Search results

Although studies of mobilization have given little attention to advocacy, its practice has elsewhere been the object of conflicting analysis. Some see the proliferation of jobs for advocates - salaried employees specifically charged with promoting the political line of the associations that employ them - as a sign of profound transformation. According to this group, the appearance of non-governmental actors with close ties to government is a source of major change for collective action and the political sphere. Others, however, regard the proximity of these forms of action to classic interest groups and political leaders as proof that advocates should be considered lobbyists. The present article draws upon an ethnographic study to examine these theories of the transformative advocate and non-differentiation. The view according to which advocacy constitutes a particular form of lobbying does not allow one to grasp the mechanisms by which this practice spreads and sometimes succeeds. The claim that advocates and lobbyists are much the same also neglects the structural asymmetry between these two groups. This observation calls for bringing greater complexity to bear upon the theory of non-differentiation and serves to qualify the enthusiastic statements of those who defend the idea of the transformational potential of these practices and the power of NGOs in the twenty-first century. Adapted from the source document.

International audience ; An extensive literature review on the topic of "political professionalization" in the French social sciences, this article has two goals. The first one is to specify the ways in which this term has been used in the past decades. The article delineates three implicit definitions of political professionalization: according to the time spent in the political field; according to the occupational trajectory of the person; or according to the knowledge acquired and ethos developed to fully thrive in the job. From there, the text identifies and discusses some of the most pressing issues researchers in this area are currently faced with, whether they deal with conceptual aspects or with the measure of the phenomena. It also calls for a deeper engagement with the literature on work and occupation. Overall, the article sheds lights on some of the most important transformations undergone by the French political field in the past decades. ; À partir d'une revue de littérature extensive des travaux portant sur la professionnalisation politique en France, cet article précise les différentes manières dont ce terme a été mobilisé au cours des dernières décennies. Il montre que, outre la définition classique empruntée à Weber, trois autres sens sont souvent présents dans les textes qui l'évoquent, au moins implicitement. Le « professionnel de la politique » peut être définit en fonction de la longévité passée dans le champ politique, en fonction du parcours professionnel effectué, ou en fonction de savoirs (faire et être) dont il dispose. Le texte évoque ensuite les principaux enjeux théoriques et conceptuels auxquels les chercheurs intéressés au phénomène sont aujourd'hui confrontés, qu'il s'agisse des questions de définition, de mesure du phénomène, ou de la réinscription de cette problématique dans un cadre plus général de sciences sociales. En filigrane, l'article donne à voir certaines des principales transformations qui ont affecté le champ politique en France au cours des dernières décennies.

Since the 1950s the United States and from the 1990s in the international aid sector, the term 'advocacy' (advocacy) was imposed in practice as in the associations of speech. Yet difficult to say precisely what it covers. Adapted from the source document.

In this essay, we analyze the dominant position of economics within the network of the social sciences in the United States. We begin by documenting the relative insularity of economics, using bibliometric data. Next we analyze the tight management of the field from the top down, which gives economics its characteristic hierarchical structure. Economists also distinguish themselves from other social scientists through their much better material situation (many teach in business schools, have external consulting activities), their more individualist worldviews, and their confidence in their discipline's ability to fix the world's problems. Taken together, these traits constitute what we call the superiority of economists, where economists' objective supremacy is intimately linked with their subjective sense of authority and entitlement. While this superiority has certainly fueled economists' practical involvement and their considerable influence over the economy, it has also exposed them more to conflicts of interests, political critique, even derision.

International audience ; The French 2017 legislative elections were marked by a twofold movement. On the one hand, the decade long rise in the number of "career politicians" came to a stop, putting at least a temporary end to the oft-evoked trend of "political professionalization" by opening the political sphere to newcomers. On the other, the new political personnel hailed predominantly from very specific, bourgeois, segments of the French society. In an already saturated public sphere, this scissor movement gave way to partial narratives which favored one or the other aspect. Based on an extensive and historical inquiry on French members of parliament since the 1970s, this article offers an original perspective on the evolution of the French political field that accounts for both. We analyze the massive arrival of political rookies hailing from the upper class as a phenomenon of "skirting" of the waiting line that had formed to access national positions of power. From there, and due to the emphasis on the temporal aspect of political careers, we critically reconsider the classic concept of "political pathways." ; Les élections de 2017 ont donné lieu à une évolution croisée. D'une part, un renouvellement important de l'Assemblée est venu mettre un coup d'arrêt au processus de professionnalisation de la politique qui avait cours depuis près de quatre décennies. D'autre part, cette ouverture s'est faite vers des segments très spécifiques de la population française. La structure en chiasme de ces évolutions a favorisé les récits partiels qui, souvent avec des intentions partisanes, mettent en avant l'un ou l'autre aspect. À partir d'une enquête extensive et historique sur les parlementaires français depuis les années 1970, l'article met en perspective cette double transformation du champ politique. Il s'attache aussi à en rendre compte. L'arrivée de novices politiques socialement dominants s'est produite suite au contournement d'une « file d'attente » qui s'était constituée pour accéder aux fonctions politiques nationales. L'accent mis sur la temporalité permet alors de travailler à nouveaux frais la notion de « filière d'accès à la politique ».

International audience ; The French 2017 legislative elections were marked by a twofold movement. On the one hand, the decade long rise in the number of "career politicians" came to a stop, putting at least a temporary end to the oft-evoked trend of "political professionalization" by opening the political sphere to newcomers. On the other, the new political personnel hailed predominantly from very specific, bourgeois, segments of the French society. In an already saturated public sphere, this scissor movement gave way to partial narratives which favored one or the other aspect. Based on an extensive and historical inquiry on French members of parliament since the 1970s, this article offers an original perspective on the evolution of the French political field that accounts for both. We analyze the massive arrival of political rookies hailing from the upper class as a phenomenon of "skirting" of the waiting line that had formed to access national positions of power. From there, and due to the emphasis on the temporal aspect of political careers, we critically reconsider the classic concept of "political pathways." ; Les élections de 2017 ont donné lieu à une évolution croisée. D'une part, un renouvellement important de l'Assemblée est venu mettre un coup d'arrêt au processus de professionnalisation de la politique qui avait cours depuis près de quatre décennies. D'autre part, cette ouverture s'est faite vers des segments très spécifiques de la population française. La structure en chiasme de ces évolutions a favorisé les récits partiels qui, souvent avec des intentions partisanes, mettent en avant l'un ou l'autre aspect. À partir d'une enquête extensive et historique sur les parlementaires français depuis les années 1970, l'article met en perspective cette double transformation du champ politique. Il s'attache aussi à en rendre compte. L'arrivée de novices politiques socialement dominants s'est produite suite au contournement d'une « file d'attente » qui s'était constituée pour accéder aux fonctions politiques ...

In this essay, we analyze the dominant position of economics within the network of the social sciences in the United States. We begin by documenting the relative insularity of economics, using bibliometric data. Next we analyze the tight management of the field from the top down, which gives economics its characteristic hierarchical structure. Economists also distinguish themselves from other social scientists through their much better material situation (many teach in business schools, have external consulting activities), their more individualist worldviews, and their confidence in their discipline's ability to fix the world's problems. Taken together, these traits constitute what we call the superiority of economists, where economists' objective supremacy is intimately linked with their subjective sense of authority and entitlement. While this superiority has certainly fueled economists' practical involvement and their considerable influence over the economy, it has also exposed them more to conflicts of interests, political critique, even derision.

In this essay, we analyze the dominant position of economics within the network of the social sciences in the United States. We begin by documenting the relative insularity of economics, using bibliometric data. Next we analyze the tight management of the field from the top down, which gives economics its characteristic hierarchical structure. Economists also distinguish themselves from other social scientists through their much better material situation (many teach in business schools, have external consulting activities), their more individualist worldviews, and their confidence in their discipline's ability to fix the world's problems. Taken together, these traits constitute what we call the superiority of economists, where economists' objective supremacy is intimately linked with their subjective sense of authority and entitlement. While this superiority has certainly fueled economists' practical involvement and their considerable influence over the economy, it has also exposed them more to conflicts of interests, political critique, even derision.

In this essay, we investigate the dominant position of economics within the network of the social sciences in the United States. We begin by documenting the relative insularity of economics, using bibliometric data. Next we analyze the tight management of the field from the top down, which gives economics its characteristic hierarchical structure. Economists also distinguish themselves from other social scientists through their much better material situation (many teach in business schools, have external consulting activities), their more individualist worldviews, and in the confidence they have in their discipline's ability to fix the world's problems. Taken together, these traits constitute what we call the superiority of economists, where economists' objective supremacy is intimately linked with their subjective sense of authority and entitlement. While this superiority has certainly fueled economists' practical involvement and their considerable influence over the economy, it has also exposed them more to conflicts of interests, political critique, even derision. ; Este artículo examina la posición dominante de la economía en la red de ciencias sociales en Estados Unidos. Primero documenta su insularidad relativa usando datos bibliométricos y luego analiza el rígido control desde arriba que le da su estructura jerárquica característica. Los economistas también se distinguen de otros científicos sociales por su mejor situación material, su visión del mundo más individualista y su confianza en la disciplina para resolver los problemas de mundo. Estas características constituyen lo que aquí se llama la superioridad de los economistas, cuya supremacía objetiva está ligada íntimamente a la sensación subjetiva de tener autoridad y derecho a ella. Esa superioridad alienta su intervención práctica y su gran influencia en la economía, pero también los expone a conflictos de interés, a la crítica política e incluso al ridículo.