The International Association of public Management Research (AIRMAP) brings together institutions as well as French and foreign researchers specialized in the fields of public management and public action. AIRMAP is a forum for exchange between academia and public action actors, and a place for exploring innovative ideas, instruments and practices.

The 13th AIRMAP Conference, which will take place at University of Picardie Jules VERNE from 12 to 14 June 2024, will have as its theme "Public management: fractures and cohesion. Thinking about and healing the ills of our societies".
AIRMAP invites Management and Social Science communities to present communications either on this theme or on one of the following recurring public management themes: territorial marketing, public finance, governance of educational facilities or of health facilities, history of public administrations, local and regional management, tourism management, managing safety, logistics, information systems or e-administration.
The communications can have the shape of:

• Theoretical contributions ;
• Field research work ;
• Presentations of new operational tools, methods and diagnosis ;

 The Conference aims to highlight:

• A pluralism of methodological, conceptual and empirical approaches,
• Diagnosis based on local and comparative surveys,
• Innovation in operational approaches,
• New research conducted by young researchers.

PRESENTATION OF THE THEMES OF THE CONFERENCE

Public management: social divide and cohesion. Considering and healing the ills of our societies

Fracture is a medical metamorphosis that suggests a break in a unity that needs to be rediscovered. In the field of public management, the expression is both an acknowledgement of the failure of current policies and a call for a renewal of the ways in which public authorities act through the many innovations that public managers and players are initiating to create cohesion within the social body.
To reduce the divide, we need to

• Think: identify and put words on ills
• Heal: define and apply the right treatment to rebuild social ties.

Marcel Gauchet and Emmanuel Todd are credited with proposing the concept of social divide. Marcel Gauchet points out: "A fracture is a separation between people who live in different worlds, so to speak. ...'Fracture' is therefore a fairly convenient term to describe a state of very strong heterogeneity, which has made the opposition of the France’s other half a success, for example. We are faced with a dynamic of fragmentation in which micro-conflicts abound, but do not coalesce into clear oppositions... We can no longer even speak of 'a' social divide, we must say 'social divides', which have increased and multiplied since the beginning of the 1990s". (GAUCHET Marcel and TODD Emmanuel, 2016)

In our fragmented societies, the weakened links between individuals lead us to question our concept of living together, of city management.

While public management should guarantee the general interest and embody the collective, it seems powerless to assume this role in the face of the dispersal and confrontation of individual interests.

This observation applies not only to the social field, but to every major area of public intervention.
The issues raised are manifold, as highlighted by the example of the territorial divide, the depth of which was demonstrated by the recent riots: where do the divides lie: between cities and peripheral France, within metropolises, between neighbourhoods, within neighbourhoods? How can the State, which promotes the notion of territorial equality, reduce territorial inequalities? How can local leaders promote their areas, encourage economic development and create social cohesion when their power is contested and the financial resources at their disposal are limited? How can we ensure equal access to public services? How do you regulate habitat, housing, transport, town planning, etc.?

In the same way, many questions are being asked about the origins of the difficulties encountered and the solutions that have been or need to be found in order to rediscover the paths to cohesion.
These are just some of the questions that the expected contributions will attempt to answer.

In addition to analysing public policy, the fragmentation of our societies also calls for an examination of the way in which public organisations are run.
How do they gear up to speed and renew their management methods? Isn't the very purpose of public management to create cohesion in order to overcome divisions and give rise to coherent policies?

The internal reforms of public organisations (new governance, steering methods, management tools, digital transformation and digitalisation, etc.) are abundant in human resources management and social responsibility, control and management of public spending, marketing and strategy. The stated objectives are to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and performance of the public service in order to reconcile citizens with their administration. Are they being achieved? Has the legitimacy of the public sector been strengthened? Or, on the contrary, is the gap widening between the citizen, who has become a customer, and the administration, creating new social divides?
What roles do the various stakeholders play in the current processes? The place occupied by cooperation, competition and conflict between players in the public sphere opens up a wide range of research perspectives.

These questions lead us to question the visions and values of the public service. What processes should be put in place to develop public policies and steer organisations in order to reduce the divisions that split us and, by extension, to enable public management to reinvent itself?
There is far from being a consensus on this issue.
Given that the precepts of new public management have not been sufficiently understood and assimilated, should we reinforce the policies conducted under this banner and reduce the scope of the State? Private initiatives, freed from a stifling bureaucratic straitjacket, could then create growth, the only real vector for social cohesion.
Should we, on the contrary, radically question the policies pursued under this same banner by organising a return of the State, rearming public power to heal the ills of a society and prevent its eventual disintegration?
In the face of the economic, social, political, international, migratory and ecological crises, if the return of the State is suggested, should it take the form of a renovation of the welfare state that characterised the second half of the 20th century? Or should we take another, more authoritarian route, reaffirming the pre-eminence of public power, imposing rather than negotiating solutions to the urgent threats of the world to come?

Alternatively, should we totally rethink the public system and public management, ignoring the classic public/private management dichotomy, which is considered obsolete in the face of new challenges such as the huge ecological transition, and managing commons rather than public organisations?

These non-exhaustive questions can be addressed from the perspective of the classic management disciplines (strategy, human resources, finance, information systems, marketing, etc.). They can also be addressed on a sectoral basis or in terms of the areas of competence of the territories (health, education, town planning/housing, transport, economic development, employment, social integration, culture, harnessing natural resources, safety and risk, innovation and access to digital technology, etc.). The analysis can also focus on the interactions, confrontations and collaborations between the players concerned (social groups, residents, citizens, businesses, etc.); the decision-makers (elected representatives, administrations, technicians, etc.); the interested players (associations, experts, agents, etc.).
These are the questions that the 13th AIRMAP symposium will attempt to answer.

Bibliographical information

BACACHE-BEAUVALLET Maya, 2016, « Où va le management public ? Réformes de l’état et gestion de l’emploi public », Positions, Terra Nova, 59 p.

BARTOLI Annie, 1997, Le management dans les organisations publiques, Paris, France, Dunod, 300 p.

BARTOLI Annie, 2008, « Les outils du management public : fausses pistes et vrais défis », in Huron David, Spindler Jacques (dir.), Le management public en mutation, L’harmattan, Paris, 384 p.

BARTOLI Annie, BLATRIX Cécile, 2022, Le Grand Livre du management public : Sens et performance, modernisation et évaluation, défis et logiques d’action. Dunod, 400 p.

BEZES Philippe, 2008, « La réforme de l’État : continuités et ruptures », Esprit, Décembre (12), p. 75-93.

BEZES Philippe, 2009, Réinventer l’État : les réformes de l’administration française (1962-2008), Paris, France, Presses universitaires de France, 519 p.

BEZES Philippe, 2012, « État, experts et savoirs néo-managériaux », Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 193(3), p. 16-37.

BEZES Philippe, MUSSELIN Christine, 2015, « Le new public management », in Une french touch dans l’analyse des politiques publiques ?, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po (P.F.N.S.P.), Académique, p. 125-152.

FERLIE Ewan, LYNN Laurence E., POLLITT Christopher, 2007, The Oxford handbook of public management, Oxford Handbooks Online, 808 p.

GAUCHET Marcel et TODD Emmanuel, 2016,« Le grand débat », Le Point n°2304, jeudi 3 novembre 2016, p. 119-124.

GIBERT Patrick, 1983, Management public : management de la puissance publique, Thèse de doctorat, Paris, France, Université Panthéon-Assas, 356 p.

GIBERT Patrick, 2011, « Un ou quatre managements publics ? », Politiques et Management Public, Vol. 26/3, p. 7-23. GUILLUY Christophe, 2015, La France périphérique. Comment on a sacrifié les classes populaires. Flammarion, « Champs - Actuel », 194 p.

GUILLUY Christophe 2017, « Des fractures qui vont durer », Constructif, vol. 48, n°. 3, p. 22-24.

HOOD Christopher, 2005, « Public management : The word, the movement, the science », The Oxford handbook of public management, p. 7-26.

OSTROM Elinor, 1990, Governing the commons : The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge university press, 285 p.

OSTROM Elinor, 2012, « Par-delà les marchés et les États. La gouvernance polycentrique des systèmes économiques complexes », Revue de l’OFCE, vol.120, n°. 1, 2012, p. 13-72.

PEREZ Roland, PARANQUE Bernard, 2012, « Elinor Ostrom : les communs et l’action collective », Revue de l’organisation responsable, 2012/2 (Vol. 7), p. 3-10.

TODD Emmanuel, 1995, « Aux origines du malaise politique français. Les classes sociales et leur représentation », Le Débat, 1995/1 (n°83), p. 82-103.

VANDENINDEN Élise, Fracture (sociale, numérique, etc.). In: Quaderni, n°63, Printemps 2007. Nouveaux mots du pouvoir : fragments d’un abécédaire. p. 46-48.