Suchergebnisse

This article endeavors to describe and explain the constitution of modernity, its different trajectories, and its ongoing crisis using the Weberian concept of 'legitimate order', and by considering the changing relations between orders. One possible basis for the interpretation of the changing constitution of modernity – which involves, most significantly, a move beyond the great public/private dichotomy – is drawn from economic theory, or rather theories, of goods. The ability of certain orders to produce certain types of goods and to allocate them defines different types of society; in different societies, the same good will differ in nature and occupy a place within different property regimes. Changing relations can also be analyzed on the basis of the capacity of an order to impose upon others its negative externalities, and to manage effectively the production and allocation of its characteristic goods at different territorial scales.

This article stems from an awareness that the 'European social model' is marked – in the discourse that proposes it and in the policies that attempt to implement it – by an original combination of the dimensions of economic competitiveness and social cohesion. Today, this combination is in the midst of a crisis whose nature and outcome are variously interpreted, in politics as in social sciences. The current debate would have much to gain from the use of several classic analytical categories, which, though well enough known, are rarely if ever applied in this context. After a schematic presentation of the characteristics that discussion of the European model has now assumed, an institutional approach to interpreting it will be proposed which revolves around the Weberian concept of 'legitimate order'. Particular attention will be devoted to the organizational means whereby policies are formulated and pursued, and the territorial dimension of policies and their effects will be discussed. The concluding remarks will present policy implications and considerations concerning the present crisis and possible developments of the European model, elaborated on the basis of the proposed methodological approach.

This article examines cooperative modes of regulation of local economies that in Europe increasingly take the form of concertation (partnership) – i.e. formalized agreement on common goals stated by collective actors with traditionally/potentially contrasting interests. This kind of agreement ('pacts') is increasingly institutionalized; 'institutionalization' being the process through which certain behaviours are steadily promoted, required, even made obligatory, by actors other than those putting them into effect, who demand conformity to their values and beliefs in return for making resources available. The process in question is particularly visible in EU countries, and it can be interpreted both as an opportunity to construct a model of a social Europe and as an opportunity to defend the features of this model that were subject to rapid erosion during the 1990s. Recurrent forms of partnership are: public–private and public–public partnerships; 'regionalized' industrial relations; 'second–generation' industrial districts; urban strategic planning; and territorial pacts. To order them, a typology is proposed on the basis of the dichotomy between exogenous/endogenous actors/resources. Three main constraints to an effective working of local concertation are then discussed: local presence of 'global players'; excessive institutionalization; and lack of adequate implementation structures. Starting from the latter, some working hypotheses are proposed on a new 'organizational population', namely, the organizations of local development.Cet article examine les modes de régulation collectifs des économies locales, ceux–ci prenant de plus en plus souvent la forme d'une concertation (partenariat), accord formel sur des objectifs communs énoncés par un collectif d'acteurs dont les intérêts sont habituellement ou éventuellement opposés. Ce type d'accord (pacte) s'institutionnalise progressivement au travers d'un processus grâce auquel certains comportements sont toujours encouragés, demandés, voire exigés, par des acteurs qui, d'une part, ne sont pas ceux qui les appliquent et, d'autre part, réclament le respect de leurs valeurs et convictions en contrepartie de la mise à disposition de ressources. Ce processus, particulièrement évident dans les pays de l'U.E., peut s'interpréter à la fois comme une possibilité de construire un modèle d'Europe sociale et comme une chance de défendre les caractéristiques de ce modèle alors que celles–ci se sont rapidement dégradées dans les années 1990. Les formes récurrentes de partenariat sont: partenariats public–privé et public–public, liens industriels régionaux, districts industriels 'de deuxième génération', urbanisme stratégique et pactes territoriaux. L'article propose une typologie basée sur les dichotomies acteurs/ressources exogènes/endogènes. Il déduit ensuite les trois principales entraves à une concertation locale efficace: la présence locale de 'joueurs de niveau international', un excès d'institutionnalisation et un manque de structures de mise en œuvre appropriées. A partir de ce dernier point, sont présentées quelques hypothèses de travail sur une nouvelle 'population organisationnelle', autrement dit des organisations de développement local.

This article focuses on an ongoing process of creating modalities of economic regulation based on cooperation, which have been extended to contexts – especially local ones – where, up to now, have been absent or completely secondary. The central theme of the article is the largely institutionalized nature of these modalities and their possible consequences. The process in question is particularly visible in European Union countries. The process can be interpreted as both an opportunity to construct a European social model as well as a means to defend features of this model that were threatened during the 1990s.