archive

Archives de Tag: James Rosenau

Some “new” governance models in Europe and the United States

18 janvier 2019
Democracy
Poster un commentaire

Washington, 5 November 2018

We live in an age where populism, as both a totalitarian and a Manichean political attitude [1], is becoming more established on both sides of the Atlantic. An age, also, in which there is a proliferation of democratic innovations attempting to address the issues of the 21st century and the crises in representation and delegation. The question of public confidence in institutions is key, but it is based, first and foremost, on the way in which these issues should be resolved and, therefore, on the mechanisms that allow this to happen. In this respect, questioning governance in terms of its relationship with the law, as the World Bank and the World Academy of Art and Science are doing, makes sense, particularly in as turbulent a context as the one we live in today [2]. It seems that each piece of data, each reality, each fact and each change is doubted, challenged or even disputed. Individualism and the restricted thought communities in which some people seem to isolate themselves permanently prohibit any critical dialogue, permitting instead all forms of intellectual or cybernetic manipulation. Memory fades and the horizon becomes more limited, rendering any view fundamentally myopic. In an age of fake news [3], combined with superficial perspectives, all information, and also all knowledge, seems fragile and shifting. Yet, as a historian and Yale professor Timothy Snyder rightly pointed out, if there is no truth, there can be no trust, and nothing new appears in a human vacuum [4].

The democratic innovations are clearly here to fill this vacuum, by restoring meaning to collective action in which the involvement of each individual is recognised and by empowering citizens and politicians. The Destree Institute’s Wallonia Policy Lab – the Brussels Area Node for the Millennium Project – has been involved in these innovations in conjunction with the Parliament of Wallonia, based on an experiment which was launched in 1994 and which ended in 2017 and 2018, with citizens’ panels held within the parliamentary precinct itself, in dialogue with deputies and ministers. We are dealing here with the processes highlighted by Professor Archon Fung [5] which he calls “empowered deliberation” or “empowered participatory governance”, which enable officials and citizens to address complex and volatile governance issues to try and resolve them jointly [6].

In addressing some “new” governance models in Europe and the United States, we will firstly review the definition of the concept and the organisation of its models in three spheres. We will then move on to examine six mutations which have influenced and developed this model, before turning our attention to a 21st-century form of governance, as advocated by the Committee of Experts on Public Administration in the United Nations Economic and Social Council which, during its 2018 session, proposed a form of governance for Agenda 2030.

 

 1. The governance models

Behind the concept of governance, as we will use it here, lies an old idea reflecting the political science of social administration, and a more modern concept, stemming from the end of the 1980s, which represents an effort to reinvent a management model through dynamic organisation of the actors and stakeholders. This model has a history, which we will not elaborate on here, but which has its roots in the process of decolonisation and advancement of human rights and in the efforts, particularly by the United Nations and the related institutions, to shape new countries or even a new world [7].

 

1.1. Towards a definition of the concept of governance

In 1991, in a Report by the Council of the Club of Rome entitled The First Global Revolution, Alexander King (1909-2007) and Bertrand Schneider (born in 1929) use the term “governance” to denote the command mechanism of a social system (and its actions), which endeavours to provide security, prosperity, coherence, order and continuity to the system. This concept necessarily embraces the ideology of the system, which may (democratic) or may not (authoritarian) define means for the effective consideration of the public will and the accountability of those authorities. It also includes the structure of the government of the system, its policies and its procedures. Some might even say that governance is the means to provide a stable equilibrium between the various centres of power [8].

The British successor to Aurelio Peccei as President of the Club of Rome, and the French Secretary General of that organisation which was founded in 1968, note that the concept of governance, in the broadest sense, should not be reserved for national or international systems but should be used for regional, provincial and local governments and for other social systems such as education, defence, private enterprise and even the family microcosm [9]. Thus, governance includes the government and also any actor who uses the command mechanisms to articulate demand, formulate objectives, disseminate guidelines and monitor policies [10]. As the political scientist and futurist James Rosenau (1924-2011) indicates, in this fragmented world of ours, all these many and varied actors are of no less importance in the governance process than government policies. However, Rosenau, a professor at George Washington University, qualifies the idea of “command mechanism” found in the Club of Rome’s definition, preferring instead the concept of “control or steering mechanism”, which brings the concept closer to its etymological origin [11].

Steven Rosell, a Canadian researcher at the Institute for Research on Public Policy who was himself inspired by the works of the American diplomat and professor Harlan Cleveland (1918-2000) [12], offers a definition of governance that takes account of these aspects when he writes: the process of governance is the process whereby an organization or a society steers itself, adding that the dynamics of communication and control are central to that process. While the role of government is and remains central to the process of governance, in the information society more and more players, voluntary organisations, interest groups, the private sector, the media and so on – become involved in that process [13].

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has set itself the goal of advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources that help people build a better life. In its second annual report, in 1991, the UNDP suggests that underdevelopment originates from a lack of political accountability rather than a lack of funding. Since 1992, the term “governance”, combined with the democratisation of State management, has appeared in the Global Report on Human Development [14]. The UNDP, which was a co-author, defined good governance as the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. Governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, mediate their differences and exercise their legal rights and obligations. Good governance has many attributes. It is participatory, transparent and accountable. It is effective in making the best use of resources and is equitable. And it promotes the rule of law [15].

We are aware of the World Bank’s role in disseminating the concept of “good governance” as a public management model – developing accounting control to tackle corruption, building legal frameworks to promote the establishment of international free enterprise, a mechanism for decentralising services, etc. [16] The Washington institution was also at the forefront in terms of defining institutional governance:

We define governance broadly as the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, and (3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them [17]. We see the operational side of this definition for the World Bank, a definition which also includes a range of indicators that help to explain these various aspects of governance [18].

Other definitions have been developed over time, including those of the European Commission, the OECD and various countries. In its White Paper in 2001, the European Commission indicates that governance means rules, processes and behaviour that affect the way in which they are exercised at European level, particularly as regards openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence [19].

As the political scientists have demonstrated, governance is a descriptive label used to highlight the changing nature of the political process over the past few decades. This concept alerts us to the ever-increasing diversity of areas and actors involved in the development of public policies. It takes into account all the actors and all the areas outside the executive framework of the policy development process [20]. The key element in both understanding and promoting governance is probably the notion of stakeholders of the particular policy or issue, which turns such parties into potential actors [21]. Whether they are engaged in action or in campaigning, it is through such involvement that actors find the legitimacy of participating in the governance of the defined territory. As for the public sector, such involvement may offer it a new opportunity to rethink its role and, consequently, a new vitality [22].

Lester Salamon, professor at John Hopkins University, has highlighted the new governance paradigm by demonstrating the transition between, on the one hand, traditional public administration based on programmes, agencies, hierarchy, public-private sector antagonism, command and control mechanisms and skills-based management, and, on the other, governance based on new tools, network logic, a constructive relationship between the public and private sectors, negotiation and persuasion and development of skills [23].

This comparison is consistent with others, particularly that between the Weberian Bureaucratic State and the Postmodern State, between government and governance, drawn up by Richards and Smith in 2002 and developed by Michael Hill [24].

diapositive1

 1.2. The three spheres of governance

The UNDP model structures the State, the private sector and civil society as three spheres of governance based on a specific division of tasks.

– The role of the State and its three powers – legislative, judiciary and executive (public services and the military) – is to create a political and legal environment and climate conducive to human development by defending interests for the public good. It is the State’s responsibility to ensure law enforcement, maintain order and security, create a national identity and vision, define a public policy and programmes, generate revenues for public services and infrastructures, draw up and implement its budget and regulate and stimulate the market.

– The private sector which, from the smallest business to the largest, grows within the market, creates and provides goods and services, along with jobs and revenues for citizens. This commercial sector is not linked to a specific territory, yet it is an element of regional development.

diapositive3

Three spheres of governance

– The private sector which, from the smallest business to the largest, grows within the market, creates and provides goods and services, along with jobs and revenues for citizens. This commercial sector is not linked to a specific territory, yet it is an element of regional development.

– Civil society, which comprises all citizens, who may be organised through non-governmental organisations, professional organisations, religious associations, women’s associations, cultural or community associations, etc., facilitates political and social interaction, particularly by mobilising groups of citizens to participate in economic, social and political activities and express a range of dynamic and varied opinions [25].

Although it makes the system easier to understand, this arrangement of the three spheres of governance does not diminish the complexity of the system. Thus, it reveals the following seven types of relationships which remain common:

– the relationship between governments and markets;

– the relationship between governments and citizens;

– the relationship between governments and the voluntary or private sectors;

– the relationship between (elected) politicians and (appointed) civil servants;

– the relationship between local government institutions and residents in towns and rural areas;

– the relationship between the legislative and the executive;

– the relationship between the Nation State and the international institutions ([26]).

In its analysis, the UNDP points out that none of the three spheres is solely responsible for good governance and cannot own it by itself. Good governance extends beyond the functions of each sphere and is a matter for their meetings and interactions. As G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Director of the Improved Management & Governance Division of the UNDP, writes, it is first and foremost a question of promoting interaction between these three spheres. The actors involved at the point where the State, the private sector and civil society meet are the keys to governance [27].

Thus, from the experience of international cooperation, globalisation and economic interdependence, it is possible to derive this approach to governance, which can be seen as a process of coordinating actors, social groups and institutions that produce compromises and political and social consensus on achieving specific goals – which are discussed and defined collectively – in fragmented and uncertain environments. This view of the concept clearly addresses the issue of the State’s role in the organisation of society. Although it radically alters the nature of the relationship between citizens and State, the governance model cannot replace the function of government. We are dealing here with a complementary approach, which involves the decision-makers and increases their expectation of collective action by relying on the other pillars of society.

We can see this in the convergence between the various definitions of the concept of governance and the issue of the position of civil society, while the capacity of civil society to enter into a global dialogue with the political sphere is central to the revitalisation of democracy and the rehabilitation of politics. The key element in both understanding and promoting governance is probably the notion of stakeholders of the particular policy or issue, which turns such parties into potential actors. It is through their action or campaigning that actors find the legitimacy of participating in the political and social arena. As for the public sector, and particularly the government, such involvement may offer it a new opportunity to rethink its role and, consequently, a new vitality [28]. Indeed, politics retains its rightful place in the new model. Its own, new political vision leads it into the heart of the system, as a facilitator and organiser of the debate and of the decisions being taken between actors. In this respect, it appears to be the mastermind, like the State [29].

2. Six mutations that influence governance

At a particular moment in history – in the early 1990s –, a search for a new equilibrium was launched between market, political and civil society actors. It may be that the third of these served to complement the first two, to try and correct the excessive pendulum swing caused by the neoliberal deregulation introduced by Reaganism and Thatcherism. Economic and civil society actors have also been able to join forces in developing countries to maintain cohesion mismanaged by discredited regimes, and have therefore been parties at the international level. The same geopolitical causes that put an end to the bipolarity of the world clearly had an effect on ideologies. Their erosion, and even their partial or total discrediting, no doubt contributed to the development or consolidation of the individualist vision that marks the supremacy of personal sovereignty over state sovereignty and reconnects with the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment and the social contract. This individualism, in which the individual is not created for the State, but rather the State is created for the individual, is emerging as a significant trend in contemporary society.

In parallel, and faced with increased globalisation, the key players are operating increasingly at the international level and are, themselves, structuring the political and social arena [30]. The European Union is a good example of a public actor, as are multinational businesses and organisations such as Google, Uber, Greenpeace and the Millennium Project.

We wanted to highlight at least six mutations that influence governance, before examining how they influence our model: (1) The Knowledge Revolution (2) the transition to sustainable development, (3) the new social trifunctionality, (4) open government, (5) the conservative and populist zeitgeist, and (6) the increasing influence of businesses.

2.1. The Knowledge Revolution

There is no need to dwell on this mutation, except to point out that it is a single trajectory which originates in the Information Revolution of the 1970s, the communication highways, the cognitive revolution, the knowledge society, the digital revolution, the internet, the genome, robotics, artificial intelligence, etc.: all these transformations, these waves of technological and societal innovations, stem from the same dynamic. This structure of structural change leads us collectively towards something else whose magnitude we have barely perceived. One of the major results is clearly the higher levels of education among citizens and the significant increase in the number of intellectuals, defined as individuals who are engaged in critical thought, supported by research and reflection on society, and who offer solutions to address its normative problems. Unlike the far too negative perception people have of it, social media is a source of training and education for many. The internet, meanwhile, contains a considerable amount of information and knowledge which helps to train citizens. Social media is producing a multitude of new tools for building communities and promoting a more deliberative and more participatory democracy, even if its harmful effects cannot be denied. As early as 1974, in The Coming of Post-industrial Society, the sociologist Daniel Bell dedicated a chapter to this key issue question: who will lead? [31]

2.2. The transition to sustainable development

This transition, which also began at the end of the 1960s with increasing awareness of the limits imposed on growth, grew very (too) slowly through the various reports produced, above all, by the United Nations, scientists, NGOs of all kinds, political parties, States and, now, businesses. Nearly all accepted the notion that sustainable development is a systemic dynamic and a quest for harmony, as advocated in the Brundtland Report in 1987. The implementation of Agenda 2030 and the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted by heads of state and governments at the Special United Nations Summit of 25 September 2015, shares this systemic aspect and takes account of the critical need to save the planet and the urgency of climate change [32], highlighted further in the IPCC report of October 2018 [33].

2.3. The new social trifunctionality

It was the anthropologist and religious historian Georges Dumézil (1898-1986) who showed, through his work on ancient myths, how societies of Indo-European origin organise human activity based on a trifunctional approach. He consistently describes three functions in the societies studied. These are exercised as separate, hierarchical powers: a religion and sovereignty function, a military function and a production and reproduction function [34]. Thus, after the Aristotelian model [35], we note the feudal system model with its three orders, described by the historian Georges Duby (1919-1996), which is based on the work of Adalbéron, bishop of Laon (1027-1030) [36], and the French Ancien Régime model with its three states, conceived by René Rémond (1918-2007) [37] but previously described by the legal scholar Charles Loyseau (1566-1627) at the beginning of the 17th century. The governance model currently in force is a continuation of this trifunctionality, but it has the particular characteristic of seeking, as we have seen, a balance between stakeholders rather than a restrictive leadership of one party over the others.

As with all of Dumézil’s analysis, each of the models has been criticised. Take, for example, the well-known issues raised by Abbé Sieyes (1748-1836) [38] or by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) [39]. The model of governance by stakeholders has also been criticised and will be again. It has also been described as a new form of corporatism, which clearly evokes some highly charged images.

 

 2.4. Open government

Taking its inspiration from the works of the OGP (Open Government Partnership) and the OECD, open government can be conceived as a citizen-centred culture of governance that utilises innovative and sustainable tools, policies and practices to promote government transparency, responsiveness and accountability to foster stakeholders’ participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth [40]. This process is intended to lead to the co-construction of collective policies that involve all governance players (public sector, businesses, civil society, etc.) and pursue the general interest and the common good. Such initiatives have been taken by leaders said to be above politics, such as Tony Blair, Barack Obama and Emmanuel Macron, and are continuing, particularly in the action plans developed under the guidance of the OGP, such as the UK-NAP: 3rd OGP National Action Plan [41].

  

2.5. The conservative and populist zeitgeist

Whether you like him as a person or not, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his speech to the TUC (Trade Union Congress) in Brighton on 12 September 2006, perfectly captured the unease felt at that time by citizens and politicians, an unease which was still in its infancy but which would continue to grow until today. The quality of this analysis deserves a lengthy quotation.

« What has changed is the interplay between globalisation, immigration and terrorism. Suddenly we feel under threat: physically from this new terrorism that is coming onto our streets, culturally as new waves of migrants change our society, and economically because an open world economy is hastening the sharpness of competition. People feel they are working longer, but are less secure. They feel the rules are changing and they never voted to change them. They feel, in a word, powerless. This is producing a pessimism that is pervasive and fearful because there seems no way through, or at least a way under our control.

There is a debate going on which, confusingly for the politicians, often crosses traditional left/right lines and the debate is: open vs closed. Do we embrace the challenge of more open societies or build defences against it? In my judgement, we need an approach that is strong and not scared that addresses people’s anxieties but does not indulge them, and above all has the right values underpinning it. The challenge won’t be overcome by policy alone, but by a powerful case made on the basis of values, most especially those that combine liberty with justice, security with tolerance and respect for others. We have to escape the tyranny of the « or » and develop the inclusive nature of the « and ».

The answer to economic globalisation is open markets and strong welfare and public service systems, particularly those like education, which equip people for change. The answer to terrorism is measures on security and tackling its underlying causes.

The answer to concern over migration is to welcome its contribution and put a system of rules in place to control it [42].

 And Tony Blair goes on to condemn economic protectionism, isolation and nativism, the political current of opposing any new immigration:

Protectionism in the economy; isolation in world affairs; nativism within our society; all, in the end, mean weakness in the face of challenge. If we believe in ourselves we can be strong. We can overcome the challenge of global change; better, we can relish its possibilities [43].

The opposite of this open concept is clearly populism, which we mentioned at the outset. In June 2017, Anthony Zurcher, the BBC News correspondent in the United States, described this attitude and its consequences: challenging the legitimacy of elected representatives, distrusting the parliamentary system, criticising the media and a financial oligarchy that seems to run the world, along with challenging scientific evidence, particularly by maintaining a sense of confusion over certain issues: the case analysed was typical: Does Trump still think climate change is a hoax? [44]

 

 2.6. The growing influence of businesses

 The growing influence of businesses is a clearly visible reality. There is little doubt that the role of businesses is better recognised in society and that their impact on governance has increased at the global and the local level. In June 2014, alluding to integrated governance, a new governance model for sustainability, the United Nations Environment Programme observed that companies have been the engine behind the unprecedented economic growth of the past century. The big companies through their operations have managed to raise billions of people from poverty, provide employment and education opportunities and unlock the human potential for innovation and creativity [45].

If we analyse the UNDP’s ‘three spheres of governance’ model, we can already see that, in what we call the first generation (Governance Model 1.0. #1stGen), from the 1980s to the middle of the 2000s the influence of the Knowledge Revolution was already being strongly exercised over the private sector and over civil society. The transition towards sustainable development was recognised mainly within civil society, whereas the social trifunctionality model was disseminated in the public sector through the international institutions.

It seems that this pattern has evolved since the middle of the 2000s towards a second-generation governance model (Governance Model 2.0. #2nd Gen) in which sustainable development is widespread throughout all levels of the public sphere to the point of becoming the official norm. The effects of the Intelligence Revolution have continued to be felt everywhere, but they are especially extensive in the public sector, particularly through the open government movement, and particularly under the influence of Barack Obama, starting from his first term in 2009. But in a world in which knowledge is valued, a new sphere is emerging that of the world of research and universities (Academia). This represents an interface, being both autonomous and a meeting and activation point for the private, public and civil society spheres, particularly through its capacity to activate collective intelligence and its academic freedom. This new sphere is challenging the social trifunctionality model.

It could be argued that the adoption and implementation of the SDGs since 2015 represents a tangible acceleration of the transition towards sustainable development and the prospect of a new generation of governance (Governance Model 3.0. #NextGen).

diapositive4

The growing influence of businesses may, in this key area of the SDGs which are the primary focus of their societal responsibility, provide valuable support, especially since awareness of sustainability in the business world has increased considerably and the resources available to public “authorities” are effectively eroded. Nevertheless, the conservative and populist zeitgeist which is disrupting the public sector and civil society may have some annoying effects, namely blocking or confusing the information and communication flows.

The impacts on the actors in governance of the six mutations in progress can be summarised in the following table.

diapositive5

 

 3. Governance for Agenda 2030?

The United Nations Committee of Experts in Public Administration (CEPA), set up by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 2001, is composed of 24 members who meet every year at the UN headquarters in New York. The Committee supports the work of ECOSOC to promote the development of effective public administration and quality governance among Member States, particularly in the context of Agenda 2030, in support of the implementation and evaluation of progress in achieving the sustainable development goals. CEPA updates ECOSOC on the various aspects of governance and public administration of sustainable socio-economic development. Its particular focus is on topics relating to development of human capital, participatory governance, development of skills in countries experiencing crises or emerging from conflict, and on the various innovations in public administration and governance.

At its 17th session, which was held in New York in April 2018, the CEPA worked on the subject of preparing public institutions for the implementation of the SDGs (Readying public institutions for implementation of the SDGs). CEPA put forward recommendations on three issues it considered fundamental: firstly, preparing institutions and politicians with a view to ensuring the implementation of the sustainable development programme by 2030, then the implementation, at all levels, of efficient, responsible institutions that are open to anybody, and, finally, measures aimed at strengthening the institutions and giving them the necessary resources to transform societies and make them viable and resilient. Based on its earlier work, CEPA drew up a set of principles of effective governance to support the urgent and total achievement of all the sustainable development goals.

3.1. Effectiveness

3.1.1. Competence: to perform their functions effectively, institutions are to have sufficient expertise, resources and tools to deal adequately with the mandates under their authority (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of a professional public sector workforce, leadership development and training civil servant, financial management and control, investment in e-governement, etc.).

3.1.2. Sound policymaking: to achieve their intended results, public policies are to be coherent with one another and founded on true or well-established grounds, in full accordance with fact, reason and good sense (commonly used strategies such as: strategic planning and foresight, strengthening national statistical systems, risk management frameworks, data sharing, etc.).

3.1.3. Collaboration: to address problems of common interest, institutions at all levels of government and in all sectors should work together and jointly with non-State actors towards the same end, purpose and effect (commonly used strategies such as: centre of government coordination under the Head of State of Government, collaboration, coordination, integration and dialogue across levels of government and functional areas, raising awareness of the SDG, network-based governance, multi-stakeholder partnerships etc.).

3.2. Accountability

3.2.1. Integrity: to serve in the public interest, civil servants are to discharge their official duties honestly, fairly and in a manner consistent with soundness of moral principle (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of anti-corruption policies, practices and bodies, codes of conduct for public officials, elimination of bribery and trading in influence, conflict of interest policies, whistle-blower protection, provision of adequate remuneration and equitable pay scales for public servants, etc.).

3.2.2. Transparency: to ensure accountability and enable public scrutiny, institutions are to be open and candid in the execution of their functions and promote access to information, subject only to the specific and limited exceptions as are provided by law (commonly used strategies such as: proactive disclosure of information, budget transparency, open government data, registries of beneficial ownership, lobby registries, etc.).

3.2.3. Independent oversight: to retain trust in government, oversight agencies are to act according to strictly professional considerations and apart from and unaffected by others (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of the independence of regulatory agencies, arrangements for a review of administrative decisions by courts or other bodies, independent audit, respect for legality, etc.).

3.3. Inclusiveness

3.3.1. Leaving no one behind: to ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality, public policies are to take into account the needs and aspirations of all segments of society, including the poorest and most vulnerable and those subject to discrimination (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of equitable fiscal and monetary policy, promotion of social equity, data disaggregation, systematic follow-up and review, etc.).

3.3.2. Non discrimination: to respect, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, access to public service is to be provided on general terms of equality, without distinction of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status (commonly used strategies such as: promotion of public sector workforce diversity, prohibition of discrimination in public service delivery, multilingual service delivery, accessibility standards, cultural audit of institutions, universal birth registration, gender-responsive budgeting, etc.).

3.3.3. Participation: to have an effective State, all significant political groups should be actively involved in matters that directly affect them and have a chance to influence policy (commonly used strategies such as: free and fair elections, regulatory process of public consultation, multi-stakeholder forums, participatory budgeting, community-driven development, etc.).

3.3.4. Subsidiarity: to promote government that is responsive to the needs and aspirations of all people, central authorities should perform only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more intermediate or local level (commonly used strategies such as: fiscal federalism, strengthening urban governance, strengthening municipal finance and local finance systems, enhancement of local capacity for prevention, adaptation and mitigation of external shocks, multilevel governance, etc.).

3.3.5. Intergenerational equity: to promote prosperity and quality of life for all, institutions should construct administrative acts that balance the short-term needs of today’s generation with the longer-term needs of future generations (commonly used strategies such as: sustainable development impact assessment, long-term public debt management, long-term territorial planning and spatial development, ecosystem management, etc.) [46].

These principles of effective governance, drawn up by the UN CEPA to support the urgent and total achievement of all the sustainable development goals, is a genuine roadmap from which all actors in governance must be able to draw inspiration. Not only administrations and associations, as we have seen, but also citizens, businesses and researchers. Not only will the implementation of these principles contribute to increasing sustainable development and help it to achieve its goals by 2030, but they may also improve our world and our societies, here and now.

Conclusion: Rationality and Organization in Democracy

The governance models highlighted today are certainly not being advocated only for Europe and the United States. They are recommended for the entire world, but these models are enriched considerably by the work undertaken by the major international institutions, associations and foundations. Naturally, these include the Club of Rome, the UNDP, the World Bank, the ECOSOC CEPA and the Open Government Partnership. There are others, as well, such as the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the OECD.

The objective of these initiatives is, first and foremost, to improve democracy and governance. These cannot function without being organised through structured and often procedural dialogue between stakeholders. To achieve harmony, democracy also requires rationality and method [47] from citizens and politicians. Education and training are fundamentally what sustains them on a daily basis. This should never be forgotten.

Philippe Destatte

@PhD2050

 

See also : Philippe Destatte, What is Open Government?, November 7, 2017.

Direct access to PhD2050’s English Papers

 

[1] As Emiliano GROSSMAN and Nicolas SAUGER note in Pourquoi détestons-nous autant nos politiques?, p. 71-72, Paris, Presses de Science Po, 2017, populism is, if we accept the contemporary definitions of the term (including Cas MUDDE, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.), first and foremost a partial ideology (in that it does not offer a full and comprehensive explanation of the world), built around two principles: total separation between the people and the elite (the people being good, the elite being corrupt), and subjection of politics to the general will. In other words, populism is based on a negation of pluralism (the people are a homogeneous whole) and a form of Manichaeism (the people are good, the elite are evil) Our translation. – See also Colin HAY, Why we hate politics, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2007.

[2] This text is an updated version of my speech at the “Round table on Governance & Law: Challenges & Opportunities” seminar held at the World Bank in Washington at the instigation of the World Academy of Art and Science and the World University Consortium, on 5 and 6 November 2018.

[3] Although the historian recalls that rumours are not specific to the information society or the knowledge society. See François-Bertrand HUYGHE, La désinformation, les armes du faux, Paris, A. Colin, 2016. – Fake News, la Grande Peur, 2018.

[4] Timothy SNYDER, The Road to Unfreedom, Russia, Europe, America, p. 279, New York, Tim Duggan, 2018.

[5] Archon Fung is Professor of Citizenship and Governance at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

[6] Archon FUNG, Democratizing the Policy Process, in Michael MORAN, Martin REIN & Robert E. GOODIN, The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, p. 682, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008. – A. FUNG, Empowered Deliberation: Reinventing Urban Democracy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2004.

[7] See inter alia Louis EMMERIJ, Richard JOLLY, Thomas G. WEISS, Ahead of the Curve?, UN Ideas and Global Challenges, New York – Geneva, UN-Indiana University Press, 2001. – id., En avance sur leur temps?, Les idées des Nations Unies face aux défis mondiaux, p. 229sv., Blonay, Van Diermen – ADECO – Geneva, United Nations, 2003. – Thomas G. WEISS, Governance, Good Governance, and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges, Third World Quarterly 21, n°5, October 2000, p. 795-814.

[8] Alexander KING & Bertrand SCHNEIDER, The First Global Revolution, p. 114, New York-Hyderabad, Pantheon Books – Orient Longman, 1991. – It should be noted that, in the French translation of this report, which was prepared by Jacques Fontaine and published in Paris in 1991, the term governance is translated by « structures de gouvernement [structures of government]”, thus indicating that its use is France is not yet widespread. A. KING & B. SCHNEIDER, Questions de survie, La Révolution mondiale a commencé, p. 163, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1991.

[9] A. KING & B. SCHNEIDER, The First Global Revolution : A Report of the Council of Rome…, p. 181-182.

[10] James N. ROSENAU & Ernst-Otto CZEMPIEL ed., Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992. – J.N. ROSENAU, Along the Domestic Frontier, Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World, p. 145, Cambridge University Press, 1997.

[11] « Governance » is understood to come from the Greek kybenan or kybernetes (as in cybernetics), which means to steer or control. J.N. ROSENAU, Along..., p. 146.

[12] Harlan Cleveland, former United States Ambassador to NATO, president of the World Academy of Arts and Science, had himself used the term since the 1970s. – The organizations that get things done will no longer be hierarchical pyramids with most of the real control at the top. They will be systems—interlaced webs of tension in which control is loose, power diffused, and centers of decision plural. “Decision-making” will become an increasingly intricate process of multilateral brokerage both inside and outside the organization which thinks it has the responsibility for making, or at least announcing, the decision. Because organizations will be horizontal, the way they are governed is likely to be more collegial, consensual, and consultative. The bigger the problems to be tackled, the more real power is diffused and the larger the number of persons who can exercise it — if they work at it. Harlan CLEVELAND, The Future Executive: A Guide for Tomorrow’s Managers, p. 13, New York, Harper & Row, 1972.

[13] Steven A. ROSELL ea, Governing in an Information Society, p. 21, Montréal, Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1992.

[14] UNDP and governance, Experiences and Lessons Learned, UNDP, Management Development and Governance, Lessons-Learned, Series, n°1, p. 9. – Richard Jolly, Director General of Unicef, special advisor to the UNDP Administrator and the driving force behind the Human Development Report, and the conference entitled Good governance and democratisation: the role of the international organisations, Ottawa, United Nations Association in Canada (UNA-Canada), 16 and 17 October 1997. – Une nouvelle gouvernance mondiale au service de l’humanité et de l’équité, dans Rapports mondial sur le développement humain 1999, p. 97-123, New-York, UNDP – Paris-Brussels, De Boeck-Larcier, 1999.

[15] G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Politique et gouvernance du PNUD : cadre conceptuel et coopération au développement, http://www.unac.org/français/activites/gouvernance/partieun.html 17/02/02. Shabbir CHEEMA directeur de la Division du Renforcement de la Gestion et de la Gouvernance au PNUD. – Another definition given by the UNDP is that of Public Sector Management, which dates from 1995: governance or public management encompasses the direct and indirect management by the state of public affairs and regulatory control of private activities that impinge on human affairs. Governance can best be understood in terms of three major components: first, the form of political authority that exists in a country (parliamentary or presidential, civilian or military, and autocratic or democratic; second, the means through which authority is exercised in the management of economic and social resources; and third, the ability of governments to discharge government functions effectively , efficiently, and equitably through the design, formulation, and implementation of sound policies. dans Public Sector Management, Governance, and Sustainable Human Development, Discussion Paper 1, Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, p. 19, New-York, United Nations Development Programme, 1995. – In 1997, a new study by the Management Development & Governance Division, prefaced by G. Shabbir Cheema, gave a very similar definition to the one presented in Ottawa: Governance can be seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. it comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. In Governance for sustainable human development, A UNDP policy document, p. 3, New-York, United Nations Development Programme, 1997.

[16] See, for example: J. ISHAM, Daniel KAUFMANN & Lant PRITCHETT, Governance and Returns on Investment, Washington, The World Bank, 1995. – Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries, Washington, The World Bank, 1996. – Francis NG and Alexander YEATS, Good Governance and Trade Policy, Are They the Keys to Africa’s Global Integration and Growth? Washington, The World Bank, 10 November 1998. – Michael WOOLCOCK, Globalization, Governance and Civil Society, DECRG Policy Research on Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Facts, Fears, and Agenda for Action, Background Paper, Washington, The World Bank, 10 August 2001.

[17] We define governance broadly as the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the governement to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, and (3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. Daniel KAUFMANN, Aart KRAAY & Pablo ZOIDO-LOBATON, Governance Matters, Washington, World Bank, 1999. http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance. 16/02/02. Daniel KAUFMANN, Aart KRAAY & Pablo ZOIDO-LOBATON, Gestion des Affaires publiques, De l’évaluation à l’action, dans Finances et Développement, June 2000, p. 1.

[18] Daniel KAUFMANN, Aart KRAAY & Pablo ZOIDO-LOBATON, Aggregating Governance Indicators, Washington, World Bank, 1999. http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance. 16/02/2002.

[19] Governance means rules, processes and behavior that affect the way in which they are exercised at European level, particularly as regards openess, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. European Governance, A White Paper, July 25, 2001, p. 8.

[20] David RICHARDS & Martin SMITH, Governance and the Public Policy in the UK, p. 2, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.

[21] La société civile et l’OCDE, in Synthèses, Paris, OCDE, December 2001, p. 1.

[22] Lester M. SALAMON, The Tools Approach and the New Governance: Conclusion and Implications, in Lester M. SALAMON, The Tools of Government, A Guide to the New Governance, p. 600-610 , New-York, Oxford University Press, 2002.

[23] L. M. SALAMON, The Tools of Government… p. 9, 2002.

[24] David RICHARDS & Martin J. SMITH, Governance and Public Policy in the UK, p. 36, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002. – Michaël HILL, The Public Policy Process, p. 21, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited, 5th ed, 2009.

[25] G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Politique et gouvernance du PNUD: cadre conceptuel et coopération au développement…, p. 10. – Governance includes the state, but transcends it by taking in the private sector and civil society. All three are critical for sustaining human development. The state creates a conducive political and legal environment. The private sector generates jobs and income. And civil society facilitates political and social interaction – mobilising groups to participate in economic, social and political activities. Because each has weaknesses and strengths, a major objective of our support for good governance is to promote constructive interaction among all three. Governance for Sustainable Human Development, A UNDP Policy Document, United Nations Development Programme, January 1997.

[26] Sam AGERE, Promoting Good Governance, Principles, Practices and Perspectives, p. 1, London, Commonwealth Secretariat, Management and Training Services Division, 2000.

[27] G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Politique et gouvernance du PNUD: cadre conceptuel et coopération au développement…, p. 10.

[28] La société civile et l’OCDE, in Synthèses, Paris, OCDE, December 2001, p. 1.

[29] Philippe DELMAS, La maître des horloges, Modernité de l’action publique, Paris, Odile Jacobs, 1991.

[30] M. HILL, The Public Policy Process…, p. 20.

[31] Daniel BELL, The Coming of Post-industrial Society, p. 339, London, Heinemann, 1974.

[32] Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E

[33] Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC approved by governments, 8 October 2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

[34] Georges DUMEZIL, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, Paris, Gallimard, 1941.

[35] ARISTOTLE, Ethique à Nicomaque (349 ANC), p. 43sv, Paris, Vrin, 1997.

[36] Georges DUBY, The Three Orders, Feudal Society Imagined, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1980.

[37] René REMOND, L’Ancien Régime et la Révolution, p. 64sv., Paris, Seuil, 1974.

[38] Emmanuel Joseph SIEYES, Qu’est-ce que le Tiers état? (1789), Paris, Editions du Boucher, 2002.

[39] K. MARX & F. ENGELS, Manifesto of The Communist Party (1847).

[40] OECD, Open Governement, The Global context and the way forward, p. 19, Paris, OECD Publishing, 2016. – In November 2017, the OECD published this work in French, using the following definition: a culture of governance that is based on innovative, sustainable policies and practices inspired by principles of transparency, accountability and participation to promote democracy and inclusive growth. OECD, Gouvernement ouvert: Contexte mondial et perspectives, Editions OCDE, Paris. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264280984-fr

[41] Policy paper, UK Open Government National Action Plan 2016-18, 12 May 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-open-government-national-action-plan-2016-18/uk-open-government-national-action-plan-2016-18

[42] Full Text of Tony Blair’s Speech to the TUC (Trade Union Congress), Brighton, Sept. 12, 2006. in The Guardian, 12 sept. 2006. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/sep/12/tradeunions.speeches

[43] Ibidem.

[44] Anthony ZURCHER, Does Trump still think climate change is a hoax ? BBC News, June 2, 2017.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40128034

[45] Companies have been the engine behind the unprecedented economic growth of the past century. The big companies through their operations have managed to raise billions of people from poverty, provide employment and education opportunities and unlock the human potential for innovation and creativity. Integrated Governance, A New Model of Governance for Sustainability, p. 8, United Nations Environment Programme, June 2014.

[46] UN, Committee of Experts on Public Administration, Report on the Seveneenth Session (23-27 April 2018), p. 18-21, New York, Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 2018, Supplement N°24. E/2018/44-E/C.16/2018/8.

[47] We are thinking, in particular, of issues relating to mutual adjustment in developing policies. See Philippe ZITTOUN, La fabrique des politiques publiques, Une approche pragmatique de l’action publique, p. 201sv, Paris, Presses de Science Po, 2013.

De « nouveaux » modèles de gouvernance démocratique (1)

9 janvier 2019
Démocratie, Développement durable, Innovation
Poster un commentaire

Hour-en-Famenne, le 30 décembre 2018

Nous sommes à une époque où le populisme, comme attitude politique à la fois totalitaire et manichéenne [1], continue à faire son nid des deux côtés de l’Atlantique. Une époque aussi dans laquelle les innovations démocratiques se multiplient pour tenter de répondre aux défis du XXIe siècle, aux crises de la représentation et de la délégation. La question de la confiance que les citoyennes et les citoyens portent aux institutions est essentielle, mais elle repose avant tout sur la manière de résoudre ces défis et donc sur les mécanismes qui le permettent. En cela, interroger la gouvernance dans ses rapports avec la Loi, comme l’ont fait dernièrement la Banque mondiale et l’Académie mondiale des Arts et des Sciences (World Academy of Art and Science) a tout son sens, particulièrement dans un contexte aussi perturbé que celui du monde dans lequel nous vivons [2]. Chaque donnée, chaque réalité, chaque fait, chaque évolution semble y être soumis à caution, remis en cause, contesté même. L’individualisme et les communautés restreintes de pensées dans lesquelles certains s’enferment comme définitivement interdisent tout dialogue critique, mais permettent, au contraire toutes les manipulations intellectuelles ou cybernétiques. La mémoire se tarit au même titre que l’horizon se restreint, rendant tout regard fondamentalement myope. À l’heure des fake news ou des infox [3], combinées à la légèreté des regards, toute information, mais aussi toute connaissance paraît fragile et mouvante. Or, comme le rappelait justement l’historien Timothy Snyder, professeur à Yale, s’il n’y a pas de vérité, il ne peut y avoir de confiance et rien de nouveau n’apparaît dans un vide humain [4].

Les innovations démocratiques sont évidemment là pour combler ce vide. En retrouvant du sens à l’action collective où l’implication de chacune et de chacun est reconnue. Par l’encapacitation (empowerment) aussi, tant des citoyen-ne-s que des élu-e-s. Le Wallonia Policy Lab de l’Institut Destrée – Nœud de l’Aire de Bruxelles du Millennium Project – a participé à ces innovations au côté du Parlement de Wallonie, sur base d’une expérience construite depuis 1994 et aboutie en 2017 et 2018 avec des panels citoyens organisés au sein même de l’enceinte parlementaire, en dialogue avec les députés et les ministres. On se situe ici dans ces processus valorisés par le Professeur Archon Fung [5] et qu’il nomme « délibération responsabilisée » (Empowered Deliberation) ou de « gouvernance participative renforcée » (Empowered Participatory Governance), qui permettent aux officiels et aux citoyens d’aborder des questions de gestion publique complexes et volatiles pour tenter de les résoudre ensemble [6].

Abordant quelques « nouveaux » modèles de gouvernance en Europe et aux États-Unis, nous reviendrons dans un premier temps sur la définition du concept, l’organisation de ses modèles en trois sphères. Dans un deuxième temps, nous examinerons six mutations qui ont affecté et fait évolué ce modèle, avant de jeter un regard sur une gouvernance du XXIe siècle, telle que préconisée par le Comité des Experts sur l’Administration publique du Conseil économique et social des Nations Unies qui, lors de sa session 2018 a proposé une gouvernance pour l’Agenda 2030.

Derrière le concept de gouvernance, tel que nous l’emploierons ici, réside à la fois une idée vieille comme la science politique de gestion de la cité, ainsi qu’une conception plus moderne, née fin des années 1980, qui constitue un effort de renouveler un modèle de pilotage par une organisation dynamique des acteurs et des parties prenantes. Ce modèle a une histoire, que nous ne développerons pas ici, mais qui trouve notamment ses origines dans le processus de décolonisation, de valorisation des droits humains ainsi que des efforts, notamment menés par les Nations Unies et les institutions qui y sont liées, pour concevoir de nouveaux pays, voire un monde nouveau [7].

 

1. Vers une définition du concept de gouvernance

En 1991, dans un Rapport du Conseil du Club de Rome intitulé The First Global Revolution, Alexander King (1909-2007) et Bertrand Schneider (né en 1929) utilisent le terme «gouvernance» pour désigner le mécanisme de commande d’un système social (et de ses actions), qui vise à assurer la sécurité, la prospérité, la cohérence, l’ordre et la continuité du système. Ce concept englobe nécessairement l’idéologie du système, qui peut (en système démocratique) ou non (en système autoritaire) définir les moyens de prendre en compte de manière efficace la volonté publique et l’imputabilité de ces autorités. Il comprend également la structure du gouvernement du système, ses politiques et procédures. On pourrait même dire que la gouvernance est le moyen de fournir un équilibre stable entre les divers centres de pouvoir [8].

Le successeur britannique d’Aurelio Peccei à la présidence du Club de Rome, ainsi que le secrétaire général français de cette organisation fondée en 1968 notent que, pris au sens large, le concept de gouvernance ne doit pas être réservé aux systèmes nationaux ou internationaux, mais qu’il doit être utilisé tant pour les gouvernements régionaux, provinciaux et locaux, que pour d’autres systèmes sociaux comme l’éducation, la défense, les entreprises privées et même le microcosme de la famille [9]. Ainsi, la gouvernance inclut le gouver­nement, mais aussi tout acteur qui a recours aux mécanismes de commande pour exprimer la demande, formuler les objectifs, distribuer les directives et assumer le suivi des politiques [10]. Comme l’indique le politologue et prospectiviste James Rosenau (1924-2011), dans le monde fragmenté qui est le nôtre, l’ensemble de ces acteurs très variés et très nombreux n’ont pas moins d’impor­tance dans le processus de gouvernance que ne le sont les politiques des gouver­nements. Le professeur à la George Washington University nuance toutefois l’idée de « mécanisme de commande » (command mechanism) de la définition du Club de Rome pour lui préférer le concept de « mécanisme de contrôle » ou « mécanisme de conduite » (control or steering mechanism), ce qui rapproche le concept de son origine étymologique [11].

La définition de la gouvernance que donne Steven Rosell, lui-même inspiré par les travaux du diplomate et professeur américain Harlan Cleveland (1918-2008) [12], tient compte de ces dimensions lorsque le chercheur canadien à l’Institute for Research on Public Policy écrit : le processus de gouvernance est le processus par lequel une organisation ou une société se conduit elle-même, ajoutant que les dynamiques de commu­nication et de contrôle sont centrales dans ce processus. Alors que le rôle du gouvernement est et reste central dans le processus de gouvernance, dans la société de l’information, de plus en plus d’acteurs, d’organisations volontaires, de groupes d’intérêts, le secteur privé, les médias, etc., deviennent impliqués dans ce processus [13].

Le Programme des Nations Unies pour le Dévelop­pement (PNUD) s’est donné comme vocation de plaider en faveur du changement et de relier les pays aux connaissances, à l’expérience et aux ressources nécessaires pour aider les populations à améliorer leur vie. Dès son deuxième rapport annuel, en 1991, le PNUD avance l’idée que le sous-développement trouve davantage son origine dans un déficit de responsabilité politique que dans un défaut de financement. Depuis 1992, le terme de « gouvernance » associé à la démocratisation de la gestion de l’État figure dans le Rapport mondial sur le Développement humain [14]. Initiateur, lui aussi, le PNUD a défini la bonne gouvernance comme l’exercice d’une autorité publique, économique et administrative aux fins de gérer les affaires d’un pays à tous les niveaux. La gouvernance comprend les mécanismes, processus et institutions complexes à travers lesquels les citoyens et les groupes articulent leurs intérêts, concilient leurs différences et exercent leurs droits et obligations juridiques. La bonne gouvernance a de nombreux attributs. Elle est participative, transparente et responsable. Elle permet d’utiliser au mieux les ressources et est équitable. Et elle promeut la règle de droit [15].

On sait le rôle joué par la Banque mondiale dans la diffusion du concept de « bonne gouvernance » comme modèle de gestion publique ‑ développement du contrôle comptable permettant la lutte contre la corruption, construction de cadres juridiques favorisant l’implantation de la libre entreprise internationale, mécanisme de décen­tralisation des services, etc. [16] L’institution de Washington a également été pionnière en matière de définition de la gouvernance institutionnelle :

Nous définissons la « gouvernance » au sens large comme les traditions et les institutions au travers desquelles s’exerce l’autorité dans un pays. Cela englobe (1) le processus par lequel les gouvernants sont choisis, contrôlés et remplacés (2) la capacité du gouvernement à formuler et mettre en œuvre efficacement de saines politiques (3) le respect des citoyens et de l’État pour les institutions qui régissent les interactions économiques et sociales entre eux [17]. On voit le côté opératoire de cette définition pour la Banque mondiale, définition d’ailleurs assortie d’une batterie d’indicateurs permettant d’éclairer ces différents aspects de la gouvernance [18].

D’autres définitions ont été élaborées au fil du temps. On peut penser à la Commission européenne, à l’OCDE ou aux différents pays. Dans son Livre blanc de 2001, la Commission européenne indique que la gouvernance désigne les règles, processus et comportements qui affectent la manière dont ils sont exercés au niveau européen, notamment en ce qui concerne l’ouverture, la participation, la responsabilité, l’efficacité et la cohérence [19].

Ainsi que l’ont montré les chercheurs en science politique, la gouvernance est une étiquette descriptive utilisée pour souligner le changement de nature du processus politique au cours des dernières décennies. Ce concept nous sensibilise à la diversité toujours croissante de terrains et d’acteurs impliqués dans l’élaboration des politiques publiques. Il prend en compte tous les acteurs et tous les territoires au-delà du cadre exécutif du processus d’élaboration des politiques [20]. L’élément clef de la compréhension tout comme de la valorisation de la gouvernance réside probablement dans la notion de parties prenantes de la politique ou de l’enjeu déterminé, qui fait de cette partie un acteur potentiel [21]. Qu’il agisse ou qu’il s’agite, l’acteur trouve dans ce mouvement, dans cette action, la légitimité de s’inscrire dans la gouvernance du territoire défini. Quant au secteur public, il peut y découvrir une nouvelle occasion de repenser son rôle et, ainsi, une nouvelle vitalité [22].

Professeur à l’Université Johns Hopkins, Lester Salamon a mis en évidence le nouveau paradigme de la gouvernance en montrant le passage d’une administration publique classique, fondée, d’une part, sur des programmes, des agences, une hiérarchie, une opposition public – privé, des mécanismes de commande et de contrôle, un management fondé sur les compétences et, d’autre part, une nouvelle gouvernance basée sur de nouveaux outils, des logiques de réseaux, une articulation constructive du public et du privé, la négociation et la persuasion ainsi que la valorisation des compétences [23].

Cette comparaison en rejoint d’autres, notamment celle entre l’État bureaucratique wébérien et l’État postmoderne, entre gouvernement et gouvernance, élaborée par Richards et Smith en 2002 et valorisée par Michaël Hill [24].

2. Les trois sphères de la gouvernance

Le modèle du PNUD articule l’État, le secteur privé et la société civile comme trois sphères de la gouvernance suivant une répartition des tâches précise.

– L’État et ses trois pouvoirs – législatif, judiciaire, exécutif (les services publics et l’armée) – ont pour vocation de créer un environnement politique et légal ainsi qu’un climat propices au développement humain en défendant des intérêts pour le bien public. C’est à l’État de veiller au respect de la loi, au maintien de l’ordre et de la sécurité, de créer une identité et une vision nationales, de définir une politique et des programmes publics, de générer des recettes pour les services et infrastructures publics, d’élaborer et d’appliquer son budget, de réglementer et d’encourager le marché.

– Le secteur privé qui, depuis la plus petite jusqu’à la plus grande entreprise se développe à l’intérieur du marché, crée et fournit des biens et services, des emplois ainsi que des revenus pour les citoyens. Ce secteur marchand n’est pas lié à un territoire précis, mais constitue pourtant un élément de développement des territoires.

– La société civile, composée de tous les citoyens, organisés ou non au travers des organismes non gouvernementaux, des organisations professionnelles, des asso­ciations religieuses, féminines, culturelles, communautaires, etc., facilite l’interaction politique et sociale, notamment en mobilisant des groupes de citoyens pour qu’ils participent aux activités économiques, sociales et politiques et formulent quantité de points de vue dynamiques et divers [25].

Même s’il rend la lecture du système plus aisée, ce positionnement des trois sphères de la gouvernance n’enlève rien à la complexité du système. Ainsi, on peut faire apparaître ces sept types de relations qui restent communes :

– la relation entre les gouvernements et les marchés ;

– la relation entre les gouvernements et les citoyens ;

– la relation entre les gouvernements et les secteurs associatifs ou privés ;

– la relation entre élus (politiques) et nommés (fonctionnaires) ;

– la relation entre les institutions des gouvernements locaux et les habitants des villes et des campagnes ;

– la relation entre le législatif et l’exécutif ;

– la relation entre l’État-nation et les institutions internationales [26].

Dans son analyse, le PNUD souligne qu’aucun des trois domaines n’est porteur seul de la bonne gouvernance et ne pourrait la détenir par lui-même. Celle-ci se déploie, en effet, au-delà des fonctions de chacun d’eux et relève de leur rencontre et de leur interaction. Comme l’écrit le directeur de la Division du Renforcement de la Gestion et de la Gouvernance du PNUD, il s’agit avant tout de favoriser l’interaction entre ces trois sphères. Les acteurs qui se situent à la rencontre entre l’État, le secteur privé et la société civile constituent les clés de la gouvernance [27].

Ainsi peut-on tirer, au départ de l’expérience de la coopération internationale, de la globalisation et de l’interdépendance économique, cette approche de la gouvernance vue comme un processus de coordination d’acteurs, de groupes sociaux, d’institutions qui produisent des compromis, des consensus politiques et sociaux permettant d’atteindre des buts propres – discutés et définis collectivement – dans des environ­nements fragmentés et incertains. Cette façon de voir le concept permet d’aborder clairement la question de la place de l’Etat dans l’organisation de la société. Même s’il change profon­dément la nature de la relation entre les citoyens et l’État, le modèle de gouvernance ne saurait se substituer à la fonction de gouvernement. On se situe en effet ici dans une complémentarité d’approche qui interpelle les dirigeants et renforce leur attente d’action collective en s’appuyant sur les autres piliers de la société.

Conclusion : des parties prenantes et un nouveau rôle pour le politique

On le voit par la convergence entre les différentes définitions du concept de gouver­nance, la problématique du positionnement de la société civile et de sa capacité à entamer un dialogue global avec la sphère politique est au centre de la revitalisation de la démocratie et de la réhabilitation du politique. L’élément clef de la compré­hension tout comme de la valorisation de la gouvernance réside probablement dans la notion de parties prenantes de la politique ou de l’enjeu déterminé, qui fait de cette partie un acteur potentiel. L’acteur trouve dans ce mouvement, dans cette action la légitimité de s’inscrire dans l’espace politique et social. Quant au secteur public et particulièrement le gouvernement, il peut y découvrir une nouvelle occasion de repenser son rôle et, ainsi, une nouvelle vitalité [28]. En effet, le politique conserve toute sa place dans le nouveau modèle. La vision politique nouvelle qui est la sienne le mène au centre du système, comme facilitateur et organisateur du débat et du mûrissement de la décision entre les acteurs. En cela, il apparaît, comme l’État, en maître des horloges [29].

Philippe Destatte

@PhD2050

 

Prochain article : Six mutations qui impactent la gouvernance

 

[1] Comme le soulignent Emiliano GROSSMAN et Nicolas SAUGER dans Pourquoi détestons-nous autant nos politiques ?, p. 71-72, Paris, Presses de Science Po, 2017, le populisme est, si l’on reprend les définitions contemporaines du terme (notamment Cas MUDDE, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.), est avant tout une idéologie partielle (au sens ou elle ne propose pas une explication globale et complète du monde), construite autour de deux principes : la séparation complète entre le peuple et l’élite (le peuple étant bon, l’élite corrompue) ; la soumission de la politique à la volonté générale. En d’autres termes, le populisme repose sur une négation du pluralisme (le peuple est un et homogène) et une forme de manichéisme (le bien, c’est le peuple, le mal, c’est l’élite).

[2] Ce texte constitue la mise au point et la traduction de mon intervention au séminaire « Roundtable on Governance & Law: Challenges & Opportunities » organisé à la Banque mondiale à Washington, à l’initiative de la World Academy of Art and Science et du World University Consortium, les 5 et 6 novembre 2018.

[3] Même si l’historien se souvient que les rumeurs ne sont pas le propre de la société de l’information ou de la connaissance. Voir François-Bertrand HUYGHE, La désinformation, les armes du faux, Paris, A. Colin, 2016. – Fake News, la Grande Peur, VA Press, 2018.

[4] If there is no truth, there can be no trust, and nothing new appears in a human vacuum. Timothy SNYDER, The Road to Unfreedom, Russia, Europe, America, p. 279, New York, Tim Duggan, 2018.

[5] Archon Fung est professeur de Citoyenneté et de Gouvernance à la Kennedy School of Government de l’Université d’Harvard.

[6] Archon FUNG, Democratizing the Policy Process, in Michael MORAN, Martin REIN & Robert E. GOODIN, The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, p. 682, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008. – A. FUNG, Empowered Deliberation: Reinventing Urban Democracy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2004.

[7] Voir notamment Louis EMMERIJ, Richard JOLLY, Thomas G. WEISS, Ahead of the Curve ?, UN Ideas abd Global Challenges, New York -Genève, UN-Indiana University Press, 2001. – id. , En avance sur leur temps ?, Les idées des Nations Unies face aux défis mondiaux, p. 229sv., Blonay, Van Diermen – ADECO – Genève, Nations Unies, 2003. – Thomas G. WEISS, Governance, Good Governance, and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges, Third World Quaterly 21, n°5, Octobre 2000, p. 795-814.

[8] Alexander KING & Bertrand SCHNEIDER, The First Global Revolution, p. 114, New York-Hyderabad, Pantheon Books – Orient Longman, 1991. – Il faut remarquer que, dans la traduction française de ce rapport, publiée à Paris en 1991 et réalisée par Jacques Fontaine, le terme de governance est traduit par « structures de gouvernement », ce qui tend à montrer que l’usage en France n’y était pas encore généralisé. Alexander KING & Bertrand SCHNEIDER, Questions de survie, La Révolution mondiale a commencé, p. 163, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1991.

[9] Alexander KING et Bertrand SCHNEIDER, The First Global Revolution : A Report of the Council of Rome, p. 181-182, New-York, Pantheon Books, 1991.

[10] James N. ROSENAU & Ernst-Otto CZEMPIEL ed., Governance without Governement: Order and Change in World Politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992. – J. N. ROSENAU, Along the Domestic Frontier, Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World, p. 145, Cambridge University Press, 1997.

[11] « Gouvernance » viendrait du grec kybenan ou kybernetes (comme cybernétique), ce qui signifie conduire, piloter. J. N. ROSENAU, Along..., p. 146.

[12] Harlan Cleveland, ancien Ambassadeur des Etats-Unis à l’OTAN, président de la World Academy of Arts and Science avait lui-même utilisé le terme depuis les années 1970. Les organisations qui font avancer les choses ne seront plus des pyramides hiérarchiques avec la majeure partie du contrôle réel au sommet. Ce seront des systèmes – des réseaux de tension entrelacés dans lesquels le contrôle est lâche, le pouvoir diffusé et les centres de décision au pluriel. La «prise de décision» deviendra un processus de plus en plus complexe d’intermédiation multilatérale, tant à l’intérieur qu’à l’extérieur de l’organisation, qui pense avoir la responsabilité de prendre, ou du moins d’annoncer, la décision. Étant donné que les organisations seront horizontales, leur mode de gouvernance sera probablement plus collégial, consensuel et consultatif. Plus les problèmes à résoudre sont importants, plus le pouvoir réel est diffus et plus le nombre de personnes qui peuvent l’exercer est grand – s’ils y travaillent. Harlan CLEVELAND, The Future Executive: A Guide for Tomorrow’s Managers, p. 13, New York, Harper & Row, 1972.

[13] Steven A. ROSELL ea, Governing in an Information Society, p. 21, Montréal, Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1992.

[14] UNDP and governance, Experiences and Lessons Learned, UNDP, Management Development and Governance, Lessons-Learned, Series, n°1, p. 9, http://magnet.undp.org/docs/gov/Lessons1.htm 17/02/01. – Richard Jolly, directeur général de l’Unicef, conseiller spécial auprès de l’Administrateur du PNUD et inspirateur du Rapport sur le Développement humain, conférence Bonne gouvernance et démocratisation : le rôle des organisations internationales, Ottawa, Association canadienne pour les Nations Unies (ACNU), 16 et 17 octobre 1997. – Une nouvelle gouvernance mondiale au service de l’humanité et de l’équité, dans Rapports mondial sur le développement humain 1999, p. 97-123, New-York, PNUD – Paris-Bruxelles, De Boeck-Larcier, 1999.

[15] G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Politique et gouvernance du PNUD : cadre conceptuel et coopération au développement, http://www.unac.org/français/activites/gouvernance/partieun.html 17/02/02. Shabbir CHEEMA directeur de la Division du Renforcement de la Gestion et de la Gouvernance au PNUD. – Une autre définition donnée par le PNUD est celle du Public Sector Management et datant de 1995 : governance or public management encompasses the direct and indirect management by the state of public affairs and regulatory control of private activities that impinge on human affairs. Governance can best be understood in terms of three major components : first, the form of political authority that exists in a country (parliamentary or presidential, civilian or military, and autocratic or democratic ; second, the means through which authority is exercised in the management of economic and social resources ; and third, the ability of governments to discharge government functions effectively , efficiently, and equitably through the design, formulation, and implementation of sound policies. dans Public Sector Management, Governance, and Sustainable Human Development, Discussion Paper 1, Management Development and Governance Division, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, p. 19, New-York, United Nations Development Programme, 1995. En 1997, une nouvelle étude de la division Management Development & Governance, préfacée par G. Shabbir Cheema, donnait une définition très proche de celle présentée à Ottawa :
Governance can be seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. it comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. dans Governance for sustainable human development, A UNDP policy document, p. 3, New-York, United Nations Development Programme, 1997.

[16] Voir par exemple : J. ISHAM, Daniel KAUFMANN & Lant PRITCHETT, Governance and Returns on Investment, Washington, The World Bank, 1995. – Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries, Washington, The World Bank, 1996. – Francis NG and Alexander YEATS, Good Governance and Trade Policy, Are They the Keys to Africa’s Global Integration and Growth ? Washington, The World Bank, 10 novembre 1998. – Michael WOOLCOCK, Globalization, Governance and Civil Society, DECRG Policy Research on Globalization, Growth, and Poverty : Facts, Fears, and Agenda for Action, Background Paper, Washington, The World Bank, 10 Août 2001.

[17] We define governance broadly as the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced, (2) the capacity of the governement to effectively formulate and implement sound policies, and (3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. Daniel KAUFMANN, Aart KRAAY & Pablo ZOIDO-LOBATON, Governance Matters, Washington, World Bank, 1999. http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance. 16/02/02.Daniel KAUFMANN, Aart KRAAY & Pablo ZOIDO-LOBATON, Gestion des Affaires publiques, De l’évaluation à l’action, dans Finances et Développement, juin 2000, p. 1.

[18] Daniel KAUFMANN, Aart KRAAY & Pablo ZOIDO-LOBATON, Aggregating Governance Indicators, Washington, World Bank, 1999.

[19] Governance means rules, processes and behavior that affect the way in which they are exercised at European level, particularly as regards openess, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. European Governance, A White Paper, July 25, 2001, p. 8.

[20] David RICHARDS & Martin SMITH, Governance and the Public Policy in the UK, p. 2, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.

[21] La société civile et l’OCDE, dans Synthèses, Paris, OCDE, Décembre 2001, p. 1.

[22] Lester M. SALAMON, The Tools Approach and the New Governance: Conclusion and Implications, in Lester M. SALAMON, The Tools of Government, A Guide to the New Governance, p. 600-610 , New-York, Oxford University Press, 2002.

[23] L. M. SALAMON, The Tools of Government… p. 9, 2002.

[24] David RICHARDS & Martin J. SMITH, Governance and Public Policy in the UK, p. 36, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002. – Michael HILL, The Public Policy Process, p. 21, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited, 5th ed, 2009.

[25] G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Politique et gouvernance du PNUD : cadre conceptuel et coopération au développement…, p. 10. – Governance includes the state, but transcends it by taking in the private sector and civil society. All three are critical for sustaining human development. The state creates a conducive political and legal environment. The private sector generates jobs and income. And civil society facilitates political and social interaction – mobilising groups to participate in economic, social and political activities. Because each has weaknesses and strengths, a major objective of our support for good governance is to promote constructive interaction among all three. Governance for Sustainable Human Development, A UNDP Policy Document, United Nations Development Programme, January 1997.

[26] Sam AGERE, Promoting Good Governance, Principles, Practices and Perspectives, p. 1, Londres, Commonwealth Secretariat, Management an Training Services Division, 2000.

[27] G. Shabbir CHEEMA, Politique et gouvernance du PNUD : cadre conceptuel et coopération au développement…, p. 10.

[28] Lester M. SALAMON, The Tools Approach and the New Gouvernance : Conclusion and Implications, dans Lester M. SALAMON, The Tools of Government, A Guide to the New Governance, p. 600-610 , New-York, Oxford University Press, 2002.

[29] Philippe DELMAS, La maître des horloges, Modernité de l’action publique, Paris, Odile Jacobs, 1991.

The New Industrial Paradigm

26 septembre 2014
Foresight
Poster un commentaire

Brussels, 24 September 2014

Foresight is a future and strategy-oriented process, which aims at bringing about one or more transformations in the system by mobilising collective intelligence. Foresight is used to identify long-term issues, to design a common and precise vision of the future of the organisation, company or territory, to build strategies to reach it and to implement measures in order to achieve the changes and tackle the challenges [1].

Futurists should therefore not be seen as gurus who would own the truth about the future, but as people who try to understand developments and are able to gather other actors and get them to work and think together.

It is commonplace, especially in times of economic difficulty or tensions, to hear it said or read that the crisis is not cyclical, but represents a structural transformation of the economy or society. What is being referred to is a paradigm shift.

1. What do we mean by a New Industrial Paradigm?

An attempt at the clearest possible identification of the « new industrial paradigm » towards which we are said to be moving first of all requires an explanation of the three words of which the term is composed.

1.1. A paradigm is essentially a model and a system of reference and of representation of the world, which we invent and construct mentally in an attempt to grasp and describe its components. The sociologist Edgar Morin describes paradigms as the principles of principles, the few dominant concepts that control minds and govern theories, without our being aware of them ourselves. He refers to today’s world in terms reminiscent of Schumpeter on innovation: « I think we are living in a time in which we have an old paradigm, an old principle that compels us to disconnect, to simplify, to reduce and to formalise without being able to communicate or ensure the communication of that which is disconnected, without being able to conceptualise entities and without being able to conceptualise the complexity of reality. We are in a period “between two worlds”: one that is dying but not yet dead, and another that wants to be born, but has not yet been born  » [2].

1.2. We describe this paradigm as industrial. In doing so we refer to the model that was introduced in Britain in the late eighteenth century and gave rise to economic activities based on the extraction and processing of raw materials and energy sources, by humans and machinery, in order to manufacture products and put them on the market for consumption.

1.3. Finally, we have said that this model is new. This means that we are seeing a renewal. This final dimension is by far the hardest for both you and me to grasp, so diverse and even contradictory are the signals that are sent to us by scientists and by economic, political or social actors. As the Professor at the University of California (Berkeley) Manuel Castells suggests, a society can be called new when structural transformation has occurred in the relations of production, in the relations of power, in interpersonal relations. These transformations bring about an equally significant change in social spatiality and temporality, and the emergence of a new culture [3].

The level we will consider in order to analyse the New Industrial Paradigm will be that of radical shifts, in other words profound and lasting transformations. I will start by drawing a distinction between observed shifts and desired shifts. For the former, an exploratory approach must be taken consisting of analysing and recording. For the latter, a normative approach is appropriate, and strategies need to be developed to achieve desired futures. The two may merge, reinforce one another or oppose one another. Transition is of course the sequence during which one passes to the heart of a change, transformation or shift.

Thus, I believe that the beginning of the 21st century is patterned by three main shifts.

2. The three shifts driving 21st century industry

2.1. We are still in the Industrial Society

The first shift is the deepening and extension of the paradigm born of the Industrial Revolution and described by Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776, then by Karl Marx in the first volume of Das Kapital (1867), and then of course by many others all the way down to Joseph E. Stiglitz [4] and Thomas Piketty [5] to name but a few. The reason that I point this out is because, unlike some others, I believe that we are continuing and will continue in this model for a long time. The model does not just involve mechanisation, capitalism, or a particular social model and a particular political model. It is a complex overall system born of a global shift. Of course, this system has undergone many waves of innovation, and various political and social systems. However, these changes have not affected the essence of the model. The French sociologist Alain Touraine long ago noted that we should not confuse a type of society – whether the industrial society or the information society – with its forms and its modes of modernisation. He pointed out that we had learned to distinguish the industrial society, as a societal type, from the process of industrialisation, which might be capitalist or socialist, for example [6]. In addition, the transition from the steam engine to the dynamo, to the diesel engine or to atomic energy did not cause sufficient shifts to change the nature of the model. It should therefore survive future waves of innovation and the new values and goals arising from the other shifts. It is true that industry’s contribution to GDP or employment is tending to decrease, as the European Commission has lamented. But leaving aside the fact that outsourcing skews the statistics, our entire society remains largely underpinned by industrial society and continues to largely fall within that category.

The reason why I stress this continuity is that some authors such as Jeremy Rifkin regularly announce the end of industry and the end of capitalism in the years ahead. Personally, I observe that we are continuing and will continue in this model for a long time.

2.2. We are now living the Cognitive Revolution

The second shift has been gradually observed since the late 1960s and especially since 1980. From Daniel Bell and Jean Fourastié [7] to William Halal [8], and from Thierry Gaudin [9] to John Naisbitt [10] and James Rosenau [11], many futurists have described how the industrial age is gradually giving way to a ‘cognitive age’, through a new revolution – The Cognitive Revolution. This latter affects the organisation of all aspects of civilisation, both production and culture, and is based on the many changes brought about by computing and genetics, and by the notion of information as an infinite resource [12]. Intelligence – grey matter – is the raw material, and its products are informational, and hence largely intangible.

The key factor in this shift is the convergence between, firstly, information and communication technology and secondly, the life sciences. In the long term, this development is broader and more significant than is commonly imagined. The general trend is for a phenomenal development in information management capacity. Thus, the accelerated growth of technologies for studying molecular biology is closely linked with the development of information and communication technologies. The case of genetics is obvious, but not isolated: computer tools have been created that can be used to analyse and understand the interactions between genes. It is the convergence between life sciences and information sciences that has really given molecular biology a boost.

But, as we have said, this observed shift also turned out to be a strategy when in March 2000 the Lisbon European Council set itself the task of establishing a new strategic goal for the decade 2000-2010: « to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion » [13]. Most of the policies that were subsequently conducted in the field of innovation had this same objective of « preparing the transition to a competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy » [14].

2.3. We are building a new harmony through Sustainable Development

The third shift was wanted. It is itself the result of three distinct but complementary processes reinforced by NASA’s Apollo Program, which greatly contributed to our collective awareness that the Blue Planet is a rather closed and fragile system. First, there has been the challenging of modernity and the critique of industrial society and the American way of life by intellectuals such as Herbert Marcuse [15], but also Donella Meadows [16] and Aurelio Peccei [17]. Next, there have been the environmental programmes of the United Nations, whose conferences, from Stockholm to Rio II, have constructed a new conceptual framework. Finally, there has been the human experience generated over time by ecological disasters, some of them very spectacular – such as Torrey Canyon (1967), Amoco Cadiz (1978), Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), Deepwater Horizon (2010) or Fukushima (2011) – which have contributed to an awareness of the biosphere’s fragility. Since the report of the Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland (1987), the definition of sustainable development has been accepted as a major goal, stressing as it does the limits imposed by the need for harmony between humans and between mankind and nature. This goal of sustainable development has caused us to rethink our entire economic policies and the management of all our businesses in all areas of human activity, and to adopt a long-term view. Our industrial policies are being reformatted by the transition to a low-carbon society. New industrial approaches such as the circular economy and all its components represent a response to these new needs. The Secretary General of the Industrial Materials Association Europe, Michelle Wyart-Remy, is right in saying that resource efficiency is not just about using less resources but about using resources better. At every stage of the supply chain, industry is working to be increasingly resource-efficient. That path will maximise the efficiency of resources used [18] and will contribute to the decoupling of economic growth from resource use and its environmental impacts – a stated goal of the Europe 2020 Strategy [19].

 3. Four vital factors: materials, energy, structure of time and relationship with life

Bertrand Gille convincingly showed in his history of technology that it was the conjunction of rapidly rising levels of education in the population and the dissemination of scientific and technical knowledge that drove technological progress forward and made the machine-based Industrial Revolution possible [20]. It is on the basis of that historian’s work that Thierry Gaudin and Pierre-Yves Portnoff have highlighted the fact that, in the three main technological destabilisations that the West has undergone, four vital factors – materials, energy, the structure of time and our relationship with life – were activated simultaneously. They described contemporary transformations:

– hyperchoice of materials and their horizontal seepage from applications in cutting-edge sectors to the most everyday forms of use;

– the tension between the power of nuclear energy and the economy of energy resources, in the context of recycling;

– our relationship with life and the immense field of biotechnology, including genetics;

– the new structure of time, divided into nanoseconds by microprocessors[21].

Although I have no wish to announce new structural changes, I do wish to assert that the three shifts – industrial societies in continuous transformation, the Cognitive Revolution building a new Knowledge Society, and Sustainable Development as a conscious search for harmony, will continue their interactions, and, hopefully, their convergence. For me, this is the New Industrial Paradigm in which we are living and working, and in which we will live and work for some decades.

Philippe-Destatte_The-New-Industrial-Paradigm_2014-09-24

Thus what is most surprising, alongside the speed and accelerating pace of change[22], is how long the shift is taking. Whereas Alvin Toffler thought in 1980 that the emergence of the ‘Third Wave’ would be a fait accompli in a few decades [23], we believe today that the change could extend over another century or two. These shifts are long-term movements which straddle time and conquer space. As we have indicated, the Industrial Revolution, which began in around 1700, continues to extend into new territories even as its effects are disappearing in other places. Likewise, in his analysis of the labour force in the United States, Professor William H. Halal of Washington University traces the long term of the knowledge society back to the late eighteenth century [24]. He also affirms his belief that the big changes are yet to come [25].

4. Five long-term challenges to tackle in order to face the New Industrial Paradigm

4.1. How can industry be reinforced with the innovations of the Cognitive Revolution?

Since the 1980s, we have observed the development of smart or intelligent materials able to respond to stimuli, thanks to the knowledge embedded in their structure in order to transform them. The reinforcement of the link between research and innovation is a classic issue. We can also point to the capacity to orient public research, and especially academic research, more effectively and to use industrial innovation in order to bridge the gap between science and industrial technology (market-driven research) through open innovation [26].

4.2. How can we concretely apply the principles of the circular economy to all the activities of the supply chain, in order to achieve a zero-waste business model for the industry of the future?

The circular economy appears to be a major line of development, with a global-to-local structure and underpinning systemic and cross-disciplinary policies pursued at European, national/federal, regional and divisional level. These policies are intended to fit together and link up with each other, becoming more and more concrete as and when they get closer to the actors on the ground, and therefore companies [27]. Although considerable improvements are still necessary to achieve a zero-waste business model, we know that such a strategy can help at a time when accessibility and affordability of raw materials is vital for ensuring the competitiveness of the EU’s industry [28].

4.3. How can we reduce energy consumption in order to improve the competitiveness of industry?

We know that the industrial sector consumes about half of the world’s total delivered energy. According to the US Information Energy Administration, despite the global crisis, energy consumption by the industrial sector worldwide is expected to increase by an average of 1.4% per year, growing by more than 50% by 2040 [29]. We are far from the target of a 40% improvement in energy efficiency by 2030 on the EU agenda [30]. That is why the EU Council in Luxembourg on 13 June 2014emphasised the need to accelerate efforts in particular as regards reviewing the Energy Efficiency Directive in a timely manner [31].

4.4. How can we prepare the different actors, and especially companies, for the Low-Carbon Economy?

The EU Commission has stressed the need to develop new low-carbon production technologies and techniques for energy-intensive material processing industries. Technology Platforms have been established and Lead Market Initiatives have been introduced. The Sustainable Industry Low Carbon (SILC I & II) initiatives aim to help sectors achieve specific GHG emission intensity reductions, in order to maintain their competitiveness. The involvement of companies, including SMEs, in these projects as well as the development of public-private collaboration are needed to ensure the deployment and commercialisation of the innovations in this field, including carbon capture and storage [32].

4.5. How can we build a real partnership between policymakers, civil society and companies in order to create positive / win-win multilevel governance?

With the new public governance, born in the 1990s, the role of companies themselves, but also of their commercial, sectorial, or territorial representatives, from individual cities up to European level and higher, has moved towards the building of common partnership policies. I prefer that term to ‘public policies’ because the incapacity of political leaders, who have failed to activate the stakeholders, is widely recognised nowadays. But we all know that the process of organising democratic and efficient multilevel governance is very difficult, and needs exceptional people to run it, with strong leadership and a real openness to the culture of the other actors. These decision-makers are the ones who will provide their country or their region with strategic thinking and implementation capacities. They are also the ones who will shape the environment for entrepreneurship and create the institutional framework that can enable companies, including SMEs, to reach their full potential [33].

Conclusion: Are we ready?

These long-term challenges are mostly present in the Industrial Materials Association – Europe roadmap as identified issues. What is crucial is for the people involved in working with these issues on a day-to-day basis to identify, with precision, what processes and measures they will have to introduce, year after year, in response to them.

The CEO of the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for Human Progress, Pierre Calame, said rightly, some years ago, that Huge shifts await us, comparable in magnitude to the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern world. The ability of our societies to understand and manage these shifts will be decisive for the future. Are we ready? [34]

The power to change lies in your hands: do not be afraid!

Philippe Destatte

https://twitter.com/PhD2050

[1] See: Philippe DESTATTE, What is Foresight?, Blog PhD2050, Brussels, May 30, 2013.

What is foresight?

This text is the reference paper of a conference presented at The Industrial Materials Association (IMA-Europe) 20th Anniversary, IMAGINE event, Brussels, The Square, September 24th, 2014.

About the challenges, see: Jerome C. GLENN, Theodore J. GORDON & Elizabeth FLORESCU dir., 2013-14, State of the Future, , Washington, The Millennium Project, 2014.

[2] Edgar MORIN, Science et conscience de la complexité, dans Edgar MORIN et Jean-Louis LE MOIGNE, L’intelligence de la complexité, p. 40, Paris-Montréal, L’Harmattan, 1999.

[3] Manuel CASTELLS, The Information Age, Economy, Society and Culture, Oxford, Blackwell, 2000. – L’ère de l’information, t. 3, Fin de Millénaire, p. 398 et 403, Paris, Fayard, 1999.

[4] Joseph E. STIGLITZ & Bruce C. GREENWALD, Creating a Learning Strategy: A New Approach to Growth, Development and Social Progress, New York, Columbia University Press, 2014.

[5] Thomas PIKETTY, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Boston, Harvard University Press, 2014.

[6] Alain TOURAINE, Préface, dans Manuel CASTELLS, L’ère de l’information, t. 1, La société en réseaux, p. 9, Paris, Fayard, 2001.

[7] Jean FOURASTIE, La civilisation de 1995, p. 123, Paris, PUF, 1974.

[8] William HALAL, A Forecast of the Information Revolution, in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Août 1993, p. 69-86. – William E. HALAL and Kenneth B. TAYLOR, Twenty-First Century Economics, Perspectives of Socioeconomics for a Changing World, New York, St Martin’s Press, 1999.

[9] Thierry GAUDIN, Introduction à l’économie cognitive, La Tour d’Aigues, L’Aube, 1997. – Th. GAUDIN, L’Avenir de l’esprit, Prospectives, Entretiens avec François L’Yvonnet, Paris, Albin Michel, 2001. – Th. GAUDIN, Discours de la méthode créatrice, Entretiens avec François L’Yvonnet, Gordes, Le Relié, 2003. – Th. GAUDIN, L’impératif du vivant, Paris, L’Archipel, 2013. – See also: Pierre VELTZ, La grande transition, Paris, Seuil, 2008.

[10] John NAISBITT, Megatrends, New York, Warner Books, 1982. – John NAISBITT & Patricia ABURDENE, Megatrends 2000, New York, William Morrow, 1989.

[11] James N. ROSENAU, Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier, Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World, Cambridge University Press, 1997. – James N. ROSENAU et J. P. SINGH éd., Information Technologies and Global Politics, The Changing Scope of Power and Governance, New York, State University of New York Press, 2002. –

[12] William E. HALAL ed., The Infinite Resource, San Francisco, Jossey Bass, 1998.

[13] Conseil européen de Lisbonne : conclusions de la présidence, Council documents mentioned in the Annex to be found under Presse Release, p. 2, Lisbon (24/3/2000) Nr: 100/1/00 – http://europas.eu.int/comm/off/index – 20/04/02

[14] Ibidem.

[15] Herbert MARCUSE, One-Dimensional Man, Boston, Beacon Press, 1964.

[16] Donella H. MEADOWS et al. Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, New American Library, 1977 (1972).

[17] Aurelio PECCEI, The Chasm Ahead, New York, Macmillan, 1969.

[18] Imagine the Future with Industrial Minerals, 2050 Roadmap, p. 24-25 & 37, Brussels, IMA-Europe, 2014. The industrial minerals sectors estimates that up to 60% of all minerals consumed in Europe are recycled along with the glass, paper, plastics or concrete in which they are used (p. 37). The goal for 2050 is a 20% improvement in recycling of industrial materials (p. 38). – Recycling Industrial Materials, Brussels, IMA-Europe, October 2013. http://www.ima-europe.eu/content/ima-europe.eu/ima-Recycling-Sheets-full

[19] Reindustrialising Europe, Member’ States Competitiveness, A Europe 2020, Initiative, Commission Staff working Document, Report 2014, SWD(2014) 278, September 2014, p. 42. – Europe 2020 Strategy, « A Ressource-efficient Europe »… #

[20] Bertrand GILLE, Histoire des Techniques, coll. Bibliothèque de la Pléade, Paris, Gallimard, 1978.

[21] Thierry GAUDIN et André-Yves PORTNOFF, Rapport sur l’état de la technique : la révolution de l’intelligence, Paris, Ministère de la Recherche, 1983 et 1985.

[22] John SMART, Considering the Singularity : A Coming World of Autonomous Intelligence (A.I.), dans Howard F. DIDSBURY Jr. éd., 21st Century Opprtunities an Challenges : An Age of Destruction or an Age of Transformation, p. 256-262, Bethesda, World Future Society, 2003.s

[23] Alvin TOFFLER, La Troisième Vague, … p. 22. – il est intéressant de noter avec Paul Gandar que Toffler n’a pas pu décrire le passage à la société de la connaissance par l’effet du numérique. Paul GANDAR, The New Zealand Foresight project dans Richard A. SLAUGHTER, Gone today, here tomorrow, Millennium Preview, p. 46, St Leonards (Australia), Prospect Media, 2000.

[24] William HALAL, The New Management, Democracy and enterprise are transforming organizations, p. 136, San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler, 1996.

[25] William H. HALAL, The Infinite Resource: Mastering the Boundless Power of Knowledge, dans William H. HALAL & Kenneth B. TAYLOR, Twenty-First Century Economics…, p. 58-59.

[26] Imagine Roadmap…, p. 33 & 50.

[27] Ph. DESTATTE, The circular economy: producing more with less, Blog PhD2050, Namur, August 26, 2014.

http://phd2050.org/2014/08/26/ce/

[28] Reindustrialising Europe…, p. 42.

[29] Industrial Sector Energy consumption, US Energy Information Administration, Sep. 9, 2014. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/industrial.cfm

[30] EU’s Energy Efficiency review puts high target on agenda, in Euractiv, June 17, 2014.

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/eus-energy-efficiency-review-puts-high-target-agenda-302836

[31] EU Council of The European Union, Council conclusions on « Energy prices and costs, protection of vulnerable consumers and competitiveness, Council Meeting Luxembourg, 13 June 2014.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/trans/143198.pdf – Imagine Roadmap…, p. 29.

[32] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage, Brussels, COM(2010), 614 final, 28.10.2010, p. 30.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0614:FIN:EN:PDF – Imagine Roadmap…, p. 31.

About SILC: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=6492&lang=en

[33] « Countries’ overall direction is shaped by their ability to define their interests and assets (including industrial), have a clear vision of the challenges and risks ahead, set coherent long-term goals, make informed policy choices and manage uncertainty. Leading, enabling and delivering strategic policy- making requires strong leadership and effective strategic-thinking skills in public institutions. It calls for a strong centre of the government that is capable of promoting coherent cross-departmental cooperation and better implementation of government reform programmes. The consultation of expert communities as well as the general public on future trends, opportunities and risks offers the chance to engage more strongly with the public and helps (re)build trust in government. » Reindustrialising Europe…, p. 60 & 55. – Imagine Roadmap…, p. 23 & 49.

[34] Pierre CALAME, Jean FREYSS et Valéry GARANDEAU, La démocratie en miettes, Pour une révolution de la gouvernance, p. 19, Paris, Descartes et Cie, 2003.

Les mots pour le dire : SDER et autres SRADDT…

21 janvier 2014
Gouvernance territoriale, Intelligence territoriale
2 Commentaires

Namur, le 21 janvier 2014

Au moment où communes et acteurs wallons se penchent sur le Schéma de Développement de l’Espace régional wallon (SDER), il me semble utile de revenir sur l’importance des mots utilisés pour parler du développement territorial. Plus encore que la pauvreté conceptuelle, le risque majeur qui guette à la fois le chercheur et l’acteur n’est-il pas en effet l’ambiguïté, c’est-à-dire l’expression équivoque qui, parce qu’elle présente plusieurs sens possibles, débouche sur l’incertitude de l’interprétation. Le prospectiviste allemand Günter Clar soulignait, voici quelques années lors d’un séminaire résidentiel du Collège européen de Prospective territoriale à Etiolles (Evry), que, contrairement à ce qu’on en dit parfois, la prospective ne réduit guère l’incertitude, ne réduit pas la complexité non plus, même si elle les met en évidence. Sa première vertu, suivant le directeur de Steinbeis Europa Zentrum (Stuttgart) serait plutôt de réduire l’ambiguïté, premier résultat tangible de l’intelligence collective.

Un projet gouvernemental d’aménagement et de dévelop-pement durables de la région et de ses territoires

Le premier parmi les mots utiles à la compréhension du projet de révision du SDER est probablement celui de territoire. Le territoire n’est pas simplement un espace, car il implique un processus d’appropriation par une société ou un groupe qui y vit, y travaille, des limites précises et consacrées, l’exercice d’un pouvoir ou en tout cas d’une volonté, une dénomination, une identité [1]. Le prospectiviste français Guy Loinger (1942-2012) voyait le territoire comme un construit sociétal, une étendue terrestre sur laquelle vivait un groupe humain, dont les pratiques sociales sont structurées par des règles, des lois, une culture, un mode d’organisation politique et institutionnel [2]. En France, la référence territoriale renvoie au niveau local, c’est-à-dire régional, départemental, ainsi qu’aux niveaux des communautés urbaines et intercommunalités. En région, et en particulier en Wallonie, les territoires apparaissent comme des entités infrarégionales, parfois d’ailleurs non institutionnalisées.

Le SDER semble avoir des difficultés à exprimer ce qu’il est. Dans sa version adoptée par le Gouvernement wallon le 7 novembre 2013, il s’affirme à la fois comme Une vision pour le territoire wallon (couverture) et un projet de territoire (p. 6). Ce n’est certainement pas le dénigrer que d’écrire qu’il n’est actuellement ni l’un ni l’autre. Une vision est une image partagée et décrite en termes précis d’un futur souhaité [3]. Le partage implique l’appropriation, c’est-à-dire la possession, la co-construction par les acteurs. Consultation et concertation ne sont pas des outils d’implication et permettent rarement l’appropriation, car ils maintiennent – ou créent même parfois – la distance. La vision doit exprimer la volonté commune de l’ensemble des acteurs dans l’ensemble des champs de l’action. Le SDER du 7 novembre 2013 pourrait constituer la vision du Gouvernement wallon en termes d’aménagement et de structuration de la Wallonie et de ses territoires. Le projet de territoire consiste en la représentation et l’expression d’un avenir souhaitable ainsi que des stratégies pour y parvenir. C’est à la fois un plan d’action qui répond aux enjeux du territoire et un processus collectif qui permet de le construire et de se l’approprier. Un schéma régional ne pourrait être un projet de territoire que s’il abordait l’ensemble des aspects liés à la vie et à l’avenir de la région en y exprimant à la fois la vision partagée et la stratégie de mise en œuvre de l’ensemble des acteurs.

Que serait dès lors le Schéma de Développement de l’Espace régional ? Comment le qualifier et le définir ? Nous dirions que c’est un projet gouvernemental d’aménagement et de développement durables de la Wallonie et de ses territoires qui devrait décliner de manière territoriale l’ensemble des politiques régionales présentes et fixer, sinon un cadre général, du moins des balises pour les politiques futures. Cette dernière précision est nécessaire. D’une part, il s’agit de penser la région en termes de développement territorial, c’est-à-dire, selon Bernadette Mérenne, Guy Baudelle et Catherine Guy, dans un processus volontariste cherchant à accroître la compétitivité des territoires en impliquant les acteurs dans le cadre d’actions concertées, généralement transversales et souvent à forte dimension spatiale [4]. Ainsi, une des finalités principales du SDER consiste à articuler les projets de territoires, existants ou potentiels avec le projet régional et à fixer le cadre général des relations avec ces territoires de projets qu’ils soient infrarégionaux ou transfrontaliers. D’autre part, il s’agit de réaffirmer l’importance de la durabilité des stratégies de mise en œuvre de ces politiques suivant l’exemple des Schémas régionaux d’Aménagement et de Développement durables des Territoires régionaux français (SRADDT).

Bassins de vie, développement endogène et communautés de territoires

Le bassin de vie est au centre de la problématique de la territorialité et du débat ouvert sur la décentralisation des politiques régionales. On peut en donner une définition robuste, nourrie par un débat très constructif avec Pierre Got à la Plateforme d’Intelligence territoriale wallonne, le 20 novembre 2012 : un bassin de vie est une aire de coopération territoriale à laquelle aurait adhéré librement un certain nombre de communes où, d’une part, se réalise un projet de développement endogène et transversal durable porté par les acteurs et où, d’autre part, peuvent se mettre en œuvre, par contractualisation, des politiques publiques régionales territorialisées. La notion de développement endogène durable recouvre celle de projet global. On peut d’ailleurs définir ce type de développement comme celui qui mobilise les ressources locales en matière de savoirs, de cultures et d’expériences pour construire une économie locale mais néanmoins ouverte, respectueuse des attentes et des besoins des populations. Quand on revient au rapport Brundtland, on voit d’ailleurs que le développement durable constitue bien une approche systémique. L’idée de transversalité est également précieuse. Enfin, ce projet doit nécessairement être porté ET partagé par les acteurs. Notons, ainsi que le signalait dernièrement Joseph Charlier, que le développement endogène au niveau de bassins de vie ne saurait être assimilé à une forme de cocooning, de refermement et d’enfermement sur soi ainsi que sur son entité infrarégionale conçue comme un pré carré auquel on serait forcé de limiter sa mobilité. Dans le monde contemporain, l’espace est métropolisé et s’il faut permettre et favoriser la mobilité durable, on ne saurait empêcher les déplacements sans risque de retomber dans le paradigme des vieilles gens aux vieilles idées dans de vieilles maisons, que dénonçait déjà Alfred Sauvy dans les années soixante.

Les bassins de vie pourraient se décliner sous la forme de communautés de territoires (grammaticalement avec s) dès lors qu’ils associeraient librement des communes au travers, d’un ou de plusieurs bassins de vie, ou d’une partie d’entre eux. Le Cœur du Hainaut (25 communes), la Wallonie picarde (20 communes), la Communauté urbaine du Centre (13 communes) ou les provinces du Brabant wallon (27 communes) ou du Luxembourg (44 communes) en sont des exemples parmi d’autres. Au delà des institutions qui représentent et gèrent les deux provinces, ces territoires disposent ou disposeront dès lors d’une gouvernance appropriée. Le processus de gouvernance est le processus par lequel une organisation ou une société se conduit elle-même, les dynamiques de communication et de contrôle étant centraux dans ce processus [5], comme l’ajoute Steven Rosell. Issue de l’expérience de la coopération internationale, de la globalisation et de l’interdépendance économique, cette approche de la gouvernance est vue comme un processus de coordination d’acteurs, de groupes sociaux, d’institutions qui produisent des compromis, des consensus politiques et sociaux permettant d’atteindre des buts propres – discutés et définis collectivement – dans des environnements fragmentés et incertains [6]. Cette façon de voir le concept permet d’échapper à une vision par trop économiste et de rendre celui-ci opératoire pour aborder clairement la question de la place de l’État dans la gestion du territoire. Même s’il change profondément la nature de la relation entre les citoyens et l’État, le concept de gouvernance ne saurait se substituer à la fonction de gouvernement ni de démocratie représentative. On se situe en effet ici dans une complémentarité d’approches qui interpelle les dirigeants et renforce leur attente d’action collective en s’appuyant sur les autres piliers de la société.

Une cohésion territoriale qui nous ramène à l’Europe

La notion de cohésion territoriale, née au milieu des années 1990 dans les rencontres de l’Assemblée des Régions d’Europe (ARE) et incluse comme objectif de l’Union dans les traités européens (Amsterdam, 1997 et Lisbonne, 2009) nous est toujours apparue fondamentale. Elle est mentionnée à la page 60 du projet de SDER dans un encart sur les territoires ruraux. L’ARE définissait la cohésion territoriale comme une dynamique de territoires se développant harmonieusement et en synergie les uns avec les autres, visant des priorités et des objectifs communs, en mettant en œuvre des stratégies à l’aide de moyens et d’outils adaptés à leur capital territorial, et offrant à tous les citoyens un accès égal aux services et opportunités [7]. Telle que précisée dans le Livre vert qui lui a été consacré en 2008, la cohésion territoriale consiste à garantir le développement harmonieux de tous les territoires de l’UE et à permettre à leurs habitants de tirer le meilleur parti de leurs caractéristiques propres. Elle est, à ce titre, un moyen de faire de la diversité un atout qui contribue au développement durable de l’ensemble de l’Union [8]. Comme l’écrivaient les auteurs de La France, aménager les territoires, sous la direction d’Yves Jean et de Martin Vanier, trois principes peuvent en constituer les orientations d’une réponse politique : 1° un développement plus équilibré à toutes les échelles territoriales, 2° un développement plus durable des territoires, 3° une intégration des territoires dans l’ensemble européen.

On le voit, loin d’être simplement un concept de rencontre, la cohésion territoriale est porteuse de sens et structurante. Parce qu’elle peut aider les territoires à valoriser leurs potentiels spécifiques dans un sens durable, parce qu’elle peut assurer un accès équitable des territoires aux services sociaux, ainsi qu’aux grands réseaux, parce qu’elle peut renforcer la mise en réseaux et les connexions entre territoires ainsi que la coopération territoriale européenne [9]. Ainsi, la notion nous apparaît-elle centrale dans tout document d’orientation, qu’il soit, ou non, contraignant.

En commission de l’Aménagement du territoire du Parlement wallon, le 10 décembre 2013, le ministre Philippe Henry en charge de cette compétence au Gouvernement wallon présentait le projet de SDER tel qu’adopté par les ministres de Wallonie. Ce faisant, il plaidait avec raison pour que des documents comme le SDER et le Code de Développement territorial (CoDT), nouvelle version du CWATUPE, soient conséquents et reconnus comme suffisamment fiables par l’ensemble des acteurs, parce qu’ils seront lisibles et transparents pour l’ensemble des acteurs [10].

On ne saurait mieux dire l’importance des mots, concepts et notions qui seront utilisés. Ainsi que la nécessaire cohérence de ceux-ci entre les deux textes.

Philippe Destatte

https://twitter.com/PhD2050

 

[1] Roger BRUNET, René FERRAS et Hervé THERY, Les mots de la géographie, Dictionnaire critique, Paris-Montpellier, Reclus-La Documentation française, 2009. – Guy BAUDELLE, Catherine GUY, Bernadette MERENNE-SCHOUMAKER, Le développement territorial en Europe, Concepts, enjeux et débats, p. 16-17, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2011.

[2] Guy LOINGER, Eléments de méthodologie de la prospective territoriale, Pont-à-Mousson, CIPF de Nancy, 2007.

[3] Philippe DESTATTE et Philippe DURANCE dir., Les mots-clefs de la prospective territoriale, p. 53, Paris, DATAR-Documentation française, 2009.

[4] G. BAUDELLE, C. GUY, B. MERENNE-SCHOUMAKER, Le développement territorial en Europe…, p. 22.

[5] Steven A. ROSELL ea, Governing in an Information Society, p. 21, Montréal, Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1992. Cité par J.N. ROSENAU, op. cit., p. 146. – On trouvera une critique des conceptions de James N. Rosenau sur la gouvernance, l’Etat et la société civile dans Jean-François THIBAULT, As If the World Were a Virtual Global Policy : The Political Philosophy of Global Governance,  p. 1, Ottawa, 2001. http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk. 17/02/02.

[6] Arnaldo BAGNASCO et Patrick LE GALES dir., Villes en Europe, p. 38, Paris, La Découverte, 1997.

[7] Cohésion territoriale, Adopté le 11 juin 2008, Réunion de Bureau de l’ARE, Wroclaw, Dolnoslaskie (PL), Strasbourg, Assemblée des Régions d’Europe, 2008.

[8] Livre vert sur la cohésion territoriale : faire de la diversité un atout, p. 14, Bruxelles, Commission des Communautés européennes, 6 octobre 2008 (COM (2008) 616 final).

[9] Yves JEAN et Martin VANIER dir., La France, Aménager les territoires, p. 86-87, Paris, A. Colin, 2e éd., 2013.

[10] Parlement wallon, Séance publique de Commission de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement du territoire et de la Mobilité, CRAC, n°49 (2013-2014), Mardi 10 décembre 2013, p. 21.