The Islamic Revolution Approach

The Islamic Revolution Approach

Policy Failures of Urban Governance in Iran: An Analysis of Upper-Level Policy Documents

Editorial

Authors
Javad Seyfi 1
Mashallah Heydarpoor 2
Reza Parizad Taserai 3
1 Department of Political Science, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran
2 Associate Professor, International Relations, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran
3 Visiting Professor, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Qom Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qom, Iran
Abstract
This study analyzes the structural failures of urban governance policy-making in the Islamic Republic of Iran with a focus on official upper-level policy documents. The main research question examines what the key weaknesses of urban policy-making in Iran are and how they can be identified through document-based analysis. The study hypothesizes that excessive centralization, institutional fragmentation, dominance of physical-oriented development discourse, lack of evaluation mechanisms, limited definition of urban functions, and internal policy contradictions have produced persistent policy failures. The research employs a directed qualitative content analysis method grounded in complexity systems theory and document-based policy analysis. Ten major national policy documents related to urban management were selected through purposive sampling. The findings reveal that Iran’s urban policy framework lacks institutional coherence, conceptual clarity, and adaptive capacity, indicating the need for fundamental restructuring at conceptual, institutional, and operational levels.
Introduction
Urban areas represent the most complex form of human settlement, functioning not only as physical spaces but also as arenas of political decision-making, social interaction, and economic production. In contemporary governance debates, urban management is no longer perceived merely as a technical or service-oriented activity, but rather as a core component of national governance systems. Effective urban policy-making requires multi-level coordination, institutional flexibility, and adaptive mechanisms capable of responding to social, environmental, and economic complexity. In Iran, despite the existence of numerous upper-level policy documents governing urban affairs, urban management continues to suffer from fragmentation, inefficiency, and limited responsiveness. This study seeks to identify and analyze the structural policy failures embedded within these documents.
Materials and Methods
The research adopts a qualitative, applied, and analytical design. The primary methodological approach is directed qualitative content analysis, as developed by Hsieh and Shannon, which allows theoretical concepts to guide the coding process while remaining open to emergent themes from the data. The theoretical framework integrates complexity systems theory and structural functionalism in policy analysis. Complexity theory conceptualizes cities as dynamic, non-linear systems characterized by interdependence, feedback loops, and emergent outcomes, while structural functionalism highlights the roles and functions of institutions within governance systems. The empirical material consists of ten major upper-level policy documents related to urban management in Iran, including national development plans, urban policy guidelines, spatial planning documents, and key legal frameworks governing municipalities and city councils. These documents were selected through purposive sampling based on their legal authority, policy relevance, and scope of influence. Units of analysis included policy objectives, institutional roles, coordination mechanisms, evaluation provisions, and governance discourse. Coding was conducted through a combination of pre-defined theoretical categories and inductively derived sub-themes, followed by thematic aggregation.
Discussion
The analysis reveals multiple layers of policy failure within Iran’s urban governance framework. First, excessive centralization of authority limits the strategic autonomy of municipalities and city councils, reducing their capacity to respond to local needs. Despite rhetorical support for decentralization, upper-level documents fail to specify enforceable mechanisms for power delegation. Second, institutional coordination remains weak, as policy documents lack clear frameworks for horizontal and vertical collaboration among governmental bodies, resulting in overlapping responsibilities and administrative inefficiency.
Third, the dominant discourse of urban development remains largely physical and infrastructure-oriented, marginalizing social, cultural, environmental, and participatory dimensions of urban life. Concepts such as social justice, urban resilience, and citizen participation appear inconsistently and without operational clarity. Fourth, the absence of systematic policy evaluation and feedback mechanisms prevents institutional learning. Most documents articulate long-term objectives without defining measurable indicators, monitoring bodies, or revision cycles.
Fifth, urban functions are narrowly defined, reducing municipalities to service providers rather than comprehensive governance institutions responsible for social welfare, cultural development, and economic innovation. Finally, internal contradictions among policy documents undermine strategic coherence, as competing mandates regarding decentralization, financial autonomy, and administrative control coexist without reconciliation. From a complexity perspective, these failures reflect a governance system unable to manage interdependencies, adapt to environmental feedback, or support self-organization at the local level.
Conclusion
The study concludes that urban policy-making in Iran suffers from deep structural and conceptual deficiencies rooted in centralized governance, fragmented institutional design, and outdated development paradigms. Upper-level policy documents, rather than enabling adaptive urban governance, reproduce rigidity and policy incoherence. Addressing these failures requires a fundamental shift toward a national urban strategy grounded in multi-level governance, institutional coordination, participatory policy design, and continuous evaluation. Without such transformation, urban governance in Iran will remain ill-equipped to address the complex challenges of contemporary urbanization.
 
Keywords
Urban policy-making
Urban governance
Upper-level policy documents
Institutional failure
Centralization
Complexity systems
Qualitative content analysis
1-                Batty, M. (2013). The new science of cities. MIT press.
2-                Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40.
3-                Burby, R. J., & May, P. J. (1997). Making governments plan: State experiments in managing land use. JHU Press.
4-                Caprotti, F., Cowley, R., Datta, A., Broto, V. C., Gao, E., Georgeson, L., ... & Joss, S. (2017). The New Urban Agenda: key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice. Urban research & practice, 10(3), 367-378.
5-                Cumhuriyet Science Journal. (2015). Sustainable urban development in the context of Islamic city models. Cumhuriyet Science Journal, 36(3), 45–59. Retrieved from https://arastirmax.com/sites/default/files/filefield_paths/5000130453-5000238924-1-pb.pdf
6-                Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons
7-                Erlingsson, G. Ó. (2021). A stranger thing? Sweden as the upside down of multilevel trust. Journal of Trust Research, 11(1), 22-41.
8-                Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for people. Island press.
9-                Hamamurad, H., & Jusoh, W. M. (2023). Islamic civilization’s influence on modern city planning. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374420343_Islamic_civilization%27s_influence_on_modern_city_planning
10-              Heinelt, H., & Hlepas, N. K. (2006). Typologies of local government systems. In The European mayor: Political leaders in the changing context of local democracy (pp. 21-42). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
11-              Heinelt, H., & Hlepas, N.-K. (2006). Typologies of Local Government Systems. In Bäck, H., Heinelt, H., & Magnier, A. (Eds.), The European Mayor: Political Leaders in the Changing Context of Local Democracy (pp. 21–42). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
12-              Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
13-              Imran, M., & Low, N. (2005). Sustainable Urban Development: The Role of Local Government and Urban Governance. World Transport Policy & Practice, 11(1), 46–55.
14-              Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Routledge.
15-              Ley, D. (1997). The new middle class and the remaking of the central city. Oxford University Press.
16-              Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. stanford university Press.
17-              Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
18-              Moroni, S. (2015). Complexity and the inherent limits of explanation and prediction: Urban codes for self-organising cities. Planning Theory, 14(3), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214521104
19-              OECD (2015), OECD Urban Policy Reviews: China 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264230040-en
20-              Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press
21-              Pierre, J. (2022). Urban and regional governance. In Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 519-527). Edward Elgar Publishing.
22-              Pierre, J., & Peters, B. (2005). Governing complex societies: Trajectories and scenarios. Springer.
23-              Portugali, J. (2011). Complexity, Cognition and the City. Springer.
24-              Prior, Lindsay (2002). Using Documents in Social Research. SAGE
25-              Pruitt, S. L., Leonard, T., Xuan, L., Amory, R., Higashi, R. T., Nguyen, O. K., Pezzia, C., & Swales, S. (2016). Who Is Food Insecure? Implications for Targeted Recruitment and Outreach, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005–2010. Preventing Chronic Disease, 13, E143. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160103
26-              Punter, J. (2010). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. UBC press.
27-              Rydin, Y. (2012). Governing for sustainable urban development. Routledge.
28-              SESRIC (Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries). (2020). Urban development in OIC member countries: Challenges, policies and practices. Ankara: SESRIC Publications. Retrieved from https://sesricdiag.blob.core.windows.net/sesric-site-blob/files/article/713.pdf
29-              Wagenaar, H. (2014). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Routledge.
30-              Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). Sage.
 
References [In Persian]
Akhbari, M., & Ahmadi-Moqaddam, M. A. (2014). An analysis of passive defense in urban management. Geopolitics, 10(2), 36–69. (in Persian)
Batty, M. (2013). The new science of cities. MIT Press.
Boochani, M. H., Sarafi, M., Tavakkoli-Nia, J., & Dashti, A. (2019). Strategic analysis of Tehran’s urban management structure with a good urban governance approach. Urban Management, 18(55), 7–26. (in Persian)
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Burby, R. J., & May, P. J. (1997). Making governments plan: State experiments in managing land use. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Caprotti, F., Cowley, R., Datta, A., Broto, V. C., Gao, E., Georgeson, L., & Joss, S. (2017). The New Urban Agenda: Key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice. Urban Research & Practice, 10(3), 367–378.
Cumhuriyet Science Journal. (2015). Sustainable urban development in the context of Islamic city models. Cumhuriyet Science Journal, 36(3), 45–59. Retrieved from
https://arastirmax.com/sites/default/files/filefield_paths/5000130453-5000238924-1-pb.pdf
Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. John Wiley & Sons.
Erlingsson, G. Ó. (2021). A stranger thing? Sweden as the upside down of multilevel trust. Journal of Trust Research, 11(1), 22–41.
Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for people. Island Press.
Ghaderi, S., Imani Jajarmi, H., Golchin, M., & Bayat, M. (2021). Reflections on forms of cultural policy-making in urban management: A case study of Tehran’s urban management (1989–2017). Cultural Management Studies, 13(2), 371–396. (in Persian)
Hajilu, Z., Arghan, A., Daryabari, S. J., & Farhudi, R. (2018). An analysis of factors influencing the urban management system of Tehran metropolis toward integrated urban management. Regional Geography and Planning, 9(1), 141–159. (in Persian)
Hamamurad, H., & Jusoh, W. M. (2023). Islamic civilization’s influence on modern city planning. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374420343_Islamic_civilization%27s_influence_on_modern_city_planning
Heinelt, H., & Hlepas, N. K. (2006). Typologies of local government systems. In H. Bäck, H. Heinelt, & A. Magnier (Eds.), The European mayor: Political leaders in the changing context of local democracy (pp. 21–42). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Hosseini-Fard, A., Raei, M., & Ali-Akbari, A. (2022). The manifestation of urban management in the Islamic model with reference to the state of urban management across global geographies. Geography and Regional Planning Quarterly, 12(3), 455–469. (in Persian)
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Imran, M., & Low, N. (2005). Sustainable urban development: The role of local government and urban governance. World Transport Policy & Practice, 11(1), 46–55.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
Ley, D. (1997). The new middle class and the remaking of the central city. Oxford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.
Malekan, A., & Malekan, J. (2011). The relationship between social capital and urban management. Kar va Jame’e Quarterly, (139), 68–72. (in Persian)
Mehdi-Nejad, M., & Mokhtari Malek-Abadi, R. (2007). The role of urban management in sustainable development. Geographical Research Quarterly, 16(62), 28–33. (in Persian)
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
Mirzazadeh Doostan, A. (2022). An analysis of urban management and its role in sustainable urban development. Geography and Human Relations, 5(1), 21–33. (in Persian)
Moroni, S. (2015). Complexity and the inherent limits of explanation and prediction: Urban codes for self-organising cities. Planning Theory, 14(3), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214521104
OECD. (2015). OECD Urban Policy Reviews: China 2015. OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264230040-en
Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Free Press.
Pierre, J. (2022). Urban and regional governance. In Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 519–527). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2005). Governing complex societies: Trajectories and scenarios. Springer.
Portugali, J. (2011). Complexity, cognition and the city. Springer.
Prior, L. (2002). Using documents in social research. SAGE.
Pruitt, S. L., Leonard, T., Xuan, L., Amory, R., Higashi, R. T., Nguyen, O. K., Pezzia, C., & Swales, S. (2016). Who is food insecure? Implications for targeted recruitment and outreach, NHANES 2005–2010. Preventing Chronic Disease, 13, E143. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160103
Punter, J. (2010). The Vancouver achievement: Urban planning and design. UBC Press.
Rydin, Y. (2012). Governing for sustainable urban development. Routledge.
SESRIC. (2020). Urban development in OIC member countries: Challenges, policies and practices. SESRIC Publications. Retrieved from
https://sesricdiag.blob.core.windows.net/sesric-site-blob/files/article/713.pdf
Shahabian, S. (2007). Urban management in Greater London. Shahrnegar, (43), Mehr issue. (in Persian)
Wagenaar, H. (2014). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Routledge.
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis (Vol. 47). SAGE.