Now that the survey phase is behind us, and the avenues for testing in the communities taking part in the program are becoming clearer, we organized our first scientific event on October 10, hosted by Magali Talandier. The aim was to share and discuss our work with researchers, to gather their observations, ideas and useful resources to feed or further develop the tests, and to put them into perspective with regard to their own fields of research. Present at this first scientific event were :
- Mathias Bejean, researcher and professor of management science at Université Paris-Est Créteil, specializing in innovation management.
- Marie Ferru-Clement, researcher and professor of geography at the University of Poitiers, specializing in the geography of innovation and territorial development.
- Sylvain Grisot, urban planner and founder of dixit.net, a consulting and urban research agency
- Adeline Heitz, researcher and professor of geography and urban planning at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, specializing in mobility, transport and logistics.
- Rachel Linossier, researcher and lecturer at the Institut d’urbanisme de Lyon, Université Lyon 2, specialist in industrial economics and metropolitan governance.
- Françoise Navarre, researcher and professor at the Ecole d’urbanisme de Paris, Université Paris-Est Créteil, specializing in local public finance and planning economics
- Nadine Richez Battesti, researcher and lecturer in economics at Aix-Marseille University, specializing in the social economy and social policies.
A tour of the tests in preparation
The results of our survey work, the tests in preparation are organized around i4 major questions: How can we work differently with companies to mobilize them in the service of territorial, environmental or social issues? How can we rethink business parks with a view to regeneration, collective care of the “commons”, and better management of company locations? How can work on the materiality of the economy and urban metabolism better contribute to local economic strategies, and in particular to cooperation between territories? What skills and tools will tomorrow’s economic developers need, and how will the role of elected representatives evolve in these areas? Find out more, an overview here.
The myths and realities of new approaches to economic development
As part of a survey on the cooperation contract between Rennes Métropole and 16 intercommunalités in the Rennes catchment areaSylvain Grisot observed a break in the approaches and postures of elected representatives and agents in charge of economic development. With the shortage of land in particular, the logic of attracting and welcoming companies has given way to more demanding and in-depth support for economic players. For Adeline Heitz, public action and the resources of local authorities are now mobilized around a selection of activities, with a two-speed management of land, where the center-periphery distinction is still relevant: very “green” activities in the center, large-scale facilities (particularly logistics) rejected on the outskirts, with the latter trying as best it can to preserve its land. Marie Ferru calls for a more methodical analysis of companies’ location choices and the reasons behind them, in order to better understand changes in the production system.
The revolution in land tenure models
Sylvain Grisot points out that, since the Covid crisis, the way in which land is held has changed: some intermunicipal bodies no longer sell land to SMEs, but prefer to lease space (building leases, company hotels). In this way, they no longer meet the investment needs of entrepreneurs, but rather the surface area requirements of companies. Rachel Linossier notes, however, that planning documents, rigid and based on a functionalist logic, do not allow us to go any further in this use-based approach and interweave different activities, even if we can observe a form of relaxation with temporary occupation. The latter allows us to anticipate and support the emergence of new sectors, and to develop more flexible solutions. The associations syndicales libres at the ZAE level are also a way for public players to enter into this logic, and even to involve landowners, even if the question of surface areas should not be limited to ZAEs. She also calls for reflection on new ways of using the PLU, rather than modifying it.
The difficult logistics equation
A number of researchers regret that none of the tests envisaged deals with logistics, which has become a central issue in economic development strategies (while revealing their limits), recognized as an essential activity but which no one wants to host on their territory (even less so in a ZAN context). So how can we encourage cooperation, solidarity and pooling between territories? How can we understand the challenges of this sector, characterized by the hyper-mobility of companies, when we look at it from the perspective of a SCOT? Adeline Heitz also reveals how difficult it is for companies to project beyond 2 or 3 years, and how difficult it is for local authorities to assess needs, especially as these evolve rapidly due to the nature of the activity, but also to external factors (financial and real estate markets). This is a headache for local authorities, who are now being asked to draw up a land-use plan based on the needs of commercial logistics companies.
When governance opens up to new players
Rachel Linossier, who has studied the Lyon cases, explains that the arrival of a new municipal executive shook up governance, which had been “purring” around a vision of attractiveness. A metropolitan economic territorial committee has brought on board new players, more open to transitions (young entrepreneurs, craftsmen, small construction companies, the regional SSE chamber, the regional scop union, etc.), previously under the radar and outside the major accounts logic that formed the backbone of Lyon’s strategy. It also underlines the need to make better use of all the skills of local authorities (for example, in Lyon, where the Metropole now also has departmental powers, by coordinating all the tools for employment and integration).
What resources for renewed local economic development?
Françoise Navarre calls for the question of local authority resources over the long term to support these new approaches to economic development (for example, to develop new business parks, but also to manage them sustainably), at a time of shrinking margins for manoeuvre (recentralization of local taxation, austerity measures). What’s more, in the context of inter-territorial cooperation (such as the Figeac PETR), the sharing of fiscal resources (through financial and fiscal pacts, for example) is a key factor in regulating functional competition. The scarcity of land is also intensifying competition between activities in this area: between residential and economic activity, which generates the most resources? Another obstacle to taking tax issues into account is the fact that local authorities operate in silos, which leads them to think in terms of economic development or housing strategies, for example, without considering the tax revenues generated or the levers available in terms of exemptions or tax allowances, which are the responsibility of the finance department. It would be very useful to raise staff awareness of these issues, and to evaluate existing tax systems.
Testing, then what?
For Mathias Béjean, testing should be more about progress and improvement than problem-solving. He suggests classifying and prioritizing tests according to their level of maturity (cf. concept maturity level) and, when certain ideas cannot be tested “in real life” and/or within the timeframe of the program (e.g. a new tax system), to use simulation tools (e.g. digital twins), which nevertheless enable us to create consensus. It also raises the question of how to make the most of the tests at the end of the program, in particular by mobilizing the theory of change already used at the start of Rebonds.