Abstract
The chapter describes four types of formalized local state-society networks in France: local economic development agencies; local agencies for the social and professional integration of youngster; local agencies for the coordination of employment policies and local advisory committees of non-EU residents. Their institutionalization unfolded since the 1980s, and it resulted from central state incentives as well as local initiatives. They display highly varied features in terms of autonomy, coherence and relevance for sectoral policies but are characterized by a rather weak mobilization of societal actors, notably organized interests, and by a steering role of local governments. Finally, by both encouraging the institutionalization of these networks and simultaneously trying to steer at distance local affairs, the central state stands out as a Janus-like actor in local governance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
‘In the statist pattern, government decision-makers and decision-making organization take a leadership role in policymaking and have primary control over structuring the “state-society relationship”, meaning that they are for the most part able to dictate the pattern of interest representation and to resist the pressures of interests, whether organized or not, where they choose’ (Schmidt 1996: 46).
- 2.
According to J.D. Lévy (1999), the weakness of local societal institutions clearly distinguishes France from Germany and has an impact on the capacity of local governments to shoulder policy responsibilities and to develop a capacity of action and regulation of local economic affairs.
- 3.
One should note that local governance at the local level in France is characterized by the presence of both elected local authorities and administrative services of the local state (administration déconcentrée).
- 4.
The mechanism of tutelle allowed local representatives of the State (Préfet) to command and control elected local governments by having the possibilities of suspending local mayors or counselors as well as exerting veto power over municipal decisions (budget, administrative acts).
- 5.
‘By decentralizing responsibility for the public promotion of local economic development, the Socialists extended this decentralized dirigisme to the local level by giving local governments the powers and resources to become dirigiste or interventionists, in their own rights’ (Schmidt 1990: 289).
- 6.
We should notice that these bodies were originally founded during the Vichy regime, when industrialists were encouraged by the national elites to group together in some French cities under a common rhetoric of the promotion of the ‘harmonious development of their small mother country’ (Pasquier 2003: 116).
- 7.
See Law n°54-809 of 11 December 1954 for the implementation of a plan for the economic development and social progress (Pierre Mendes-France government).
- 8.
These agencies are associated in a federation, the Federation of French Investment and Development Agencies, founded in the 1950s, which gathers local development agencies operating at the regional, county, inter-municipal and municipal levels: http://en.cner-france.com/CNER/The-federation. A general directory of the existing local development agencies is accessible here: http://www.cner-france.com/Les-agences-de-developpement-economique/Annuaire-des-agences.
- 9.
On the recognition of the freedom of association through the approval of this Law, see Gaboriaux (2011).
- 10.
In France, chambers of commerce are public administrative bodies representing functional interests of economic actors (see Waters 1998).
- 11.
For the biggest cities in France, local development agencies have an annual budget of around 2 million euros.
- 12.
This latter covers all the public institutions responsible for elaborating and implementing public policies aiming at promoting employment and vocational training and fighting unemployment.
- 13.
Assédic was founded jointly by employers’ associations and trade unions in 1958 and had the status of a legally registered association.
- 14.
Pôle Emploi has the legal status of Etablissement Public à caractère administrative (EPA) which corresponds in France to a public moral person benefiting from financial and administrative independence in order to fulfill a general interest mission, precisely defined by law, under the control of the State.
- 15.
In 2017, 94 percent of the MLs were associations. As stated by the current legislation: ‘Local missions for the professional and social integration of young people can be set up between the State, local authorities, public institutions, professional and trade union organisations and associations. They can have the legal form of an association or of a public interest body. In this latter case, they may recruit their own staff, governed by the present code’ (Code du travail, Article L5314-1). So the members that can be part of the ML are precisely set by law (see https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072050&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006903775&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid).
- 16.
The contribution of central state services covers on average more than 50 percent of their budgets. The financing of others public (such as Pôle Emploi) and private bodies (companies, private foundations, etc.) is on average around 8 percent, whereas the contribution of social partners (unions and employers’ associations) is very marginal (less than 1 percent; Ministère du travail 2017).
- 17.
The creation of the MEs was part of a law devoted to rethink the organization of bodies in charge of social cohesion policies (LOI n° 2005-32; see https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000028397165).
- 18.
In the case of Paris, a process of dissemination to and self-application by individual foreign citizens was launched through the intermediation of both associations and municipal services. Individual members were not elected but instead they volunteered to take part in the advisory board. Nevertheless, some criteria were applied in order to ensure full representation of the variety of nationalities.
References
Berhuet, S., & Tuchszirer C. (2015). Les maisons de l’emploi ou l’introuvable politique territoriale de l’emploi. CEE-Connaissance de l’emploi. n°118. Retrieved from https://www.ville-emploi.asso.fr/wp-content/uploads/docs/118-maisons-emploi-ou-introuvable-politique-territoriale1.pdf.
Berthet, T. (2010). Externalisation et gouvernance territoriale des politiques de l’emploi. Revue Française de Socio-Economie, 6(2), 131–148.
Berthet, T. (2017). Emploi. In N. Kada, R. Pasquier, C. Courtecuisse, & V. Aubelle (Eds.), Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la décentralisation (pp. 490–495). Boulogne and Billancourt: Berger Levrault.
Epstein, R. (2005). Gouverner à distance: Quand l’Etat se retire des territoires. Esprit, dossier (‘des sociétés ingouvernables?’), 319(11), 96–111.
Flamant, A. (2014). Droit de cité! Construction et dilution d’une politique municipale d’“intégration des étrangers” dans les villes de Lyon, Nantes et Strasbourg (1981–2012). PhD Thesis, Lumière University Lyon 2.
Gaboriaux, C. (2011). La loi 1901 faute de mieux: les républicains face à l’association au tournant du XXe siècle. The Tocqueville Review/La revue Tocqueville, 32(2), 53–65.
Galimberti, D. (2015). Gouverner le développement économique des territoires: entre politique et société. Une comparaison de Lyon et Milan. PhD Thesis, University of Lyon and University of Milano – Bicocca.
Galimberti, D. (2019). Un étatisme métropolitain? Politiques territoriales de développement économique et réétalonnage de l’État: le cas de la métropole lyonnaise. Gouvernement et action publique, 3(3), 35–58.
Gaudin, J. P. (2007). Gouverner par contrat. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Grossmann, E., & Saurugger, S. (2006). Can Interest Groups Rescue Democracy? Revue française de science politique, 56(2), 299–321.
Jobert, B., & Muller, P. (1987). L’Etat en action. Politiques publiques et corporatismes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Le Galès, P. (1993). Politique urbaine et développement local: une comparaison franco-britannique. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Le Galès, P. (1997). Quels intérêts privés dans les villes européennes ? In A. Bagnasco & P. Le Galès (Eds.), Villes en Europe (pp. 231–254). Paris: La Découverte.
Le Galès, P., & Pinson, G. (2009). Local/Regional Governments and Centre-Periphery Relations in the Fifth Republic. In S. Brouard, A. Appleton, & A. Mazur (Eds.), The French Fifth Republic at Fifty: Beyond Stereotypes (pp. 208–225). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lévy, J. D. (1999). Tocqueville’s Revenge: State, Society, and Economy in Contemporary France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lévy, J. D. (Ed.). (2006). The State after Statism. New State Activities in the Age of Liberalization. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Mény, Y. (1986). La légitimation des groupes d’intérêts par l’administration française. Revue française d’administration publique, 39, 483–494.
Ministère du travail. (2017). Bilan d’activité des Missions locales, p. 110. Retrieved from https://www.unml.info/assets/files/actualies/RepresentationReseau2019/bilan_activite-ml-2017.pdf.
Pasquier, R. (2003). La régionalisation française revisitée: fédéralisme, mouvement régional et élites modernisatrices. Revue française de science politique, 53(1), 101–125.
Pillon, J. M., & Vivès, C. (2016). La création de Pôle emploi: entre spécificités françaises et déclinaisons de standard internationaux. Revue française des affaires sociales, 1, 405–424.
Schmidt, V. A. (1990). Democratizing France: The Political and Administrative History of Decentralization. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, V. A. (1996). From State to Market? The Transformation of French Business and Government. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sellers, J., & Lidström, A. (2014). Multilevel Democracy, Societal Organization and the Development of the Modern State. Paper Prepared for the Presentation at the 23 Nordic Local Governance Conference, Odense 27–29 November.
Shahshahani, M. (2002). Le Conseil consultatif des Parisiens non communautaires. Hommes et Migrations, 1235, 97–101.
Waters, S. (1998). Chambers of Commerce and Local Development in France: Problems and Constraints. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 16(5), 591–604.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Galimberti, D. (2021). Local State-Society Relations in France. In: Teles, F., Gendźwiłł, A., Stănuș, C., Heinelt, H. (eds) Close Ties in European Local Governance. Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44794-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44794-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44793-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44794-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)