قياس كاربست برنامه ريزي وكالتي با تأكيد بر برنامه توسعه اجتماع در تجارب فكري و عملي ايالات متحده آمريكا، بريتانيا و ايران

Comparing the Practice of Advocacy Planning with Reference to Community Development Plan in the United States of America, Britain and Iran

با ورود نهضت هاي اصلاح طلبانه شــهري در حيطۀ برنامه ريزي و با تنظيم ارزش هاي اجتماعي، برنامه ريزي واجد نقشــي فعال در جامعه گشــته و ديدگاهي كه برنامه ريزي را به مثابه فرايند اجتماعي مي داند، رشــد كرده اســت. در اين تكامل، معرفي رهيافت برنامه ريزي وكالتي، نقطه عطفي است كه با رشد اين نهضت آغاز شد. هدف مقاله قياس تجارب فكري و عملي برنامه ريزي وكالتي در بريتانيا، آمريكا و ايران با اتخاذ روش پژوهش قياســي است كه اين مهم با مقايسه برنامه هاي تهيه شده در چارچوب برنامه هاي در ايران 1380 در دو كشور بريتانيا و آمريكا و از دهه 1960 توسعه اجتماع اين كشورها انجام مي پذيرد. رهيافت هايي كه از دهه در قالب سياست هاي گوناگون مطرح و در برخي موارد عملياتي شد. اين قياس مؤيد آن است كه تفكر پايه در برنامه ريزي وكالتي در هر كشــوري، مبتني بر بســتر نهادي، خاستگاه مشكلات عرصه شــهري و نقش عاملان درگير در فرايند برنامه ريزي ازجمله برنامه ريزان شكل خاصي به سياست هاي تجويز شده بخشيده است.

With admittance of urban reformist movements in planning field which requires in involving the social values adjusting, planning got an active role in society and the prespective which suppose planning as a social process, has growed and developed. The Advocacy planning is a climax that begins by grow of urban reformist movements and operates by depending on claiming rights of social deprived groups in urban planning and as a lawyer have heard the voice and demands of these groups to decision makers and place them in priorety. The speed and extent of developments in science caused the creation of a comprehensive belief in the field of rationality that was considered as a basic of concept of a scientific planning to control development. A method that based on logical reasoning knew that logical positivism is the basic of planning and accepted planning to be free of values like othere sciences. Planning needs to have the ability to play a role as a government, groups and organization advocates or people who have suggestions for the future of the society in order to administer practical ways to achieve an idea future. This duty needs a collective decision making and participations of defferent groups in planning The goal of this article is to compare the practical and theoretical expriences of advocacy planning approaches and its themes of practice in Iran, United states and United Kingdom by using the comparative research method, comparing the prepared plans in the framework of community development plans of these countries by considering the developed criteria. These approches have emerged till the 1960s in both United states and United Kingdom and till 1380s in Iran in the different policies and strategies frameworks and operationlised in their own ways. This comparision admitted that the fundamental thought of advocacy planning in each country is based on institutional context, bedrock of urban problems and the role of involved actors in planning process such as planners, form the specific actions and prescribed policies. The first stage of paper explains the advocacy planning theory theory and compares it with the rational-cmprehensive approach, and studies its appearing themes and discusses the necessity of the thought of polarism in advocacy planning. The last stege is exploring the criticisms on the advocacy planning approach. The second stage is the study of the practice of advocacy planning, in the United States, and the reasons of the appearance of it in the United Statesis being tracked the programs based on the community development and their features are introduced. The Third stage is the study of the appearance of the advocacy planning in the United Kingdom and the reasons of the consideration of the aid planning in the planning and the social development programs of the United Kingdom, is explained. In the fourth stage studies, the thermes of the practice of advocacy planning approach in Iran and tracks its mechanism. an‎d the last stage compares the mechanism and practices of the advocacy planning approaches explained in the last three stages.