Suchergebnisse

The French system of local and regional government has long been characterised by several features (Mabileau, 1994). The first is the institutional fragmentation without comparison anywhere else in Europe : 36 700 municipalities, as much as in the 14 other EU member states put together. The second is the multiple office holding (cumul des mandats) that enabled local politicians, until some limitations were enforced, to be mayors, members of département and regional assemblies and MP, and sometimes ministers. This practice was not only a way to extend and secure political control, but also to gain access to the central government's resources in order to implement policies at the constituency level . This system gave birth to a specific political breed, the notables, those politicians who where outrageously dominating local political spaces because of their personal prestige and their privileged access to central government and administrations. Those notables were often competing against each other to gain resources from the central government and to influence national policies (Grémion, 1976). In some way, and this is the third peculiarity of the French local and regional government system, this permanent competition between local and regional politicians has long been seen as an asset for the State's field services, and for the Prefect in the first place. The central government representatives at the field level were able to use this competition to impose some of their choices and priorities. For a long time, all these features have not made cooperation a salient aspect of local and regional governance. Competition was rather the rule and the 1982 Decentralization reforms did nothing to change this situation. Nevertheless, things recently changed in France and cooperation managed to nestle in the French local government system. In this paper, we will distinguish two different kinds of cooperation : on one hand, we will deal with horizontal cooperation, i.e. forms of cooperation linking authorities of the same territorial level (in this perspective, we will mainly deal with inter-municipal cooperation) ; on the other hand, we will deal with vertical cooperation, i.e. forms of cooperation linking authorities of different territorial levels. The main arguments of this paper are the following. Firstly, the concern for horizontal cooperation came first, it is only very recently that the problem of vertical cooperation arose. The consolidation of horizontal cooperation practices mainly occurred between municipalities and has been crowned with the recent and spectacular reinforcement and/or multiplication of inter-municipal cooperation institutions. Nevertheless, and this is the second main point of the chapter, this cooperation, when it occurred, was not always the result of the creation of strong cooperation institutions but rather the outcome of the collective recognition of common stakes and problems and of the collective work on these common stakes and problems. Cooperation has often been gradual, incremental and problem-driven. The third argument of the chapter is that it is the reinforcement of horizontal cooperation between municipalities that generated the urge for vertical cooperation, mainly between reinforced inter-municipal cooperation institutions on one hand, and départements and regions on the other hand. The reinforcement of vertical cooperation occurred along quite the same process, i.e. problems came first, were collectively tackled, but mainly through informal arrangements.

The French system of local and regional government has long been characterised by several features (Mabileau, 1994). The first is the institutional fragmentation without comparison anywhere else in Europe : 36 700 municipalities, as much as in the 14 other EU member states put together. The second is the multiple office holding (cumul des mandats) that enabled local politicians, until some limitations were enforced, to be mayors, members of département and regional assemblies and MP, and sometimes ministers. This practice was not only a way to extend and secure political control, but also to gain access to the central government's resources in order to implement policies at the constituency level . This system gave birth to a specific political breed, the notables, those politicians who where outrageously dominating local political spaces because of their personal prestige and their privileged access to central government and administrations. Those notables were often competing against each other to gain resources from the central government and to influence national policies (Grémion, 1976). In some way, and this is the third peculiarity of the French local and regional government system, this permanent competition between local and regional politicians has long been seen as an asset for the State's field services, and for the Prefect in the first place. The central government representatives at the field level were able to use this competition to impose some of their choices and priorities. For a long time, all these features have not made cooperation a salient aspect of local and regional governance. Competition was rather the rule and the 1982 Decentralization reforms did nothing to change this situation. Nevertheless, things recently changed in France and cooperation managed to nestle in the French local government system. In this paper, we will distinguish two different kinds of cooperation : on one hand, we will deal with horizontal cooperation, i.e. forms of cooperation linking authorities of the same territorial level (in this perspective, we will mainly deal with inter-municipal cooperation) ; on the other hand, we will deal with vertical cooperation, i.e. forms of cooperation linking authorities of different territorial levels. The main arguments of this paper are the following. Firstly, the concern for horizontal cooperation came first, it is only very recently that the problem of vertical cooperation arose. The consolidation of horizontal cooperation practices mainly occurred between municipalities and has been crowned with the recent and spectacular reinforcement and/or multiplication of inter-municipal cooperation institutions. Nevertheless, and this is the second main point of the chapter, this cooperation, when it occurred, was not always the result of the creation of strong cooperation institutions but rather the outcome of the collective recognition of common stakes and problems and of the collective work on these common stakes and problems. Cooperation has often been gradual, incremental and problem-driven. The third argument of the chapter is that it is the reinforcement of horizontal cooperation between municipalities that generated the urge for vertical cooperation, mainly between reinforced inter-municipal cooperation institutions on one hand, and départements and regions on the other hand. The reinforcement of vertical cooperation occurred along quite the same process, i.e. problems came first, were collectively tackled, but mainly through informal arrangements.

International audience ; The ideology underlying the adoption by urban policymakers of instruments such as urban projects or city projects is quite ambiguous. The reading of Anglo-Saxon theories can be useful to clear out this ambiguity and can lead to interpret urban and city projects as the suitable instruments of urban policies submitted to the neo-liberal ideology. But, by looking at Italian project experiences, one can discover that the resort to the project is linked to the tackling of concrete challenges for the organisation of collective action in cities and that it can prefigure the stabilisation of new governance devices in cities. ; L'idéologie qui sous-tend l'usage par les acteurs des politiques urbaines d'instruments tels que les projets urbains ou les projets de ville est ambiguë. Pour lever cette ambiguïté, on peut avoir recours à des théories anglo-saxonnes qui amènent à voir dans le projet la forme d'action adaptée à des politiques urbaines soumises au dogme néo-libéral. Mais le détour par un examen des pratiques italiennes du projet donne à voir un instrument dont l'usage correspond aussi à des problèmes concrets d'organisation de l'action collective dans les villes, usage qui peut préfigurer la stabilisation de dispositifs nouveaux de gouvernance des villes.

International audience ; The ideology underlying the adoption by urban policymakers of instruments such as urban projects or city projects is quite ambiguous. The reading of Anglo-Saxon theories can be useful to clear out this ambiguity and can lead to interpret urban and city projects as the suitable instruments of urban policies submitted to the neo-liberal ideology. But, by looking at Italian project experiences, one can discover that the resort to the project is linked to the tackling of concrete challenges for the organisation of collective action in cities and that it can prefigure the stabilisation of new governance devices in cities. ; L'idéologie qui sous-tend l'usage par les acteurs des politiques urbaines d'instruments tels que les projets urbains ou les projets de ville est ambiguë. Pour lever cette ambiguïté, on peut avoir recours à des théories anglo-saxonnes qui amènent à voir dans le projet la forme d'action adaptée à des politiques urbaines soumises au dogme néo-libéral. Mais le détour par un examen des pratiques italiennes du projet donne à voir un instrument dont l'usage correspond aussi à des problèmes concrets d'organisation de l'action collective dans les villes, usage qui peut préfigurer la stabilisation de dispositifs nouveaux de gouvernance des villes.

International audience ; The ideology underlying the adoption by urban policymakers of instruments such as urban projects or city projects is quite ambiguous. The reading of Anglo-Saxon theories can be useful to clear out this ambiguity and can lead to interpret urban and city projects as the suitable instruments of urban policies submitted to the neo-liberal ideology. But, by looking at Italian project experiences, one can discover that the resort to the project is linked to the tackling of concrete challenges for the organisation of collective action in cities and that it can prefigure the stabilisation of new governance devices in cities. ; L'idéologie qui sous-tend l'usage par les acteurs des politiques urbaines d'instruments tels que les projets urbains ou les projets de ville est ambiguë. Pour lever cette ambiguïté, on peut avoir recours à des théories anglo-saxonnes qui amènent à voir dans le projet la forme d'action adaptée à des politiques urbaines soumises au dogme néo-libéral. Mais le détour par un examen des pratiques italiennes du projet donne à voir un instrument dont l'usage correspond aussi à des problèmes concrets d'organisation de l'action collective dans les villes, usage qui peut préfigurer la stabilisation de dispositifs nouveaux de gouvernance des villes.

Cette contribution vise à démontrer que la gouvernance n'est pas un concept permettant de statuer définitivement sur l'ouverture et l'horizontalisation des processus de production de l'action publique et sur la démocratisation des processus de production des connaissances pour l'action. Si la gouvernance a pu être critiquée pour son caractère normatif, c'est sans doute que les travaux effectués à son sujet ont souvent négligé le niveau micro de l'analyse. On peut développer ce volet micro en s'intéressant aux modalités concrètes de production des connaissances dans et pour l'action. On peut ainsi comprendre comment des transformations macro s'effectuent dans les pratiques concrètes des acteurs. Pour illustrer ce point, nous prendrons l'exemple des politiques urbaines. L'aménagement urbain a été particulièrement investi par les savoirs experts porteurs d'un projet de modernisation. C'est aussi un domaine où ces savoirs ont subi les plus sévères remises en question et attaques de la part des savoirs indigènes. Ce domaine d'action montre que s'il y a bien pluralisation, complexification des modes de production des savoirs pour l'action, cette évolution n'est pas nécessairement synonyme de démocratisation ou de retrait du politique. On assiste à une importante différenciation des dispositifs de production des savoirs pour l'action, tributaires des configurations politiques et sociales locales.

Cette contribution vise à démontrer que la gouvernance n'est pas un concept permettant de statuer définitivement sur l'ouverture et l'horizontalisation des processus de production de l'action publique et sur la démocratisation des processus de production des connaissances pour l'action. Si la gouvernance a pu être critiquée pour son caractère normatif, c'est sans doute que les travaux effectués dans ce filon de recherche ont souvent négligé le niveau micro de l'analyse. On peut développer ce volet micro en s'intéressant aux modalités concrètes de production des connaissances dans et pour l'action. On peut ainsi comprendre comment des transformations macro s'effectuent dans les pratiques concrètes des acteurs. Pour illustrer ce point, nous prendrons l'exemple des politiques urbaines. L'aménagement urbain a été particulièrement investi par les savoirs experts porteurs d'un projet de modernisation. C'est aussi un domaine où ces savoirs ont subi les plus sévères remises en question et attaques de la part des savoirs indigènes. Ce domaine d'action montre que s'il y a bien pluralisation, complexification des modes de production des savoirs pour l'action, cette évolution n'est pas nécessairement synonyme de démocratisation ou de retrait du politique. On assiste à une importante différenciation des dispositifs de production des savoirs pour l'action, tributaires des configurations politiques et sociales locales.

Cette contribution vise à démontrer que la gouvernance n'est pas un concept permettant de statuer définitivement sur l'ouverture et l'horizontalisation des processus de production de l'action publique et sur la démocratisation des processus de production des connaissances pour l'action. Si la gouvernance a pu être critiquée pour son caractère normatif, c'est sans doute que les travaux effectués dans ce filon de recherche ont souvent négligé le niveau micro de l'analyse. On peut développer ce volet micro en s'intéressant aux modalités concrètes de production des connaissances dans et pour l'action. On peut ainsi comprendre comment des transformations macro s'effectuent dans les pratiques concrètes des acteurs. Pour illustrer ce point, nous prendrons l'exemple des politiques urbaines. L'aménagement urbain a été particulièrement investi par les savoirs experts porteurs d'un projet de modernisation. C'est aussi un domaine où ces savoirs ont subi les plus sévères remises en question et attaques de la part des savoirs indigènes. Ce domaine d'action montre que s'il y a bien pluralisation, complexification des modes de production des savoirs pour l'action, cette évolution n'est pas nécessairement synonyme de démocratisation ou de retrait du politique. On assiste à une importante différenciation des dispositifs de production des savoirs pour l'action, tributaires des configurations politiques et sociales locales.

Cette contribution vise à démontrer que la gouvernance n'est pas un concept permettant de statuer définitivement sur l'ouverture et l'horizontalisation des processus de production de l'action publique et sur la démocratisation des processus de production des connaissances pour l'action. Si la gouvernance a pu être critiquée pour son caractère normatif, c'est sans doute que les travaux effectués dans ce filon de recherche ont souvent négligé le niveau micro de l'analyse. On peut développer ce volet micro en s'intéressant aux modalités concrètes de production des connaissances dans et pour l'action. On peut ainsi comprendre comment des transformations macro s'effectuent dans les pratiques concrètes des acteurs. Pour illustrer ce point, nous prendrons l'exemple des politiques urbaines. L'aménagement urbain a été particulièrement investi par les savoirs experts porteurs d'un projet de modernisation. C'est aussi un domaine où ces savoirs ont subi les plus sévères remises en question et attaques de la part des savoirs indigènes. Ce domaine d'action montre que s'il y a bien pluralisation, complexification des modes de production des savoirs pour l'action, cette évolution n'est pas nécessairement synonyme de démocratisation ou de retrait du politique. On assiste à une importante différenciation des dispositifs de production des savoirs pour l'action, tributaires des configurations politiques et sociales locales.

Turin has always been peculiar among Italian cities, because of the long–standing dominance of the Left in municipal politics and because of the massive presence there of the biggest Italian industrial group — the vehicle manufacturer, FIAT. Torino Internazionale is a strategic plan currently being implemented by the present Centre–Left majority on the City Council, which is largely representative of local civil society. The plan has the potential to transform traditional governance in the city. This article begins by analysing difference and complentarity between the two notions of 'government' and 'governance' and attempting the theoretical integration of an institutionalist perspective into analysis of the governance processes; it then goes on to demonstrate that the proper logic of urban government in a governance process is to strengthen and increase the number of exchanges and interactions within policy processes and to integrate them through institutionalization of the urban territory as a setting for such interactions. In the governance of Turin, political regulation seems to be creating linkages between an exchangist–aggregative perspective and an institutional–integrative perspective. These two aspects of governance seem to reinforce each other. The exchangist processes involved in micro–projects tend to consolidate the urban network of actors and the city as a cohesive society, while the institutional aspect of the meta–project tends to structure the setting for, and give meaning to, interactions between urban actors. Thus, the apparent fragmentation of the strategic planning process is strengthening Turin as a collective actor and giving the municipal institution a new, nodal role.La ville italienne de Turin a toujours été particulière, à cause de la longue domination de la Gauche dans la politique municipale et de la présence incontournable du plus gros groupe industriel italien: le fabricant automobile FIAT. Torino Internazionale est un plan stratégique actuellement mis en œuvre par la majorité de centre–gauche au conseil municipal, laquelle reflète largement la société civile locale. Ce plan a la capacité de transformer la gouvernance traditionnelle de la ville. L'article analyse d'abord la différence et la complémentarité entre les notions de 'gouvernement' et 'gouvernance' en tentant l'intégration théorique d'une perspective institutionnaliste dans l'analyse des processus de gouvernance; il démontre ensuite que la logique adéquate d'un gouvernement urbain dans un processus de gouvernance consiste à renforcer et accroître le nombre d'échanges et interactions dans les processus politiques, puis de les intégrer grâce à l'institutionnalisation du territoire urbain en tant que cadre de ces interactions. Dans la gouvernance de Turin, la régulation politique semble créer des liens entre une perspective échangiste–aggrégative et une perspective institutionnelle–intégrative, ces deux aspects de la gouvernance se renfor??ant l'un l'autre. Les processus échangistes impliqués dans les micro–projets ont tendance à consolider le réseau urbain d'acteurs et la ville en tant que société cohérente, alors que l'aspect institutionnel du méta–projet structure plutôt le cadre des interactions entre acteurs urbains, en donnant à celles–ci une signification. Ainsi, l'apparente fragmentation du processus de planification stratélgique renforce Turin en tant qu'acteur collectif tout en donnant à l'institution municipale un nouveau rôle nodal.

Big cities are usually presented as the great winners of the cross effects of globalisation, European integration and the reshaping of national States policies. They are also frequently presented as places where the main current public problems are concentrated and as the scale at which these problems should be addressed. However, we know little about the way a collective action capacity is actually emerging in cities. We also know little about the institutionalisation process of cities as political spaces where different actors, groups and institutions are recognising each others, are identifying common stakes and are building up collective answers to those stakes. This is the question this thesis tried to address on the basis of a vast qualititative field inquiry (174 interviews) led in four cities (Marseilles, Venice, Nantes and Turin). This work tries to show how large projects –regeneration projects or planning projects- have contributed that institutionalisation process, notably because they are activating and stabilizing social interactions networks involving a large variety of actors, groups and institutions. I was able to show with this work that, in certain conditions, despite the proliferation of actors involved in urban policies, despite the pluralisation and the fragmentation of urban government systems, a capacity for collective action and a political capacity for coordination can emerge in cities. The analysis of those projects enabled me to reveal a two-sided process of institutionalisation. The institutionalisation of cities as political spaces and as scales of the emerging of a collective capacity of action proceeds, on one hand, from the rise of a political and institutional leadership able to give sense to the action of a diversity of urban networks and to coordinate their action. But it also proceeds from the multiplication of social interactions between actors, groups and institutions in few determinated, iterative and open project-making processes. ; Les grandes villes sont souvent ...

Big cities are usually presented as the great winners of the cross effects of globalisation, European integration and the reshaping of national States policies. They are also frequently presented as places where the main current public problems are concentrated and as the scale at which these problems should be addressed. However, we know little about the way a collective action capacity is actually emerging in cities. We also know little about the institutionalisation process of cities as political spaces where different actors, groups and institutions are recognising each others, are identifying common stakes and are building up collective answers to those stakes. This is the question this thesis tried to address on the basis of a vast qualititative field inquiry (174 interviews) led in four cities (Marseilles, Venice, Nantes and Turin). This work tries to show how large projects –regeneration projects or planning projects- have contributed that institutionalisation process, notably because they are activating and stabilizing social interactions networks involving a large variety of actors, groups and institutions. I was able to show with this work that, in certain conditions, despite the proliferation of actors involved in urban policies, despite the pluralisation and the fragmentation of urban government systems, a capacity for collective action and a political capacity for coordination can emerge in cities. The analysis of those projects enabled me to reveal a two-sided process of institutionalisation. The institutionalisation of cities as political spaces and as scales of the emerging of a collective capacity of action proceeds, on one hand, from the rise of a political and institutional leadership able to give sense to the action of a diversity of urban networks and to coordinate their action. But it also proceeds from the multiplication of social interactions between actors, groups and institutions in few determinated, iterative and open project-making processes. ; Les grandes villes sont souvent ...

Big cities are usually presented as the great winners of the cross effects of globalisation, European integration and the reshaping of national States policies. They are also frequently presented as places where the main current public problems are concentrated and as the scale at which these problems should be addressed. However, we know little about the way a collective action capacity is actually emerging in cities. We also know little about the institutionalisation process of cities as political spaces where different actors, groups and institutions are recognising each others, are identifying common stakes and are building up collective answers to those stakes. This is the question this thesis tried to address on the basis of a vast qualititative field inquiry (174 interviews) led in four cities (Marseilles, Venice, Nantes and Turin). This work tries to show how large projects –regeneration projects or planning projects- have contributed that institutionalisation process, notably because they are activating and stabilizing social interactions networks involving a large variety of actors, groups and institutions. I was able to show with this work that, in certain conditions, despite the proliferation of actors involved in urban policies, despite the pluralisation and the fragmentation of urban government systems, a capacity for collective action and a political capacity for coordination can emerge in cities. The analysis of those projects enabled me to reveal a two-sided process of institutionalisation. The institutionalisation of cities as political spaces and as scales of the emerging of a collective capacity of action proceeds, on one hand, from the rise of a political and institutional leadership able to give sense to the action of a diversity of urban networks and to coordinate their action. But it also proceeds from the multiplication of social interactions between actors, groups and institutions in few determinated, iterative and open project-making processes. ; Les grandes villes sont souvent ...