Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Department of Natural Resources Policy-Making, Faculty of Natural Resources, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.
2
Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Administration, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
3
Department of Natural Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.
Abstract
Objective: Maritime-oriented development, as one of the key strategies for coastal countries to capitalize on the economic, commercial, and geopolitical capacities of the seas, requires a coherent network of governance actors. The present study was conducted to analyze the position of actors within the prescriptive governance network outlined in the “Comprehensive Program for Realizing the General Policies of Maritime-Oriented Development.”
Method: Data were extracted exclusively from the text of the document using directed content analysis. After applying screening criteria, 27 key actors were identified, and a 27×27 relationship matrix was constructed. Network analysis was performed using UCINET 6 software through the calculation of centrality indicators.
Results: The findings revealed that the prescribed network has a density of 34.5% and an average geodesic distance of 1.729, indicating a relatively dense and connected structure. However, the overall network centralization indices )out-degree: 48.08%; in-degree: 52.07%( show that these relationships are organized around a core-periphery pattern. Four actors, namely the private sector, the Ministry of Industry, Mine and Trade, the Plan and Budget Organization, and the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, were identified as the main actors of the network. The private sector, with the highest values across all three centrality indicators )degree: 21; betweenness: 136.10; closeness: 86.67(, occupies the most central position in the network. Nevertheless, the study demonstrates that the private sector is defined in the document as a single actor, while in practice it lacks a unified representative body; a situation identified as the “methodological contradiction of the private sector.” In contrast, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Innovation and Prosperity Fund, and the Customs Administration are located at the periphery of the network, while knowledge and research institutions play only a limited role.
Conclusions: Identifying the methodological contradiction of the private sector, proposing a four-category classification of actors, and demonstrating the coexistence of apparent density and latent centralization constitute the principal innovations of this study. The findings indicate that the text of the document itself requires substantial revision.
Keywords
