با همکاری مشترک دانشگاه پیام نور و انجمن مدیریت دولتی ایران و انجمن مدیریت رفتار سازمانی

نوع مقاله : اکتشافی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه مدیریت دولتی و گردشگری، دانشگاه محقق اردبیلی، اردبیل، ایران.

2 استاد، گروه مدیریت دولتی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

امروزه با پیشرفت جوامع، تغییر و تحولاتی عظیمی در ابعاد مختلف پدید آمده است که موجب متورم شدن دولت‌ها و سازمان‌های آن‌ها شده است. به همین منظور، اکثر کشورها به دنبال راهکارهای مؤثری در این زمینه هستند که تمرکززدایی، یکی از مهم‌ترین آن‌هاست. هدف اصلی پژوهش حاضر، شناسایی و تبیین مؤلفه‌های اصلی و مؤثر در تمرکززدایی امور اداری از سازمان‌های دولتی است که با استفاده از روش ترکیبی به بررسی موضوع می‌پردازد. روش پژوهش حاضر ترکیبی یا آمیخته است که با رویکرد نسبی متوالی با وزن نـابرابر در سه فاز کیفی-کیفی-کمّی انجام شده است. در این پژوهش، به ترتیب از سه روش "مرور سیستماتیک- تحلیل مضمون- پیمایش" استفاده شده است. ابزار اصلی مورد استفاده در فاز کیفی، مصاحبه و در فاز کمّی، پرسشنامه  است که به ترتیب از 12 نفر از خبرگان در فاز کیفی و 31  نفر هم در فاز کمّی اطلاعات و داده‌های مربوطه استخراج شدند. مطابق با یافته‌های پژوهش، در فاز اول -روش مرور سیستماتیک- 19 مقاله جهت تعیین محورهای موضوعی انتخاب و موردبررسی قرار گرفتند. در فاز دوم، با استفاده از روش تحلیل مضمون 163 شاخص شناسایی شدند که از میان آن‌ها، 37 مضمون پایه، 17 مضمون سازمان‌دهنده و 4 مضمون فراگیر استخراج شد. مطابق با نتایج و تحلیل‌های صورت گرفته، علاوه‎بر اینکه مؤلفه‌های شناسایی‌ شده، مطابق با برنامه جامع اصلاح نظام اداری هستند، از سوی دیگر می‌توانند در راستای رفع خلل و ناکامی‌های این حوزه مثمر ثمر باشند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Identifying and Explaining the Main and Effective Components in Decentralization of Administrative Affairs from Public Organizations

نویسندگان [English]

  • Madani madani 1
  • Mahdi Alvani 2

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration and Tourism, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Public Administration, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Today, with the progress of societies, huge changes and transformations have occurred in various dimensions, which have caused the swelling of governments and their organizations. Thus, most countries are looking for effective solutions in this field, of which decentralization is one of the most important ones. The main purpose of this study was to identify and explain the major and effective components in the decentralization of administrative affairs of public organizations. It examines the issue using a mixed method approach with a partially mixed sequential dominant status design in three qualitative-qualitative-quantitative phases. In this research, three methods of "systematic review, thematic analysis, and survey" were used, respectively. The main tool was an interview in the qualitative phase and a questionnaire in the quantitative phase. A total of 12 experts in the qualitative phase and 31 people in the quantitative phase were used to extract information and data. Based on the research results, in the first phase (systematic review method), 19 articles were selected and reviewed to determine thematic axes. In the second phase, 163 indicators were identified using the thematic analysis method, from which 37 basic themes, 17 organizing themes, and four global themes were extracted. Based on the results of analyses, the components can be identified in accordance with the comprehensive plan to reform the administrative system which can be effective in eliminating the gaps and failures in this base.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Decentralization
  • Administrative Affairs
  • Public Organizations
  • Mixed Study
Assetto, V. J.,  Hajba, E., & Mumme, S. P. (2003). Democratization, decentralization, and local environmental policy capacity: Hungary and Mexico. The Social Science Journal, 40(2), 249-268.
Asthana, N. A. (2008). Decentralization and corruption., Evidence from drinking water sector. Public Administration and Development. 28(3), 181-189.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001), .Thematic Networks: An Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385-405.
Bennetts, M., Whalen, E., Ahadieh, S., & Cappelleri, JC. (2017). An appraisal of meta-analysis guidelines: How do they relate to safety outcomes?. Res Synth Methods, 8(1), 64-78.
Bermúdez, J., & König, R. (2021). The role of technologies and citizen organizations in decentralized forms of participation. A case study about residential streets in Vienna. Technology in Society. 66(10), 1-13.
Bo, S. (2020). Centralization and regional development: evidence from a political hierarchy reform to create cities in China. J. Urban Econ., 115(3), 1-12.
Bruce, J. (2013). Land Tenure, Property Rights, and Local Land Governance. Release Date: June 24, 2013. https://www.land-links.org/issue-brief/local-land-governance-institutions/.
Campbell, R., Pound, P., & Morgan, M. (2013). Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess. 15(43), 1–164.
Check J., Schutt, R. K. (2012). editors. Research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cheema, G. S., & Rondinelli, D. A. (2007). From government decentralization to decentralized governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Das, A. (2020). Bridging the urban divide: A critical review of bottom-up communicative planning measures in Bangladesh. International Journal of Town Planning and Management, 6(1), 9-18.
Das, A., Roy, S., Parvez, M., & Hasan, M. (2021). Decentralized activity centers in rural Bangladesh: A step towards effective emergency situation management in the post-pandemic cities. Journal of Urban Management. 10(3), 242-254.
Davari, A & Rezazadeh, A. (2016). Structural equation modeling with PLS software. Tehran: University Jihad Publications. (In Persian).
Edwards, G. (2017). Introduction to Public Administration. 2nd Edition. Library Press.
Etaat, J. & Mussavi, S. Z. (2010). Decentralization and Sustainable Development in Iran. Human Geography Research. 42(71), 89-106. (In Persian).
Faguet, J-p. (2014). Decentralization and Governance. World Development. 53(3), 2-13.
Feyzi, T & Zare, R. (2015). Examining the Relationship between Administrative Decentralization and Public Governance Underlining the Impact of Two Public Trust and Public Accountability Variables (Case Study: Governmental Organizations of Fars Province). Public Organizations Management. 3(11), 9-25. (In Persian).
Finkbeiner, E.M., Basurto, X. (2015). Re-defining co-management to facilitate small-scale fisheries reform: an illustration from northwest Mexico, Mar. Policy. 51(20), 433-441.
Ghanizadeh, A.,  Noori, R., Hassanpoor, A., & Vakili, Y. (2022). Pathology of Performance Management System of Iranian Public Sector Organizations. Public Organizations Management, 10(1), 47-66. (In Persian).
Gray, T. (2005). Participatory fisheries governance – three central themes, in: T. Gray (Ed.), Participation in Fisheries Governance.
Gong, Q., Liu, Ch., Wu, M. (2021). Does administrative decentralization enhance economic growth? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Economic Modelling. 94(4), 945-952.
Ghuman, B. S., & Singh, R. (2013). Decentralization and delivery of public services in Asia. Policy and Society. 32(1), 7-21.
International Labour Organization (2001). The Impact of Decentralization and Privatization on Municipal Services. Report for discussion at the Joint Meeting on the Impact of Decentralization and Privatization on Municipal Services. Sectoral Activities Programme. Geneva, 15-19 October 2001.
Isufaj, M. (2014). Decentralization and the Increased Autonomy in Local Governments. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 109(8), 459-463.
Ivanyna, M., & Salerno, A. (2021). Governance for Inclusive Growth. Washington, International Monetary Fund Publication.
Joshi, D. U. (2013). Decentralisation of public service delivery in the Central Himalayas: The myth of community participation. Policy and Society. 32(1), 23-32.
Kamali, Y. (2014). Study the role of administrative decentralization on administrative integrity. Quarterly Journal of The Macro and Strategic Policies. 2(2), 111-132. (In Persian).
Kassen, M. (2021). Understanding decentralized civic engagement: Focus on peer-to-peer and blockchain-driven perspectives on e-participation. Technology in Society. 66(5), 1-15.
Kaveh, A & Charsetad, P. (2012). Decentralization and change in the administrative system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Second National Conference on the Challenges and Necessities of Transformation in the Administrative System of Iran. November 2012.
Kock, N. (1998). Government Transformation And Structural Rigidity: Redesigning A Service Acquisition Process. Acquisition Review Quarterly. 1(11), 1-18.
Konte, M., & Vincent, R. C. (2021). Mining and quality of public services: The role of local governance and decentralization. World Development. 140(20), 1-19.
Liu, X., Martineau, T., Chen, L., Zhan, Sh., & Tang, Sh. (2006). Does decentralisation improve human resource management in the health sector? A case study from China. Social Science & Medicine. 63(7), 1836-1845.
Liu, N., Nikitas, A & Parkinson, S. (2020). Exploring expert perceptions about the cyber security and privacy of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: A thematic analysis approach. Transportation Research. Part F. 75(21) 66–86.
Lucia, C. E., & Cristian, C. M. (2010). The role of local public authorities in decentralizing Romanian public education system. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2(2), 3432-3436.
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a Thematic Analysis: A Practical, Step-by-Step: Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars. AISHE-J. 9(3), 3351- 33514.
Martin, N., Sheppard, M., ParthGorasia, G., Arora, P.,  Cooper, M.,  Mulligan, S. (2021).  Awareness and barriers to sustainability in dentistry: A scoping review. Journal of Dentistry. 112(21), 1-53.
Mitchell, A., & Bossert, J. T. (2010). Decentralization, governance and health-system performance: ‘Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit’. Development Policy Review. 28(6), 669-691.
Oates, E. W. (2006). On the theory and practice of fiscal decentralization. Working Paper No.2006-05. Lexington, Kentucky: Martin School, Institute for Federalism & Intergovernmental Relations.
Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (1997). Banishing Bureaucracy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ponto, Julie., Ann, Ellington., Lee, Mellon., Suzanne, Beck., & Susan L. (2015). Predictors of adjustment and growth in women with recurrent ovarian cancer. Oncology nursing forum. 37(3), 357–364.
Qureshi, R., Mayo-Wilson, E., Rittiphairoj, Th., McAdams-DeMarco, M., Guallar, E. & Li, T. (2021). Summaries of harms in systematic reviews are unreliable Paper 2: Methods used to assess harms are neglected in systematic reviews of gabapentin. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 143(3), 212-223.
Rechel, B., Duran, A., & Richard Saltman, R. (2018). What is the experience of decentralized hospital governance in Europe?. Geneva, World Health Organization.
Resnick, D. (2017). Democracy, decentralization, and district proliferation: The case of Ghana. Political Geography. 59(17), 47-60.
Sakita, S. (2021). Centralization under decentralization: The development of fishery clubs in Lesvos under the administrative reforms of Greece. Marine Policy. 132(21), 1-20.
Satria, A., & Matsuda, Y. (2004).  Decentralization of fisheries management in Indonesia, Mar. Policy. 28(5), 437-450.
Seers, Kate. (2015). Qualitative systematic reviews: their importance for our understanding of research relevant to pain. Br J Pain. 9(1), 36-40.
Şen, D., & Bandyopadhyay, A. (2010). Educational decentralization as part of public administration reform in Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2(2), 269-276.
Shah, A., & Theresa, T. (2004). Implementing decentralized local governance: Treacherous road with potholes, detours and road closures. Policy Research Working Paper 3353. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Singh, S. (2013). Diverse property rights, institutions and decentralisation: Forest management by village forest councils in Uttarakhand. Policy and Society. 32(1), 43-59.
Steel, B., & Weber, E. (2001). Ecosystem management, decentralization, and public opinion. Global Environmental Change. 11(2), 119-131.
Symes, D. (2007). Fisheries management and institutional reform: a European perspective, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64(4), 779-785. 
United Nations (2000). Decentralization: Conditions for Success. Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Division for Public Economics and Public Administration.
Tang, W. (2021). Decentralization and development of small cites: Evidence from county-to-city upgrading in China. China Economic Quarterly International. 1(3), 191-207.
Toye, F., Seers, K., & Allcock, N., (2013). A meta-ethnography of patients’ experience of chronic nonmalignant musculoskeletal pain. Health Serv Deliv Res. 21(12), 259-260.
Weiss, Th. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Quarterly, 21(5), 795-814.
World Bank. (2006). A decade of measuring the quality of governance. The World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank. (2016). Administrative Governance & Decentralization. The National Agenda for the Future of Syria – NAFS. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/admin-governance-decentralization-en.pdf.
World Bank. (2017). Governance and the law. World development report. Washington, D.C, W. Bank Publication.
World Bank. (2022). Decentralization & Subnational Regional Economics. Administrative Decentralization.
Xu, T., Zhang, X., Agrawal, A., & Liu, J. (2020). Decentralizing while centralizing: An explanation of China's collective forestry reform since the 1980s. Forest Policy and Economics. 119(15), 1-15.
Yang, X., Yan, J., Tian, K., Yu, Z., Yu Li, R., & Xia, S. (2021). Centralization or decentralization? the impact of different distributions of authority on China's environmental regulation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 173(21), 1-10.