Résumés
Résumé
L’objectif de notre étude est de comprendre comment les démarches conduites par le porteur de projet, intégrant différentes communautés d’acteurs, permettent la construction d’un bien commun au sens d’Ostrom. Grace à la recherche exploratoire d’un cas unique longitudinal et avec l’analyse nethnographique des réseaux sociaux, nous répondons à la question : sur quels types de relations de coopération et de règles d’autogouvernance repose la construction du bien commun ? Le cas de l’hospitalité constructive montre que le partenariat social est une solution organisationnelle efficace et innovante. L’étude met en évidence le rôle crucial du chef de file du projet en tant qu’entrepreneur, fédérateur, médiateur et garant du respect des normes sociales de la communauté.
Mots-clés :
- bien commun,
- co-construction,
- autogouvernance,
- partenariat social,
- modèle IAD,
- habitat transitoire
Abstract
The aim of our study is to understand how the steps taken by the project leader, integrating different stakeholder communities, enable the construction of a common good in Ostrom’s sense. By means of exploratory research based on single longitudinal case, and with the help of a nethnographic analysis of social networks, we answer the question: on what types of cooperative relationships and rules of self-governance is the construction of the common good based? The case of constructive hospitality shows that social partnership is an effective and innovative organisational solution. The study highlights the crucial role of the project leader as entrepreneur, federator, mediator and guarantee of respect for the community’s social norms.
Keywords:
- common good,
- co-production,
- self-governance,
- social partnership,
- IAD model,
- transitional housing
Resumen
El objetivo de nuestro estudio es comprender cómo los pasos dados por el líder del proyecto, que integra a diferentes comunidades de partes interesadas, permiten la construcción de un bien común en el sentido de Ostrom. Gracias a la investigación exploratoria de un único caso longitudinal, y con la ayuda de un análisis netnográfico de las redes sociales, podemos responder a la pregunta: ¿en qué tipos de relaciones de cooperación y reglas de autogobierno se basa la construcción del bien común? El caso de la hospitalidad constructiva demuestra que la colaboración social es una solución organizativa eficaz e innovadora. El estudio destaca el papel crucial del líder del proyecto como emprendedor, federador, mediador y garante del respeto de las normas sociales de la comunidad.
Palabras clave:
- bien común,
- co-construcción,
- autogobierno,
- colaboración social,
- modelo IAD,
- vivienda de transición
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Albareda, L., & Sison, A. J. G. (2020). Commons organizing: Embedding common good and institutions for collective action. Insights from ethics and economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(4), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04580-8
- Alkire, L., Mooney, C., Gur, F. A., Kabadayi, S., Renko, M., & Vink, J. (2020). Transformative service research, service design, and social entrepreneurship: An interdisciplinary framework advancing wellbeing and social impact. Journal of Service Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-05-2019-0139
- Assens, C., & Coléno, F. (2017). L’agriculture durable. Comment réconcilier le public et le privé pour la gestion d’un bien commun. Management international, 21(4), 136-145. https://doi.org/10.7202/1053583ar
- Ballet, J. (2008). Propriété, biens publics mondiaux, bien (s) commun (s) : Une lecture des concepts économiques. Développement durable et territoires. Économie, géographie, politique, droit, sociologie, (Dossier 10). https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.5553
- Bance, P., Bouchard, M. J., & Greiling, D. (2022). New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods (Vol. 3). CIRIEC-Université de Liège. https://doi.org/10.25518/ciriec.css3book
- Besson, R. (2017). Rôle et limites des tiers-lieux dans la fabrique des villes contemporaines. Territoire en mouvement Revue de géographie et aménagement. Territory in movement, Journal of geography and planning, (34). https://doi.org/10.4000/tem.4184
- Block, W., & Jankovic, I. (2016). Tragedy of the partnership: A critique of Elinor Ostrom. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(2), 289–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12141
- Boncler, J., Rispal, M. H., & Verstraete, T. (2006). Entreprendre ensemble : cadrage théorique des notions d’entrepreneuriat collectif, d’équipe dirigeante et d’équipe entrepreneuriale. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 5(2), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.3917/entre.052.0009
- Cole, D., Epstein, G., & McGinnis, M. (2019). The utility of combining the IAD and SES frameworks. International Journal of the Commons, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.864
- Coriat, B. (2020). La pandémie, l’anthropocène, et le Bien commun. Éditions Les Liens qui libèrent.
- Cornu, M., Orsi, F., & Rochfeld, J. (2021). Dictionnaire des biens communs. Presses universitaires de France.
- Cropper, S., & Bor, S. (2018). (Un) bounding the meta-organization: Co-evolution and compositional dynamics of a health partnership. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030042
- Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2010). Du public au commun. Revue du MAUSS, 35(1), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.035.0111
- Dardot, P. & Laval, C. (2015). Chapitre 4. Critique de l’économie politique des communs. Dans:, P. Dardot & C. Laval (Dir), Commun : Essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle (pp. 137-187). Paris : La Découverte.
- DeCaro, D. A., Chaffin, B. C., Schlager, E., Garmestani, A. S., & Ruhl, J. B. (2017). Legal and institutional foundations of adaptive environmental governance. Ecology and society: A journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability, 22(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-09036-220132
- Defalvard, H. (2017). Des communs sociaux à la société du commun. RECMA, (3), 42-56 https://doi.org/10.3917/recma.345.0042
- Deneulin, S., & Townsend, N. (2007). Public goods, global public goods and the common good. International Journal of Social Economics. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290710723345
- Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization studies, 36(3), 363–390 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742
- Frączkiewicz-Wronka, A., & Wronka-Pośpiech, M. (2018). How Practices of Managing Partnerships Contributes to the Value Creation—Public–Social Partnership Perspective. Sustainability, 10(2), 4816. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124816
- Foster, S. R., & Iaione, C. (2019). Ostrom in the city: Design principles and practices for the urban commons. In Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons (pp. 235–255). Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315162782-19
- Four, I., Corbin-Charland, O., & Lavoie, F. (2016, July). Entrepreneuriat social et responsabilité sociale des entreprises : le point de vue d’entrepreneurs sociaux à Montréal. In RIODD 2016.
- Gillett, A., Loader, K., Doherty, B., & Scott, J. M. (2019). An examination of tensions in a hybrid collaboration: A longitudinal study of an empty homes project. Journal of Business Ethics, 157, 949–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3962-7
- Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
- Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2006). A framework for analysing the microbiological commons. International Social Science Journal, 58(188), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2006.00622.x
- Hirschmann, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty : Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Intindola, M., & Ofstein, L. (2021). Change through chaos: using bricolage in cross-sector social partnerships. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/neje-03-2021-0015
- Kamal, M. M., Amiri, H., Moghadam, V., & Rahimi, D. (2021). Institutional analysis of top-down regulatory: evidence from Iran local governance. Water Policy, 23(4), 930–945. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2021.075
- Kassel, K., & Rimanoczy, I. (Eds.). (2018). Developing a sustainability mindset in management education (p. 368). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351063340
- Kiser, L. L. & Ostrom, E. (1982) The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches in E. Ostrom (ed) Strategies of political inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications: 179–222.
- Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of marketing research, 39(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935
- Lesieur, P. (1996, March). L’étude de cas : son intérêt et sa formalisation dans une démarche clinique de recherche. In Colloque Interface INSERM/FFP (Vol. 15).
- Leitheiser, S., Trell, E. M., Horlings, I., & Franklin, A. (2022). Toward the commoning of governance. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 40(3), 744–762 https://doi.org/10.1177/ 23996544211033992
- Murphy, M., Perrot, F., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2012). New perspectives on learning and innovation in cross-sector collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 65(12), 1700–1709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.011
- Mas, J. M., & Gómez, A. (2021). Social partners in the digital ecosystem: Will business organizations, trade unions and government organizations survive the digital revolution?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, 120349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120349
- Mazé, A., Calabuig Domenech, A., & Goldringer, I. (2021). Commoning the seeds: Alternative models of collective action and open innovation within French peasant seed groups for recreating local knowledge commons. Agriculture and Human Values, 38(2), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10172-z
- Meyer, C. (2020). The commons: A model for understanding collective action and entrepreneurship in communities. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(5), 106034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106034
- Milchram, C., Märker, C., Schlör, H., Künneke, R., & Van De Kaa, G. (2019). Understanding the role of values in institutional change: the case of the energy transition. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 9, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0235-y
- Montgomery, A. W., Dacin, P. A., & Dacin, M. T. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of business ethics, 111, 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1501-5
- Ostrom, E. (1986). An agenda for the study of institutions. Public choice, 48(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00239556
- Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511807763
- Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9739
- Ostrom, E. (2005). Doing institutional analysis digging deeper than markets and hierarchies. In Handbook of new institutional economics (pp. 819–848). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-25092-1_31
- Ostrom E. (2010). La gouvernance des biens communs. Pour une nouvelle approche des ressources naturelles, Bruxelles, De Boeck.
- Ostrom, E. (2019). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 21–64). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367274689-2
- Ostrom, E., & Laurent, É. (2015). Des individus rationnels sont-ils désespérément piégés dans des dilemmes sociaux ? L’analyse d’Elinor Ostrom. In Annales des Mines-Responsabilité et environnement (No. 3, pp. 31-35). FFE. https://doi.org/10.3917/re1.079.0031
- Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (2019). Public goods and public choices. In Alternatives for delivering public services (pp. 7–49). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429047978-2
- Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of management journal, 44(4), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069411
- Ramonjy, D., Schäfer, P., & Cuénoud, T. (2023). Émergence organisationnelle d’un projet de tiers-lieu porté par un entrepreneuriat collectif et responsable. Revue de l’organisation responsable, (1), 67-88.
- Ricciardi, F., Cantino, V., & Rossignoli, C. (2021). Organisational learning for the common good: An emerging model. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 19(3), 277–290 https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2019.1673676
- Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. The review of economics and statistics, 36(4), 387–389. https://doi.org/10.2307/1925895
- Sarr, S., Hayes, B., & DeCaro, D. A. (2021). Applying Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development framework, and design principles for co-production to pollution management in Louisville’s Rubbertown, Kentucky. Land Use Policy, 104, 105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol. 2021.105383
- Sutton, A. M., & Rudd, M. A. (2016). Factors influencing community fishers’ leadership engagement in international small-scale fisheries. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00116
- Vallat D. (2016) Biens communs et innovation sociale. Dans : Combes-Joret, Monique; Lethielleux, Laëtitia. Formes et fondements de la créativité dans l’Economie Sociale et Solidaire, ÉPURE - Éditions et Presses universitaires de Reims, 239-254
- Wang, H. K., Ling, G. H. T., & Shi, X. (2022). Collective action components of low-cost housing: an empirical analysis using Ostrom’s SES framework. Property Management, 40(3), 388–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm-07-2021-0053
- Yin, J. (2021). How multinational corporations and nonprofits collaborate for sustainability: assessing social partnerships from China. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 12(6), 1289–1311. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-04-2020-0104