1

Regional governance of HER policies in France: a discussion about multi-level relations Keywords: HER governance- France- multi-level governance- regionalization- HER planning- innovation promotion policies in academic research- Christelle Manifet CERTOP-CNRS and Lassp Political Studies Institute of Toulouse ****************************************************************************************************************** Application for the workshop 11: Reforming education policy: internationalisation- privatisation- governance Directors of the workshop: Kerstin Martens (University of Bremen) kerstin.martens@sfb597.uni-bremen.de Anja Jakobi (University of Bielefeld) Anja.jakobi@uni-bielefeld.de ******************************************************************************************************************

Introduction Discussing the way the higher education and research activities (HER) are defined and

ordered today leads to a reflection on the processes of politics globally, European policies, as well as national policies, regional and local policies. However limited in practice, what is of interest is an understanding of how these different levels cooperate, interact, may be overlap and how these interactions matter in framing the institutional environment of HER sector, creating for it, opportunities and constraints. Moreover, this multi-level governance is a main factor of changes in a sector traditionally controlled at the strictly national level.

As far as this work is concerned, the building of the European higher education and research area is generally seen as the most important factor of change. Other works show the permanence of national level. And, it’s true that the national policies are specifically relevant to explain financial restrictions or reforms and managerial tendencies on the way to govern this traditional public sector (Slaughter, Leslie, 1997). However, in France, we have to take also into account the regionalization of HER governance due to the growing role of territorial authorities in HER development.

And, surely, the French case is not an exception since we are not talking about regionalism but multilevel governance at the regional level. The English case is here relevant too. After the British Government had decided to operate a re-centralization of his own HER system in the eighties (C. Deer, 2003), in the recent years, it took a drift introducing a degree of regional administration in England inspired by the devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Precisely, according to the French case, “regional governance” of HER activities is collectively produced by the state, the regional and local authorities, all these tiers being themselves under the influence of European directives.

2

Politically, regionalization is justified by different goals: first, the decentralization of political power and local autonomy but, also, the regional and local planning and it’s also a way to improve the public management. In practice, settling up decentralization mechanisms must lead the local actors to more responsibility and accountability. It’s the same observation concerning innovation and entrepreneurship…Above all; promoting regional governance of HER system is shown as a solution to facilitate the growth of knowledge-based economy, in other words, to increase the high-level skills of young people and employees and to contribute to economic development by research, technology transfers and business start-ups. In brief, regional governance of HER presents a lot of political interests.

Then, in this paper, I will examine this question of regional governance of HER French system based on a multi-level governance analysis. The text is therefore organized as follows: -in a first section, I will do an overview of the political frame of HER governance in France; - in a second, I will do a brief theorical review to propose a multi-governance frame analysis at the regional level; - in the third and fourth sections, drawing on my empirical findings, I will expose two trends, certainly not

exclusive, of regional governance of French HER sector which reveal two different “territorial ordering” of the multilevel relations. In the third section, I will present two different HER policies I studied: the regional planning of university development and the support innovation policy in academic research. In the fourth section, I will discuss on general features of these two different policies.

With regard on method and data, the findings are based on a public policy analysis which

crosses an institutional analysis (institutional agenda, tools and measures, official texts, budgets…) and a policy process analysis. The last consists on an observation “in action” of how these political projects are implemented. Then, for this part, I interviewed representative and individual actors who took part in the regional policy process - state representatives, local politicians and administrators, university deans and staffs for the HER planning policy and local managers of the technological policies, central actors of HER establishments, laboratories and entrepreneurial academic researchers for support innovation policy in academic research.

I- Background of the study: an overview about the french context of HER governance )

In order to understand completely the discussion below, we nee to fix some elements about the political and HER context which are well-known by the French scholars but less by the non French.

When we talk about multi-level governance in the French political context, we talk precisely about the relations between four levels at least, as the map below shows it:

3

- the State; - the Regions; - the “departements”; - the municipalities and all the cooperative jurisdictions between municipalities, more or less

integrative.

Considering the HER policies, the French system describes a moderated centralized sector

because the State is the employer of the main part of HER professionals. The regional and local authorities have yet largely invested this public field, financing the investments and diverse projects in research, training courses, international operations and student life. The reform of the sector came first in 1989 with the ministry decision to give more autonomy to the universities and to introduce the contractualization in its relations with them. The reform has been pursued in 1991 when the State launched the 2000 University Plan under which he had called upon the regional and local institutions to financially support a huge planning university program. To illustrate this point, in 2005, 4% of the

4

regional authorities budgets were invested in HER, 732 millions of euros. The 2000University Plan, a huge program of HER development realised between 1991 and 1995, was funded by the regional and local authorities for 53%, 1.7 billion of euros, so, more than the State (Marchand, Gravot, 1999). The regions have taken up the most part of the cost (28%), the “Départements” and the Municipalities, respectively, 13.7% and 11.3% of it.

Previously, in the centralized system, the universities didn’t exist as “autonomous enterprises” as it is often described in the American context for example (Bok, 2003). Nevertheless, it is clearly observable that in the short period between 1990 and 2000, the universities have known an important enforcement of their legitimacy and autonomous capacity to conduct the future of HER.

5

II- An introduction about multi-level governance analysis at the regional level

When we are considering the evolution of higher education and research policies in France, we

need to adopt a “multi-level governance” approach. Why is it important?

Classically, public policy analysis puts the researcher in the hart of the political and social regulations, at the meeting point between governmental institutions and civil society. The public policy is, by consequence, a way for a better understanding on how the political sphere succeeds or not to drive the social networks. In these academic values, focusing strictly on the institutional networks is considered, as waste of time for the best and for sacrifice in the worst.

However, the post-modern fragmented conditions no more called “public policy” but “public action” (Thoenig, 1998) are not only the consequences of the entrance and the diversification of non-governmental actors in the policy making (economic agents, interest representatives, associations…) but also in the dispersion of political authority from the State to European and subnational levels of power. Furthermore, dispersion is reinforced by the fact that the territorial tiers have general competencies and can act on any subject they want. Then, negotiation and unstable arrangements are more the reality than delimitated competencies and responsibility division.

Then, the political scientists need to be attentive to these institutional mechanisms, based, first,

on legally requirements imposed by Eu or national legislation over national, regional and local systems (Knill, 2005). At the same time, they have also to take care of influence from the territorial tiers to the highest levels. Empirically, when we analyse the ordinary governmental activity of urban or regional authorities, whatever the field in consideration, an important part of the political activity consists in managing multi-level relations with central government or others “horizontal” powers (Manifet, 2005). Obviously, these interdependencies and interactions “matter” in public policy analysis as for understanding the policy process at the regional or local level than for explaining the changes or not in the social activities and behaviours.

What is the part played by the law facing the multi-level relations?

The multi-level relations are framed by the law. Facing the institutional fragmentation, complexity, overlapping and redundancy, the law has developed answers. At the European level, we

6

can talk about the subsidiary principle. Under the French context, where the ultimate sovereignty of the state is preserved, the political establishment and administrators refer to the first and second “waves of decentralization” which had taken place successively in the eighties and recently (2004-2005). The 1982 and 1983 first laws of decentralization have transferred competencies to the territorial tiers circumscribing their capacity to act, generally declined on territorial terms and/or public fields. In a large extent, the State had transferred the economic development to the Regions, the social policies to the “departements”, the urban planning to the municipalities. Nevertheless, on the same time, the law specifies that none territorial tier can control another, only the State can settle by arbitration on eventual territorial conflicts. Furthermore, independently from the favoured competencies of each tier, all the territorial authorities have a general competency: they can act on whatever they want if they estimate that it is for the local interest. What is called “second wave of decentralization” by politicians has been largely sealed in the 2004 law for the local liberties and had introduced new measures. But, these measures hesitate between simplification and an increase of local liberty, which is actually sacralized in France. The regions and the “departements” had seen their main competencies reinforced by new transfers and coordination power. But, in the same time, the exemplarity principle has been inaugurated which can justify for any local authority to become the leader in a project. Considering the recurring debate caused by the repartition of power and competencies in France, it is possible to express doubts on the capacity of the law to reduce the complexity and the interdependencies.

In last analysis, these apparent imperfections of the laws are definitely not. The law is not

independent from the political interests and logics. In addition, the actors in situation always adapt and interpret the law. To illustrate it, we know that the political legitimacy is based on the capacity to act (Stone, 1993). Therefore, if a problem emerges on the social and local agenda, surely, it would emerge too on the institutional, apart from legal favoured competencies. On the same line, calling up others territorial authorities is often necessary, due to the restricted resources. It is also often an opportunity to share the responsibilities. Furthermore, behind the law and the political interests, there are the social, economic and territorial problems which don’t know the legal and institutional boundaries and explode all. The problems are transversal and they oblige the territorial tiers to cooperate. The law illustrates more than it clarifies this complex link that multi-level governance implies between political autonomy, partnership interests and efficiency stake.

To conclude on this point, it’s certainly no relevant to consider the multi-level governance as a

problem which needs to be resolved. It’s a contemporary characteristic deepest bounded on the policy process and making. Surely, it’s no more relevant to consider that the law can reduce the complexity

7

and pre-order the actors and their relations. The law only draws a part of the reality. For the analyst, it supposes that any overall vision of the multilevel phenomenon has to be replaced by empirical and located investigation. Intergovernmental relations are “activities, interactions and working relations

among the persons occupying official functions in the units of government under consideration” (Wright, p.2). It means in fact favouring the scale of action and actors and studying “the human relations and

human behaviours” since intergovernmental relations do not exist empirically. What is the part played by the social sciences facing the multi-level governance?

The way in which the scholars define the term “multi-level governance” is illustrative about the unstable and always specific character of it, according to the national contexts or the policy areas under consideration. The multi-level governance may be defined as “a dispersion of authority from central state” (Marks, 1993): “it describes a system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at territorial tiers”. The term of “multi-level governance” denotes that actors are more diverse than under traditional intergovernmental relations, that networks and ad-hoc negotiation are more important and that there is no logical or hierarchical order between the tiers. Christiansen talks about non hierarchical systems of negotiation (Christiansen, 1996 quoted by Perraud, 2001).

The scholars generally do a distinction between intergovernmental relations and multi-level

governance. The first is generally used in a specific context which is the federalism, and obviously it ideal-type, the United-States (Wright, 1982). The concept of “multi-level governance” is more relevant for the context under consideration in this paper since in France the multi-level governance refers to an idea of voluntaries relations (Gaudin, 1999). If they want, the regional and local authorities can act independently. The aim of a decentralized system is to respect the autonomy of the local and regional authorities. Even in considering the specific competencies and financial constraints, all the territorial public actors can implement all policies they want if it is to meet the needs of territorial populations. The second specificity of the multi-level governance is, maybe, the deep variation of multi-level governance between different areas, coming mainly from the voluntary principle. By consequence, we can consider that the multi-level context accentuates the divisions as the interdependencies. For example, the federal level transfers it main funds to the states, a little part is directly addressed to the local governments and that is the states who have the charge to operate the re-transfer. Conversely, in the multi-level governance, the regional level is not an “intermediary” level even if attempts are driven in this direction. And the vertical relations are as important as the horizontal between local authorities themselves.

8

Then, due to the deep variability of the national contexts and policy areas, the definition of multi-level governance can only be descriptive and don’t provide qualitative informations about, first, the effective relations and actors implied on these dynamics and, twice, their social impacts even if some elements are pre-fixed and common: different tiers involved, no hierarchical but flexible relations, voluntaries relations but strong interdependencies, etc.

Then, once accepted this definition, there are many ways to discuss about multi-level

mechanisms. Under the American context, Wright interrogates the patterns, the characters, the contents of

the relationships between officials at federal level and states level and the same between the states and the local governments. The states are the subject of the investigation and the author analyses the Intergovernmental relations impact on them. He demonstrates the funding constraints of IGR, the impact on distribution of power among governors, legislators and administrators (popular elected) and surely too the uncontrolled effects like what he calls “the escalation of taxation” (p. 13) or the “greater fragmentation” of budgets, policies and responsibilities.

Knill and Lehmkuhl have chosen to analyse the Europeanization, that is to say “the domestic impact of European policy-making” (Knill, Lehmkuhl, 1999). The hypothesis is that this domestic impact varies with the level of European pressure and with the domestic context which facilitates or prohibits the implementation of European measures. From this starting point, the authors distinguish three ideal-types of European policy-making: positive integration, negative integration, framing integration which “are characterized by distinctive mechanisms of Europeanization, and hence require distinctive approaches in order to explain their domestic impact.

Others studies considerate the influence of the lower levels on the upper levels. Surely, there

has been little research on this specific theme but works are conducted precisely on the political influence from regional policy elites to other tiers1 because of their cumulative elected status.

What is equally an interesting emergent topic in the scientific discussion on multi-level

governance today, it is the impact of delegation and the role of the growing number of “arms length public bodies” including quasi-governmental agencies, single-purpose boards, public-private partnerships, and multi-organizational collaborations (Bendor, J., Glazer, A. and Hammond T., 2001).

1 As we can see in the recent scientific program of INLOGOV (Institute of local government studies)-University of Birmingham on the regional influence on members from British parliament or European parliament.

9

Papadopoulos analyses the democratic deficit of multi-level governance (2006) due to their main characteristics: “the weak of presence of citizen representatives in networks, the lack of visibility and uncoupling from the democratic circuit, the multi-level aspects, and the prevalence of “peer” forms of accountability” (Papadopoulos, 2006:2).

For an important part of scholars, two main trends feed the multilevel governance: European

integration which has shifted authority in several key areas of policy making from national states up to European level institutions; regionalization which in several European countries has shifted political authority from the national level down to subnational levels of government. In France, traditionally centralized, the regionalization has largely concentrated the scientific interests. Taking into account this new soft decentralized system, Duran and Thoenig had established an organizational model which is founded on two axes: “institution” of collective action for the State and localization closest to the problems for State’s regional and local representatives and all the others actors of the policy making and implementation (Duran, Thoenig, 1996).

“Institution” of collective action signifies that the politicians and administrators belonging to the central level give up the role of operator to the profit of collective action organizer. This policy frame of institution and located or sited public action is largely developed by different French scholars and experimented in different public fields (Estebe, 2004; de Maillard, 2000; Palier, 1998 or Hassenteufel, 1998 in social and urban policies; Leroy, 1999, in higher education policies).

“Localization” of the policy making and implementation is linked with two main ideas: • Firstly, the traditional segmentation of public problems on a field logic is no more relevant and then

the territory becomes the new criteria for the public policy area definition: urban policy replace social policy, local development policy or environmental policies replace economic or cultural policies;

• Secondly, the geographical area of the problem is also the pertinent level of action and consecutively the pertinent space for multilevel coordination.

We will discuss this model in the next section. But, what we can already say is that this

“located public action” schema is pertinent in the context of France but not for all the regional and local policies. Moreover, the hypothesis is even that after a relative success of this policy frame in the nineties, it declines today.

10

The main lessons from multi-level contemporary analysis The multi-level debate, just suggested here, helps us to build a frame analysis and a method to

our empirical studies. To return account of multi-level dynamics, it’s not sufficient to describe the networks, we need

to cross the question of multi-level networks with fundamental political questions, in other words to cross multi-level description with a classical policy analysis on the way in which the policy is made, on the way in which the policy change the social practices.

The multi-level analysis can conduct to hollow the public policies of their substance. The multi-

level analysis presents the problematic that the social impact, changes on social and professional practices are not directly discuss. On our point of view, the multi-level analysis does not conduct to a strictly analysis of governmental relations at different tiers: “multi-governance [and then multi-level analysis] implies the formulation or the implementation of public policies by networks involving public actors (politicians and administrators) belonging to different decisional levels, together with non public-actors of different nature (economic agents, interest representatives and stakeholders, experts)” (Papadopoulos, 2006:2).

There are many ways to approach the multi-level dynamics. The method can be “top-down” to

interrogate the European or the national policy, their strategies for being applied in the lower levels and the national, regional or local conditions in which they are adapted (Knill, Lehmkuhl, 1999). The method can be, conversely, “bottom up” when the main goal is to analyse the lower level influence on the upper levels. The method can be top down and bottom up as for Wright who analyses the “penetration” of federal and local influence into state-level decision making. But, the method can be, also, “interactive”, it is what we will favour. Our multi-level regional approach involves not taking part for a territorial tier but to analyse the dynamics of multi-level relations and their outputs in different HER public policies at the regional level. Hence, what we seek it’s to reveal different “territorial ordering” of the multilevel relations in the HER field.

11

III- Two different policies in the field of HER The HER planning policy described here has been lead during the 1990’s whereas the support

innovation policy has started in 1999 and is still on process today. Both these policies have been launched by the state but both have multi-level implications.

A. The planning and development of HER

In France, the « 2000 University » Program (2000U) implemented during five years from 1990 to 1995 initiates a new public making process based on contractual mechanisms between the State and the territorial tiers, mainly the Region’s authorities. Here, decentralization is mobilized to justify the local and regional financial contribution on HER.

This way of proceeding in HER planning policy will be definitely established in the political

habits later on. Since this program, the HER sector has been an important subject of the state-regional agreements concerning the territorial planning, valid for six years. For information, this state-regional agreement became the main tool of multilevel

territorial governance in France since the laws of devolution in 1982 and 1983. And, the second large HER planning

policy, the “University third millennium plan” (3MU) launched in 1999 has followed the same rules than the 2000U.

The motivations of this plan are various but some of them are discriminatory, more linked with

the crisis of the sector than with political anticipations of the challenges for the future. The exceptional increase of registrations at university during the eighties and nineties has created a negative balance between, on one side, the offer of various trainings and curriculum, the host capacity of universities, campus and urban areas and, on the other side, the social demand of HE.

The policy process

The rules of the policy process are here conventional and contractual. And as we have already said, it’s new for the state as well as for the regional and local authorities. The state couldn’t assume alone the cost of the exceptional HE needs. Moreover, the political context was already decentralized and the regional and local authorities were conscious about the HE problems in their territories and, above all, knew the growing importance of HER in economic, social and territorial development. For these reasons, the project of the ministry couldn’t be achieved according to traditional centralized and hierarchical rules and had to be innovative. So that situation occurred. The policy process reveals the

12

new multi-levelled context of the French territorial organization. The state decided to launch 2000U in 1989. In those days, the operations and the investments were not precisely defined because, at the same time, the HER ministry launched a large consultation in all the French regions between the state representatives, territorial tiers and HER establishments. After a first official meeting organized at the regional level, some extra groups were established to diagnose the problems, to design the objectives of the planning and to list a first series of main operations. Once this first dialogue was done, a negotiation step started in which the state representatives and the regional authorities discussed their own budgetary participation.

Budgets

The budgets involved are particularly huge: finally, the 2000U Plan implies 3.2 billion euros (Marchand, Gravot, 1999). This budget was shared between the State (47%) and the territorial tiers (53%). The regions stand for 28%, the local authorities –“department” and urban or municipality jurisdictions for 25%. The state assumes the financial compensation for the poorest regions. Precisely, the key of partition between State and territorial tiers is based on the fiscal potential of the regions, on the unemployment and employment rate.

The outputs of the policy

The main operations are “quantitative” such as new constructions, renewing and equipments but obviously have “qualitative” repercussions because all these new constructions encourage the creation and the development of HER activities, and, by secondary effect, the localization of teachers and students. Without taking into account the symbolic effects of the creation of a university centre in a medium-sized town due to the prestigious status given to such towns. In any case, the number of university sites has widely increased involving organizational and professional changes.

13

The visible effects of this HER planning policy are surely important because it concerns new

constructions and equipments, housing for students, libraries. Because of regeneration of the old campus and the creation of news in different middle-sized cities, this policy had concrete and visual repercussions on the people’s everyday life.

Nevertheless, the negative and perverse effects are not avoided. In this massive policy which

has involved a considerable volume of actors and territories, the inflation of public spending is also a reality. There is a hidden question: were all the new sites created in that period relevant? The duplication of services in a short distance, the creation of higher services in little towns, the difficulties in developing activities of research on these new sites…all these elements cause a debate today.

However, this multiplying effect is, in our opinion, directly related to the strategic rules followed for this policy. All the regional and local authorities wanted their participation to 2000U to have impacts on their own territory of responsibility and the rules of deliberation, bargaining and compromise at the regional level favoured this inflation of demands for campuses and offers for financial participation.

14

B. The support innovation policy on academic research In the context of promoting a knowledge-based European economy, in 1999, the French

ministry of HER has launched a policy to promote, from an economical point of view, the enhancing of the academic research: public-private partnership for research program, technology transfer, setting up start-up based on the academic material and human resources…

The Ministry wills are to facilitate the knowledge and technology transfer from public

laboratories to private sector. The problems highlighted by this policy are various. The economic growth is more and more linked with innovation whereas the public research is by different ways separated from economic activities. The fact that the salaries of the researchers in the public sector are completely financed by the state could be surely an element of this lack of interdependency and, consecutively, cooperation. Both graduated PhDs and engineers, even from the scientific fields, don’t generally choose private careers but prefer security ones in the academic sector even if the salaries are low, even if they have to wait for a long time before being employed and even if the risk is large of giving up in last analysis because of the crisis of recruitment in the academic sector.

Then, the innovation in academic sphere is a recurrent priority in France as surely in others

European countries for the end of the nineties. And, after the innovation law in 1999 which is the starting point, the successive governments have taken completive measures in this way. Recently, the ministry has even taken measures which directly concern his internal organization. A direction for research and innovation has been established which replaces the former direction of technology. This decision aims to improve the continuity between research, innovation and economic development without ruptures. On the top of that, the ministry has decided to release itself from its traditional role of operator to concentrate itself on its strategic role. Now, it is the research national agency and the industrial innovation agency, both created in 2005, which deal with the management of research programs, thanks to call for proposals.

The national policy for innovation has different purposes. It facilitates the mobility of academic

researchers from the public sector to the private sector. It involves the creation in all the French regions of innovative enterprises incubators. It inaugurates a national competition for the innovative enterprises. In the universities, the ministry favours the creation of services or missions for supporting the entrepreneurship and economic issues for researchers, teachers and students. Some selective budgets are alocated for these goals.

15

The way in which the territorial tiers participate at this national policy has two directions. First, the regional, local and urban authorities implemented alone this type of policy as they are deeply worried by economic and technological development. They could have developed their own incubators, innovative incentives and entrepreneurial contests and a variety of selective budgets toward innovative economic activities and technological research. Secondly, they indirectly participate at the national innovative policy by financing the incubators which have got the national label.

The budgets are less easy to evaluate than for HER planning because they are more

fragmented based on selective funding. During the 1999-2006 period, the budget alocated by the ministry for the regional incubators has reached 45.6 millions of euros, representing 1/3 of the total invest in the incubators2. The remaining part of the investment is achieved by territorial tiers, European funding, and own incubators benefits. There is also a lack of data about the exact participation of the territorial tiers but we know that it has been significant since at least 2004. Since this date, their contribution has represented 40% of the budget of the 28 incubators.

The expected effects of this policy are more based on cognitive changes, professional habit

evolution than on new equipments and constructions. On a short extent, the effects of the innovative policy could be seen as confidential if we consider that the main target of this policy is to diffuse the entrepreneurship in the academic research habits. For the professional mobility from the public sector to the private sector, only 98 demands have been registered by the commission responsible and for 1999 533 academic researchers have been involved. Above all, the favoured possibility –the consultance- is the nearest from classical practices of technology transfer. The second favoured possibility refers to the creation of enterprise. The third possibility, which consists in co-participating at research activities and private management, is neglected.

By the way, it is noted that the incentive measures as incubators or innovative competition are more used by recent or more former PhD graduated and unemployed people than full-time researchers. In these cases, the creation of enterprise could be an alternative in a context of crisis of the recruitment in academic sector. It could be also and more largely an alternative for highest graduated who don’t find work in link with their diploma…It is not sure that these unexpected effects favour in last analysis the penetration of entrepreneurship values in the academic activities and professional habits.

2 Technopolis, Les incubateurs d’entreprises innovantes liés à la recherche publique : Panorama du dispositif d’incubation, report for the research ministry, octobre 2006

16

III- Territorial ordering of HER policies

Then, beyond the regional governance of HER in France, the variety is certainly more the rule than the uniformity. Moreover, the subject here is to distinguish typical patterns of collective actions at the subnational levels which are always specific. Considering our empirical findings described above, we have built two forms of what we can call “territorial ordering”.

The first scheme can be associated with what the French social science scholars name “action

publique territorialisée” and what we will translate here “located (or sited) public action”. It claims a specific response to the problem of multi-level coordination by, in brief, the multiplication at the regional level of negotiation arenas and a certain division of labour between central state and territorial tiers. The second scheme, which might be called “a bottom up regulation”, illustrates a lack of multi-level coordination and, above all, a regulation largely operated by target audience of the policies and their delegated public agencies.

To sketch main features of these two regional governance forms of HER and their differences,

we present both with the same analytical frame which is inspired by policy analysis. We describe it below :

- -which are the normative and cognitive principles of the policies considered? Policies are not just practical programs but also representations of the world and assertions on how the society should be driven. The political actors are partially conscious of these ideological frames, they post it or they hide it. It depends on the social effects, advantages and disadvantages they expect on transparency or maintaining blur.

- Which are the financial modalities of these policies, the funding volume and criteria of distribution?

- What are the main governmental tools and devices, considering that tools and instruments associated with a policy are particularly relevant elements to understand it (Lascoumes, Le Galès, 2004)

- Who are the actors, their number and their profiles? - Which are the systemic characteristics of the policy process at the regional level?

The first two parts capture the main variations around this analysis frame and the third

describes the systemic properties of the policy process of each to conduct a reflection on the regional governance mechanisms.

17

A. The « located (or sited) public action » scheme

The “located public action” refers to what French scholars generally call “action publique territorialisée” (Duran, 1999). It’s an important stream of the policy sciences debate in France. The qualifier « territorialisé » is used to define a situation where the territory is both the object of the policy and the subject, since the actors located on this area are seen as the first concerned by the decision and the action.

1) Three normative and cognitive principles are linked with this territorial and collective

scheme: globalization, partnership and territory. Classically, the public policies are divided into sectors: education, health, economy… On the

ordinary life, this sectorization has no justification. The territorial problems as the individual problems but, surely, all the main contemporary problems as, for example, the environmental, are naturally global and can’t be treated in a fragmented way. The bureaucratic organization of the state and political institutions are now seen as inadapted for resolving the social problems. A globalized strategy consists in conceptualizing programs and fixing collective actors once the diagnostic is done.

The second dimension is the partnership. Not any political actor can resolve alone the contemporary problems even if it is the state, even if the problem concerned is the specific purpose of the institution. The contemporary problems are sweeping across the institutional borders. Moreover, the solutions have to be found in common, with all the actors involved on the problem, institutional actors as private actors. Actually, behind this idea of partnership, there are two different and often opposite interests: technocratic or democratic. Involving the social actors on the decision making is a way to be efficient and to avoid social resistance or no social appropriation of the reforms. But, it can also be a way to give to the target audience of the policies the right to participate and defend their interests. Surely, efficiency and democratic targets are effectively mixed. The challenge associated with this idea of partnership is on the collective conception of the programs, upstream of the policy process. By consequence, the policy program is the result of these preliminaries consultations.

The third normative characteristic is the territory. The implementation as well as the policy making has to take place in specific areas, nearest to the problematic situations. In this context, the first decision is to fix the relevant area to act which is not a superficial question. Surprisingly, in the context of HER planning, the region has been systematically, established by the state as the relevant level.

2) Consecutively with these aspects, the main governmental tool of this type of policy is the

contract, between two or more partners, completed by different arenas where people gather around the

18

table. These contractual logics reflect on financial features. Different political institutions participate to the financing of the program and the costs are shared.

Who are the actors? Institutional actors and representative are favoured to the detriment of the

individuals due to the own structure of the policy process which is based on discussion. It is impossible for all the actors involved in policies to participate to the resolution of their problems. But, what it is notable is that, differently with the previous centralized schema, the “localization” of the collective action lead to a renewal of relevant representatives. More than professional and union representatives, the more relevant representatives are the territorial actors like enterprises, universities and associations…all the actors who have a territorial logic of organization. The regionalization re-set up the organization of actors and power in the field of policy making.

B. The « bottom up » scheme

The “bottom up” scheme illustrates policies which are more preoccupied by the state-society coordination than by the multilevel.

1) As for the located scheme however, there is a normative and cognitive background:

autonomy, empowerment, reciprocity. First of all, the social differentiation is accepted and taken into account on action. The

incapacity for the politic actors to do the synthesis between political and private interests, or private interests themselves is assumed. The relations on public policies are definitely “transactional”. It means the conflicts don’t only correspond to struggles for the power but also express cognitive and normative tensions. Each of these actors –from public, associative or private sectors- have built progressively and during their career a professional and/or a territorial identity and they don’t share the same interests, targets, values and views of what is good or not for them. And none of these actors have the legitimacy to order hierarchically these different visions. All these actors don’t share the same languages and it’s the stumbling block of a perfect communication between them. Beyond, this implies to respect the autonomy of the actors, their specific competencies and constraints.

The second principle is the idea of empowerment particularly developed in United States, appearing recently in France in environmental and social policy studies. Actually, the term of empowerment is ambiguous. The psychological concept of empowerment, transferred on public policies, means giving the power to act to the individuals and/or local communities favouring in this way auto-organization and social initiatives. It is generally considered as alternatives from more traditional and institutional initiatives. But, the drift of the use of this term is not far away when the hidden

19

purposes are the neoliberalism or conservatism. These ideologies see a less interest for governmental intervention and encourage for reducing public budgets and increasing user fees (…). Without taking part in this debate, the empowerment initiatives are associated with the notion of responsibility. The social actors are thus mobilized to face collective problems on which they are directly involved. The policy process is then recomposed; the individual actors or communities are public producers on an institutional context and incentives.

Reciprocity is the third value of the “bottom up” scheme. The reciprocity means allowing something and expecting for something in return and this combination have to compound a notion of equivalence (Leca, 1996: 348).

2&3) Consecutively, the financing of the programs are not global but selective, project–based

and contractual. On the line of this, the incentives measures are dominant as call for proposal or offer. The problem is not to produce programs but to create a favoured environment for social initiatives and entrepreneurship on specific fields. But, in parallel of incentives, there are criteria which could be seen as elements of framing which influence and constraint the social initiatives and contribute to format them. Plan the incentive measures becomes an essential policy task, which oblige the institutional experts to re-integrate fragmented measures in different fields in a global and territorial vision.

4) In the “bottom up” scheme, the relevant actors are first the administrative and experts in the

governmental administrations and agencies because they are the one who develop incentive “machines”. Second, the social actors have got the other main roles in the scene, weakening the representatives. Then, they can be enterprises, research laboratory, universities or even individuals, researchers or students…

C. The systemic trends and multilevel dynamics

In the context of the located public action, the regional or local governance is promoted and the regional levels or the urban levels are consecutively relevant levels of regulation. The arenas of decision are fixed at these sub-national levels and the authorities placed at these levels are, for this reason, favoured. In the same way, the diagnostics are based on territorial situations, level of equipment, population volume and number of target audience, depressed characteristics and eventual needs to interventionist measures.

Independently of these elements, we can’t talk about decentralized governance but multi-level governance at the territorial tiers. The State is well represented at the territorial levels thanks to

20

representatives, the minister representative –the “recteur” for the HER ministry- as the central and global representative of the state –the “prefet”- who have to do the synthesis of the different state territorial policies, economic, social, education…

The two sketches below are based, the first, on traditional political system described by well-

known sociologists in France (Crozier, Thoenig and P. Grémion) and, the second, on our empirical studies of higher education policies at the local, regional and national level in the France of the 1980’s and 1990’s

21

The State preserves an important role on policy making. First, his representatives have often a

preliminary function of designing the first diagnostic of the territorial situation, problems which need to be resolved and proposed solutions. This first intellectual work is not neutral because it is the basis of the next multilevel concertation and negociation. And, if the ways to resolve the problems or the state’s solutions are discussed, it’s rare that the manner to fix the problem is removed by the partners. For example, when the “Recteur” of a region suggest that in this area it may be justified to create a university, the regional debate is structured by this first assertion and his main goal is to decide if we create or not a new university. Conversely, if in another region, the “recteur” suggests the creation of university centres from universities located on regional capitals, the negotiations between the actors are to decide how many centres, and how many formations and activities in each.

Thus, we can say that the state representatives have a central position in the regional

governance which is called by the French scholars Duran and Thoenig the “institution” of collective action between actors (Duran, Thoenig, 1996). They fix the first diagnostics and the calendar of policy making, they appoint the participants. Obviously, variations exist between regions due to the regional and local strategies to protect their own interests. Some actors may declare them as volunteers for the

22

mission even though the state hasn’t invited them. But there is no doubt that all these collective rules fixed by the state structure largely the context of negotiations.

However, the situation is not anymore a centre-periphery movement. We have previously

spoken about the structural elements which unvalid this scheme (local autonomy, financial capacity of the territorial tiers rooted on local taxes). The sited public action adds some elements that also reequilibrate the play between state and territorial tiers. A mean of task division occur, the state as a “orchestra dean” of the collective action and the territorial tiers as operators. And, this doesn’t mean the decision is appropriated by the central actors and the local actors are simply executive actors. We know that in the contemporary polycentric context of public action, the implementation is not anymore separated from the decision process. The policy making is realized “in action”, in incremental and iterative dynamics. Then, considering these elements, the actors who are nearest the action area are mostly important. There are two main strategic ways to influence clearly the decision process for the territorial tiers: the anticipation of the programs launched by supra levels; the capacity to reach to bilateral agreements with sector representatives. For the first, the territorial leaders who anticipate the next national programs, on preparing projects, on composing “horizontal coalitions” with other territorial tiers, on pre-capitalizing agreements and projects on common with professionals, enterprises, other establishments or social actors representative of the branches of activities involved in policy program. And, this ultimate point is surely the more evident point of our contemporary context of what we call “governance” which is obviously deeply different from the anterior forms of institutional and centralized political attitudes. Thus, the capacity to reach to agreements with sector representatives or direct economic and social actors is the second main territorial strategy to reequilibrate the multilevel governance at their advantages. It’s an extraordinary way to convince state representative or others supra territorial tiers.

To conclude, the located scheme provides a regulation scheme characterized by the co-action

between two or more different actors. Nevertheless, to totally understand the multilevel regulation, in addition with the analysis of the relations between state and territorial tiers, we have to take into account the non governmental actors who are involved on the public policies in consideration (professionals, organizations, individuals…). The non-governmental actors can be resources or constraints for territorial tiers in their relations between themselves and with the State.

In the context of bottom up scheme, we can have doubt on the coherence of the public policies

because it is the result of political strategies and measures which have been formulated at different

23

levels, without direct coordination between each of them, differently from the located scheme. It is evident that the different levels, even when they acting in the same field and for common purposes have varied motivations that don’t totally overlap. Our empirical findings on innovative policy are here significant. When the ministry attempts to articulate two objectives, the economic development but above all the increase of financial capacity of the universities, the territorial tiers are exclusively preoccupied by economic and territorial development, two purposes that could enter in conflict and conduct to perverse effects.

Anyway, let’s talk about how the system is regulated in this fragmented multilevel governance.

Surely, the regulation is realized at the nearest of social activity by two types of actors. What it is interesting is that the governmental agencies play this indirect coordination role without it has been written on their official missions. These agencies are not jurisdictions but delegations with specific purposes (like economic development, professional and social integration of young people, or, in the context studied, innovative start-up incubators…). Often, theses agencies have been set up by the state but can operate with territorial funds. Then, the experts within these agencies do, in the last analysis, the synthesis between variable political targets.

Second, the social actors, more precisely, the target audience of the policies are the main regulators of the system because they develop an adeptness of their institutional context and opportunities and constraints. This dynamic may be called as a bottom up regulation and the system can be schematized as social actors and activities on the centre of the organization and the administrations, agencies, measures and incentives as the context of a form of auto-organization.

24

. CONCLUSION

In this paper, what we wanted to do was not talking about “regionalization” of HER governance

in France but about “territorial ordering” of multi-level relations. However, in this conclusion, we may try to answer to this question.

Can we talk about regionalization of HER governance in France? In this context, the difficulty is to have a clear answer due to the complexity and instability of the phenomena studied. But, we can talk about regionalization trends. Three trends of regionalization seems important to us.

First, the regionalization of HER governance is largely operated by the regional and local authorities which have in France a relative important capacity to act on their territories and which have strongly invested the higher education and research public field. This sector is multidimensional and answers to various problems and territorial stakes: a tool to fight against the urban and local decline, a lever for technological economic development, a way to qualify employees and individuals, an element for cultural change and demographic dynamism…

Secondly, the regionalization is operated by the professionals and the students involved in HER activities because the scale of their action is largely local and regional even if the international networks are also important in this sphere. When an entrepreneurial researcher decides to create or to participate to the creation of a start-up, even if his private partners are located in other areas, he prefers create it closest to his work place. It’s a way for him to control the economic exploitation of his

25

invention, patents and licences. Furthermore, if he has a problem, if the unforeseen ones falls above to him, if he must react quickly to the requirements of a European call for project, he will naturally address himself to its territorial politicians and administrators to find solutions. Thirdly, the regionalization can indirectly results from the growing use by the national level –the HER ministry- of automatic measures to frame the academic activities –incentive measures for entrepreneurship, selective funding- which amounts denying any role other than purely administrative with the local relays of the State. In this case, the academic actors have more and more recourse to the local authorities for a whole of aspects which these state’s automatic devices do not treat.

The multi-level relations are not easy, it’s clear after this reflection. When contractualization is

favoured, the ministry always tries to impose its views while reducing the costs of its preferences. Taken in a competing race between territories, the local authorities forget their general and national public responsibility with the profit for localist and electoralist interests. When autonomy between tiers is favoured, who takes the charge of the multi-level coordination? It’s the non governmental actors, firstly the target audience of the policies, secondly, the arm’s length public bodies as, in our example, the start-up incubators which have to conciliate with the multi-interests of their multi-level financers (State, Regions, local authorities).

The contemporary political institutions have difficulties to overcome the coordination difficulties related to their interdependencies. Recently, what it is observed, it’s a trend to favour the last scenario of multi-level territorial ordering than the first. These new policies funded on automatic incentives measures marginalize the contractual relations between State and territorial tiers.

REFERENCES Bendor, J., Glazer, A. and Hammond, T. (2001)), “Theories of delegation”, Annual review of political science, IV: 235-269. Bok D. (2003) Universities in the market place, Princeton University press, 2003. C. Stone, (1993), “Urban regimes and the capacity to govern : a political economy approach”, Journal of Urban affairs, 15, 1: 1-28. DEER C. (2004), “Evolutions, contradictions et ambiguités des enjeux territoriaux de la politique univeristaire britannique », Journées scientifiques du RESUP, Les figures territoriales de l’université, les 3 et 4 juin, Université de Toulouse 2. Duran P. et Thoenig J.-C. (1996), “L’État et la gestion publique territoriale”, Revue française de science politique, 46(4) : 580-623. Duran, P. (1999). Penser l'action publique, Paris, L.G.D.J. ECOTEC (Research and Consulting Limited), (2005), The innovation and knowledge transfer exchange: the national role of universities and research establishments based in the Greatest South East, may. Estebe P. (2004), L’usage des quartiers. Action publique et géographie dans la politique de la ville (1982-1999), L’Harmattan, coll. Logiques politiques », Paris.

26

Gaudin J.-P. (1999), Gouverner par contrat, l’action publique en question, Paris, Presses de Science Politique. Hassenteufel P. (1998), « Think social, act local. La territorialisation comme réponse à la crise de l’Etat-providence », Politiques et management public, 16(3) : 1-12. Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2002), “Types of multi-level governance”, Cahiers européens de sciences po, 3. Knill C. and Lehmkuhl D., “How Europe matters? Different mechanisms of Europeanization”, European integration online paper, vol. 3, 1999, n°7. Available on [http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999-007.htm]. Le Galès P. et Lascoumes P., (2004), Gouverner par les instruments, Paris, Presses de science Po. Le Galès P. et C. Lequesne, (1997), Le paradoxe des régions en Europe, Paris, La Découverte. Palier B. (1998), « La référence au territoire dans les nouvelles politiques sociales », Politiques et Management public, 16 (3) : 13-42. Leca J. (1996), « La gouvernance de la France sous la cinquième république: une perspective de sociologie comparative”, F. D’Arcy et L. Rouban, De la Ve République à l’Europe, Hommage à Jean-Louis Quermonne, Paris, Presses de Science Po : 329-365. Leroy M. (1999), « La négociation dans l’action publique conventionnelle dans le contrat de plan Etat-Région », Revue française de science politique, 49, (4-5) : 573-600. Maillard J. (2000), « Le partenariat en représentations : contribution à l’analyse des nouvelles politiques sociales territorialisées », Politiques et management public, vol. 18, 3 : 20-41. Manifet C. (2007), « La valorisation économique de la recherche publique en France. L’entrepreneuriat universitaire, du legislateur au fonctionnaire-chercheur-entrepreneur », The universities and their market, International conference of the RESUP (Higher education network), February, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd, Science Po-CSO (Center of Organisational sociology), Paris. [Available on http://www.resup.u-bordeaux2.fr/manifestations/conferenceinternationaleparis2007/Actes/Actesparis2007.htm] Manifet C., (2005), « Les dynamiques intermédiaires dans les politiques territoriales d’enseignement supérieur », In D. Filâtre et G. de Terssac, Les dynamiques intermédiaires au coeur de l’action publique, Octarès Éditions : 175-186. Marchand M.-J. et Gravot P. (1999), « La place des régions dans le financement du Plan Université 2000 », Politiques et management public, vol. 17 (4), décembre. Marchand M.-J. et Gravot P., (1999) « La place des régions dans le financement du Plan Université 2000 », Politiques et management public, vol. 17 (4), décembre : 39-58. Papadopoulos Y. (2006), “Conceptualising accountability in network and multi-level governance”, Political concepts, The Committee on Concepts and Methods (C&M) working paper series on concepts and methods, 10, july. [www.concepts-methods.org] Perraud D. (2001), Europe, Etats, Régions: la gouvernance multi-niveaux et le rôle des régions dans les politiques agricoles et rurales, Disponible sur [http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/archive/may01/artdp.pdf.] Prado Yepes (de) C. (2006) « World regionalization of higher education: policy proposals for international organizations”, Higher education policy, 19: 111-128. Schofer E. and Meyer John W. (2005), “The word-wide expansion of higher education in the Twentieth century”, American sociological review, vol.70, n°6. Slaughter S., Leslie L. (1997), Academic capitalism: politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Thoenig J.-C. (1998), “Politiques publiques et action publique”, Revue internationale de politique comparée, vol. 5, n°2 : 295-311. Wright D.S., (1982), The States and intergovernmental relations,