Introduction: Rural areas are typically recognized as productive spaces. The livelihoods and, predominantly, the economies of these areas are primarily linked to agricultural activities. However, today, rural areas are not limited to such activities; they also encompass livestock, tourism, handicrafts, and more. As such, the conditions and functions of rural areas exhibit significant complexity and diversity. Alongside these circumstances, studies demonstrate that the topic of the development and prosperity of rural areas has been one of the critical issues in national development in Iran. In the years following the Islamic Revolution, the rural sector was recognized as a distinct entity from the urban sector in the Second Development Plan, leading to numerous projects and programs aimed at improving economic and social indicators in the rural areas. An examination of these policies reveals that many rural regions still face structural, economic, and social challenges, generally suffering from a lack of effective mechanisms for achieving sustainable development. It appears that a significant portion of these programs have been implemented without reliance on deep and systematic studies regarding the interlinkages among dimensions, institutions, and actors, leading to reduced efficiency and effectiveness of actions and goals in rural contexts. The Seventh Development Plan (2024-2028), currently in its mid-implementation years, offers an opportunity for a profound and exploratory examination of these issues. Such an analysis can enhance the understanding of governance patterns, the distribution of power, and the relationships between various levels of planning (from national to local) in our country. Furthermore, this understanding may contribute to redefining the role and strengthening the position of local institutions in the planning and implementation processes of rural development policies. Accordingly, this research aimed at clarifying the relationships among actors and key topics related to “village” within the framework of the Seventh Development Plan, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the network mechanisms influencing this process. So, it sought to elucidate the main roles and functions of the rural areas in the country and the structure of rural governance.
Materials and Methods: This research was an applied study in terms of objective and a mixed one in nature. It tried to identify the legal provisions related to the “rural” sector and to discover the actors/organizations influential in the implementation of the Seventh Development Plan (2024-2028). For this purpose, all chapters and 120 legal articles of the Seventh Development Plan were systematically studied, and relevant data were extracted. Due to the volume of data and the overlap of some programs, the coding and data management process was conducted using MAXQDA 2020. To enhance accuracy and reduce potential bias in interpretations, the findings were reviewed and refined in three stages by two academic experts. Subsequently, the data were prepared for Social Network Analysis (SNA), and two text files were created to form a paired matrix. The Ravar Matrix software was used in this stage to construct a two-mode matrix. Finally, the paired matrix served as the basis for analysis in UCINET and Gephi. Network analysis indicators were examined at three macro-, meso- and micro-levels.
Results and Discussion: An examination of the macro-level network indicators revealed significant differences in the number of nodes and links between the two networks. The first network had 54 nodes, while the legal provisions contained 21 nodes. The network density among actors was 0.278, and among legal provisions, it was 0.763. The high density of the network within the legal provisions indicated a high degree of interdependence and cohesion among the legal clauses and related regulations in the Seventh Development Plan. Subsequently, the center-periphery index was utilized. The results showed that in the “actors” network, 21 actors were positioned at the center of the network. These actors, as reflected by their organizational responsibilities in the overall context, primarily assumed roles as policymakers, planners, or providers of macro-level resources, and their interconnections within the network were extensive and influential. Among these, Rural Councils, Islamic Councils, the Social Insurance Fund for Farmers, Rural People, and Nomads, the Governorate, the Tribal Affairs Organization, and the Organization for Rural and Tribal Development and Advancement were located at the periphery of the network. Despite being at lower levels and in direct interaction with the local community, these actors possessed less decision-making power and fewer structural ties within the network. Furthermore, the micro-level network indicators also yielded significant results. “The State” as a key actor had the most direct connections with organizational institutions in the country for program implementation. In addition, the “Ministry of Agriculture-Jahad” (MAJ) and the “Central Bank of Iran” (CBI) responsible for achieving agricultural development goals and financial provision, held higher centrality. The “private sector” and “Non-Governmental Organizations” (NGOs) also occupied more prominent positions. The review of legal provisions indicated that the established pattern focused on specific areas. “Development of the national information network” was considered a fundamental and key priority. Moreover, the topics of social health development and the preservation and efficient use of natural resources and the environment were addressed as essential issues in rural areas. Additionally, the socio-cultural and economic-financial dimensions were the primary aspects of focus in the plan.
Conclusion and Suggestions: The overall conclusion drawn from the findings is that in the plan, the rural areas are primarily addressed through a focus on developing related infrastructure (the national information network, which can improve rural connectivity) and social (social health development) and environmental (resource management) support. Furthermore, “empowerment” is presented as a tool for improving the status of rural areas, indicating an indirect approach to economic development in these regions. However, the current situation suggests that the “agricultural” sector, despite its primary role, is mainly considered within the framework of general objectives and less as a strategic and independent priority alongside the legal provisions related to the rural areas. This context could lead to a complete misalignment between the overall goals of the plan and the real economic and livelihood needs of our country’s rural communities.