Abstract
This chapter aims to investigate why and how strategic planning takes place in the French local public administration.
The first part of the chapter starts by informing the French national context through the administrative system, the legal framework, the cultural and political factors, and the reform process. Recently, the state has undertaken a wave of reforms that has deeply redefined the institutional landscape and led to a reinforcement of the region-metropole coupling in strategic planning. This kind of collaboration is actually imposed by the national state and refers to a top-down approach. The regional and metropole levels have no other choice than to collaborate. In that sense, we observe “a recentralization movement of decentralization”. These reforms are led by a cost-cutting logic and tend to implement a rationalising process. It also promotes a multi-level strategic decision-making process and an increasing influence of the civil society. In other words, we assume that the recent legal framework of local strategic planning is mainly influenced by the New Public Management (NPM) and New Public Governance (NPG) paradigms. To investigate this assumption and provide new insights into why and how local authorities implement strategic planning activities, we undertook an empirical research.
The second part of the chapter aims to present the results of a research done on local authorities regarding the strategic planning process. Mixed methods were used for a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.
The third part of the chapter confirms that local strategic planning is influenced by NPM and NPG paradigms. It also provides new insights into and a deeper understanding of the process and practices used to implement local strategic planning. Our qualitative findings reveal the implicit logics behind such strategic activities. Finally, the discussion sheds light on the local ideologies and institutional changes that shape local strategic planning in the French context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The French metropolitan territory does not take into account the overseas territories.
- 2.
We are currently in the sixth generation of the CPER (2015–2020).
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
In 2017, Lyon extends over 48 km2, has 506,615 inhabitants and a density of 10,583 inhabitants per km2.
- 6.
In 2017, Nantes extends over 66 km2, has 282,029 inhabitants and a density of 4531 inhabitants per km2.
- 7.
Among seven possibilities, for more methodological details cf. methodology chapter.
- 8.
In the French legal framework, consultation is understood as a process by which decision-makers seek the views of the public to know their opinions and needs at any stage of a project’s progress. However, its contributions are not necessarily taken into account in the final decision, because they can be simply consultative.
- 9.
Today, there are still several public universities in Lyon, but they have agreed to integrate with other regional institutions of higher education and research, the label Université de Lyon.
- 10.
According to interviewees, this concerns strategic planning in terms of economic development and urban planning.
- 11.
For more information on the French competitiveness cluster policy, cf. http://competitivite.gouv.fr/policy-of-the-clusters-906.html (last accessed online December 19, 2017).
- 12.
“280 people work in the urban planning department. We are an average service, but our service has the highest number of executives. We have 140 top managers. It is really a strong concentration, because there are few design offices with 140 executives who produce grey matter!”, “We have a big prospective department. I think it’s quite rare because it’s a service that employs 18 people!” (Around 5000 people are employed directly in the Lyon metropolis.)
- 13.
“There is a mass effect. There are still 50 people in the economic development department. In Marseille, in Lille, in the other big cities, there are not 50. There may be about 10 of them. We got the strength. It is a political will to put resources on projects”.
- 14.
“The clusters were labelled because they were global in scope. And there is a reason for this: (…) each cluster is the result of very large financial and human resources. There were two people who had been working on this for years”. “I would like to compare our responses to the government’s call to tender on the clusters with those of other metropolises . Here, it cost us 400,000 euros and 10 people were mobilized to respond to the call to tender”.
- 15.
References
Arnaud, L., Le Bart, C., & Pasquier, R. (2006). Idéologies et action publique territoriale. La politique change-t-elle encore les politiques? Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Bodiguel, J.-L. (2006). La DATAR: quarante ans d’histoire. Revue française d’administration publique, 119, 401–414.
Bourdin, A. (2005). La métropole des individus. La Tour-d’Aigues: Edition de l’Aube.
Brunetière, J. R. (2006). Les indicateurs de la loi organique relative aux lois de finances (LOLF): une occasion de débat démocratique? Revue française d’administration publique, 1, 95–111.
Deffigier, C. (2007). Intercommunalité et territorialisation de l’action publique en Europe. Revue française d’administration publique, 121–122, 79–98.
Desage, F., & Godard, J. (2005). Désenchantement idéologique et réenchantement mythique des politiques locales. Revue française de science politique, 55(4), 633–661.
Drumaux, A., & Goethals, C. (2007). Strategic management: A tool for public management? An overview of the Belgian federal experience. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(7), 638–654.
Florent, L. (2015). La place des régions françaises dans l’Union européenne: améliorée ou détériorée avec la suppression de 9 d’entre elles? Population & Avenir, 1(721), 4–7.
Galimberti, D., Pinson, G., & Sellers, J. M. (2017). Métropolisation, intercommunalité et inégalités sociospatiales. Sociétés contemporaines, 107, 79–108.
Hauriou, M. (1938). Précis élémentaire de droit administratif. Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey.
Hernandez, S. (2008). Paradoxes et management stratégique des territoires: étude comparée de métropoles européennes. Revue Vie & Sciences Economiques, 178, 54–75.
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Meulin, L., & Whitttington, R. (2007a). Strategy as practice: Research directions and resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007b). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
Lambin, J. J. (1990). La recherche en marketing. Paris: McGraw-Hill.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47.
Marais, M., Hernandez, S., & Keramidas, O. (2011). Sustainable scanning in a network: An ambitious project for company/territory synergies creation. In N. Lesca (Ed.), Environmental scanning and sustainable development (pp. 131–161). Hoboken: Wiley.
Marcou, G. (2012). Les réformes des collectivités territoriales en Europe: problématiques communes et idiosyncrasies. Revue française d’administration publique, 1(141), 183–205.
Marcou, G. (2015). L’État, la décentralisation et les régions. Revue française d’administration publique, 4, 887–906.
Massardier, G. (1997). L’intercommunalité pour s’isoler. In D. Gaxie (Ed.), Luttes d’institutions. Enjeux et contradictions de l’administration territoriale (pp. 139–164). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Michel, V. (2005). Décentralisation européenne et déconcentration nationale: les modalités d’européanisation des services territoriaux de l’état. Revue française d’administration publique, 2, 219–228.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Newcastle: Sage.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120–123.
Naulleau, G. (2003). Mise en œuvre du contrôle de gestion dans les organisations publiques: les facteurs de réussite. Politiques et Management Public, 21(3), 135–147.
Offner, J.-M. (2006). Les territoires de l’action publique locale. Fausses pertinences et jeux d’écarts. Revue française de science politique, 56(1), 27–47.
Olive, M. (2015). Métropoles en tension. La construction heurtée des espaces politiques métropolitains. Espaces et sociétés, 160–161(1), 135–151.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1999). Strategic management in the public sector. Concepts, models, and process. Public Productivity & Management Review, 22(3), 308–325.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government: Status after two decades. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 45–56.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis-new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pontier, J. M. (2015). Quelles compétences pour quelles communes? Revue française d’administration publique, 4, 989–1004.
Serval, S. (2015). Les manageurs territoriaux face à l’attractivité durable de leurs territoires: comment favoriser l’ancrage territorial des filiales étrangères? Une perspective ago-antagoniste. Thèse de Doctorat en Sciences de Gestion, Aix-Marseille Université.
Serval, S. (2018). L’attractivité territoriale à l’épreuve du temps. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Siné, A., & Veillet, I. (2007). La performance, un outil et une démarche indispensables au pilotage des politiques publiques. In O. Montel-Dumont (Ed.), Les politiques économiques (pp. 21–36). Paris: La Documentation française.
Soldo, E. (2012). L’évaluation des projets de territoire, un outil essentiel du pilotage des actions publiques: L’évaluation de la manifestation Picasso-Aix 2009 à Aix-en-Provence. In R. Fouchet & J. R. Lopez (Eds.), Cas en Management Public (pp. 239–257). Cormelles-le-Royal: Editions EMS.
Thoenig, J.-C. (2002). L’évaluation en actes: leçons et perspectives. Revue Politiques et Management Public, 20(4), 33–50.
Torres, L., & Pina, V. (2001). Public–private partnership and private finance initiatives in the EU and Spanish local governments. The European Accounting Review, 10(3), 601–619.
Trosa, S. (2000). De la mesure à l’évaluation, de la performance à l’action, l’expérience d’une praticienne. Revue Politiques et Management Public, 18(4), 119–136.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carmouze, L., Hernandez, S., Serval, S. (2019). Through the Looking-Glass: What Does Strategic Planning Reveal in French Local Governments?. In: Hințea, C., Profiroiu, M., Țiclău, T. (eds) Strategic Planning in Local Communities. Governance and Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03436-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03436-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03435-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03436-8
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)