زمان پاسخگویی تنها روزهای زوج ساعت 10 الی 12  

   [Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Volume 34, Issue 2 (2019) ::
geores 2019, 34(2): 257-268 Back to browse issues page
Recognizing the Functions of Hegelian Government in Organizing the Political Economy of Geographical Space
Ehsan Lashgari Tafreshi *
Department of Ggeography, Human & Social Sciences Campus, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran , lashgari@yazd.ac.ir
Abstract:   (535 Views)
Aims & Backgrounds: The studies of space political economy in the framework of positivism methodology is often influenced by profit motivation, and analysis of spatial changes is as a result of economic policies independent from government ideology. Marxist geographers have also argued that political sovereignty lacked any structural independence against class relations and the material processes of society shape the political destiny of geographical space. in the studies of political economy in the framework of Hegelian perspective, the role of government actors and agencies is investigated as the forces beyond the elements of civil society in the distribution of public goods and services and policymaking in order to capital accumulation and its subsequent spatial reconstruction at the territorial level. The aim of this study was to investigate and explanation of the most important effective structural symbols and functional processes, constructed by the government in the framework of the Hegelian perspective on national and territorial scales.
Methodology: This descriptive-analytical study with the trans-positivism approach, is seeking to analyze the spatial dialectics in the framework of the function of political sovereignty in the distribution of public goods and national resource allocation at the national scale.
Findings: from the Hegelian perspective, the political economy of space is the result of controlling competition between the guilds and the social classes for access to public goods by the government. In other words, the process of scarce resource allocation based on the ideology of sovereignty government and determination of facility location and its subsequent spatial developments were investigated. Meanwhile, deployment of new forces in decision making in the territorial scale will create the various patterns of the political economy of space and it is not necessarily the result of a social class function or pursuit the interests of the bourgeois class. Accordingly, when the government's function in organizing the space economy in one area is discussed, there is not necessary to merely use of quantitative methods to predict and measuring the political economy of space.
Conclusion: The government-oriented political economy is seeking to describe the ranking and classification of social groups in access to scarce economic resources through planning processes, spatial planning, and analysis of its effects.
Keywords: Political Economy| Governance| Geographical Space| Trans positivism ,
Full-Text [PDF 842 kb]   (44 Downloads)    
Article Type: Original Research | Subject: Political geography
Received: 2018/10/7 | Accepted: 2019/04/20 | Published: 2019/06/3
* Corresponding Author Address: Iran - Yazd- Yazd university- Department of geography
References
1. Abdekhdaei M (2015). Methods and explorations in the modern government. Humanity Science Methodology. 21(84):7-29. [Persian]
2. Ahmadvand S (2007). Hegel's political philosophy and modernity. Public Law Research. 9(23):1-16. [Persian]
3. Agnew J, Muscra L (2012). Making political geography. 2nd Edition. New York: Rowman Littlefield.
4. Aleizad E, Saraei H (2011). The government in social theory, a comparative study of the classical sociologists. Social Science. 18(54):1-50. [Persian]
5. Allmendinger P (2002). Planning in postmodern times. 1st Edition. London: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203186152]
6. Andalib A (2001). Basic theory and principles on special planning in border regions of I. R. I. 1st Edition. Tehran: College of Command and Headquarters. [Persian]
7. Asadi R, Rahnam MR, Kharazmie O (2015). Genealogy futuristic, an appropriate approach to the future study of geographic phenomena. Geographical Studies of Arid Zone. 6(22):54-71. [Persian]
8. Ashraf A (1979). Historical obstacles to capitalist development in Iran. 1st Edition. Tehran: Zameineh. [Persian]
9. Bell W (2013). Fundamentals of futures studies, history, objectives and knowledge. Taghavi, M & Mohaghegh, M Translators, Tehran: Institute of Defense Research and Training publisher. [Persian]
10. Delfrouz M (2014). Government and economic development: Political economy of development in Iran and developing governments. 1st Edition. Tehran: Agah. [Persian]
11. Dikec M (2012). Space as a mode of political thinking. Geoforum. 43(4):669-676. [DOI:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.01.008]
12. Edel M (2001). Urban and regional economics: Marxist perspectives. Raeis Dana F, Translator. 1st Edition. Tehran: Ghatreh. [Persian]
13. Ejlali P, Rafeiyan M, Asgari A (2017). Planning theories: Traditional and Modern views. 6th Edition. Tehran: Agah. [Persian]
14. Elden S (2007). There is a politics of space because space is political: Henri lefebvre and the production of space. Radical Philosophy Review. 10(2):101-116. [DOI:10.5840/radphilrev20071022]
15. Flanagan MG (2010). Urban sociology, image and structure. 5th Edition. New York: Allyn and Bacan.
16. Gallaher C (2011). Key concepts in political geography. Namie MH, Mohammadpour A, translators. 2nd Edition. Tehran: Zeytoun Sabz. [Persian]
17. Goymen K (2000). Tourism and governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research. 27(4):1025-1048. [DOI:10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00127-9]
18. Hafeznia M, Kaviyanirad M (2014). Philosophy of political geography. 1st Edition. Tehran: Strategic Studies Research Institution. [Persian]
19. Hafeznia M, Ahmadypour Z, Ghaderi M (2014). Politics and space. 5th Edition. Mashhad: Papoli. [Persian]
20. Hegel G (2001). Elements of the philosophy of right. Ontario: Batoche Book.
21. Hughes H (1990). Consciousness and society: The reorientation of European social thought. Tehran: Islamic Revolution Press. [Persian]
22. Jahanbagloo R (1995). Modernity, democracy and intellectuals. 1st Edition. Tehran: Markaz. [Persian]
23. Javan J, Daleil S, Salmani M (2013). Space dialectics from Lefebvre. Arid Zone Studies. 3(12):1-17. [Persian]
24. Johnston R (1984). Marxism political economy. Progress in Human Geography. 8(4):473-492. [DOI:10.1177/030913258400800401]
25. Jones M, Jones R, Woods M (2016). An introduction to political geography: Space, place and politics. Peshgahiefard Z, Akbari R, Translators. 2nd Edition. Tehran: Tehran University Press. [Persian]
26. Jones M (1998). Restructuring the local state: Economic governance or social regulation. Political Geography. 17(8):959-988. [DOI:10.1016/S0962-6298(97)00090-5]
27. Kourdzadeh M (2001). Political economy of Islamic Republic. 1st Edition. Tehran: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
28. Lairson T, Skidmore D (2014). International political economy: The struggle for power and wealth. 6th Edition. Saeei A, Taghavi M, Translators. Tehran: Ghomes. [Persian]
29. Lashgari E (2014). Politics and city, new approaches in urban political geography. 1st Edition. Tehran: Entekhab. [Persian]
30. Mirheydar D, Mirahmadi F (2017). Evolution of ideas in political geography. Tehran: Tehran University Press. [Persian]
31. Mirheydar D, Zakie Y (2010). The concept of scale and its significance in postmodern political geography. Geopolitics Quarterly. 6(17):5-36. [Persian]
32. Mitchell D (1995). The end of public space? People's park, definition of public and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 85(1):108-133.
33. Mosalanejad A (2018). Political economy. 4th Edition. Tehran: Tehran University Press. [Persian]
34. Mosalanejad A (2018). Institutionalism and globalization. 4th Edition. Tehran: Tehran University Press. [Persian]
35. Momtaz F (2015). Urban sociology. 10th Edition. Tehran: Enteshar Stock Company. [Persian]
36. Momeni F, Zamani M (2013). Analysis of Iran's development pattern between two revolutions based on political economy and social order. Strategic Quarterly. 22(69):7-39. [Persian]
37. Moradkhani A, Shahbazi O (2012). Hegel and political economy. Basic Westernology. 3(1):77-94. [Persian]
38. Murdoch J (2013). Post structuralism geography. Afzali A, Gharahbeygei M, Translators. Tehran: Zeytoun Sabz. [Persian]
39. Nelie M (2017). Economics. Tehran: Nye Publication. [Persian]
40. Painter J (2005). State: Society. In: Cloke P, Johnston RJ, editors. Space of geographical thought: Deconstructing human's binaries. London: SAGE.
41. Parker J (2007). Structuration. Ghazeiyan H, Translator. 1st Edition. Tehran: Nye Publication. [Persian]
42. Peet R (2003). Radical geography: Alternative viewpoints on contemporary social issues. 1st Edition. Islamabad: Rawat.
43. Poladi K (2001). From the state of authority to the state of reason in modern political philosophy. 3rd Edition. Tehran: Markaz. [Persian]
44. Rafieian M, Hossienpour A (2012). Theory, city, space and urban management. 1st Edition. Tehran: Tahan. [Persian]
45. Radic H (2008). The development state under global neoliberalism. Third World Quarterly. 20(6):1153-1174. [DOI:10.1080/01436590802201121]
46. Ramesht MH, Sharifi M, Rafiean M, Ghavidel Y (2013). Local identity with a geosystem approach. Geography and Environmental Planning. 24(2):1-22. [Persian]
47. Sabzehie M (2007). A comparative study of the hegel, Marx and gramsci views on government and civil society. Political Science Research. 3(4):75-103. [Persian]
48. Sadeghi A (2015). Introduction to philosophy of contemporary science. 1st Edition. Tehran: Samt. [Persian]
49. Seyf A (2001). Despotism, the question of property and capital accumulation in Iran. 1st Edition. Tehran: Resanesh. [Persian]
50. Shakouie H (1996). New thought in philosophy of geography. 1st Edition. Tehran: Gitashenasi. [Persian]
51. Shakouie H (2004). New thought in philosophy of geography. 2nd Edition. Tehran: Gitashenasi. [Persian]
52. Sharepour M (2010). Urban sociology. 3rd Edition. Tehran: Samt. [Persian]
53. Taylor N (2018). Urban planning theory since 1945. Shemshadi M, Translator. Tehran: Papoli. [Persian]
54. Taylor P (2006). Radical political geographies. In: Agnew J, Mitchell K, Toal G, editors. A companion to political geography. 3rd Edition. London: Blackwell.
55. Taylor P (2000). World cities and territorial states, the rise and fall of their mutuality. In: Knox PL, Taylor P, editors. World cities in a world system. Cambridge: Cambridge University. pp. 48-62. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511522192.004]
56. Tonkiss F (2009). Space, the city and social theory: Social relations and urban forms. Farsi H, Aflatouni A, Translators. 1st Edition. Tehran: Tehran University Press. [Persian]
57. Tucker K (1998). Anthony giddens and modern social theory. 1st Edition. London: SAGE. [DOI:10.4135/9781446279021]
58. Zieleniec A (2014). Space and social theory. Shourjeh M, Translator. 1st Edition. Tehran: Parham Naghsh. [Persian]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Lashgari Tafreshi E. Recognizing the Functions of Hegelian Government in Organizing the Political Economy of Geographical Space. geores. 2019; 34 (2) :257-268
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-622-en.html


Volume 34, Issue 2 (2019) Back to browse issues page
فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی Geographical Researches Quarterly Journal
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 31 queries by YEKTAWEB 3977