Gambrelle, J.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Decentralization in France: Notes on Goals and MethodsGambrelle, J.IIASA Working PaperWP-74-0461974 Gambrelle, J. (1974) Decentralization in France: Notes on Goals and Methods. IIASA Working Paper. WP-74-046 Copyright © 1974 by the author(s). http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/125/ Working Papers on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis receive only limited review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Institute, its National Member Organizations, or other organizations supporting the work. All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage. All copies must bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. For other purposes, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, permission must be sought by contacting repository@iiasa.ac.at DECENTRALIZATION IN FRANCE:NOTES ON GOALS AND METHODSJ.-M. GambrelleAssisted by K. McCuskerSeptember 1974 WP-74-46Working Papers are not intended fordistribution outside of IIASA, andare solely for discussion and infor-mation purposes. The views expressedare those of the author, and do notnecessarily reflect those of IIASA.DECENTRALIZATION IN FRANCE:NOTES ON GOALS AND METHODSJ.-M. GambrelleAssisted by K. McCuskerReasons given for a policy of decentralization will varydepending on whether the question is posed to a provincial ora Parisian. The mayor of Grenoble, M. Dubedout, suggeststhat the aims of decentralization should allow for fullerexploitation and utilization of the national wealth. Heemphasizes the need for development of human resources whosepotential is presently stifled by Parisian primacy.l PierreMerlin, professor in the Department of Urban Studies at theUniversity of Paris, notes the possibility of a constructive"dialogue", leading to a solidarity, between Paris and theprovinces. 2 Jerome Monod, delegate to DATAR*, feels thatthe question of decentralization and balanced regionaldevelopment is important for the future of both the Frencheconomy as well as the general living standards of theFrench people, if not also for the continuing attractionwhich France, and its capital, must exert beyond its borders. 3These opinions outline the goals of decentralization: it mustenhance France, Paris and the provinces. Three distinctaxes are of concern, and it is unlikely that the realizationof these objectives will mesh perfectly; indeed, it would befortunate if they did not prove antithetical.* Delegation a l'Amenagement du Territoire et a l'ActionRegionale.- 2 -The official objective behind decentralization purportsto achieve a more balanced distribution of activities acrossthe entire country. At the same time, though, it is neces-sary to play the economic "trumps" and promote regional, ifnot national, development. 4 In this way Monod justifiesefforts like Fos, Languedoc-Rousi11on, and Dunkirk, wherenew industrial projects are strengthening the economies ofthe Rhone valley, the southeast, and the north (respectively),yet accentuate the economic imbalance between the easternand western halves of the nations. Clearly, incongruenciesarise: social exigencies favor decentralization yet economicrequirements lead to, and are aided by, regional polarization.Already by 1947, Jean-Fransois Gravier, in his bookParis, or the French Desert, had crystallized the discontentof provincial officials who felt themselves treated likechildren by the Parisian administration. The post-war indust-rial expansion and the accompanying decline of agriculturalｺ ｯ ｮ ｾ ｳ resulted in the departure of the farmers for distantregions, a migration which unbalanced the regional economicstructures. Massive emigration of the population of Brittanyand the Southwest was feared: would these lands becomedeserts like the Massif Central which underwent this exodusa few decades earlier?In the Southwest, emigration, entailing an aging of thepopulation, is not compensated for by an increased fecundityamongst the younger population. The West and Southwest stilllive largely on agriculture. The development of other sectors- 3 -must be accomplished within a generation or the populationcount will have fallen below the threshold necessary to5suscitate a viable economy. Henri Mendras, however,referring to national statistics, asserts that the popu-lation of a town of less than ten thousand inhabitantsremains constant in an absolute sense. 6 Nevertheless, thedifferences in population densities between regions inFrance and the variation in median ages of farmers (seeTable I and II) are unavoidable facts creating economicdisadvantages, particularly in the Southwest.A study*, published in 1965, forecast an agglomerationof eighteen to twenty million inhabitants by the end of thecentury for the Paris region, ,and gave the impetus fordecentralization. With nineteen percent of the populationof France and thirty percent of the national income, Parisacts as the greatest point of disequilibrium. Preventingits overly rapid growth will form a major step in validatingthe success of the decentralization policy.However, Paris has its own peculiar problems associatedwith decelerating growth. The extent of growth control mustcorrespond to the interests of the financial and administrativeconcerns centered in the capital. That is, decentralizationcannot lead to a reduction in the dominance of the centraladministration; at the same time, Paris must retain, andexpand accordingly, the industries which keep it a dynamic,* "Rapport prospectif pour la Region Parisienne" •- 4 -TABLE IPOPULATION DENSITY (km2 ) for 21 regions: 1968Region ParisienneNordAlsaceRhone-AlpesHaute-NormandieProvence, Cote d'AzurLorraineFranche-ComteBretagnePicardiePays de la LoireBasse-NormandieLanguedoc-PousillonAquitaineMidi-PyreneesPoitou-CharentesCentreChampagneAuvergneBourgogneLimousinFRANCE83231317013712011698908781816961575756514948474391ｾ ,(amenagement du territo1re et developpementregional, p. 392)- 5 -TABLE IIPERCENT OF FARMERS OVER 55 YEARS OLD BY REGIONNordPicardieRegion ParisiennePays de la LoireBretagneChampagneBasse-NormandieHaute-NormandieFranche-ComteBourgognePoitou-CharentesCentreAquitaineMidi PyreneesAuvergneLorraineRhone-AlpesLimous1nAlsaceProvence-Cote d'Azur-CorseLanguedoc-Rousillon36.637.138.639.940.340.541.343.445.046.746.847.949.051.451.651.953.353.455.057.062.0(la transformation du IllQIlde rural, p.84)- 6 -city. While the administration and a multitude of tertiaryactivities must continue in order to sustain the Parisiantechnostructure, industries cannot be farmed out to theprovinces, otherwise this geographical apportionment leadsto the "deportation of the proletariat to the ｰ ･ ｲ ｩ ｰ ｨ ･ ｲ ｹ Ｂ Ｌ ｾand possibly a repetition of the schizoid urban charactersimilar to that, generated by Hausmann, which led to theParis Commune of 1870.The imperative for limiting growth is the lack of publicinvestment capital for urban facilities. While the level ofpublic services continues to be inadequate, municipal percapita expenditures are twice that of regions outside Paris. 8How strong the restraints should be poses an additional prob-lem. The proposal of zero growth, were it possible, isrejected on the basis of the London experience, which showsan annual decrease of 56,000 inhabitants as compared to anannual increase of 102,000 to the population of Paris. Al-though London has expelled superfluous industries, special-ization in certain areas has taken place, and the Englishcapital manages, despite out-migration, to maintain dynamic9industries. However, Pierre Merlin suggests that a citythat stops growing loses its dynamism and attributes partof the responsibility for the economic stagnation of GreatBritain to the rigorous policy of localizing activities. lOA similar viewpoint notes that an agglomeration such asParis generates technological initiative and creativityinvaluable to the national economy. Although as a European- 7 -financial center, Paris compares unfavorably with London,its place as an "international" city, capable of furnishingneeded services for multinational organizations, remainsunchallenged. The pursuit of a policy of decentralizationought to lead to an improvement of this position as indis-pensable urban functions return to an effective level. llApart from a comprehensive territorial managementprogram, methods used expressly for decentralization con-sisted of locating a number of industrial projects, andcreating jobs, in the provinces. In 1966, Paris receivedthirty-five percent of total French wages. The employment/labour force ratio and wage level in the capital exceed thenational average, the latter due in part to the high levelof skills of Parisian workers. Forty-three percent offemale salaries were paid to Parisian women, who make up alarger proportion of the labour force in the principal city12than in France on the whole. (See Table III). Between1962 and 1968 Paris lost 90,000 jobs in manufacturing whichled to profound imbalances in the employment structure;between 1961 and 1971, 450,000 jobs became available in therest of the country. In constrast, overall employment intertiary activities has increased, so that in the time spanfrom 1965 to 1975 1.4 million jobs would be added. 13 TableIV pictures the predominance of Paris in research. Althoughnow Parisian universities can admit no more th'an a third ofall French students, the effects of this policy are limited.Tl\.BLE IIINET SALARIES (millions of francs) : 1966MENWOMENTOTALParis Region30685964240327France9193122706114637PR/France33342435.1co(amenagement d".1 territoire et dCveloppement regional, p.462)- 9 -TABLE IVComparison of the Demographic Weight of Paris and itsResearch Potential.Paris represents:18.6% of the French population21% of the employed22% of science graduates51% of the doctors of advanced studies58% of the "doctors of state"61% of persons engaged in research.-(Jerome Monad - Bulletin d'Information de la RegionParisienne)- 10 -It follows that many industries, seeking proximity to researchcenters, prefer to locate in the Paris region.Policy for decentralizing ｩ ｮ ､ ｵ ｳ ｴ ｲ ｩ ･ ｾ functions throughfinancial incentives: the classification of the region -there are three categories at present - the amount of landarea needed, the reasons for, and the general utility of,the location choice, and the "age" of the industry (is it anewly created firm or one in the process of decentralizing?)are evaluation factors used to determine the degree of fin-ancial aid. The regions that receive the most assistance arethe West, the Southwest, the center, the island of Corsica,and regions of industrial change (i.e. the mining basins ofthe North and the East), but in effect only the Lyon andParis regions are completely excluded from aid. Within thelatter region, industrial establishments and office buildingsites are taxed, separately per square meter. Above acertain amount of space, the project plan is submitted tothe administration for approval. Additionally, DATARrecently advanced a strategy for defining long-range plansfor decentralizing big businesses. Approximately ten largefirms - primarily banks and insurance companies - have alreadysigned "decentralization" contracts and dozens of otheragreements are under discussion.The first stage of French territorial management soughtequilibrium in a policy of growth centers or "metropolesId'equilibres". However, it soon appeared that this did not- 11 -fulfill the requirements of decentralization. Rather, thecenters generated problems similar to those affecting Paris:traffic congestion, long journey-to-work time, noise pollutionand high living costs. In addition, the most feasible"growth poles" were located in the eastern half of the countrywhile the western part was calling for urbanization andstimuli to growth.The eight "metropoles d'efquilibres" include both 'real'centers with inter-urban economic complementarities andartificial conglomerations that are simply growing, indus-trialized regions. Aix-Marseilles, comprising over onemillion inhabitants, forms a complementary whole, althoughthe cities are thirty kilometers apart. While Aix is aresidential and university town, Marseilles, as a port city,wields a good deal of commercial power. Fos, located fiftykilometers away, having been the recipient, if recalcitrant,of a large industrial project, may reinforce and accentuatethe position of this area. The regional solidarity withinthe Lyon-St. Etienne-Grenoble pole is actually quite weak,but Lyon, as as energetic city second only to Paris, andGrenoble, a major center for scientific research, combineto create a region of qreat activity and promise. Locatedin a densely populated area adjacent to the Belgian Lorder,ｌ ｩ ｬ ｬ ･ Ｍ ｆ Ｎ ｯ ｵ ｨ ｡ ｩ ｸ Ｍ ｔ ｯ ｵ ｲ ｣ ｯ ｩ ｮ ｱ Ｍ ｾ ｲ ｭ ･ ｮ ｴ ｩ ･ ｲ ･ ｳ sustains a strongeconomy. However, as its basis is coal mining, it must,-12-DUNKERQUE- 13 -for obvious reasons, begin to orient itself towards alter-native industries. The USINOR steel complex in the nearbyport of Dunkirk to a certain extent insures the region'seconomic future.These three Ｂ ｭ ｾ ｴ ｲ ｯ ｰ ｯ ｬ ･ ｳ d'equilibres" comprise themajor growth poles in the regional development of France.Another area worthy of consideration is the northeasternNancy-Metz-Thionville conurbation where the metal industrymakes up the dominant productive activity. This group ofcities constitutes a problem area as it manifests internaldiscord; moreover, DE WENDEL-SIDELOR, the prominent metalfirm, is in financial trouble. Another center in thissection of the country is Strasbourg, an important actorin the economy of Alsace but heavily dependent on theGerman market.In the Southwest, ｔ ｯ ｵ ｬ ｯ ｵ ｳ ｾ Bordeaux and Nantes-St. Nazaireform the principal urbanized areas. The latter regionexperiences some severe social problems and Bordeaux islittle more than a lethargic port. Toulouse, specializingin aviation and electronics, has been expanding rapidly, butthe areas around it are analogous to the desert whichencircles Paris.Due to large investments, prompted by the government,the Languedoc-Rousillon coast has become a zone to attracttourists. Instead of benefiting the inhabitants of thearea, however, the profits are fed back indirectly to Parisdue to the influx of national - or international - chains.- 14 -That is, the residents have been forced away from the coastalarea by rising prices and reduced to marginal incomes. 14In addition, tourism, as a seasonal activity and furnishingonly temporary employment, creates neither a stable economynor continuous and diverse development.Since the policy of stimulating growth by implementinga variety of projects in the Ｂ ｭ ｾ ｴ ｲ ｯ ｰ ｯ ｬ ･ ｳ d'equilibres" onlytended to aggravate the national disequilibrium, new methodswere essential. The subsequent strategy emphasizing thedevelopment of medium-sized cities (20,000 to 200,000 inhabi-tants) would allow for a more balanced population distri-bution. As pointed out by Oliver Guichard, Minister forHousing, Building, and Tourism, people prefer to live inthis size city as the related housing conditions and life-style are more conducive to the continued existence of thenuclear family and improved social relationships.lS Also,economic opportunities may be generated such as do not occurin larger cities.Studies undertaken to accompany the implementation ofthis policy have arrived at two conclusions. 16 First,within medium-sized cities there are three size categories,each with a specific characteristic. A town of 20,000 toSO,OOO inhabitants- tends to be dynamic; those with popu-lations between 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants are not veryattractive, and those ranging between 100,000 and 200,000are extremely active cities. Secondly, cities below 100,000- 15 -but more than 20,000 do not have inherent tendencies towardsfurther urbanization and particular incentives must be usedto promote growth.Additionally, a number of "New Towns" have arisen,primarily as extensions of suburbs of the larger cities:"Cergy-Pontoise, Marne la Vallee, Evry and Melun, to namea few around Paris; Fos Berre near Marseilles and Ie Vaudreuilby Rouen. Although they cannot serve as redistributioncenters for the entire population, they should enable therestructuring of the regional urban pattern. As newconcepts in urbanism, New Towns will be vital for diffusingurban population into - hopefully - more amenable environ-ments.- 16 -FOOTNOTES1 H. Dubedout, 21-22.pp.2 P. ｾ Ｑ ･ ｲ Ｑ ｩ ｮ , 13-14.pp.3 J. Honod, 9-11-pp.4 Ibid.5 Ibid.6 H. Mendras, p. 300.7 H. Lefebvre, p. 248.9 J. Beaujeu-Garnier, pp. 35-37.10 P. Merlin, pp. 13-14.11 'I'ravaux' et Recherches Prosoectives, "Paris-Ville Inter-nationa1e," p. 47.12' ,Institut d'Etudes Po1itiques, amenaqement du territoireet deve10ppement regional, p. 462.13 . ,M. Bast1e, pp. 4-8.14 R. Lafont, p. 365.15 ｾ JAmenagement du territoire, 1es vi11es moyennes, preface.16 Ibid.- 17 -REFERENCESｉａｭｾｮ｡ｧ･ｭ･ｮｴ du territoire, la transformation du monde rural,travaux et ｲ ｾ ｣ ｨ ･ ｲ ｣ ｨ ･ ｳ de prospectives, ｳ ｣ ｨ ｾ ｭ ｡ gen€ra1d'amenagement de la france, Nr. 26; La Documentationｆ ｲ ｡ ｮ ｾ ｡ ｩ ｳ ･ Ｌ Paris, February 1972.ａ ｭ ｾ ｮ ｵ ｧ ･ ｭ ･ ｮ ｴ du territoire, les villes moyennes - dossier､ Ｇ ｾ ｴ ｵ ､ ･ Ｌ ｾ ｴ ｵ ､ ･ ｳ de prospectives; La DocumentationFran8aise, Paris 1972.ａ ｭ ｾ ｮ ｡ ｧ ･ ｭ ･ ｮ ｴ du territoire, Paris ville internationale : roleset vocation, travaux et ｲ ｾ ｣ ｨ ･ ｲ ｣ ｨ ･ ｳ de prospectives,schema ｧ ｾ ｮ ｾ ｲ ｡ ｬ ､ Ｇ ｡ ｭ ｾ ｮ ｡ ｧ ･ ｭ ･ ｮ ｴ de la france, Nr. 391 LaDocumentation Frangaise, Paris, May 1973.ｂ ｡ ｳ ｴ ｩ ｾ Ｌ H., "Politique de Decentralisation,1I Bulletind'lnformation de la ｒ ｾ ｧ ｩ ｯ ｮ Parisienne:9, ｉ ａ ｕ ｐ ｾ Ｌｐ ｲ ･ ｦ ｾ ｣ ｴ ｵ ｲ ･ de la Rlgion Parisiennei Paris, August 1973."Beaujeu - Garnier, J., ilLes atouts econorniques de Paris,".Bulletin d'lnforrnation de la Region Parisienne:9, IAURP,ｐｲｾｦ･｣ｴｵｲ･ de la RJgion Parisienne; Paris, August 1973.Chabanas, N., and S;"Volkoff, "Les Salaires •• ,11 Les Collec-tions de l'INSEE ll2:M:29, Institut national de lastatistique et des etudes econorniques, December 1973.Dubedout, H., Ｂ ｄ ｾ ｣ ･ ｮ ｴ ｲ ｡ ｬ ｩ ｳ ･ ｲ Ｌ Ｂ Bulletin d'lnformation de laRegion Parisienne:9, IAURP, Prefecture de la RegionParisienne; Paris, August 1973.Gravier, J.-F., "Toujours Ie ､ ｾ ｳ ･ ｲ ｴ francais," Bulletind'lnforrnation de la Region Parisienne:9, IAURP,Prefecture de la Region Parisiennei Paris, August 1973.Institut d'Etudes Politiques, ｡ ｭ ｾ ｮ ｡ ｧ ･ ｭ ･ ｮ ｴ du territoire et､ ｾ ｶ ･ ｬ ｯ ｰ ｰ ･ ｲ ｮ ･ ｮ ｴ regional: les faits, les idles, lesinstitutions, III; Grenoble, 1970." ;" . ...Lafont, R., Decoliniser en France, les reg10ns face a l'EuropeEditions Ga1limard, Paris, 1971.,. .Lefebvre, H., La Revolut1on Urbaine, Editions Gallimard,Paris, 1970.Mendras, H., IIQuel Avenir pour 1es Campagnes," Analyse etPrevision Nr. 3, March 1974.- 18 -Merlin, P., IIParis et la Province, une ｣ ｯ ｭ ｰ ｬ ･ ｭ ･ ｮ ｴ ｡ ｲ ｩ ｴ ｾ Ｌ Ｑ ＱBulletin d'Information de la ｒ ｾ ｧ ｩ ｯ ｮ Parisienne:9, IAURP,Pr&fecture de la Region Parlsienne; Paris, August 1973.r-lonod, J., ｉ ｉ ａ ｭ ｾ ｮ ｡ ｧ ･ ｭ ･ ｮ ｴ du Territoire et Decentralisation, nBulletin d'Information de la Reqion Parisienne:9, IAURP,Pr€fecture de la Region Parisienne; Paris, August 1973.

Decentralization in France: Notes on Goals and Methods

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)