The institutional dynamics at the origin of a new method of local administration: The relationship between AEROSPATIALE and its subcontractors

The Institutional Dynamics at the Origin of a New Method of ?Local? Administration: the Relationship between AEROSPATIALE and its Subcontractors DAMIEN TALBOT LEREP In the last twenty years, interactions between the Aeronautical Branch of AEROSPATIALE and its subcontractors have evolved radically. From a system of fragmented regional subcontractors centered around AEROSPATIALE establishments, a network of businesses, much reduced in number and characterised by stronger links and a withdrawal from the notion of territorial boundaries, has been formed under the aegis of a principal contractor. This paper examines the reasons behind such upheavals and, in particular, how the principal contractor has managed to impose such changes and why. In answering these questions, this paper focuses both on the market and non-market interactions between the economic players. In order to fully understand the reasons behind these players? behaviour, it is necessary to take account of the principles of non-market interaction. As these apply to interactions between principal contractors and their subcontractors, the notion of power is central. At least one theory, that of American institutionalism, implicates power imbalances between players as the major factor in their changing behaviour. This theory is advanced further by COMMONS through the notion of conflict. This last approach proposes that institutions themselves provide a setting for actions and thus one cannot fully understand the evolution of behaviour without first understanding the role played by these institutions, not only as to how they influence economic behaviour, but more importantly in understanding the actual processes underlying institutional change itself. In order to identify these processes, as institutions and behaviour evolve hand in hand, this paper proposes, as a useful starting point, to examine the distinction between the terms institution and organisation, in order to then define institutional change. These definitions will subsequently be applied to the evolution of the relationship between AEROSPATIALE and its major subcontractors. This paper hopes to show that the evolution is the result of the role played by GIE AIRBUS in altering the mindset of the AEROSPATIALE group. Finally, this paper will describe the effect this institutional change has had on AEROSPATIALE?s method of local administration. It must be pointed out that the term ?local? here has no defined boundaries and is to be determined by reference to businesses established in a territory and/or an a-territorial network. REFERENCES ARROW K. (1994) Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge, Am. Econ. Rev. 84, 1-9. BAZZOLI L. and DUTRAIVE V. (1995) Dynamique technologique et institutionnelle dans la pensee institutionnaliste americaine: les enjeux de la maitrise sociale, in BASLE M., DUFOURT D., HERAUD J. A. and PERRIN J. (Eds) Changement institutionnel et changement technologique, pp. 51-67. CNRS Editions, Paris. BERNARD P., TALBOT D. and WALLET F. (1997) Pouvoirs, proximites et apprentissages: une relecture des relations par la dynamique interaction / action, Industria 4, to be published. COMMONS J.R. (1931) Institutional Economics, Am. Econ. Rev. 21, 648-657. COREI T. (1995) L'economie institutionnaliste, les fondateurs, series Economie de poche, Economica, Paris. DUFOURT D. (1995) Arrangements institutionnels et logiques de l'action collective: les enjeux d'une reflexion renouvelee par les institutions, in BASLE M., DUFOURT D., HERAUD J. A. and PERRIN J. (Eds) Changement institutionnel et changement technologique, pp. 21-32. CNRS Editions, Paris. HODGSON G. (1988) Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern Institutional Economics, Polity Press, Cambridge. HODGSON G. (1996) The viability of Institutionnal Economics, Conference Evolutionnisme, fondements, perpectives et realisations, Sorbonne, Paris. KIRAT T. and LUNG Y. (1995) Innovations et proximites: le territoire, lieu de deploiement des processus d'apprentissages, in LAZARIC N., MONNIER J. M. and PAULRE B. (Eds), dans Coordination economique et apprentissage des firmes, pp. 207-227. Economica, Paris. PERRIN J. (1993) Apprentissage et cognition en economie des changements techniques, l'apport des economistes neo-institutionnalistes, Economies et Societes 1, 103-124. RUTHERFORD M. (1983) J. R. Commons's institutional economics, JEI 17, 443-451. SJOSTRAND S.E. (1995) Towards a theory of institutional change, in GROENEWEGEN J., PITELIS C. and SJOSTRAND S.E. (Eds) On Economics Institutions, pp. 19-43. European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy, Cambridge. VEBLEN T. (1899) Preconceptions of Economic Science, II, Quart. J. Econ. 13, 396-426. VILLEVAL M.C. (1995) Une theorie economique des institutions ? in BOYER R. and SAILLARD Y. (Eds), Theorie de la Regulation, l'etat des savoirs, pp. 202-213. La Decouverte, Paris. WALLER W. (1982) The evolution of the veblenian dichotomy: Veblen, Hamilton, Ayres, and Foster, JEI 16, 757-771. WILBER C. and HARRISON R. (1978) The methodological basis of Institutional Economics: pattern model, storytelling, and holism, JEI 12, 61-89.

PROXIMITES ET DYNAMIQUES DES RELATIONS DE SOUSTRAITANCE : LE CAS D'EADS AIRBUS A TOULOUSE

L'objet de cet article est de rendre compte des changements dans les modes de coordination entre donneurs et preneurs d'ordres dans le secteur aéronautique. Nous utilisons le concept de proximité qui permet d'introduire la dimension géographique dans l'analyse des relations interfirmes (proximité géographique). Ce concept permet en outre de rendre compte de la dynamique des relations inter-firmes, étant entendu que ces interactions sont des constructions sociales qui proviennent du partage par les individus de représentations (proximité institutionnelle) et de comportements (proximité organisationnelle). Et la dynamique en question peut résulter d'une transformation de ce partage.proximité ; dynamiques des relations inter-firmes ; sous-traitance aéronautique

EADS, an unfinished transition. An understanding by the Economy of proximity (In French)

Aeronautical group European EADS had many difficulties in 2006. The analyses converge to a \"problem of governance\". This report is not enough. We propose two complementary explanations: these difficulties of governance result from a too long distance, at the same time of a geographical and relational nature. We use the conceptual framework of the Economy of Proximity, which proposes a definition of the proximity with spatial and non spatial dimensions, to develop our argumentation. With geographical proximity, we distinguish institutional proximity and organisational proximity. First is understood as a relational availability, second as conforming and sharing institutions, third as a particular form of the preceding one which articulates political coordination and cognitive coordination.proximities ; American institutionalism ; aerospace sector ; EADS

EADS, an unfinished transition. An understanding by the Economy of proximity (In French)

Aeronautical group European EADS had many difficulties in 2006. The analyses converge to a \"problem of governance\". This report is not enough. We propose two complementary explanations: these difficulties of governance result from a too long distance, at the same time of a geographical and relational nature. We use the conceptual framework of the Economy of Proximity, which proposes a definition of the proximity with spatial and non spatial dimensions, to develop our argumentation. With geographical proximity, we distinguish institutional proximity and organisational proximity. First is understood as a relational availability, second as conforming and sharing institutions, third as a particular form of the preceding one which articulates political coordination and cognitive coordination.proximities, American institutionalism, aerospace sector, EADS

Organisational proximity: an institutionalist point of view. The case of EADS (In French)

This article proposes a definition of the a-spatial dimension of the proximity by adopting institutionalism point of view. In a first part, we distinguish institutional proximity and organisational proximity. According to the distinction suggested by Commons between institution and organization, the organisational proximity is understood like a particular form of institutional proximity. The heterogeneous actors who share this organizational proximity must integrate structure of power and can reach memory of the organization. In a second part, we examine how the new firm EADS built such proximity between its units, belonging still little time ago at three distinct firms.American institutionalism, institutional proximity, organizational proximity, EADS

Territorial innovation dynamics: a knowledge based perspective

A great deal of studies has focused on the role played by geographical location on the emergence and the building of localised learning capacities (Maskell, Malmberg, 1999). In this perspective, empirical studies have demonstrated that innovation dynamics of clusters results from the quality of interactions and coordination inside the cluster as well as interactions with external, often global, networks. In this context, knowledge exchange between firms and institutions are claimed to be the main drivers of spatial agglomeration (Canals et al, 2008). Hence, cluster policies have followed the main idea that geographic proximity facilitates collective innovation in so far as firms can capture knowledge externalities more easily. This idea is in fact very attractive but contains some limits (Suire et Vicente, 2007): if some clusters are successful others seem to decline. Therefore, in order to understand the territorial dynamics of clusters, the analysis of the specific nature of knowledge and information flows within a cluster is crucial. The objective of the paper is to enhance the analysis of the role of cognitive and relational dimensions of interactions on territorial dynamics of innovation. We focus on the key sub process of innovation: knowledge creation, which is above all a social process based on two key complex social mechanisms: the exchange and the combination of knowledge (Nahapiet and Goshal, 1996). We suggest building a theoretical framework that hinges on these two key mechanisms. In this perspective, we mobilise Boisot's I-Space model (Boisot, 1998) for the diffusion and exchange of knowledge and suggest completing the model by introducing the concept of architectural knowledge (Henderson and Clark, 1990) so as to take the complexity of the combination process into consideration. This analysis is conducted through the illustrative analysis of three different case studies. We will draw upon the case of Aerospace Valley Pole of Competitiveness (PoC), The Secured Communicating Solutions PoC, and Fabelor Competence Cluster. The cases show that the existence of architectural knowledge is pivotal to territorial innovation.Architectural Knowledge, I-Space Model, Territorial Innovation, Geographical Clusters, Knowledge Management

Les proximités, entre contrainte et libération de l’action : le cas d’EADS

L’article propose de procéder à un travail de définition des formes de proximité en adoptant une perspective institutionnaliste. Dans une première partie, nous définissons la proximité institutionnelle comme le fait de se conformer et de partager des institutions, cette proximité contraignant et libérant à la fois l’action individuelle. Suivant la distinction proposée par Commons entre institution et organisation, la proximité organisationnelle est comprise comme une forme particulière de proximité institutionnelle qui articule coordination politique et coordination cognitive. Elle consiste pour des acteurs a priori hétérogènes à intégrer la structure de pouvoir (coordination politique) et à accéder à la mémoire de l’organisation (coordination cognitive). Le rôle ambigu de la proximité géographique est ensuite affirmé. Dans une seconde partie, nous examinons comment le groupe EADS crée en 2000 construit de telles proximités entre ses diverses unités, appartenant il y a encore peu de temps à trois firmes distinctes.This article proposes, in a first part, a definition of several dimensions of proximity by adopting an institutionalist point of view. Conform to and sharing institutions define the institutional proximity, which at the same time constrains and expands individual action. According to the distinction suggested by Commons between institution and organization, organisational proximity is understood as a particular form of institutional proximity which articulates political and cognitive coordinations. Heterogeneous actors who share this organizational proximity must integrate structure of power (political coordination) and can share memory of organization (cognitive coordination). The ambiguous role of the geographical proximity is then stressed. In a second part, we examine how the new firm EADS built such proximities between its units, belonging still little time ago to three distinct firms

Institutions, organizations and space: forms of proximity (In French)

Opposing heterogeneous agents, imposing choices, and making divergent interests compatible, are all political prerequisites for agent coordination. Although these political prerequisites are not entirely ignored in proximity literature, such literature does tend to insist, for the most part, on cognitive perspective: the biggest beneficial effect of proximity is that of facilitating knowledge-sharing between agents. The principal objective of this paper is to propose both political and cognitive conceptions of proximity. In order to do so, we use the concept of institution, to examine the relations between these concepts - proximity and institution. We obtain one principal result: proximity is an institutional fact, which itself divides up two sub-categories, organizational and geographical proximity. Organizational proximity refers to the cognitive and political coordination of agents. Geographical proximity between actors is a latent resource. This resource would only be activated if the agents share organizational proximity. This form of proximity means that actors integrate cognitive community, i.e. reach memory of organization made up of rules and routines, and integrate political community, i.e. take place in power structure.proximities, institutions, cognitive dimension, political dimension

Management of technical and organisational interactions by proximity: the hub firms in aeronautical sector (In French)

One of the features of the model of organization which is gradually set up in the aeronautical activity is, for the airframe manufacturers, the passage of a statute of “aeronautical manufacturer” to “of architect-integrator of aeronautical systems”. The emergence of this model is not without consequences on the nature and the contents of the relations inter-firms, particularly the organization of the supply chain. One of the principal characteristics of this organization is the emergence and the development of new actors - the hub firms - as an ad hoc organisational form of management of the technical and organisational interactions between the architect-integrators and the other firms which take part in the production of the planes. In particular, this organisational form uses a temporary geographical proximity, taking the form of physical plateau facilitating the interactions in face to face.proximities, hub firms, architect-integrator, interfaces, physical plateau, aeronautics

Proximité et institutions : nouveaux éclairages

L’Économie de la Proximité (Bellet et al., 1993, 1998 ; Rallet et Torre, 1995 ; Gilly et Torre, 2000 ; Dupuy et Burmeister, 2003 ; Pecqueur et Zimmermann, 2004 ; Torre et Filippi, 2005) cherche à rendre compte des conditions nécessaires à la coordination des agents. Cette approche s’efforce de mettre en lumière le rôle de l’espace dans la coordination, en lui octroyant une dimension sociale qui permet de le saisir comme une construction active de relations. Et considérant que l’acteur est tou..