Volume 34, Issue 1 (Spring 2021)
JMDP 2021, 34(1): 3-26 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sargazi Z, Rahnavard F. (2021). The Impact of Social Capital, Information and Communication Technology Development, and Globalization on Good Urban Governance Based on the Participation Culture and Local Authorities’ Inclination Approach.. JMDP. 34(1), 3-26. doi:10.52547/jmdp.34.1.3
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-3687-en.html
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-3687-en.html
1- Ph. D. Student, Department of Public Administration, Qeshm Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran.
2- Associate Professor Department of Public Administration, Institute for Management and Planning Studies Tehran, Iran ,frahnavard@imps.ac.ir
2- Associate Professor Department of Public Administration, Institute for Management and Planning Studies Tehran, Iran ,
Abstract: (4411 Views)
Purpose: The aim of this study is to present a model for investigating the antecedents of good urban governance in Iranian mega cities as well as the relations among effective factors of such governance.
Methodology: The statistical sample consisted of fourty mega cities, for which the city councils completed the questionnaires.
Findings: Findings show that the information and communication technology development, social capital, globalization and local authorities’ inclination variables positively and significantly affect good urban governance, but participation culture does not.
Implications: A new model for good urban governance has been introduced. It can ultimately serve as an appropriate context to secure the dynamism of indexes of good urban governance and can provide the cohesion necessary for the implementation and improvement of government performance in the society.
Recommendations: Based on the presented model, the expansion of information and communication technology, as well as the improvement of social capital, have been suggested.
Methodology: The statistical sample consisted of fourty mega cities, for which the city councils completed the questionnaires.
Findings: Findings show that the information and communication technology development, social capital, globalization and local authorities’ inclination variables positively and significantly affect good urban governance, but participation culture does not.
Implications: A new model for good urban governance has been introduced. It can ultimately serve as an appropriate context to secure the dynamism of indexes of good urban governance and can provide the cohesion necessary for the implementation and improvement of government performance in the society.
Recommendations: Based on the presented model, the expansion of information and communication technology, as well as the improvement of social capital, have been suggested.
Keywords: Good Urban Governance, Globalization, Participation Culture, Social Capital, Local Authorities’ Inclination, Information and Communication Technology
Type of Study: Research |
Received: Jun 07 2019 | Accepted: Aug 16 2020 | ePublished: Jan 15 2022
Received: Jun 07 2019 | Accepted: Aug 16 2020 | ePublished: Jan 15 2022
References
1. Araei, V., Ghasemi, A., & Moeininfar, Y. (2018). Policy Recommendations about Barriers of Good Governance in Public Affairs (Case Study: Governorate and Municipality of Minoodasht). Strategic Studies of Public Policy, 7(25), 113-133. [http://sspp.iranjournals.ir/article_29729.html.]
2. Badach, J., & Dymnicka, M. (2017). Concept of 'Good Urban Governance' and Its Application in Sustainable Urban Planning. Paper Presented at the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. [DOI:10.1088/1757-899X/245/8/082017]
3. Eberle, S. (2003). Social Capital and Good Governance: The Impact of Civil Society on Government Performance. (Master of Arts in Politics and Management). University of Konstanz. [http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-16386.]
4. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. [DOI:10.1177/002224378101800104]
5. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage Publications.
6. Haji Yousefi, A. M., & Talebi, M. A. (2017). Barriers to Participation in the Challenges between Political Culture and Good Governance from the Perspective of Senior Managers in the Government of IR Iran. Research Letter of Political Science, 12(1), 7-40. [http://www.ipsajournal.ir/article_308.html.]
7. Hekmatnia, H., Maleki, M., Mousavi, M. N., & Afshani, A. (2017). Assess the Implementation of Good Urban Governance in Iran (Case Study: Ilam City). Human Geography Research, 49(3), 607-619.
8. Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. Computational Statistics, 28(2), 565-580. [DOI:10.1007/s00180-012-0317-1]
9. Jankauskas, V., & Šeputienė, J. (2007). The Relation between Social Capital, Governance and Economic Performance in Europe. Business: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 131-138. [DOI:10.3846/btp.2007.19]
10. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century: The MIT Press. [DOI:10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001]
11. Kresl, P. K., & Fry, E. H. (2005). The Urban Response to Internationalization: Edward Elgar Publishing. [DOI:10.4337/9781845426767]
12. Lombard, M. (2013). Citizen Participation in Urban Governance in the Context of Democratization: Evidence from Low-Income Neighbourhoods in Mexico. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1), 135-150. [DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01175.x]
13. Maas, L. T. (2015). The Effect of Social Capital on Governance and Sustainable Livelihood of Coastal City Community Medan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211(1), 718-722. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.092]
14. Madzova, V., Sajnoski, K., & Davcev, L. (2013). E-government as an Efficient Tool towards Good Governance (Trends and Comparative Analysis throughout Worldwide Regions and within West Balkan Countries). Balkan Social Science Review, 1(1), 157-174.
15. Maloney, W., Smith, G., & Stoker, G. (2000). Social Capital and Urban Governance: Adding a More Contextualized 'Top-Down' Perspective. Political Studies, 48(4), 802-820. [DOI:10.1111/1467-9248.00284]
16. McCarney, P., Halfani, M., & Rodriguez, A. (1995). Towards an Understanding of Governance: The Emergence of an Idea and Its Implications for Urban Research in Developing Countries. Urban Research in the Developing World, 4(1), 91-141.
17. Perucca, F., & Sonntagbauer, P. (2016). E-Governance and Urban Policy Design in Developing Countries. Fupol Project and UN-Habitat.
18. Pierre, J. (1999). Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics. Urban Affairs Review, 34(3), 372-396. [DOI:10.1177/10780879922183988]
19. Putnam, R. (2001). Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 41-51.
20. Relhan, G., Ionkova, K., & Huque, R. (2012). Good Urban Governance through ICT: Issues, Analysis, and Strategies: World Bank. [DOI:10.1596/27158]
21. Rhodes, R. A. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability: Open University Press. [http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/336524.]
22. Ritter, T. (2013). Administration and Multi Level Governance Social Capital as a Determinant for Good Governance-An Empirical Analysis of the 27 EU Member States-EGPA Annual Conference. Edinburgh Scotland-UK EU.
23. Safariyan, R., & Emamjomehzadeh, S. J. (2018). Model of Good Governance: Social Capital and Comprehensive Development. State Studies, 3(12), 145-181.
24. Stoker, G. (1998). Public-Private Partnerships and Urban Governance. In Partnerships in Urban Governance (pp. 34-51): Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-349-14408-2_3]
25. Streib, G., & Navarro, I. (2006). Citizen Demand for Interactive E-Government: The Case of Georgia Consumer Services. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(3), 288-300. [DOI:10.1177/0275074005283371]
26. Tsukamoto, T., & Vogel, R. K. (2004). Globalization and Urban Governance: A Comparative Analysis of Decentralization in World Cities. Paper Presented at the City Futures Conference, University of Illinois at Chicago.
27. UN- Habitat (2016). Global Campaign on Urban Governance. Available at: [https://unhabitat.org.]
28. Uzun, C. N. (2007). Globalization and Urban Governance in Istanbul. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 22(1), 127-138. [DOI:10.1007/s10901-006-9069-y]
29. Van Kampen, M., & Van Naerssen, T. (2008). Globalization and Urban Governance in Two Asian Cities: Pune (India) and Cebu (The Philippines). European Planning Studies, 16(7), 941-954. [DOI:10.1080/09654310802163736]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
