نقش قدرت در بازتولید غیر رسمیت قشر فرادست در نظام برنامه ریزی شهری: تحلیل گفتمان حق مکتسبه در بازنگری طرح منطقه ثامن مشهد (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در دهه اخیر، غیر رسمیت به یکی از مهم ترین مسائل توسعه های شهری به ویژه در جهان جنوب تبدیل و با ارائه مفهوم "غیررسمیت قشرفرادست" به فراتر از حوزه فقر شهری گسترده شده است. در این بستر، بسیاری از محققان در تبیین ارتباط قدرت و غیر رسمیت شهری نقش دولت را در تعلیق قانون برجسته کرده اند. اخیراً این نگاه به دلیل فهم تقلیل گرایانه از قدرت و عدم توجه به شبکه پیچیده بازیگران درون و بیرون دولت نقد شده و ضرورت بسط رویکرد غیرمرکزگرا به غیررسمیت شهری مطرح گردیده است. در این راستا، این مقاله با بسط این فرضیه بر اساس تفکرات فوکو که تمییز قانون مداری/ناقانون مداری یک رویه گفتمانی برساخته قدرت است، تلاش می نماید چگونگی تقابل پیچیده بازیگران قدرت بر روی قانون را در بستر غیررسمیت شهری قشرفرادست تبیین کند. بدین منظور با استفاده از روش تحلیل گفتمان، مطالعه درون گفتمانی (جایگاه سوژه ها، ابژه ها و مفاهیم)، میان گفتمانی و فرا گفتمانی حق مکتسبه در بازنگری طرح بهسازی و نوسازی بافت پیرامون حرم رضوی (منطقه ثامن) صورت گرفت. یافته ها نشان داد که منازعات بازیگران قدرت درون و بیرون دولت مولد گفتمان های حقیقت متقابلی از قانون مداری/نا قانون مداری است که هرکدام جایگاه مشروع تصمیم گیری درباره حق مکتسبه، نحوه تفسیر قانون حق مکتسبه و نوع حقی را که تحت لوای حق مکتسبه باید استیفا شود را به نحو متفاوتی تبیین می نمایند. نتایج نشان می دهد که تقابل گفتمانی قدرت بر روی قانون مداری ریشه در دوگانگی درونی نظام رسمی برنامه ریزی شهری درباره جایگاه های تصمیم گیری محلی/ مرکزی، تمییز منافع عمومی/ خصوصی، پذیرش/ عدم پذیرش تبعات اعمال قانون، سازوکارهای عرفی مقررات زدایی/ سازوکارهای رسمی مقررات گرایی دارد. این تضاد درونی منجر به ایجاد تقابل قدرت در بستر سیاسی _ اجتماعی شده که در نتیجه آن عرصه ای فراهم می شود که قشر فرادست در جایگاه تصمیم گیری رسمی قرار گرفته، منافع آن ذیل منافع عمومی بازتعریف شده و قانون به نفع قشر فرادست تفسیر شود. بدین ترتیب توسعه های غیرقانونی قشرفرادست قانونی شده و غیررسمیت در بستر تضاد درونی نظام رسمی برنامه ریزی شهری بازتولید می شود.The role of power in the reproduction of elite informality in the urban planning system: A discourse analysis of vested rights in the revision of the Samen district plan, Mashhad
Highlights Drawing on a Foucauldian framework, power dynamically reconstitutes legality through competing discourses.Elite urban informality becomes legitimized where power actors construct competing discourses of vested rights during the revision of the Samen district plan.Elite informality is reproduced through conflicts of power rooted in contradictions within the formal urban planning system.The dualities of central vs. local authority, public vs. private interests, enforcement vs. non-enforcement, and regulation vs. deregulation reinforce elite informality.The reproduction of elite informality challenges the conventional formality/informality binary in urban governance. Extended Abstract Introduction A significant portion of the literature on informality emphasizes the state’s role in suspending or manipulating the law. Much of this scholarship portrays informality as “from above,” where the state is considered a unified actor with control over legality, and law itself is treated as an objective, stable, and neutral framework for bureaucratic action.However, more recent approaches have shifted toward de-centering the state, conceptualizing power as dispersed and law as indeterminate. In this perspective, law is not a fixed foundation but a socially constructed and continuously contested phenomenon shaped by diverse actors.This article follows this newer trajectory by analyzing the dynamic interconnections between law and power in urban governance. Specifically, it investigates how competing actors—state and non-state alike—mobilize discourses of legality to reproduce elite informality. The case of the Samen district plan in Mashhad provides an instructive example, as it reveals how law, informality, and power interweave in large-scale redevelopment projects. Theoretical Framework This study draws upon a Foucauldian understanding of power and truth to explore how legality is not simply imposed but continuously reconstructed through discursive struggles. Power relations, rather than being external to law, are embedded within it. They determine:Who has authority to interpret legal norms;How concepts such as vested rights are defined;Whose interests are privileged in practice.From this perspective, urban planning processes are not only technical or administrative but discursive arenas where actors compete to shape legality. Informality, therefore, does not merely exist outside formal systems; it emerges from within them, sustained by contradictions and conflicts in governance. Methodology The study applies Foucauldian discourse analysis to the concept of vested rights ( haghe maktasabeh ) in the revision of the Samen district plan.Case context:The Samen district redevelopment project, initiated in the 1990s around the Holy Shrine of Imam Reza, covered 360 hectares.Conceived as a self-financed scheme using land value capture (rent-gap), it envisioned 365 high-density commercial-residential buildings (9–12 floors).To attract investors, Mashhad Municipality implemented extensive deregulation, including:A guaranteed 30% internal rate of return (IRR);Zoning exceptions and exemptions from building regulations;Unauthorized transactions involving third-party assets without owner consent.By the 2010s, the municipality had signed nearly 300 agreements with private entities, banks, and state-owned enterprises. When the plan was revised (2013–2019), disputes arose over whether prior agreements constituted vested rights . Competing claims produced four distinct legal discourses, reflecting deep conflicts between actors.Data collection:15 narrative in-depth interviews with experts and stakeholders;200 official documents (plans, correspondence, approvals, reports);130 unofficial sources (press reports, speeches, institutional websites).Through discourse analysis, the study identifies intra-, inter-, and extra-discursive contestations shaping legality and informality. Results and Discussion The findings reveal that the revision of the Samen plan was characterized by competing discourses of vested rights, each linked to specific power configurations. These were classified as:Extralegal discourse – justifying actions outside formal law under exceptional conditions;Extended discourse – expanding prior agreements into broad claims of vested rights;Reconciliatory discourse – seeking compromise between legality and expedience;Argumentative discourse – contesting definitions of legality through legalistic reasoning.Together, these discourses illustrate how elite informality is reproduced not in opposition to the formal planning system but through it . Power struggles embedded in contradictions within the system generate overlapping zones of legality and illegality.Key contradictions include:Central vs. local authority: conflicts between national institutions and municipal power.Public vs. private interests: competing claims over whose rights and benefits are prioritized.Enforcement costs: debates over who bears the burden of compliance and regulation.Regulation vs. deregulation: shifting boundaries between “customary” deregulated practices and formal legal requirements.Through these contestations, vested rights were selectively legitimized, enabling elite actors to pursue projects outside standard planning procedures while maintaining a veneer of legality. Conclusion This study demonstrates that elite informality in Mashhad’s Samen district was not simply an illegal deviation but a product of discursive power struggles within the planning system itself. Structural contradictions in governance—central/local, public/private, enforcement/non-enforcement, regulation/deregulation—generated competing legal claims that ultimately legitimized elite practices.The result is a reproduction of informality from within formality, where illegal actions are gradually normalized and incorporated into planning processes. This challenges the binary distinction between formal and informal, suggesting that urban governance operates through a fluid continuum of legality and illegality.Power, in this context, does not merely suspend law but actively reshapes it, redefining the boundaries of what counts as legal or illegal. By analyzing vested rights discourses in Mashhad, this article highlights how elite informality is discursively reproduced, posing critical challenges for urban planning systems that seek to uphold legality while accommodating economic and political power.
تبلیغات
