As high technology development has created important resources and opportunities for some residents of cities, it has also introduced a new set of barriers and constraints for others. The new inequalities resulting from this pathway of economic development present local public officials with important challenges for managing their cities. This article argues that local strategies to confront inequalities in high technology cities are dependent on how individual states have undertaken restructuring reforms over the last 30 years. In France, the state has ceded some control over the allocation of economic resources to markets while retaining some control over the allocation of welfare resources. The rising importance of markets and the continued centrality of a redistributive state in French cities have resulted in the formation of distinct types of policy communities in the areas of economic development and welfare. The former community operates according to an entrepreneurial logic and the latter community continues to operate according to a political/statist logic. These local policy communities are like two ships passing in the night, embedded in and responding to distinct institutional constraints that lead them in very different directions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlawiH.2002. Interview, Maison du Quartier Bagatelle.
2.
Association Nationale pour la Formation Professionnelle des Adultes (AFPA), Centre Interdisciplinaire des Etudes Urbaines (CIEU), and Syndicat Intercommunal de la Vallée de l'Hers SICOVAL (SICOVAL).1995. “Technopole et Ressource Humaines: Etude sur l'Innopole de Labege.
3.
AutèsM.1999. Les Paradoxes du Travail Social. Paris : Dunod.
4.
BaraizeF.NégrierE.2001. “ Introduction,” in F. Baraize and E. Négrier (eds.), L'Invention Politique de l'Agglomération. Paris : L'Harmattan.
5.
BarnettC.2005. “The Consolidation of Neoliberalism,” Geoforum36(1),7–12.
6.
BarryA.OsborneT.RoseN. (eds.),1996. Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, neo‐Liberalism, and Rationalities of Government. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
7.
BennerC.2002. Work in the New Economy: Flexible Labor Markets in Silicon Valley. Oxford : Blackwell Press.
8.
BillonV.1996. “Avec Baudis, Un Budget Sage Comme Une Image,” L'Expansion10,132–134.
9.
BonnetJ.2002.Interview, Association Socio‐éducative des mirail, Toulouse.
10.
BrennerN.2004. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
11.
BrennerN.TheodoreN.2002. “Cities and the Geographies of ‘Actually Existing Neoliberalism’,” Antipode34(3),349–379.
12.
CaillosseJ.Le GalèsP.Loncle‐MoriceauP.1997. “ Les sociétés d'économie mixte locales: outils de quelle action publique?,” in F. Godard (ed.) Le Gouvernement des Villes: Territoire et Pouvoir. Paris : Descartes et Cie.
13.
CarnoyM.2000. Dans quel monde vivons‐nous? Le travail, la famille et le lien social à l'ère de l'information. Paris : Fayard.
14.
CastelR.1995. Les Métamorphes de la question sociale. Paris : Gallimard.
15.
Centre Interdisciplinaire des Etudes Urbaines (CIEU).1991. “Reseaux et Territoires: L'exemple de la Technopole Toulousaine,” research report prepared for the Urban Planning Agency of the Toulousain Agglomeration (AUAT).
16.
ChalineC.1997.Les Politiques de la Ville. Paris: Presse Universitaire France.
17.
CohenP.2002. Interview, Mayor of Ramonville; Deputy to the National Assembly.
18.
ConstansJ.1993. “Les Etats des Lieux: Une metropole occitaine aux aires de ville americaine,” Le Nouvel Economiste18, March 8, 90–93.
19.
CoppolaniJ.JalabertG.LevyJ. P.1984. Toulouse et son Agglomération. Paris : La Documentation Française.
20.
DavisM.2000. Dead Cities and Other Tales. New York : The New Press.
21.
DelcourO.2002. Interview, General Manager, Syndicat Intercommunal de la Vallée de l'Hers (SICOVAL).
22.
DelthilL.2002. Interview, Director of Office of Urban Planning, Department of Haute‐Garonne.
23.
DevlamynckL.2000. “Les bas salaires en Midi‐Pyrénées,” Insee Midi-Pryénée44,1–6.
24.
DikeçM.2004. “Voices into Noises: Idealogical Determination of Unarticulated Justice Movements,” Space and Polity8(2),191–208.
25.
DionS.1986. La Politisation des Mairies. Paris : Economica.
26.
DonzelotJ.EstèbeP.1993. L'Etat Animateur. Paris : L'Harmattan.
27.
DumontG.1993. Economie Urbaine: Villes et Territoire en Compétition. Paris : Litec Economie.
28.
DupuyC.GillyJ. P.1993. “ Groupes et régions, un rapport en mutation: l'exemple de Midi‐Pyrénées,” in C. Dupuy and J. P. Gilly (eds.), Industrie et territoires en France. Paris : La documentation Française.
29.
DupuyC.GillyJ. P.1999. “Industrial Groups and Territories: The Case of Matra‐Marconi‐Space in Toulouse,” Cambridge Journal of Economics23,207–223.
30.
DuranP.ThoenigH. C.1996. “L'Etat et la gestion publique territorial,” Revue Française de Science Politique46(4),580–600.
31.
Esping‐AndersenG.1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge : Polity Press.
32.
Esping‐AndersenG.1996a. “ After the Golden Age? Welfare State Dilemmas in a Global Economy,” in G. Esping‐Anderson (ed.), Welfare State in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies. London : Sage Publications.
33.
Esping‐AndersenG.1996b. “ Welfare States Without Work: The Impasse of Labour Shedding and Familialism in Continental European Social Policy,” in, G. Esping‐Andersen (ed.), Welfare State in Transition: National Adaptations in Global Economies. London : Sage Publications.
34.
Esping‐AndersenG.2002. “ Toward the Good Society Once Again,” in G. Esping‐Andersen (ed.), Why We Need a New Welfare State. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
35.
EstèbeP.1999. “L'Usage des quartiers action publique et géographie dans al politique de la ville,”Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Université de Parix X – Nanterre .
36.
EstèbeP.JailletM. C.1999. “L'agglomération toulousaine a‐t‐elle jamais été moderne? Les formes du pouvoir locale a l'épreuve des mutations urbaines,” Sud-Ouest Européen4,5–14.
37.
EstèbeP.DonzelotJ.1999. “ Reevaluer le politique de la ville,” in R. Balme , A. Faure , and A. Mabilieu (eds.), Les nouvelle politques locales: dynamiques de l'action publique. Paris : Presses de Science Po.
38.
FainsteinS.FainsteinN.1991. “ Economic Development Policy in the US Federal System Under the Reagan Administration,” in C. Pickvance and E. Preteceille (eds.), State Restructuring and Local Power: A Comparative Perspective. London and New York : Pinter Publishers.
39.
FerreraM.HermerijckA.RhodesM.2003. “ Recasting European Welfare States,” in J. Hayward and A. Menon (eds.), Governing Europe. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
40.
FirmiezD.2002. Interview, Association Vivre Ensemble.
41.
GarèsA.2002. Interview, Former General Manager, Syndicat Intercommunal de la Vallée de l'Hers (SICOVAL); General Manager, Airbus Project.
42.
GillyJ. P.1994. “ Groupes et nouveaux espaces productifs: le cas de Matra‐Espace a Toulouse,” in J. P. Gilly and C. Dupuy (eds.), L'industrie de Midi‐Pyrénées: Entre tradition et modernité. Toulouse : Presse de l'Université des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse.
43.
GrémionP.1976. Le Pouvoir Périphérique: Bureaucrates et Notables dans le Système Politique Français. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.
44.
GrossettiM.1995. Science, Industrie et Territoire. Toulouse : Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
45.
GrossettiM.1994. Ville et Territoire: Un système local d'enseignement supérieur. Toulouse : Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
46.
HardingA.1994. “Urban Regimes and Growth Machines: Toward a Cross‐National Research Agenda,” Urban Affairs Quarterly29(3),356–382.
47.
HardingA.Le GalèsP.1998. “Cities and States in Europe,” Western European Politics21(3),1–24.
48.
Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques (INSEE)2002. “Une Approche de la Précarité,” Les dossiers de l'INSEE109,5–9.
49.
JalabertG.1994. Toulouse: Metropole incomplete. Paris : Anthropos.
50.
JessopB.2002a. The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge : Polity Press.
51.
JessopB.2002b. “Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State–Theoretical Perspective,” Antipode34(3),452–472.
52.
JobertB.ThéretB.1994. “ France: La consécration républicaine du néo‐liberalisme,” in B. Jobert , and B. Théret (eds.), Le Tournant Néo‐Libéral en Europe: Idées et recettes dans les pratique gouvernementales. Paris : Éditions l'Harmattan.
53.
JonesM.WardK.2003. “ Interpreting Neoliberal Urban Policy: The State, Crisis Management, and the Politics of Scale,” in N. Brenner and N. Theodore (eds.), Spaces of Neoliberalism Urban Restructuring in North American and Western Europe. Oxford : Blackwell.
54.
KazepovY. (ed.)2005a. Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangements, and the Challenge to Urban Cohesion. Oxford : Blackwell Press.
55.
KazepovY.2005b. “ Introduction: Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangements, and the Challenge to Social Cohesion,” in Y. Kazepov (ed.), Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangements, and the Challenge to Urban Cohesion. Oxford : Blackwell Press.
56.
KeatingM.1991. Comparative Urban Politics: Power and the City in the United States, Canada, Britain, and France. Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield , VT. : E. Elgar Press.
57.
KeatingM.1993. “The Politics of Economic Development: Political Change and Local Development Policies in the United States, Britain, and France,” Urban Affairs Quarterly28(3),373–396.
58.
KeatingM.HainsworthK.1986. Decentralisation and Change in Contemporary France. Brookfield , VT : Gower Publications.
59.
KechidiM.PanaderoY.1994. “ Le secteur aéronautique et les transformations de la sous‐traitance régionale,” in J. P. Gilly and C. Dupuy (eds.), L'industrie de Midi‐Pyrénées: Entre tradition et modernité. Toulouse : Presse de l'Université des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse.
60.
KingL. P.SzeléyniI.2004. Theories of the New Class: Intellectuals and Power. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.
61.
LarnerW.2003. “Neoliberalism? Environment and Planning,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space21,509–512.
62.
Le GalèsP.1993. Politique Urbaine et Développement Local: Une comparaison franco‐britannique. Paris : L'Harmattan.
63.
Le GalèsP.1995. “Politique de la ville en France et en Grande‐Bretagne: volontarisme et ambiguïtés de l'Etat,” Sociologie du Travail2, 57–95.
64.
Le GalèsP.2002. European Cities: Social Conflicts and Governance. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
65.
LericheF.1998. “Acteurs Publics, Localisation Des Activités Et Polynuclearisation Des Espaces Urbains: L'exemple De Toulouse,” Sud-Ouest Européen2,7–17.
66.
LevyJ.1999a. Tocqueville's Revenge: State, Society, and Economy in Contemporary France. Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press.
67.
LevyJ.1999b. “Vice into Virtue? Progressive Politics and Welfare Reform in Continental Europe,” Politics and Society27(2),237–273.
68.
LipietzA.1996. La societé en sablier. Le partage du travail contre la dichirure sociale. Paris : Editions la Découverte.
69.
LorrainD.1989. “La montée en puissance des villes,” Economie et Humanisme305,6–18.
70.
LucasY.1990. “ Savoir‐faire régionaux et production de compétences: la constitution d'un corps professionnel de techniciens dans l'aéronautique toulousaine,” in G. Jalabert and C. Thouzellier (eds.), Villes et Technopoles: Nouvelle Urbanisation Nouvelle Industrialisation. Toulouse : Presse de la Université de la Mirail.
71.
MabileauA.1991. Le système local en France. Paris : Montchrestien.
72.
MannM.1993. Sources of Social Power, Volume II: The Rise of Classes and Nation‐states, 1760–1914. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
73.
MannM.1986. The Resources of Social Power, Volume I: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
74.
MazeyS.1989. “ Centre‐Periphery Relations in the Fifth Republic: The Legitimization of Local Politics,” in P. Godt (ed.), Policy‐Making in France: From de Gaulle to Mitterand. London and New York : Pinter Publishers.
75.
MènyY.1992. “Le République des fiefs,” Pouvoirs: Revue Française d'Etudes Constitutionnelles et Politiques60,17–24.
76.
MichelH.1999. Intercommunalité et gouvernements locaux: L'exemple des départements de l'Ouest de la France. Paris : L'Harmattan.
77.
MingioneE.1996. “ Urban Poverty in the Advanced Industrial World: Concepts, Analysis, and Debates,” in E. Mingione (ed.), Urban Poverty and the Underclass: A Reader. Cambridge , MA : Blackewell Publishers.
78.
MingioneE.2005. “ Urban Social Change: A Socio‐Historical Framework of Analysis,” in Y. Kazepov (ed.), Cities of Europe: Changing Contexts, Local Arrangements, and the Challenge to Urban Cohesion. Oxford : Blackwell Press.
79.
N'GondyA.2002. Interview, Association Hasure.
80.
NichollsW.2005. “Power and Governance: Metropolitan Governance in Contemporary France,” Urban Studies42(4),783–800.
81.
O'ConnorJ.1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York : St. Martin's Press.
82.
PahlR. (ed.).1968. Readings in Urban Sociology. London : Longman.
83.
PahlR.1970. Whose City? And Other Essays on Sociology and Planning. London : Longman.
84.
PeckJ.TickellA.1994. “ Searching for a New Institutional Fix: The After‐Fordist Crisis and Global‐local Disorder,” in A. Amin (ed.), Post‐Fordism: A Reader. Oxford : Blackwell.
PickvanceC.PreteceilleE.1991. (eds.), State Restructuring and Local Power: A Comparative Perspective. London and New York : Pinter Publishers.
87.
PoulantzasN.1980. State, Power, Socialism. London : New Left Books.
88.
PreteceilleE.1991. “ From Centralization to Decentralization: Social Restructuring and French Local Government,” in C. Pickvance and E. Preteceille (eds.), State Restructuring and Local Power: A Comparative Perspective. London and New York : Pinter Publishers.
89.
RhodesR.1997. Understanding Governance. Buckingham : Open University Press.
90.
RhodesR.MarshD.1992. “ Policy Networks in British Politics: A Critique of Existing Approaches,” in D. Marsh and R. Rhodes (eds.), Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
91.
SarducciN.2002. Interview, Génération Solidaires.
92.
SavaryJ.1994. “ Les groupes étrangers en Midi‐Pyrénées: bilan et perspectives,” in J. P. Gilly and C. Dupuy (eds.), L'industrie de Midi‐Pyrénées: Entre tradition et modernité. Toulouse : Presse de L'Université des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse.
93.
SimonF.2002. Interview, Councilor, Toulouse City Council.
94.
SintomerY.De MaillardJ.2004. “The Limits of Local Participation and Deliberation in the French “politique de la ville””, forthcoming in European Journal for Political Research,1–27.
95.
StoneC.1989. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. Lawrence : University Press of Kansas.
96.
SzelényiI.1981. “Structural Changes and Alternatives to Capitalist Development in the Contemporary Urban and Regional System,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research2(1),1–14.
97.
SzelenyiI.1983. Urban Inequalities Under State Socialism. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
98.
TalbotD.2000. “Institutional Dynamics and Localized Inter‐Firm Relations: The Case of Aerospatiale and its Subcontractors in Toulouse,” European Urban and Regional Studies7(3),223–236.
99.
TomasF.1997. “Produire de la ville en périphérie urbaine: Le cas du SICOVAL dans l'agglomération de Toulouse,” Revue de Géographie72(2),140–154.
100.
TonkissF.2004. “Markets Against States,” in K. Nash and A. Scott (eds.),Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology (Blackwell Companions to Sociology). London: Blackwell.
101.
TouchefouC.2002. Interview, Councilor, Department of Haute‐Garonne, Toulouse.
102.
UllmanC.1998. The Welfare State's Other Crisis: Explaining the New Partnership between Nonprofit Organisation and the State in France. Bloomington , IN : Indiana University Press.
103.
WacquantL.1996. “ Red Belt, Black Belt: Racial Division, Class Inequality and the State in the French Urban Periphery and the American Ghetto,” in E. Mingione (ed.), Urban Poverty and the Underclass: A Reader. Cambridge , MA : Blackwell.
104.
WakemanR.1997.Modernizing the Provincial City. Los Angeles and Berkeley: University of California Press.
105.
WeberM.1994. “The Profession and Vocation of Politics,” in P. Lassman and R. Spairs (eds.), Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
