Reinventing Territories through Solidarity E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Serie: ISTE Invoiced
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

While territories have always faced multiple challenges, the addition of ecological transition to economic, cultural and social issues complicates matters considerably. Transition calls for new perspectives.

The reinvention of territories through solidarity appears to be a particularly relevant approach as it allows us to draw on the many innovations brought about by players in the social and solidarity economy (SSE). To illustrate this point, the book brings together case studies that bear witness to their astonishing ability to link the economy and local democracy to ensure the sustainability of their activities. These case studies illustrate a renewed vision of territorial development based on cooperation between the SSE, local authorities, entrepreneurs and citizens. Subsequently, they usher in a new way of thinking about public action, in which solidarity players undertake an important role, in co-constructing with local public players, systems capable of meeting the major challenges of our time.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Preface

Introduction: Solidarity at the Heart of Territorial Development

I.1. Territory and solidarity: a recurring theme

I.2. Conceptualizations of territory renewed by the emergence of solidarity issues

I.3. Putting the book’s various chapters into perspective in relation to these territorial dilemmas

I.4. Perspectives: rethinking territory with solidarity actors

I.5. References

PART 1: Public Action and Territorial Solidarity

Introduction to Part 1

1 Territorial Governments–Associations Collaboration in the Field of Gender Equality in France

1.1. Introduction

1.2. Governments–associations collaboration and territories

1.3. Methodology and case context

1.4. Results

1.5. Conclusion

1.6. References

2 Preparing for the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games: A Leverage Effect for a More Inclusive Territory?

2.1. Introduction

2.2. The long journey to a more inclusive territory

2.3. Methodology

2.4. Results: a nearby mega-event with a distant leverage effect

2.5. Discussion: asking whether or not participating in the games is tantamount to not participating in an inclusive territory

2.6. References

3 The TZCLD Experiment: Towards Cooperative Public Management or the Difficult Change of Public Action

3.1. Introduction

3.2. A new frame of reference

3.3. Institutional change

3.4. Conclusion

3.5. References

PART 2: Territory as a Resource, the Power of Territory

Introduction to Part 2

4 Understanding Change in Two Third-Places Networks: The Key Role of Bifurcations

1

4.1. Introduction

4.2. Theoretical framework

4.3. Methodology

4.4. Institutional change in the Corsican and Dignois third places networks

4.5. Final discussion and conclusion

4.6. Appendix: interview list

4.7. References

5 Reconciling the Humanitarian Imperative and Ecological Transition in Senegal and Burkina Faso

5.1. Introduction

5.2. Postcolonial and decolonial approaches

5.3. Research protocol

5.4. Results

5.5. Discussion

5.6. Conclusion

5.7. References

6 Territory and CSR: A Case Study on the Latest Solidarity Initiative in a Train Station

6.1. Introduction

6.2. The train station, a challenge to SNCF’s social and territorial responsibility

6.3. A special case: the latest social support facility for extreme poverty at Strasbourg station

6.4. Organization and strengthening within an ever-changing territory

6.5. Contributions and discussion

6.6. Conclusion

6.7. References

PART 3: Co-constructing Territories

Introduction to Part 3

7 SCICs: A Strong Potential for Territorial Development to be Realized

7.1. Introduction

7.2. Overview: SCICs and MSCs, a hybrid status

7.3. Methodology: a single longitudinal case study

7.4. Results

7.5. Discussion

7.6. References

8 Supporting Enterprises to Transform the Territory: The Fab-T Case Study

8.1. Introduction

8.2. Literature review and theoretical framework

8.3. Methodology

8.4. Results

8.4. Discussion and conclusion

8.5. References

9 The Territory as Dynamic: Spacing Solidarity for the Homeless in Lyon

1

9.1. Introduction

9.2. Literature review: towards a conception of the territory as dynamic

9.3. Context: solidarity NPOs in Lyon

9.4. Methodology: a spatial ethnography of solidarity NPOs in Lyon

9.5. Results: producing and designing the territory of solidarity

9.6. Discussion and conclusion

9.7. Appendix

9.8. References

List of Authors

Index

Other titles from iSTE in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Management

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 2

Table 2.1. Summary spreadsheet of working groups held in the Seine-Saint-Denis...

Table 2.2. Summary spreadsheet of initiatives to develop physical activity sup...

Chapter 4

Table 4.1.

Typology of institutional logics of SSE TNOs

Table 4.2.

List of interviews carried out in the Alpes de Haute-Provence

Table 4.3.

List of interviews conducted in Corsica

Chapter 5

Table 5.1.

Brief presentation of the NGOs studied

Chapter 9

Table 9.1.

Table of NPOs studied

List of Illustrations

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1.

The process of institutional change in Corsica.

Figure 4.2.

The process of institutional change in Digne-les-Bains.

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1. Photograph of the train station’s main entrance, December 2017 (so...

Figure 6.2.

Exterior photograph of PAS (source: Norélia Voiseux)

Figure 6.3. Graph showing the increase in the number of annual visits made by ...

Figure 6.4. Representation of the forces at work and the tensions surrounding ...

Chapter 7

Figure 7.1.

Chronological timeline of CJ highlights

Chapter 8

Figure 8.1.

Results overview.

Chapter 9

Figure 9.1. An example of inter-associative planning between April and July 20...

Figure 9.2.

The outreach route designed by Mounir

Guide

Cover Page

Table of Contents

Title Page

Copyright Page

Preface

Introduction

Begin Reading

List of Authors

Index

Other titles from iSTE in Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Management

Wiley End User License Agreement

Pages

iii

iv

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

xxix

xxx

xxxi

xxxii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

Solidarity-based Management and Organizations Set

coordinated by Philippe Eynaud and Nathalie Raulet-Croset

Volume 1

Reinventing Territories through Solidarity

Edited by

Didier ChabaudPhilippe EynaudNathalie Raulet-Croset

First published 2025 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:

ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUKwww.iste.co.uk

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USAwww.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2025The rights of Didier Chabaud, Philippe Eynaud and Nathalie Raulet-Croset to be identified as the authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2025933250

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-83669-008-5

Preface

These are times of great challenges and wicked problems: we need to act to address the “dual unsustainability” of our social and environmental societies! And yet, we do not have all the keys we need to grasp what is at stake, and action is sometimes difficult to conceive and implement – or, more broadly, to build.

The set of books on Solidarity-based Management and Organizations – of which this is the first volume – aim to provide a forum for debate and reflection, and to contribute to the action of committed individuals, whether they are participants in Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) organizations, private companies, local authorities or public bodies, or ordinary citizens.

Helping us to understand to act, to grasp the issues at stake, but to also grasp the possible solutions, and the way in which actors have constructed them alone, or (most of the time) in cooperation with others, is the core motivation for this collection, and indeed this book.

To this end, we have sought to follow two precautionary principles:

– If there is nothing more useful than a good theory, it is important to clearly understand what is at stake and how to analyze it. The texts that follow – covering a wide array of subjects – aim to provide all the building blocks necessary for understanding it.

– The texts also present the ways in which actors in the field have developed local solutions to the problems they face. In so doing, the reader will be able to understand how actors – whether they be citizens or SSE actors – have built local solutions to their challenges, with knowledge of the mechanisms they have used, as well as the difficulties and even barriers that they have encountered.

We hope you will find this book provides both food for thought and inspiring solutions that can help guide action. While this book is undoubtedly an academic work – based on rigorous research, knowledge of the most recent literature and the mobilization of research methodologies – it is also intended as a tool to help stimulate debate in the public arena, and – even more so, we hope – as a tool to inspire and guide the actions of committed actors.

Finally, we would like to thank our 11 authors, both for their work and for their participation in the critical review of the various chapters. We would also like to extend our thanks to AIRMAP (Association Internationale de Recherche en Management Public, the International Association for Research in Public Management) for hosting the various themed sessions on the connections between public management and the SSE since 2019: it is thanks to these sessions that this book was able to develop and see the light of day! Last but not least, we would like to thank our colleagues at the IAE Paris-Sorbonne, and in particular those in the MAI (Mutations-Anticipations-Innovations) and ETI (Entrepreneuriat-Territoire-Innovation) chairs, who helped test many of the ideas expressed here, as well as Régine Teulier, Patrick Gilbert and the colleagues involved in the ISTE collections, and the teams at the publisher, for their continued trust and benevolent resolve.

Didier CHABAUD, Philippe EYNAUD andNathalie RAULET-CROSETApril 2025

IntroductionSolidarity at the Heart of Territorial Development

Territorial development is a relatively old field of knowledge, whose distinctive feature is that it seeks to cross disciplinary perspectives on the question of territory, in order to serve the idea of a territorial relay for economic development. Territories and the economy are thus intrinsically linked by the concept of territorial development. This coupling has been reinforced by the European institutional setup, which has tended to emphasize the regional (and not just national) level to maximize the potential for intra-European economic development. While this equation has been much in demand in the fight against the various economic crises, it has unfortunately not lived up to all the hopes it raised. The addition of transition issues to unresolved economic problems has led decision-makers and financiers to review the elements of the deal. Solidarity is now seen as a key factor in the analysis. From now on, a dialogue can be opened with Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) organizations, which are emerging as the key actors, so that we can envisage fair, equitable and more inclusive development on the ground. In this introductory chapter, we propose putting into perspective various experiences in which solidarity has played a decisive role in the construction of territories, and to explore which dimensions make it possible to support and develop solidarity.

I.1. Territory and solidarity: a recurring theme

The SSE is defined as a field characterized by its democratic governance, as specified in Article 1 of the French 2014 Law on SSE. The governance of SSE organizations has the particularity of being deployed on a double dimension of sociopolitical action. Internally, democracy engages processes of organizational transparency and the framing of decision-making mechanisms. Externally, it involves maintaining an open democratic dynamic with local actors in local public spaces (Laville 2011). From then on, the territory appears to be the fundamental locus for the exercise of democracy by SSE organizations. If SSE practices cannot be understood independently of the very idea of territory, they presuppose, in return, a support methodology. To this perspective, Subileau et al. (2024) suggest studying the solidarity city over the long term. In fact, this is the timeframe in which we can think about the making of the city in the flow of its urban and territorial history and envisage committed territorial strategies. On another note, the revitalization of rural areas is facilitated by the development of a plural economy that values reciprocity (Llena 2011). In other words, the organization of solidarity within the framework of a different economy is fundamentally linked to the perspective given to territorial development. Two ideas flow from this observation. Firstly, the territory (and its development) is at the core of our understanding of SSE issues. Secondly, solidarity is not an additional concept in the analysis and study of territories, which would enrich the view of territorial development. It is, in fact, a constitutive element in the making of territories. As such, it constitutes a strategic element in the formulation of a renewed agenda for territorial development (Eynaud and de França Filho 2019). In this context, Duverger et al. (2020) raise the question of the possible convergence between territorial dynamics and SSE dynamics. To this end, the authors focus on the systemic territorial regulation capacities that enable SSE organizations to organize according to a triptych of governance, regulation and territory (Demoustier and Richez-Battesti 2010).

In a classic economic approach, the territory is seen as a tool for hosting economic activities (Bouba-Olga and Grossetti 2018). The resulting vision of the territory is based on a primarily commercial interpretation. Indeed, the territory is expected to adapt to serve businesses and their needs. This presupposes specific developments in terms of transport infrastructure, logistics support and organizational, regulatory and tax arrangements for business parks. Together, these measures will define the attractiveness of the region. This is a one-way process. The region is called upon to show itself in its best light by providing guarantees, but investors are only accountable in return to market logic. They are therefore free to relocate at any time to other, more attractive areas. In this classic vision, the territory is an adjustment variable in a regulatory game that transcends it. Exogenous principles therefore take precedence over endogenous ones, and investors from outside the territory can be the masters of territorial development. As a result, territories can be exploited in ways that are neither socially just nor ecologically virtuous.

What sets the SSE apart from conventional economics is the reversal it promotes. Rather than seeing the economy as an end in itself, it sees it as a means to other ends. This is in line with Polanyi’s substantive economic approach (Polanyi 1944, 2011). In opposition to the abstract vision of market economics, the substantive approach is pragmatic in that it questions mankind’s profound dependence on nature and other people. In so doing, it points to the means required to cover natural needs and shows the plurality of economic logics – which the market tends to make invisible – to ensure a subsistence economy. Polanyi (1977) brings to light logics such as redistribution, reciprocity and domestic sharing. The strength of Polanyi’s proposition lies in its focus on the question of reproduction. Whereas classical economics focuses on production, substantive economics is concerned with the reproduction of the material conditions of existence and social life.

The result is a completely new perspective on territorial development. It is no longer the economic attractiveness of the territory that is sought, but its maintenance (reproduction) in conditions of well-being and happy living (Eynaud and de França Filho 2019). Such a perspective cannot be sustainable without the support of the public actor and the framework of a dedicated public policy. The specificity of the SSE’s territorial roots cannot be taken for granted. To do so would be to overlook the isomorphism of SSE organizations induced by the generalization of competitive calls for projects around public markets, or by the alignment of major SSE actors with conventional entrepreneurial practices (Itçaina and Richez-Battesti 2022). The aim is to provide regulatory protection for the region and filter out investment projects with negative externalities. It is also about opening up territorial development to institutional arrangements based on the idea of a plural economy (Aznar et al. 1997), i.e. an economy integrating the substantive approach and open to the SSE. Territorial Clusters for Economic Cooperation (Pôles Territoriaux de Coopération Economique or PTCE) thus make an essential contribution to the construction of a solidarity-based territory (Billaudeau et al. 2016; Itçaina 2018, 2021). The dual socio-political and socio-economic dimensions of SSE actors enable them to play a growing role in new territorial institutional compromises (Demoustier and Richez-Battesti 2010). Relying on local solidarity initiatives enables socioterritorial development (Tremblay et al. 2009), in which citizens can become co-designers of public policies (Scherer 2015).

Finally, Bucolo et al. (2020) consider revisiting the question of territories through the prism of the commons. With the concept of the trans local horizon, Defalvard (2023), for his part, proposes to take the commons out of localism alone, and value the capacities of SSE organizations to interact on a larger scale. In this context, we can take another look at institutional arrangements that facilitate new perspectives. These solidarity-based initiatives are interesting to explore in that they revisit the very heart of the territorial fabric.

I.2. Conceptualizations of territory renewed by the emergence of solidarity issues

The territory corresponds to both a practical reality and a conceptualization. As a practical reality, it is the object of action for many actors, who will propose defining its boundaries, identifying actors whose activities are linked to its specific features or identifying geographical and social features that differentiate it from other geographical locations, and on which it will be possible to build. The territory can “serve as a resource” (Raulet-Croset 2021), and the territorial level seems to hold great promise for thinking about the societal and environmental dimension in the strategic developments of economic and social actors present in territories, identifying more bottom-up and inclusive tools and mechanisms for public action, or even collaborative governance modalities enriched by the participation of actors who each develop different relationships to their root territory. The territory, which used to be seen more as an economic unit with an instrumental focus, is now also becoming a place where solidarity is created. As a conceptualization, the territory is also multiple, is mobilized by several scientific disciplines and is also the object of evolutions linked to new societal and solidarity expectations. How can a solidarity-based approach identify the practical and conceptual specificities of a territory? We propose here to consider the tensions and dilemmas that can help us qualify a territory and show how they can shed light on how solidarity plays a part in shaping territories.

I.2.1. The tension between prescribed and constructed territory: towards solidarity-based co-construction

One of the strong oppositions in terms of territory is prescribed territory versus constructed territory (Raulet-Croset 2008; Hernandez 2017). In France, we have long considered the prescribed territory, defined administratively and politically by the State in its various forms, or the economic territory considered as a support for economic activities. From this point of view, the territory appears as a framing element, sometimes simply administrative and political, or as a delimited place supporting economic activities. The prescribed vision of the territory, in terms of solidarity, can also be mobilized and conduces to identify a boundary allowing to delimit at which scale will develop such or such solidarity dispositive, or to identify relevant actors on solidarity subjects who act, in general, in a top-down way to respond to needs that the public actor detects. These actors are often representative departments of a central government, or local authorities at various levels (municipality, département, region, etc.).

A contrario, the territory can be thought of in its constructed dimension, in which case it is the local actors – those who live, move, work and live in the territory – who become central. This second perspective places the emphasis on the emergent, on the discovery and visibility of specific and often unprecedented local needs. The aim is to identify the construction of local values and solidarities, creating links between local users and the area to which they belong, as well as locally rooted initiatives and social innovations.

The two territorial realities – prescribed and constructed – can appear opposed and conflicting, and this is sometimes the case, particularly when the two types of actors (those in the prescribed territory and those in the constructed territory) tend to oppose each other in their vision of solidarity. However, we can also observe that the challenges of solidarity can lead to overcoming the opposition between the prescribed and the constructed, and to initiating cooperative ventures. For example, there may be collaboration between the public actor, who is the bearer of the prescript, and SSE actors, who are as close as possible to the consideration of the territory. In this case, a new vision of public action, at the crossroads of the prescribed and the constructed, is co-constructed, and will support solidarity actions. Solidarity actors acquire new roles on the ground. Demoustier and Richez-Battesti (2010) have thus highlighted the dual socio-political and socio-economic dimension of SSE actors, which enables them to play a growing role in new territorial institutional compromises. Fraisse (2017) analyzes the role of local SSE actors in the co-construction of public action in France. Itçaina and Richez-Battesti (2018) discuss new territorial cooperations. Bryson et al. (2015) take an interest in what they call “cross-sector collaborations” (the public actor with other types of actors), which they deem necessary to solve certain types of problems, even if they recognize that it can be complicated to reconcile different logics and identities. Itçaina and Richez-Battesti (2018) underline the shift from the SSE territory seen as a place for belonging, to the territory as a space for co-construction.

This co-constructed vision restores the place and legitimacy of actors other than the public sector to participate in the co-construction of public solidarity action. Beyond the SSE organizations involved in this collaborative action, we also observe that more individual actors, citizens, informal local actor networks, etc., can become co-designers of public policies (Scherer 2015). Overcoming the opposition between prescribed and constructed in the light of the challenges of solidarity and transition thus enables us to think differently about themes such as governance (which becomes collaborative), public action (which becomes co-constructed…). It also guides us towards dynamic and processual visions of the territory, where we focus on solidarity practices in action, and their contribution to organizing and fabricating the territory.

I.2.2. At the heart of a territory considered as a set of resources: mobilizing social and solidarity resources

A second opposition seems to be structuring for thinking about the ways in which solidarity can be inscribed at the heart of the development of territories: the opposition between resources of different natures and which might not succeed in combining. Pecqueur and Itçaina (2012) speak of “territorial” resources to designate those that are truly specific to each territory. These authors show that the SSE has a card to play in the construction of productive specificity via the rediscovery of the “territorial” resource, and therefore call for an articulation between the economic actors of production and the actors of the social and solidarity economy. However, in their perspective, the resources articulated are of a rather economic and productive nature. We propose broadening the spectrum of these so-called “territorial” resources to include those that contribute to addressing the new territorial challenges of solidarity and transition.

What resources are we talking about? Our analysis focuses on the resources that make up the arrangements that carry out solidarity actions within territories. When it comes to analyzing places and spaces, it is traditional to identify how these places give rise to combinations between different categories of resources specific to territories: resources of a social nature (relationships, interpersonal and organizational proximities, skills, etc.), symbolic resources (synthesized knowledge, shared elements of culture, norms and institutions) and resources of a material nature (objects, borders, natural geography, urban geography, places of production, infrastructures, transport, etc.). These resources are different in nature, but complementary. Several authors emphasize the value of using analytical frameworks that highlight the virtues of their articulation. Some defend “socio-materiality” (Mitev and De Vaujany 2013) and, building on the work of Lefebvre (1974), emphasize the socio-materiality of the constructed territory (Dale and Burrel 2008; Van Marrewijk and Yanow 2010). Others propose considering constructs as more restricted, arrangements or dispositives, which combine a set of resources rooted in the territory (Mazzilli and Pichault 2015). The perspective is then “socio-technical” (Gilbert and Raulet-Croset 2021) and focuses on the combination of resources within arrangements (Girin 2016).

These dispositives therefore have a role to play in local communities and are often created and deployed to address issues of solidarity. In some cases, public-sector initiatives have been deployed to develop solidarity within a given territory (cooperation clusters, third places, etc.). However, they are often based on the belief that proximity of a spatial or geographical nature induces de facto relational proximity. In many cases, however, spatial proximity is not enough to generate relationships. For such an objective to be achieved, this proximity must be accompanied by other types of proximity, such as organized proximity or normative proximity (Bouba-Olga and Grossetti 2008), which incorporate shared norms and values. In fact, the articulation of proximity-related resources – be they technical, material, symbolic or social – must also be combined with solidarity resources, i.e. shared values, social ties or the relational skills of solidarity actors.

Various dispositives have been set up, particularly at the initiative of public actors, as well as of SSE organizations, to uncover and mobilize such solidarity-based resources. Territorial Clusters for Economic Cooperation (PTCEs), for example, play an essential role in the construction of a solidarity-based territory (Billaudeau et al. 2016; Itçaina 2021), as they are the bearers of a solidarity-based ideology. At the initiative of a wide range of actors, certain third places can also play a role in the creation of solidarity-based territories. At the heart of inter-organizational networks, they appear as relevant levers of territorial development and are sources of territorial, organizational and social innovation (Chabaud et al. 2023; Nadou et al. 2023; Richez-Battesti et al. 2024).

However, there are disparities between these different dispositives aiming to bring solidarity to the heart of territories. We note that the achievement of their objectives is conditioned by certain characteristic elements of the dispositives. We have already mentioned the ideology (Gilbert and Raulet-Croset 2021) that drives the implementation of the dispositive: are these top-down, inflexible dispositives that convey a vision of action and the role of the State as imposing and non-participatory, or, on the contrary, a dispositive whose ideology is precisely one of co-construction of the territory? We can also look at another key element: the nature of the actors who drive the system. Whether they are designated as third-party actors or mediators (Maisonnasse et al. 2013), guarantor actors (Wright et al. 2021), translator actors (Mazzili and Pichault 2015), meta-organizer actors (Henrion 2023) or territorial managers (Serval et al. 2024), it is interesting to analyze their role and the way they orchestrate the articulation of different resources at a territorial level to avoid social fractures and enable actions that create solidarity.

I.2.3. The creative opposition between real and represented territories

The third tension that we feel could help us to understand the role of solidarity in the creation of territories is the one that might lead us to oppose a lived territory, real for the actors who practice it, and a represented, sometimes idealized, territory. This opposition is inspired in particular by Lefebvre’s approach (1974). For Lefebvre, space is a social construct that can be broken down into lived space, perceived space and conceived space. Drawing on a Marxist vision of society, he described the space of his time as “alienated by the bureaucratic capitalist mode of production” (Martin 2006). For him, the space in which we live is not given, but is the product of ideology, values and a vision of society. This approach is very useful for thinking about a space that could be marked by a vision of solidarity and embody its values. This brings us to another idea in Henri Lefebvre’s thinking: the importance of space, which he describes as “represented”. If space is a social construct, this is achieved through representations of space, which are held by different actors, and which may even conflict with one another. Architects, politicians, etc., are the bearers of such representations, which they may also materialize through drawings, tools or even speeches. These representations can have an effect on the real territory, which is a construct.

This third tension sheds light on another aspect of how solidarity creates territory. When actors involved in solidarity issues are called upon to represent their territory of life and action, they do so using their own frameworks of analysis, tools and visions, and act as socio-political actors with the power to construct the territory. The representations they disseminate are therefore far from neutral; they can have a certain performativity, and the territory represented will have an influence on the territory in the making, that of the actors’ daily practices. We can thus identify the role of abstraction in representing a territory, or that of the discourse and language used, or even the impact of the use of (management) tools that can simplify the vision of the territory and impose a particular representation. Understanding the impact of these different modes of representation on the real territory is also important, because far from participating in disjointed visions, the real territory and the represented territory interact and contribute to the dynamics of territorial construction.

I.3. Putting the book’s various chapters into perspective in relation to these territorial dilemmas

The many qualities and specific features of territories can thus either encourage the emergence of solidarity or, on the contrary, thwart it. The various chapters of this book shed light on the role of territories from different angles, and reflect the tensions and dilemmas identified above.

I.3.1. Public action contributing (or not) to overtaking between prescribed and constructed territories

We begin by looking at the tension between the prescribed territory, which is rather top-down in nature and carried by the public actor, and the constructed visions of the territory in which SSE actors intervene. Several chapters, grouped together in the first part, shed light on the conditions for successful co-construction of solidarity actions by these different actors.

Chapter 1, proposed by Caroline Demeyère, looks at the collaboration between public actors and associations in the case of gender equality policies. It sheds light on the tension between prescribed and constructed territories, with a historical analysis of the evolving role of associations in this field. In particular, the author shows that the State, because it can impose rules on other actors, has the power to harmonize action within a given territory, even if associative initiatives have been geographically heterogeneous. Associations, on the other hand, are as close to citizens as possible, and are able to identify societal needs far more precisely than public actors. The chapter shows how the more decentralized organization of public action today has enabled more horizontal relationships to be forged across the territory and fostered collaboration between the public actor and highly heterogeneous associations. Administration seeks to federate associative actors around a common identity based on the territory and relies on what the author describes as “framing by territorial urgency”.

Chapter 2 looks at how a mega-event – the organization of the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games – projects itself onto a territory with an inclusive promise. Juliette Pinon examines this promise and its potential leverage effect. To analyze the territory, the author focuses on the field of disability. The stakes are high, as the Seine-Saint-Denis département is largely undersized in terms of sports and para-sports facilities within the Ile-de-France region. It also has a particularly low number of associations affiliated to a sports or para-sports federation. The results of the research show that actors in the field of solidarity and disability, i.e. “Social and Medico-Social Establishments” (ESSMS, Etablissements Sociaux et Médico-Sociaux), are not very mobilized around the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games dispositives, even though they are convinced of the need for an inclusive perspective. Indeed, these dispositives are perceived as injunctions to do more in a prescribed territory, without any real attention to the needs of specialized actors.

Chapter 3, by Timothée Duverger, analyzes the “zero long-term unemployed territory” (territoire zéro chômeur longue durée) experiments and their potential in terms of their extension to a larger number of French regions. This ambition, expressed in prescribed territories, benefits from a collective approach and polycentric governance. The associative actors work on a negotiated basis with local public actors, and around co-defined catchment areas, from a rather constructed territorial perspective.

I.3.2. The territory as a source of solidarity resources

The second part of the book looks at cases where the territory seems to support the solidarity dispositives that are being developed there, as it is the bearer of resources, and thus develops a saving force for the dispositives.

Chapter 4, by Céline Bourbousson, Julien Maisonnasse and Nadine Richez-Battesti, looks at two territories hosting a network of “third places”, one in Corsica, the other in the Alpes-de-Haute-Provence département. By observing the evolution of these two networks over time, the authors show that both were created on the initiative of a public actor, but that they gradually emancipated themselves from it, each responding to a rationale of territorial cooperation that took different forms. It is through a process of hybridization of logics (economic logic, reciprocal logic, solidarity entrepreneurship, etc.) that this link to the two territories is built. The territory, originally a simple administrative support, becomes, thanks to the resources it carries, a facilitator for the emergence of cooperation between actors.

Chapter 5, by Vincent Pradier, shows the importance of thinking of the territory as a resource space in the case of managing the ecological transition. Indeed, in order to avoid this issue being perceived by Southern countries as a new coloniality on the part of Northern countries, particular attention must be paid to local resources – be they material, human, cultural or symbolic – and to their history. It is only through this shared knowledge and mutual respect that a different form of management can emerge: one that is more inclusive, more supportive and possibly decolonial.

Norélia Voiseux examines the “Solidarity Welcome Point” (Point Accueil Solidarité) at a major regional railway station in Chapter 6. This dispositive has succeeded in maintaining itself at a station, even though the company’s general policy is to give priority to a commercial logic over the social reception services that had been present in stations until recently. It is thanks to the action of actors who embody this social logic, and who find support in the surrounding area, that this solidarity point is able to hold its own against the evolution of the logic driven by the company. In this case, the territory acts as a network of local actors and stakeholders who support the solidarity dispositive. In this case, the region encourages action that differs from a “standardized” vision and promotes a local moral vision of solidarity that runs counter to the vision of actors at the national level. The region acts as a resource for the solidarity actor.

I.3.3. Co-constructing the territory: represented territory, performative territory and management artifacts/tools

In the end, the relationship between the territory and the actors is not univocal. If the territory is prescribed, or even constitutes a resource for the actors, as we mentioned in the first part, it also appears as a reality in construction, or even co-construction with them. This is undoubtedly one of the fundamental messages of this book, and several facets help us to grasp it, emphasizing at times its necessary “abstraction”, its “performative” dimension or, more broadly, the need for artifacts to represent it.

If representation is essential for action, it is also worth pointing out that it is possible for actors to propose discourses on a territory that does not exist, but that we would like to see happen, because it seems necessary to support solidarity and inclusion. This brings us back to performative conceptions of the notion of territory: talking about the territory to make it happen, or to construct it as an ideal would have it. It is undoubtedly important to dwell on this dimension of performativity. While it derives historically from Austin (1962) and how to do things with words, which emphasizes language, it is interesting to be aware of the migrations of this notion within different disciplines and theoretical currents, leading to a deepening and differentiation of its aspects, and even to its redefinition (Denis 2006; Gond et al. 2016). Beyond language alone, it is interesting to see how the construction of the territory will go through a materialization of intentions, through the definition of artifacts or management tools. The following three chapters shed light on these aspects.

In Chapter 7, Camille Henrion discusses the effects of cooperative societies of collective interest (SCICs), based on the case of Clus’Ter Jura, an SCIC that aims to contribute to territorial development, defined as “improving the well-being and wealth of a territory’s stakeholders” (Torre 2022). Over the period 2014–2021, it shows how this SCIC is constructed and created, as well as the difficulties it faces. While the project’s mobilizing – even performative – dimension is clear to see, it comes up against both the difficulty of reconciling the constraints of economic sustainability and financing frameworks with the transformative ambition, as well as the difficulty of mobilizing over a long period – and without disappointing them – the various stakeholders (citizens, employees, local authorities, etc.).

In Chapter 8, Romain Slitine studies the Fab-T, a support structure created in 2020 by the Archer Group and the Valence-Romans conurbation to “support local projects serving the territory (‘territorial start-ups’) and contribute to an economic and ecological transition of the territory”. It shows how Fab-T will both host events that stimulate entrepreneurial initiatives “by and for the territory” (Henrion et al. 2019) and set up support systems that help entrepreneurs develop their business by integrating the social, environmental and territorial dimensions of their project, and – more broadly – institutionally promote the creation of a network of territory-based businesses (Slitine et al. 2024a).

Chapter 9, written by Lucie Cortambert, looks at how solidarity actors conceive and produce territory in practice. Her contribution proposes a resolutely processual approach to territory because territory is constantly under construction. Lucie Cortambert points out that there are almost 30 associations in Lyon – differentiated by their purpose (type of aid), target (public), values, etc. – that are trying to provide, through their actions, the best possible solutions to the problems they face – who try to provide help to the homeless (who may themselves change location), thanks to their volunteers’ “marauding” activities. What is more, the number of associations involved is variable – associations regularly appear, develop or even disappear – and a “battle for places” can arise, leading to wasted resources, volunteer burnout and/or unsatisfied homeless people. In this context, “the structuring element of the street collective is the creation of a table listing the activities – distributions as well as marauding – of all the city’s associations for each day of the week”. This table, created on the initiative of the Red Cross (and updated by it), is both informative – enabling a beneficiary to be directed according to their needs – and serves to coordinate associations, public actors and local authorities. Last, but not least, it is a legitimizing tool, as being listed in the table confers recognition by all the other associations.

I.4. Perspectives: rethinking territory with solidarity actors

The various sections and chapters explore the relationship between solidarity and territory. While different facets are highlighted, several key messages emerge from the whole, at the theoretical, methodological, practical and public policy levels. These messages resonate with multiple recent works that encourage significant exploration of the links between SSE and territory (Itçaina and Richez-Battesti 2018, 2022; Torre 2022). They are all avenues that form part of a real multi-level research program on the relationships between territories and solidarities.

I.4.1. Towards theoretical interrogations of the relationship between SSE and territory

As has been pointed out, the relationship between the SSE and territory needs to be examined from two angles: that of idealism, which sees the “SSE as the magic answer to all the ills associated with neoliberalism”, and that of demystification, which “emphasizes the incessant routinization and isomorphism of SSE enterprises, which end up resorting to market-driven models”, and that of demystification, which “emphasizes the incessant routinization and isomorphism of SSE enterprises, which end up resorting to market-based and/or public-economy models” (Itçaina and Richez-Battesti 2018). The work collected here is in this vein and seeks to capture the particularities of the SSE.

The first strong message lies in the fact that solidarity is built locally, within a territory, and that it relies heavily on local actions rather than on a uniform policy decreed nationally. The question of the construction – or co-construction – between territory and solidarity thus runs through numerous chapters. While we insist on the fact that the territory is a provider of resources (Part 1), we observe that a dynamic of co-construction is taking shape, and that the territory and local actors influence each other. As a result, the focus is on the dynamics of territorial development, rather than on the static observation of territories. It is then possible – depending on the desired focus – to place the accent on the local response to territorial needs by solidarity actors, or on the fact that the territory carries specific actions. More broadly, it will be interesting to identify the way in which SSE actors contribute to a dynamic of territorial entrepreneurship, through which territorial actors mobilize in favor of the territory (Chabaud et al. 2024).

The second message stands out: that of the dynamics of cooperation between local actors. While this has been observed for a long time, and has even led to the creation of suitable institutional arrangements, such as “Territorial Clusters for Economic Cooperation” (Pôles Territoriaux de Coopération Economique or PTCE) (see Fraisse (2017)), or cooperative collective interest companies (SCIC, see Chapter 7 by Camille Henrion), or even ad hoc governance structures, such as the employment-based companies created in the “zero long-term unemployed” territories (see Chapter 3 by Timothée Duverger), it deserves attention and leads to questions about how cooperation between actors – from citizens to companies, via SSE actors and local authorities – makes it possible to construct a local – and sustainable – response to economic, social and environmental challenges. What is more, it will be interesting to identify the factors, mechanisms and barriers to the implementation of this solidarity-based construction of the territory.

The third important message takes up the first two and extends them to give them greater scope. The work gathered in this book shows that there can be no territorial development based on solidarity if we stick to a market-based economic frame of reference. To break the deadlock, Polanyi (1977) invites us to denounce the economic fallacy that reduces the economy to the market economy, and to open up the economic frame of reference to the logics of reciprocity and redistribution. This economic pluralism appears to be the condition for the effectiveness of successful co-construction processes and virtuous cooperation dynamics for an ecological and social transition (Lallemand-Stempak and Eynaud 2022).

I.4.2. Towards participatory research methods

The chapters in this book present a wide range of empirical studies, from single-case studies – frequently longitudinal, such as Camille Henrion’s chapter on the dynamics of Clus’Ter Jura between 2014 and 2021, or Romain Slitine’s, which examines its case over nearly 30 years – to inter-case study comparisons, using classical approaches or even ethnological observations. Similarly, they borrow from a variety of registers, inspired by philosophic approaches (such as the work of Henri Lefebvre, mobilized by Lucie Cortambert), historical approaches or indeed the expanded case method inspired by Burawoy (2018) (Chapter 1 by Caroline Demeyère).

It is undoubtedly interesting to note a certain methodological convergence among the authors, who borrow from qualitative approaches, often conducted longitudinally, in order to gain a better understanding of the structuring processes at work in the construction of territorial solidarity dynamics. At the same time, the work regularly leads to proposals that call for replications of the studies in other contexts or on a larger number of cases, in order to better identify project invariants. The result is a call for the implementation of large-scale data collection and processing approaches.

However, the key message that emerges from various chapters lies in an interest in participatory research approaches (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995; Chevalier and Buckles 2019), in which the researcher is no longer in the overhanging study of a research object, but, on the contrary: “share a core philosophy of inclusivity and of recognizing the value of engaging in the research process (rather than including only as subjects of the research) those who are intended to be the beneficiaries, users, and stakeholders of the research” (Cargo and Mercer 2008). In so doing, we consider that “objects are also subjects”, to use Elias’s expression quoted by David (2000). This opens the door to different postures – action-research, research-intervention, even collaborative research (Renaud 2020) – which are part of a logic of engaged research in the sense of Van de Ven (2007): the researcher interacts with their field and can “have a renewed practice for field actors (action-research), a transformation of professional and organizational practices (intervention-research), a mobilization of networks and the realization of innovative solutions adapted to needs (partnership research)” (Renaud 2020, authors’ translation).

I.4.3. Towards a new approach to public action

A final point of convergence concerns the questioning of the role of the State and the place of public action. By highlighting territories, and the importance of local co-construction of solutions by various stakeholders, from citizens to local authorities, SSE actors and businesses, the chapters clearly question top-down conceptions of public policy. These seem to need to move away from standardized, one-size-fits-all conceptions to make way for – or encourage – co-construction with stakeholders. It is a question of encouraging local action rather than precisely defining its contours and formats, as well as of keeping open relations between citizens–associations–local authorities–state. Caroline Demeyère’s chapter is particularly interesting on this point, emphasizing that the State must accept to work with new actors and, in this case, to accept to work with feminist associations which, initially absent from its scope, will enable it to reach new audiences. It joins calls for new, more collaborative and horizontal forms of governance, in which associative and SSE actors have a role to play (Suquet et al. 2020).

In so doing, a key message is undoubtedly to recognize that the modern State must be modest (Crozier 2014), and that associative and SSE actors provide a “glue” that enables policy to function, as well as legitimizes actions, or even that these actors enable locally organized responses to the failings (or omissions) of the State. Of course, this means questioning public policies and the way they are constructed, moving away from the opposition between top-down and bottom-up, and allowing for a mix of approaches (Gomot and Chabaud 2023). Nevertheless, we can see that thinking go far beyond this: it is no longer just a question of designing and applying a public policy, but of thinking about a “recomposed” public action that articulates, associates and even leaves room for solidarity actors to construct dispositives capable of meeting economic, social and environmental challenges. We are led to differentiate between different territorial scales (Itçaina 2023), paying particular attention to the way micro/meso- and macro-levels interpenetrate and articulate (Lamarche 2023; Slitine et al. 2024b).

If the question of the relationship between solidarity actors and the territory has been of growing interest over the last 15 years, the work gathered in this book supports the idea of a solidarity turn in territories. Solidarity actors are not just in the business of “deploying” within a given territory or responding locally to (pre-existing) needs. Nor are they simply responding to market failures or state failures: they are truly at the heart of the territorial fabric, and thus pave the way for thinking about an “alternative management”, or even an “alternative economy” capable of resolving the dual ecological and social unsustainability of conventional development.

I.5. References

Aggeri, F. (2018). Jacques Girin : une œuvre singulière à découvrir ou à redécouvrir.

Annales des Mines – Gérer et comprendre

, 132, 66–68. doi: 10.3917/geco1.132.0066.

Austin, J.L. (1962).

How to do Things with Words

. Harvard University Press, Harvard.

Aznar, G., Caillé, A., Laville, J.L. (1997).

Vers une économie plurielle : un travail, une activité, un revenu pour tous

. Syros, Paris.

Baret, P., Ramonjy, D., Schäfer, P. (2021). La recherche intervention : une méthode de recherche en sciences de gestion sociétalement engagée et responsable ?

Management & Sciences Sociales

, 30, 51–65. doi: 10.3917/mss.030.0051.

Bergold, J. and Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion.

Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung

, 191–222.

Billaudeau, V., Bioteau, E., Minetto, B., Pierre, G. (2016). Le Pôle Territorial de Coopération Économique (PTCE) d’Ancenis : quels impacts pour le territoire ?

Communication et organisation

, 50, 61–76, doi: 10.4000/communicationorganisation.5351.

Bouba-Olga, O. and Grossetti, M. (2008). Socio-économie de proximité.

Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine

, 3, 311–328.

Bouba-Olga, O. and Grossetti, M. (2018). La mythologie CAME (Compétitivité, Attractivité, Métropolisation, Excellence) : comment s’en désintoxiquer ? [Online]. Available at:

https://hal.science/hal-01724699v2/document

.

Bourgeois, L. (2008).

Solidarité : l’idée de solidarité et ses conséquences

. Édition Au Bord de l’Eau, Paris [Original published 1896].

Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., Stone, M.M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross‐sector collaborations: Needed and challenging.

Public Administration Review

, 75(5), 647–663.

Bucolo, E., Fontaine, G., Defalvard, H. (2020).

Territoires solidaires en commun : les antiactes d’un colloque inédit

. Les Éditions de l’Atelier, Ivry-sur-Seine.

Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method.

Sociological Theory

, 16(1), 4–33.

Cargo, M. and Mercer, S.L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice.

Annual Review of Public Health

, 29, 325–350.

Chabaud, D., Eynaud, P., Raulet-Croset, N. (2023). How does solidarity develop in a space? The case of a coworking space for solidarity entrepreneurs.

Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels

, 75, 101–126.

Chabaud, D., Pratlong, F., Baudet, S. (2024). L’entrepreneuriat de territoire : construire l’action locale pour répondre aux défis.

Entreprendre & Innover

, 58(59), 5–14.

Chevalier, J.M. and Buckles, D.J. (2019).