The division between center and periphery is one of the fundamental mechanisms shaping economic, social, and cultural inequalities in modern societies. This distinction, which is reproduced in historical and structural contexts, is not only evident in macro-level policies, but also in the smallest elements of urban life. The recent decision by the Tehran City Council to restrict the traffic of vehicles with non-local license plates and impose additional fees on them is a clear example of this mechanism, reflecting power dynamics between the center and periphery.

This policy, beyond being a traffic intervention, is an indicator of a type of spatial order in which the center not only concentrates resources and facilities, but also controls and allocates the entry gates. In such a model, the surrounding areas are not considered as a complementary part of the center, but rather as a secondary and dependent element. The place where the workforce, human capital, and natural resources are supplied to the center, but faces structural limitations in accessing the same center.

This text aims to examine similar policies at a macro level based on theoretical discussions in the field of spatial justice and regional inequalities, and to explain their relationship with the formation of patterns of accumulated inequality in urban systems. The central question is whether it is possible to imagine a capital without its surroundings. If not, what mechanisms have led to this mutual dependency, which instead of leading to a fair distribution of resources, has resulted in the perpetuation of hierarchical inequalities between the center and its surroundings?

Inequality in the city: When space becomes a tool of power.

Tehran, this densely populated metropolis, not only serves as the capital, but also functions as the beating heart of an unequal spatial system. A city that attracts resources and opportunities, but closes its doors to those who rely on it. The passing of a law prohibiting the entry of cars with license plates from other provinces into the capital is an example of this mechanism: a policy that is not just a traffic measure, but a tool for controlling access and solidifying the center-periphery hierarchy.

But this is not the first time that space has been transformed into a tool of power. Henri Lefebvre and David Harvey, two thinkers whose theories have changed our understanding of the city, have shown that space is never neutral; rather, it is a field in which power, wealth, and privilege are redistributed. Urban constraints such as those imposed in Tehran today are examples of “spatial management” that are designed to benefit the center and harm the periphery.

1. Space production: Who has the right of way?

Henri Lefebvre believes in “The Production of Space” that space is not just a collection of streets and buildings, but a product of social relations. Space is produced and in this production, certain groups have the right to ownership and access while others are excluded. In this framework, Tehran is not just a city, but an exclusive territory. A center that feeds on economic, cultural, and human resources, but as soon as someone from outside tries to enter the center, they face legal and financial barriers.

The restriction on the entry of vehicles with license plates from other provinces falls exactly within this framework: this policy draws an invisible line, a border that has existed in the minds of urban planners. The streets of Tehran exist physically for everyone, but due to spatial policies, they have become a territory for “native citizens”.

2. Accumulation through deprivation of ownership: Inequality in motion.

David Harvey argues in “Social Justice and the City” that capitalism not only reproduces inequality through controlling production and distribution of wealth, but also through controlling space. He later argues in “Accumulation by Dispossession” that economic power is solidified through displacing marginalized groups and controlling access to urban resources.

From this perspective, the new policy of Tehran can be seen as a form of “accumulation through expropriation”. For years, Tehran has been attracting labor, capital, universities, and industries from all over the country, like a magnetic field. Many people from “provinces” come to Tehran every day for work, treatment, or education, but when these individuals want to benefit from the city’s infrastructure, new laws remind them that this space does not belong to them. Even if they have lived in this city for decades, they are still considered “foreigners”.

3. Space as a tool of discrimination.

As Loofor and Harvey emphasize, space control has become one of the most effective tools of exerting power. But the issue is not just Tehran. Across the world, major cities impose restrictive laws. From “congestion charges” in central London to “low-emission zones” in Paris. But the difference here is that in many of these cities, these policies are usually accompanied by the expansion of public transportation, development of alternative infrastructure, and support for marginalized groups.

In Tehran, however, restrictions on the entry of vehicles from other provinces have been implemented without providing alternative solutions. The metro and bus services are unable to accommodate such a large number of passengers, and the additional costs only deepen the class divide. In such conditions, not only is the traffic problem not solved, but it becomes a mechanism to maintain the distance between the center and its surroundings. Distances that are not just geographical, but also economic, social, and political.

Citizenship in Tehran: The right to the city in the shadow of spatial inequalities.

Justice and the right to the city are concepts that address the distribution and access to resources and urban spaces in the face of social and economic inequalities. When we talk about “the right to the city,” we are not just referring to access to streets or parks, but a broader concept of the right to actively participate in the design and shaping of urban spaces. In other words, every individual should have the right not only to use public spaces, but also to have an active presence in the social and cultural processes that affect these spaces.

Henri Lefebvre, a French theorist, sees the city not as a collection of buildings and streets, but as a social space where power, wealth, and opportunities are redistributed. According to Lefebvre, the “right to the city” is not just about using space, but also about the ability to participate in decision-making and changes that affect urban environments. This right gives citizens the opportunity to actively participate in shaping urban environments and prevent the imposition of unequal conditions.

This issue is more evident in big cities, especially in Tehran, which is the center of resources and facilities. In Tehran, where people from all over the country gather, spatial inequalities are very apparent. For example, people coming from rural areas to the capital may be deprived of access to resources and public spaces. Even many people who have lived in the outskirts of Tehran for years face significant limitations in terms of urban facilities and public transportation. Such policies, designed seemingly for urban organization, actually perpetuate social and economic inequalities, allowing only certain groups of society to benefit from these spaces.

These policies not only violate the “right to the city”, but also contribute to the reproduction of inequalities. In many areas of Tehran, streets, parks, and other public spaces are turned into places for specific groups. Citizens in areas with more financial resources can easily access city facilities, while those living in peripheral areas face serious limitations in this regard. These divisions demonstrate how power, wealth, and resources are not only redistributed through economic policies, but also through spatial structures in large cities.

Privatized public spaces; reclaiming the city.

In the contemporary world, public spaces that were once recognized as places for social interaction and public participation have now become increasingly controlled by specific groups. These changes not only limit access to these spaces, but also turn them into tools for reproducing social, economic, and cultural inequalities. Tehran, as one of the most populous and rapidly growing metropolises, is a prominent example of these transformations, where public spaces are quickly becoming privatized and essentially inaccessible to low-income and marginalized groups. Here, public spaces are not only no longer places for rest and social interaction, but also become arenas for displaying economic and social power.

However, this trend only occurs in limited areas of the city. On a larger scale, the spatial characteristics of Tehran are such that different parts of the city are increasingly turning into exclusive spaces for specific groups. Many parks, squares, and streets that were once spaces for public interactions have now become places for displaying wealth and social classes. This not only leads to the privatization of spaces, but also restricts public participation in city life and pushes marginalized and lower-class groups out of public spaces, ultimately leading to alienation and isolation.

The first step in reclaiming public spaces is redesigning urban structures. This means creating public spaces that are accessible to all citizens, regardless of their income level or social background. These spaces should serve as places for social interaction, learning, and public participation. The design of these spaces should prevent limited access to specific groups and provide a platform for collaboration among individuals from diverse social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. For example, public green spaces that allow for cultural and social events can be supported.

Alongside urban design, we need legal changes and supportive policies to improve equal access to public spaces. Many current laws and regulations indirectly benefit the upper classes and prevent lower income groups from accessing city facilities. Revising these laws and creating incentive policies for equal use of public spaces can help reduce social disparities. Additionally, providing special support for vulnerable groups such as low-income individuals, immigrants, and social minorities is necessary. This support can include allocating resources for urban projects that transform public spaces into places for social welfare and increased participation.

We should not overlook the fact that achieving spatial justice cannot be accomplished solely through designing spaces and making legal changes. Many social and economic barriers, such as poverty, discrimination, and marginalization, can indirectly hinder equal access to public spaces. To address these challenges, economic policies that specifically focus on reducing poverty and inequality must be implemented simultaneously. These policies can include providing affordable housing, creating employment opportunities, and skill-based training for low-income groups, as well as ensuring access to social and health services.

Reclaiming public spaces means creating a city where spaces are considered as public heritage and are accessible to all citizens, rather than being used as a means of control or benefit for specific groups.

By redesigning urban spaces, reforming laws and policies, and strengthening social participation, we can move towards a more fair and cohesive city. In such a city, spatial justice will not only be a theoretical ideal, but a practical reality that will have a positive impact on enhancing social solidarity, reducing inequalities, and improving the quality of life for all citizens.

Notes:

1- In this city, since 2003, the “Congestion Charge Zone” has been implemented, which requires vehicles to pay a fee to enter the city center. Within this framework, traffic restrictions are not based on geographical location or belonging to a specific group of people, but rather as an economic mechanism to reduce congestion.

2- Traffic restriction policies in Paris are mainly designed as “Low Emission Zones”. In these zones, vehicles that do not comply with environmental standards are not allowed to enter.