Town and Country Planning

Town and Country Planning

The Shared Language of Cities: Redesigning Tehran’s Sister‑City Policies Based on an Analysis of Successful Global Experiences

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Mohammad Mehdi Panahi, 1
Hashem Dadashpoor 2
Mana Vahid Bafandeh 3
Maede Dadashpour 4
1 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Urban Planning, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran
3 Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Urban Planning, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
10.22059/jtcp.2026.413976.670554
Abstract
In recent decades, cities have acquired a new role in the international system and have evolved from purely local actors into active participants in transnational interactions. One of the most important instruments cities use to expand their influence and cooperation is the establishment of sister‑city relationships—mechanisms through which opportunities for cultural, economic, scientific, tourism, and even technological collaboration are created. The city of Tehran has also signed a series of sister‑city agreements and memoranda of understanding with various cities around the world in recent years. However, evidence indicates that many of these relationships, due to the absence of a clear strategic framework, the lack of operational programs, managerial discontinuity, and an overemphasis on ceremonial interactions, have not been able to make a meaningful contribution to urban development and have often remained symbolic and short‑term. Therefore, revisiting and redesigning Tehran’s sister‑city policies based on successful global experiences appears both necessary and unavoidable. The main objective of this research is to identify successful models of sister‑city relations at the international level and to propose a framework for redesigning Tehran’s intercity cooperation policies. To achieve this aim, the study employs a multi‑method approach that includes a systematic literature review, thematic analysis, and expert evaluation. In the first stage, 318 documents related to intercity cooperation were identified. After screening based on the criteria of validity, relevance, and applicability, a total of 40 successful global cases were selected for in‑depth analysis. In the next step, using thematic analysis, 212 basic themes were extracted from the data and organized into nine overarching and organizing themes, each representing a key dimension of effective intercity partnerships. To validate and prioritize these themes within the context of Tehran as a megacity, the perspectives of eight experts and specialists in urban management and city diplomacy were collected and analyzed. The Friedman test was then used to rank the importance of each cooperation dimension. The findings indicate that the success of sister‑city relations depends primarily on strengthening cultural, scientific, and economic collaborations, as well as institutionalizing sustainable executive mechanisms within the structure of urban governance. According to expert assessments, “cultural and identity diplomacy,” “scientific and educational exchanges,” and “economic cooperation” constitute the three most significant and high‑potential areas for development in Tehran, and prioritizing these areas can substantially enhance the effectiveness of the city’s sister‑city partnerships.
Keywords
Sister City Relationships
Urban Diplomacy
International Relations
Urban Experiences
Tehran Metropolis
Subjects
داداش پور, هاشم , وحیدبافنده, مانا , پناهی, محمدمهدی و داداش پور, مائده . (1405). شهرها به‌مثابه بازیگران دیپلماتیک: مرور نظام‌مند سازوکار خواهرخواندگی شهری. فصلنامه مطالعات شهری, 15(59), 55-75. doi: 10.22034/urbs.2026.145423.5254
Acuto, M. (2013). Global cities, governance and diplomacy: The urban link. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203073810.
Acuto, M. (2016). Give cities a seat at the top table. Nature, 537(7622), 611–613. DOI: 10.1038/537611a.
Acuto, M., & Leffel, B. (2021). Understanding the global ecosystem of city networks. Urban Studies, 58(9), 1758–1774. DOI: 10.1177/0042098020929261.
Acuto, M., & Rayner, S. (2016). City networks: Breaking gridlocks or forging (new) lock-ins? International Affairs, 92(5), 1147–1166. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2346.12700.
Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2004). Multi-level governance. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/0199259259.001.0001.
Barber, B. R. (2013). If mayors ruled the world: Dysfunctional nations, rising cities. Yale University Press.
Börzel, T. A. (1998). Organizing Babylon: On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration, 76(2), 253–273. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9299.00100.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Clarke, N. (2011). Globalising care? Town twinning in Britain since 1945. Geoforum, 42(1), 115–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.10.006.
Cremer, R. D., De Bruin, A., & Dupuis, A. (2001). International sister-cities: Bridging the global-local divide. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 60(1), 377–401. DOI: 10.1111/1536-7150.00066.
Curtis, S. (2016). Cities and global governance: State failure or a new global order? Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(3), 455–477. DOI: 10.1177/0305829816637233.
Dadashpoor, H. , Vahidbafandeh, M. , Panahi, M. M. and Dadashpour, M. (2026). Cities as Diplomatic Actors: A Systematic Review of Urban Sister City Mechanisms. Motaleate Shahri, 15(59), 55-75. doi: 10.22034/urbs.2026.145423.5254. (in Persian).
Hocking, B., Melissen, J., Riordan, S., & Sharp, P. (2012). Futures for diplomacy: Integrative diplomacy in the 21st century. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael”.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman & Littlefield.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055403000649.
Jayne, M., Hubbard, P., & Bell, D. (2011). Worlding a city: Twinning and urban theory. City, 15(1), 25–41. DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2010.511859.
Jayne, M., Hubbard, P., & Bell, D. (2013). Twin cities: Territorial and relational geographies of “worldly” Manchester. Urban Studies, 50(2), 239–254. DOI: 10.1177/0042098012450480.
Klijn, E.-H. (1996). Analyzing and managing policy processes in complex networks: A theoretical examination of the concept policy network and its problems. Administration & Society, 28(1), 90–119. DOI: 10.1177/009539979602800104.
Kuznetsov, A. S. (2015). Theory and practice of paradiplomacy: Subnational governments in international affairs. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315817088.
Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (Eds.). (1992). Policy networks in British government. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198278528.001.0001.
McCann, E. (2011). Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(1), 107–130. DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2010.520219.
Nijman, J. E. (2016). Renaissance of the city as global actor: The role of foreign policy and international law practices in the construction of cities as global actors. In G. Hellmann, A. Fahrmeir, & M. Vec (Eds.), The transformation of foreign policy: Drawing and managing boundaries from antiquity to the present (pp. 209–241). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198783862.003.0010.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Governing the city. Paris: OECD Publishing. 196 pp. DOI: 10.1787/9789264226500-en.
Piattoni, S. (2010). The theory of multi-level governance: Conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562923.001.0001.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243–1264. DOI: 10.1177/0170840607076586.
Robinson, J. (2011). Cities in a world of cities: The comparative gesture. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(1), 1–23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00982.x.
Stone, D. (2004). Transfer agents and global networks in the “transnationalization” of policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(3), 545–566. DOI: 10.1080/13501760410001694291.
Tavares, R. (2016). Paradiplomacy: Cities and states as global players. Oxford University Press.
United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG). (2016). Co-creating the urban future: The agenda of metropolises, cities and territories. GOLD IV: Fourth Global Report on Local Democracy and Decentralization. Barcelona: United Cities and Local Governments.
van der Pluijm, R., & Melissen, J. (2007). City diplomacy: The expanding role of cities in international politics. Clingendael Diplomacy Papers No. 10. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael”.
Zelinsky, W. (1991). The twinning of the world: Sister cities in geographic and historical perspective. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81(1), 1–31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1991.tb01676.x.
Town and Country Planning
Volume 18, Issue 1
Spring & Summer 2026
April 2026
Pages 1-24

  • Receive Date 10 May 2026
  • Revise Date 18 June 2026
  • Accept Date 30 June 2026