December 2016, “Blockchain: the technology to replace trust”, by Serge LE ROUX*

The digital revolution is accelerating and pursues what appears to be an inexorable process of objectification of social and human relations which have formed the basis of the life of society for hundreds of years.

One of the last avatars entitled “Blockchain”. If for Bill Gates, it is “a technological tour de force”, Melanie Swan(1) considers it as the creation of “a mechanism of proof of all network transactions without resorting to trust”, in short, a new advanced form of “peer to peer”.

The genesis of this innovation is generally attributed to the American libertarian currents in response to the subprime crisis of 2008, particularly to the impunity enjoyed by thos responsable for the crisis (banks) and the solution chosen by the governments to remedy the situation (additional tax applied to citizens). The alternative is appeared with the establishment of a private money (this will the Bitcoins): fully virtual currency (redeemable in lawful money), it is subject to an original data processing:

• Each authenticated transaction is grouped in a “block”;
• The block is timestamped, cryptographyed (automatically) and then integrated in a register (ledger);
• The register is decentralized among all computers participating in the network (several thousand);
• The block is added to the existing blocks to form a “chain”;
• Transactions are unfalsifiable and eternally available, the security is self-organized by the system, without any need for the intervention of a trusted third party such as the government, a bank, a notary, etc.

The uses of this new technology first concern banks: as IBM, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs have created their own blockchain system, under an appearant purpose to speed up transactions and a more discreet aim to circumvent the regulatory authority. We can easily imagine that this new device could replace an international clearing house as Clearstream, but also encourage the entry of new players such as GAFAinto the world of finance.

Other areas are also affected (or are likely to be soon affected): international trade, the virtual cadastre (ongoing experiences in Ghana and Honduras), real estate transactions, diplomas, personal medical data, Copyright, traceability of materials, home assistance, connected cars, sports betting, etc.

The dominant idea that pushes the holders of Blockchain technology is to escape from stat regulations and to work freely, directly and unimpeded between individuals and private structures. This is an infinite extension of the well-known logic of tax havens, the triumph of anonymity and, associated with the Internet of Things, the empowerment of creditors over debtors.

Although technical problems (system size, processing speed) or economic (bankrupcy of bitcoins management platforms) may arise, we can see, overall, in the technology of blockchain an additional phase of the objectification of labor in the virtualization of virtual work. The foreseeable consequences of such a transformation are known: loss of many skilled jobs, risks for public freedoms, reduction of the sphere of individual privacy. We also know that the actors with a logical of profitability-accumulation of capital, in general, have a dynamism that individuals, existing representation structures, holders of public power can hardly achieve.

If the challenge posed by the blockchain is the objectification of confidence, it nevertheless opens two possible divergent paths, open to the public debate:

• The creation of private currencies versus the organization of local communities based on non-market exchanges;
• Hermetic private money versus open source exchange.

* RNI
(1) Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy, O’Reilly, Sebastopol-CA, 2015.

November 2016, “Invention, innovation and patents”, by Pierre SAULAIS*

By devoting to the writing of A la recherche du temps perdu the last fifteen years of his life, Marcel Proust wanted his future readers to be able to “read into themselves”. More modestly, we would like to point out that analyzing interpenetration between the fields of invention, innovation and intellectual property might let everyone recognize himself or herself among either all the actors with talents of which the combination is mandatory to the emergence of innovation. Among these actors, we observe the inventor, the innovator, the engineer, the researcher, the entrepreneur, the practitioner, the founder of a start-up company, the champion of Intellectual Property, the expert in management of innovation, … As we are strongly convinced that innovation cannot be taught but must be experienced, we do think that it does not represent anything else than the fulfillment of our desire to create (SAULAIS, 2013).

A fruitful conjugation of multiple viewing angles on innovation can be extracted from the dynamic observation of the courses of all these passionate players serving the same cause of creation. Enriched with their diversity, these actors share the same “innovation attitude”, which includes a mindset and a way of living, leading both to creation. The scrutiny of creation through the prism of the relationship between invention, innovation and intellectual property brings to light that these links actually have the dimension of bridges between fields which were little connected up to now and that the material, which these bridges are made of, is nothing else that Knowledge (See: https://www.openscience.fr/L-inventeur-l-innovateur-et-l-industriel).

Collecting the courses, which the actors of innovation are covering, also draws the spirit of the tests, according to which Miguel Aubouy (2015) likes to present the three stages of innovation: a test of observation, a test of imagination, a test of tenacity, which he respectively call the test of the hunter, the test of the mage and the test of the farmer (AUBOUY, 2015).

*Civil Engineer of Aeronautics and Space
AUBOUY, M. (2015). The hunter, mage and farmer or three rounds of innovation Grenoble. in Editions Nullius in Verba
SAULAIS, P. (2013). Application of knowledge management to the creativity of experts and planning of R&T in high-tech industry. PhD thesis, Telecom Business School

October 2016, “Frugal innovation”, by Bernard HAUDEVILLE, Christian LE BAS

Innovation is considered as a cornerstone of firms’ strategies and as a major determinant to economic competitiveness. It is also a major field of interest for economists, managers and specialists of management science.

In the recent years, we can observe a relatively slowing pace of innovation and productivity growth in the advanced countries. By contrast, new forms of innovations originating from developing and emerging economies exhibited a strong growth and an increasing position in the innovation landscape. These innovations are coined as Frugal Innovations and can be characterized as doing better or more with fewer resources and for more people.

That said, and because it shows in some examples a great potential of diffusion worldwide, frugal innovation are worth drawing close attention from business executives as well as research communities. Innovations (Revue d’économie et de management de l’innovation / Journal of Innovation Economics and Management) provide an overview of studies related to the nature of frugal innovation, its implications in firms’ strategies and technology management. Among the topics which are investigated are the relationships between the fablabs and the makers movement, a comparison with the shenzhai innovation, a typical Chinese frugal innovation imbedded in the Chinese culture, its influences on the methods of new products design of which the frugality principle can be introduced in the upstream of innovation process, or the role of the 3D printing as a new way of creating almost everything for ordinary people. The reverse innovation, an innovation originating from LDC or emerging countries that finds its market in the developed economies and the possible impact of standardization on the production and diffusion of frugal innovation are also reviewed.

Finally, frugal innovation as a possible new paradigm promotes new directions toward less complexity, more simplicity of use, a more adapted use of local resources and an enlarged accessibility to lower income customers. In the same time, it may create new problems and new competition for advanced technology firms.

September 2016, “French competitiveness clusters, promoters of innovative entrepreneurship?”, by Hélène Perrin Boulonne*

A competitiveness cluster(1) gathers on a specific territory and on particular fields, small and large firms, research laboratories and training institutions. This is an application of Porter’s cluster(2): a group of interconnected companies and associated institutions situated in a geographical proximity and a particular field, linked by common elements and externalities. Competition and co-operation arising from the groups have a positive impact on local firms as a result of higher productivity, better innovative capabilities and greater number of new firms. The competitiveness cluster has a strong territorial dimension, and is a major instrument for public policies actions to address innovation and economic growth.

The French public policies on competitiveness clusters, aiming to promote equality between territories, have resulted in the concentration of high potential of public and private R&D on several locations throughout the national territory. 71 clusters have been approved from 2004 to 2007. In 2011, the clusters gather 7500 firms of which 86% are SMEs. The R&D carried out by members of clusters represents 12% of total French R&D expenditures. For some regions, the clusters play a central role on the structuring of research effort. This is the case in Limousin and Haute Normandie where near half of the regional R&D is conducted in the clusters. For other regions traditionally with stronger R&D culture, the concentration of research effort in the clusters is less impressive, with only around 6% in Paris region and Midi Pyrénées.

The transformation of knowledge into marketable products and services which is beneficial to local economic activities comes from firms and entrepreneurs. A study(3) from French statistical institute (INSEE 2013) shows that “the participation of SMEs and middle-sized firms in clusters from 2006 to 2009 seems limited to additional R&D expenditures with no evidence of a meaningful commercial impact or improvement of production processes”. This result can be explained by the difficulties of funding linked to new products development, which is particularly true for start-ups and SMEs. Financing is a key element to promote an innovative entrepreneurship. It is mainly provided by venture capital.
Two elements encourage the emergence of innovative entrepreneurship: a friendly environment and the access to financing. Regarding the environmental dimension, the competitiveness cluster provides several advantages by increasing research potential, encouraging spillover effects and the emergence of high quality entrepreneurial projects. By linking together different stakeholders, the cluster plays a positive role in boosting innovative entrepreneurship.

Concerning the financing dimension, we observe that private actors have not necessarily a policy of territorial deployment and are concentrated in Paris and to a lesser extend in Lyon Region. The venture capital mapping does not match with the one of the clusters , which may hinder considerably the development of innovative entrepreneurship.

However, the missions given to the competitiveness clusters do not include the implementation or the support to the development of a venture capital market, even if the venture capital has been recognized as catalyst in several academic studies. But, in the case of an existing venture capital market (presence of investor and entrepreneurs), the competitiveness clusters may therefore reduce information asymmetries by labelling firms. This is the aim of the scheme “Innovative Firms of the Cluster” (EIP) created in 2010. The objective is to provide more visibility to the high growth potential SMEs of the clusters: “it is a question of accelerating the access to private financing thanks to a preparatory phase and the promotion to venture capitalists”.

The R&D, necessary condition to the existence of a virtuous circle in terms of territorial innovative dynamics, is certainly present in the competitiveness clusters. The level of venture capital investment is steadily growing in France due to various public policies. However, there are no available data for measuring the presence of an innovative entrepreneurship in the clusters. On this specific subject, we can only underline the conceptual driving force of the clusters (See: https://www.openscience.fr/Numero-1-221). The competitiveness clusters are nevertheless a promoter of innovative entrepreneurship.

* Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale, Clersé CNRS UMR 8039 / Research Network on Innovation
(1) Pôle de compétitivité
(2) Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Macmillan, London, U.K.
(3) Ellégo, C.B. & Ernadet, D.O., 2013. La participation aux pôles de compétitivité : quels effets pour les PME et ETI ? INSEE, Direction des Études et Synthèses Économiques, Document de travail, G 2013/0.

August 2016, “Trajectories’ dynamics of innovation”, by Sophie Boutillier, Dimitri Uzunidis

The scientific presentations and debates of these two days can be summarized in ten keywords: knowledge, firm, entrepreneur, innovation, network, science, system, technology, territory and trajectory. Although twenty keywords would be more symbolic to the 20th anniversary of Innovations, we need to avoid the risk of incoherence and have to forgo some words such as creativity and imagination which otherwise should also find there place in the list.

In the early 21st century, while technological innovation and scientific knowledge are multiplying in various areas (health, food, transportation, energy, production, consumption, etc.), the society is frequently subjected to crisis, unemployment and economic insecurity. How to explain this paradox? What are the economic and social mechanisms at work to explain this situation that affects, to varying extents, industrial, emerging and developing countries? What are the current industrial and technological trajectories of evolution? What are the actors? States, international organizations (European Union, Unions Nations or others), companies (regardless of their size, multinational or dynamic start-ups), consumers or marginal innovators?

The world economy is dominated by a handful of large groups that build their power on new information and communications technologies (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft). These five companies were all started at a garage or a dormitory at an American university. Yet they became quickly world leaders and imposed not only their way of production but of consumption, and even of work. How can we imagine today work and entertain without a laptop, a smart phone or a tablet? These innovations modals have in turn led to other sprawling companies: Uber, Airbnb, Netflix and Tesla which in turn are shaping our daily life. Uberization becomes popular both in terms of behavior (in particular labor relations) and minds. The idea of a collaborative or sharing economy from which are born recently many companies, has fostered the emergence of unequal social relations dating back to the beginnings of the first industrial revolution, contributing to undermine the relation of wage-labor and the benefits linked to it, which had been laboriously achieved through difficult social struggles. Market relations are developing at an unprecedented scale, involving both work relations and technical progress. In recent years, big companies have got a fever. This disease, which mainly affects the United States and China, is the filing of patent applications which has been increasing considerably. The practice contributes to privatize knowledge and strengthen the hegemonic tendencies of technical progress. What will be the future start-up that will break these trajectories?

These new technological and entrepreneurial trajectories facilitate a transformation of territories. While it is common to say that the world has become a village due to the accelerating flows of information, goods and individuals, the local has not lost its relevance. Entrepreneurial ecosystems, clusters, Fab Labs, etc. constantly challenge the world scale to varying degrees. Geographical and cognitive proximity always plays a fundamental role in business relationships. Is this the triumph of the strong ties?

Innovation Forum VII – 20 years of Innovations : https://innovation.univ-littoral.fr/

July 2016, “Innovation potential and competitiveness of the Maghreb economies”, by Messaoud Zouikri, Sonia Ben Slimane

Political and economic systems in Maghreb countries are facing a tough situation due to two recent macro-economic events namely the 2008 global financial crisis coupled with the unprecedented Arab springs. These events shed light on the already existing failing economic structures and settle real threats on the economic progress of these countries. The right question to ask now concerns their capacity to deal with the actual challenges: mass unemployment; particularly that of graduates and ability to ensure a strong sustainable economic growth to meet global competition.

The most important challenge to rise is mainly linked to the capacity of these countries to insert and value innovation in their development models relying on their scientific, technical and innovation capabilities. Achieving this goal needs the implementation of public policies which favor firms’ engagement in innovation, support for entrepreneurial activities in key technological sectors, and fundamental investments leading to real technological and economic catch-up.

In the last decade, in order to build a culture of innovation, Maghreb countries took some important actions like the creation of technopoles, university incubators and competitive poles. However, these efforts are to some extent by a number of past inherent difficulties. In fact, failure in coordination systems between actors of science and research and those of industry, institutional weakness, and the high rate of obsolescence of production tools and knowledge are the principle obstacles to overcome. Tackling these problems permits to find the missing link in the process of technological transfer which contributes in the construction of a coherent national system of innovation.

The issue of Market and Organizations offers, through several contributions, a diverse and precise image of the issues facing Maghreb countries in their change towards a new development model based on innovation. Papers in this edition turn around these three main axes of reflection: public policy of investment and of innovation at the macro-economic level, constraints on innovation at the sectoral level and entrepreneurial dynamics at the micro-economic level.

June 2016, “Changes in industrial structures and business strategies”, by Blandine Laperche*, Nadine Levratto**

In a context of global competition based on innovation, the branches of industry and the companies which comprise them are subject to opposing forces. On the one hand, the search for profits, economic efficiency and economies of scale and of scope leads to an increase in the size of the companies and the establishment of oligopolistic markets, dominated by some firms which concentrate technological and financial assets. On the other hand, the existing rules are disturbed by increasing competition, by some major changes in the production process resulting from innovation, and by the emergence of new economic players encouraged by the new production and consumption practices. These changes, which concern both sides of the market, drive the transformation of the established structures. They also generate the creation of new entities and new activities.

Analysis of the connections between market structures, the strategies of the economic agents and the performances studied at company and industry level have mobilised numerous scholars for a long time. The founders of industrial organisations, such as E.S Mason and J.S Bain, were key contributors to this field of literature. We do not intend to present and discuss the multiple debates which marked the history of the industrial organisation built around the Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) paradigm. The authors taking part in this special issue participate, in their own way and in consideration of the current economic conditions, in analysing the influence of the institutional context on the changes between and within industries. This new issue of the Journal of Innovation Economics and Management brings together papers considering structural change at the industry level. The focus on industrial structures does not neglect the economic and social environment in which companies operate. This extensive conception develops the core logic of the so-called Bainian sequence, according to which the elements comprising the market structure determine firms’ behaviour which, in turn, influences performances. According to the enlarged vision of the SCP paradigm, the basic, sometimes called fundamental, conditions of an industry, the characteristics of the economic environment and, finally, the economic policies are iincorporated in the environment of any company. The feedback introduced by Scherer (1970) leads to a complete conception of the system.

All the contributors to this special issue of Journal of Innovation economics and management (2016/2: Industrial structures, business strategies and innovation) refer to this enlarged conception of the environment which encompasses the market structure, as defined by the SCP paradigm (the degree of concentration on the demand and supply sides, the degree of differentiation between products, the conditions of entry into the market). They also extend the field of application of the notion of the environment to human, financial, material and intangible resources, all of them used as inputs by companies in the production process. The institutional characteristics (laws, rules and standards) also contribute to structuring the economic environment in which firms act. The change in these structures can result from different causes, such as technical progress, behaviours and strategies adopted by companies, or from policies implemented by policy makers at a national or a regional level.

The reference to the industry is a fundamental characteristic of the SCP paradigm considered as a global framework, able to encompass any industrial reality. This feature is all the more noticeable since this explanatory power is not based on abstract notions, such as pure and perfect competition, which are replaced by empirically testable concepts exploitable at the ends of industrial policy. The structural changes which have taken place since the systematisation of this approach, which operated during the years 1960-1970, and the contributions of New Industrial Organisation theory, which highlight the importance of the strategic behaviours of firms aimed at modifying the structures of market, involved a necessary adaptation of this analytical framework to the new economic conditions, on the one hand, and to the new organisation of the production system, on the other. The contributors to this special issue integrate these new conditions into their analysis of the technological mutations and target this objective.

* CLERSE (UMR-CNRS 8019) / Université du Littoral Côte d’Opale, Réseau de recherche sur l’innovation (blandine.laperche@univ-littoral.fr)
** Economix, CNRS-université de Paris Ouest, Nanterre, La Défense, Centre d’Études de l’Emploi, Kedge Business School (nadine.levratto@u-paris10.fr)

May 2016, “20 years of INNOVATIONS ” , by The Editorial Board

The journal Innovations (Cahiers d’Economie de l’Innovation) was founded in 1995 and published by L’Harmattan (Paris). Since its launch, Innovations has been primarily a place of debate on economy and society evolutions and transformations enabling to compare theoretical reflections to practical experiences. Technological, conceptual, entrepreneurial, economic and social innovations…

The pluralistic approaches and methods are revealed and cemented by the systematic recourse of the authors to the history of economic thought and facts.

The observation is the following: the authors of Innovations are interested in the birth of innovation that results from strong interactions between companies, universities, public institutions and consumers. The powerful innovation networks, at local, national and international levels, create knowledge and transform it into technological, organizational and commercial innovations.

The authors discuss the innovation strategies of firms and study the impact of innovation on organizations and on society in general. They also emphasize the innovative entrepreneur and skilled labor that are considered by public policy, in the knowledge economy, as the most valuable resources of economic dynamics.

They also develop the management tools needed to understand innovation at the operational and strategic levels. The interdisciplinary and multifunctional approach give the possibility to understand technological strategies of companies and organizations as well as integrated project management methods, research and development, production, marketing and finance.

Innovations has been listed in 1999 in the Journal of Economic Literature of the American Economic Association (EconLit) and in 2000, by the index of Oswego, State University of New York and MITI in Japan.

In 2007, De Boeck (Brussels) becomes the publisher of Innovations. The journal is diffused by Cairn and the articles are present in the database IDEAS / Research Papers in Economics (RePec). The same year, the Research Network on Innovation becomes the journal’s support institution.

In 2008, launch of the English version of the journal: Journal of Innovation Economics (JIE) which is an electronic edition in free access on Cairn portal. Innovations increased its issues to 4 per year. In 2010, an additional number per year is added in French.

In 2011, Innovations enters the repertoire of the French Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) to achieve consolidation in 2014. In 2012 the journal is referenced by the French Evaluation Agency for Research and Higher education (AERES), in 2014 by the High Council of Research Evaluation and Higher Education – HCERES, in 2013 by the The French Foundation for Management Education (FNEGE). In 2015 by the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) and Scopus.

In 2013, the editorial management of the journal is assisted by Editorial Manager. The same year, the subtitles of the journal become more precise: “Revue d’économie et de management de l’innovation” and “Journal of Innovation Economics and Management”.

The editorial committee widens and becomes international with the participation of English, Italian, German, Canadian, Australian scholars. The same year, a third issue/year in English strengthens the foundation of the journal. Innovations now counts 6 issues per year.

In 2014, a new development perspective is opened with the new editorial team (new editors and associate editors), the development of the editorial committee and the strengthening of the secretariat of the journal.

The 7th edition of Innovation Forum (from 9 to 11 June 2016 at la Cité de sciences et de l’industrie in Paris) celebrates the 20th anniversary of the journal Innovations. A trajectory and new pages to write…

See:
https://www.cairn.info/revue-innovations.htm
and
https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics.htm

April 2016, “The preordained disappearance of cash”, by Michel Santi

In Sweden, the Church has had to adapt because its followers are carrying less and less cash around with them. It has therefore now become commonplace for churches in places like Stockholm to display their bank details on giant screens during Sunday services, so that church-goers can whip out their phones and make an instant payment using an app – “Swish” – which has been set up by the country’s banks and which is now seriously competing with credit cards. This comes with the greatest satisfaction for the Church’s finances as it is being overwhelmed with donations that have now been made easier than ever thanks to this electronic service.

In fact, Sweden is the pioneer in terms of electronic payment services, which is masterfully demonstrating that cash is on its way to becoming a barbarous relic of the past, as I have been saying since 2013. Even homeless people now have card readers enabling them to receive charity, in a country where cash now makes up only 2% of its entire economy. Sweden has in fact become a country where retailers don’t hesitate to contact the police if a customer tries to make a substantial payment in cash. Because, as the authorities are essentially saying, “paying in cash is suspicious”.

In fact, the disappearance of cash is now becoming vital in ensuring the proper operation of negative interest rates, which will be effective to fight against the scourge of deflation. In the absence of public policies aimed at stimulating our economies, due to executive powers entirely focused on fighting against deficits, this preordained and inescapable disappearance of cash will therefore transfer absolute control of the monetary mass to the hands of central banks.

As a result, this completely electronic system will significantly strengthen the power of central banks, which will be transformed into universal banks, competing head to head with the private banking system from the point of view of collecting deposits. Of course, the banking system will be destabilised as it will have been stripped of its privileges. However, our economies’ secular stagnation, which has dictated the introduction of negative interest rates, also demonstrates the crushing defeat of this same private banking system which has not involved itself at all in the process of recovering.

As for the public, their reticence towards the disappearance of cash has diminished considerably the last few years with the help of Bitcoin. This irresistible tendency towards the digitalisation of means of payment is in fact also seducing “anti-establishment” militants, who are massive supporters of Bitcoin, and therefore, despite them, militants of the eradication of cash.

March 2016, “Interaction and knowledge management: the new paradigm of innovation”, by Pierre BARBAROUX *

“It is easy to innovate. What is difficult is to transform innovation into real business”. The sentence pronounced by Michael Dell (Dell Inc.) during a meeting with French entrepreneurs in 2005, suggests that inventing something new is not enough to make real innovation. The point is to be capable of creating value from new ideas. Innovation, indeed, is a process that involves the coordination of a set of scientific, technological, financial and managerial activities consisting in inventing and commercializing new knowledge. It thus depends upon the capacity of firms to generate and apply knowledge, and find ways to create value from new knowledge.

In the introduction of his book Open Innovation published in 2003, Henry Chesbrough compared the innovation strategies implemented by two high-tech companies during the eighties: Lucent and Cisco. While Lucent primarily invested in the development of its internal research and development (R&D) capacity, Cisco made a different choice by using its technological expertise to identify promising external sources of innovation. Building on this comparison, Chesbrough explained that in the dawn of the new century, firms did not manage their innovation activities by simply cultivating internal R&D capacities: successful innovation strategies, the author argued, are more and more based on the combination of internal and external knowledge assets. Chesbrough’s open innovation model is rooted in interaction between innovating firms and their clients and suppliers, but also with other actors such as firms, research laboratories, universities, financial institutions, and various government agencies.

The foregoing movement consisting in opening up how firms invent and commercialize new products, services and technologies has a strong impact on the nature and logics of firm’ knowledge management practices. How do firms participating in interactive innovation (that is open, collaborative, participative or community-based innovation) generate, apply and appropriate knowledge? To answer that question helps improve our understanding of how firms innovate through the identification and combination of distributed resources available inside and outside their own boundaries.

This clearly is the objective of the two thematic issues published in the Revue d’Economie et de Management de l’Innovation and the Journal of Innovation Economics and Management (the issues are respectively entitled “Modèles collaboratifs d’innovation” and “Knowledge based innovation processes”) to explore the role played by – and specificities of – knowledge management processes implemented by firms to develop interactive innovation.

*French Air Force Research Centre, pierre.barbaroux@defense.gouv.fr

February 2016, “Social and Solidarity Economy: a promise of social transformation ?”, by Nadine Richez-Battesti*

One century and a half after its emergency in France, social and solidarity economy (SSE) has been defined and recognised by a law adopted on the 31th of July 2014. Characterised as another way of producing goods and services, the law enlarges the historical definition of social economy based on legal statutes – associations, cooperatives, mutual organisations and foundations – to social enterprises and, more specifically, to social enterprises that receive a label as « solidarity enterprises of social utility » (entreprises solidaires d’utilité sociale :ESUS). Given that we don’t know yet how many enterprises have received this label, the scope of the SSE is still based on the statutory definition of SSE.

SSE organisations count for 10.5% of total employment in France, with 2.37 millions of paid workers in more than 220 000 establishments. Their contribution to added value is around 6% of GDP according to INSEE data. They mobilise between 11 and 14 millions of volunteers. The difference between their contributions to employment and to GDP reveals their weak capitalisation, which is partly related to the predominance of associations (78% of total SSE employment and 84% of establishments). Present in all fields of activity (agriculture, banks and insurances, social and health services, sports, leisure, culture, education, …), SSE organisations share some common principles: the primacy of labour over capital, a democratic governance, i.e. a decision-making power not based on capital ownership but on the principle of “one person, one vote”, a limited individual profit distribution coupled with a compulsory asset lock, a resource mix and a production activity with a social utility.

However, despite its institutionalisation and its economic weight, SSE is still relatively unknown. Moreover, when someone refers to it, it is more to highlight its weaknesses than its modernity. SSE is often pointed out, in particular for its alliances and hybridisation with agricultural and bank groups, which would induce a form of banalisation, and for the limited effectiveness of democratic governance within most of its components. SSE is sometimes considered as an old lady, « bundled up » into its legal statutes by contrast with more recent creative dynamics that are project-oriented.
Finally, SSE is stuck between a social business, held by capitalist groups who largely communicate about their capacity to develop a more ethical capitalism and the emergence of a collaborative economy, which sometimes is only collaborative in its name. Some current developments, such as Airbnb, do not bother about capital ownership or democratic governance issues. Access to capital is privileged through their quotation on the stock exchange against considerations on the design of an organisational model that would secure the project development in relation with the members’ involvement.

And yet, SSE is promising in order to foster a fairer social and economic development, to propose renewed combinations between economic efficiency and social justice. Vehicle of social innovation, it may contribute to find new solutions to unmet or badly satisfied needs, for whose Welfare States offer mainly imperfect solutions. More globally, SSE also shows promise of socio-political transformations within the frame of a more democratic and participative development model. A key issue today.

* Aix-Marseille Université and LEST-CNRS

January 2016, “3D printing as an alternative to mimetic rivalry René Girard”, by Serge Le Roux*

The recent disappearance of philosopher and anthropologist René Girard, professor at Stanford University, has regenerated debates on his original ideas of mimetic desire, ideas that have permeated a part of contemporary economic thought.

We know the main thesis of René Girard: based on a triangulation model, my only desire seeks to be the other’s desire for an object that I want (imitation process); if this other is accessible, it becomes rival and competition established causing the rise of the value assigned to the desired object. If the other is not accessible, envy and jealousy can transform the world step by step in a generalized antagonism.

This idea had received certain consideration by economists: Michel Aglietta and Andre Orlean were, in their time, produced a reference book on the subject, La violence de la monnaie (Violence of money) (PUF, 1982): “… mimetic polarization of all desires of actors seeking wealth on a same object, polarization that closes the crisis by giving a socially recognized form to this so keenly desired wealth. This object that emerges by the game of mimetic polarization as absolutely desirable, as what is sought unanimously by all, [that is] the money” (Orléan André, Pour une approche girardienne de l’homo œconomicus, Cahiers de l’Herne, n° 89, 2009, pp. 261-265).

We understand the attempt of critical openness to create a break in the hegemonic theory of general economic equilibrium: “It is the entire understanding of market economies [that Girard’s thinking] profoundly transformed. We have already noted that by allowing the possibility of cumulative dynamics, this approach rejects the thesis of a competitive self-regulation of market, a thesis that is at the heart of the liberal approach and the concept of the “invisible hand” (ibid.).

It could be argued that this tool has a critical weakness, holding in underestimation of the “property” structure, which by crystallizing the domination of certain players over others dries out possible mechanic of mimetic rivalry (including incitement to violence they may raise, which finds immediate limits on these fields).

Anyway, it seems that these discussions are becoming obsolescent.

Indeed, as the core of economic thought since Adam Smith, the central paradigm began to migrate to a world of scarcity – forming the logical basis of rivalry – to a new world of abundance, currently under formation under the revolutionary impact of the digital economy (according to Chris Anderson (Makers, 2012), personal fabrication extends the field of gratuitousness: “variety is free … complexity is free … flexibility is free”).
3D printing is a phenomenon symbolizing the transition from one production system to another: compared to current printers, a 3D printer is characterized first by the possible use of all types of materials (versus ink only), and secondly by the existence of an additional engine operating in the vertical direction. It can create tiny objects (on the scale of a cell) or gigantic structures (buildings, bridges). Unlike industrial production, it can be performed by one person (the model of personal fabrication) controlling the process from start to finish: design, creation of CAD file, acquisition or manufacture of equipment and materials, implementation manufacturing, testing and use. Active individuals in this new field can deliver mimetic rivalry by making themselves the objects they desire; and without depriving anyone.

* Research Network on Innovation / Lab.RII

RNI Editorials