(4), p. 410-447. -Liu, Y., Li, L. and Zheng, F.T., 2019. Regional Synergy and Economic Growth: Evidence from Total Effect and Regional Effect in China. International Regional Science Review, v. 42(5-6), p. 431-458. -Lucas Jr, R.E., 1988. On the mechanics of economic development, Journal of monetary economics, v. 22(1), p. 3-42. -Márquez, M.A., Lasarte-Navamuel, E. and Lufin, M., 2018. Isolating neighborhood components of regional inequality: Illustration for the Spanish case, International Regional Science Review, v. 41(5), p. 483-509. -Marrocu, E. and Paci, R., 2013. Regional development and creativity. International Regional Science Review, v. 36(3), p. 354-391. -Martin, R. and Sunley, P., 2011. Conceptualizing cluster evolution: beyond the life cycle model?. Regional studies, v. 45(10), p. 1299-1318. -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, v. 42(4), p. 765-781. -Meijers, E., 2007. From central place to network model: theory and evidence of a paradigm change, Tijdschrift voor economische en social geography, v. 98(2), p. 245-259. -Meijers, E.J., Burger, M.J. and Hoogerbrugge, M.M., 2016. Borrowing size in networks of cities: City size, network connectivity and metropolitan functions in Europe, Papers in Regional Science, v. 95(1), p. 181-198. -Nelson, R.R., 2008. Economic development from the perspective of evolutionary economic theory. Oxford development studies, v. 36(1), p. 9-21. -Nicolis, G., 1977. Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems. Dissipative Structures to Order through Fluctuations, p. 20-65. -Nijkamp, P. and Reggiani, A., 1996. Modelling network synergy: Static and dynamic aspects, Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, v. 55, p. 931-941. -Ohlan, R., 2013. Pattern of regional disparities in socio-economic development in India: District level analysis, Social Indicators Research, v. 114(3), p. 841-873. -Overman, H.G., 2004. Can we learn anything from economic geography proper? Journal of Economic Geography, v. 4(5), p. 501-516. -Pouder, R. and John, C.H., 1996. Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation, Academy of management review, v. 21(4), p. 1192-1225. -Potter, A. and Watts, H.D., 2011. Evolutionary agglomeration theory: increasing returns, diminishing returns, and the industry life cycle, Journal of Economic Geography, v. 11(3), p. 417-455. -Postigo, A., 2011. Accounting for outcomes in participatory urban governance through state–civil-society synergies, Urban Studies, v. 48(9), p. 1945-1967. -Prigogine, I. and Nicolis, G., 1977. Self-Organization in Non-Equilibrium Systems, New York: Wiley-Interscience, p. 217-231. -Rivera, M.A., 2017. The synergies between human development, economic growth, and tourism within a developing country: An empirical model for Ecuador, Journal of destination marketing & management, v. 6(3), p. 221-232. -Simon, H.A., 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice, The quarterly journal of economics, v. 69(1), p. 99-118. -Stimson, R.J., Stough, R.R. and Roberts, B.H., 2006. Regional economic development: analysis and planning strategy, Springer Science & Business Media, p. 43-68. -Vangen, S. and Huxham, C., 2010. Introducing the theory of collaborative advantage. -Webber, D.J., Healy, A. and Bristow, G., 2018. Regional growth paths and resilience: A European analysis, Economic Geography, v. 94(4), p. 355-375. -Werner, R.A. and Bermejo Carbonell, J., 2018. Do FDI Inflows Generate Economic Growth in Large Developed Economies? A New Empirical Approach, Applied to Spain, p. 425-456. -Ye, C., Zhu, J., Li, S., Yang, S. and Chen, M., 2019. Assessment and analysis of regional economic collaborative development within an urban agglomeration: Yangtze River Delta as a case study, Habitat International, v. 83, p. 20-29. -Zheng, Y., Cheng, Y. and Li, L., 2019. Factors affecting regional economic synergy in China–based on research on high-tech industry, IEEE Access, v. 8, p. 14123-14133. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 13,290 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 8,231 |
||