Économie Appliquée, tome LXVII, 2014, n°4.

Special issue:

Heritage, from an object to an analysis tool.

SUMMARY

• C. BARRERE The Four Times of Heritage p. 9

• M. NIEDDU, F-D. VIVIEN What contributions of patrimonial economics to the analysis of transitions towards sustainability? The example of the "double green chemistry". p. 45

• M. LEMARIE-BOUTRY, C. CAZALS Heritages and wine soils: the case of Bordeaux vineyard p. 71

• I. CALVO-MENDIETA, O. PETIT, F-D. VIVIEN Patrimony, Common Good and Natural Capital: Conceptual Debates and Perspectives in the Water Management Sector p. 101

• R. DEMISSY Big companies'territorial actions: cooperations, resulting effects and building heritage process p. 125

• W. SANTAGATA Potential Cultural Districts and the Production of Material Culture p. 147

• C. BARRERE, M. NIEDDU Practising an heritage approach p. 163

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

The four times of heritage (Les quatre temps du patrimoine)

Economie appliquée, tome LXVII, n°4, décembre 2014, special issue "Le patrimoine, d'un objet à un instrument d'analyse", pp. 10-44.

Christian Barrère - Laboratoire Regards (Université de Reims) and ISMEA (Paris)1

Keywords: heritage; identity; dissonance; cultural capital; heritage approach.

The Introduction of the paper (Le concept de patrimoine entre polysémie et inventions, pp. 10-11) presents the framework. It distinguishes four moments in the interpretation of heritage situations. The different interpretations are related to the question of entitlement (individual and/or collective entitlement) and to the time status of heritage. The first question derives from the double character of modern societies, which are both market societies and citizenship societies. The second is related to the régimes d'historicité defined by Hartog (2003) to consider the different ways of thinking the relation between the past, the present and the future.

The section 1 (Le patrimoine, universalité de biens privés, pp. 12-15) analyses the first time of heritage, the birth, within the Roman private law, of the notion of heritage as a private and homogeneous heritage related to a legal entity. It is a legal universality, gathering together all the assets and liabilities. Time is present as absent: time gives some results; the present only matters, the origin of assets and liabilities disappear. The market can give a monetary valuation of every asset and liability, so the heritage exists independently from its components. On the contrary some goods cannot constitute heritages and are res nullius in bonis because they are res extra commercium, as they belong to the holy field (the domain of the Gods), to the religious field, to the sanctified field (as the walls of the city), and to the public field (as roads and squares). They cannot be appropriated and are out of heritages because titular (the Gods and the people) is not a private person able to define a management strategy. Some people manage them in their name and have to preserve them.

The section 2 (La préhistoire du patrimoine collectif, pp. 15-20) is dedicated to the second time. A collective heritage is progressively defined, through the development of narratives (Babelon et Chastel, 1994), the cult of relics, the preservation of remarkable monuments and the definition of some monuments as historical monuments (Choay, 1992). The idea of an historical continuity between the present and the past of a society or a country emerges and leads to the definition of an official and legitimate heritage by the French Revolution.

The third section (Le temps de l'unité affirmée et contestée, pp. 20-25) starts from the French Revolution. In a third moment of the heritage consideration, the French Revolution invents the notion of "the national heritage". It is no longer a list of monuments but a set (the results of the past that merits conservation), the titular of which is another collective set, the people or the Nation. Hence the possibility of expressing the national identity through the consideration of its heritage. Heritage is unique as the global result of the legacy of the past and characterizes the specificity of a given community. This invention modifies the old relation between past, present and future by creating a new regime of historicity: history is a process, the past is bygone and the present is a moment to prepare the future. The past is dissolved and condensed in the heritage. As, now, a unique subject, the people, is the unique titular of a unified set, the national heritage, this relation can express an identity. Heritage becomes an identity marker, so a strong mean for the State to increase national feeling.

Nevertheless the history of heritages reveals that conflicts arose to define the content and extent of heritages. Tunbridge et Ashworth (1996, p. 20) define heritage as ‘a contemporary product shaped from history', Harvey (2008, p. 19) as ‘a discursive construction'. The present rewrites the past to legitimate some strategies.

The section 4 (Le temps de la ressource, pp. 26-36) studies our times. Today, we live in a fourth time of heritage where heritage appears as a resource given by the past. That modifies the status of private heritages. Their economic dimension rules their management according to the criterion of present maximisation. The past is used as a producer of wealth, which has to be reproduced and increased according to the logic of patrimonial capitalism (Aglietta, 1997).

Nevertheless private heritages do not suppress collective ones. Heritage thus becomes the wealth of a group, a community (national, local, …) but does not escape to this presentism (Hartog, 2003). Riegl (1903) is the first to define the different (cultural and economic) values of heritages. Groups and cities, as Venice and Genoa since the XIIIth, develop strategies to define and manage heritages in order to produce new value.

Aside these official heritages other, non-official, heritages play a strong role in the working of modern societies. The Solidarism (Bouglé, 1907; Bourgeois, 1902) considered the social heritage that allows the individuals to benefit from the social building of a cultural and economic heritage (languages, institutions and so on). Barel (1984) extended heritage to a lot of organisations and characterized it as a specific form of acquiring and transmitting wealth and power, according to non-monetary values and criteria.

The first component of the value of heritages is related to their consumption. They carry utilities but their preservation is costly that induces problems of efficient management. The second component is related to their role in creation and production. Goods including heritage characteristics as cheese, wines, handcrafts and cultural goods become heritage goods. Recipes, routines, norms, knowledge linked to communities and territories play an increasing role in the economic and social life. Creative heritages have a special strong value in the creative industries as fashion, gastronomy, wines, and perfumes (Barrère et Santagata, 2005; Barrère, 2013a; Barrère, 2013b).

At the same time societies are more and more aware of the irreversibility of time. The present constraints the future through irreversible effects implying feed-back effects on the definition of present policies.

The last and conclusive section 5 (Une approche patrimoniale ?, pp. 37-41) proposes a new research program to use heritage as an analytical tool able to put the light on the heritage dimension of goods and institutions but also, of individual behaviours and choices. Both semantic axes (conception of time and definition of the titular) undermining the diverse conceptions of heritage are intertwined and depend as much on the nature of goods (that leads to a substantivist point of view) as on its reading at a specific moment (that leads to a culturalist point of view). The French Revolution considered a set of elements as sacred as they were supposed embodying the past and the history of a people. By doing so, it turned over the Roman conception that kept sacred goods out of heritage; now, the titular of sacred goods, unlike the Roman conception, has an identity and an organisation (the State) and can be entitled to manage the public heritage. On the contrary, the individual heritage expresses the profane dimension of the other goods, the time characteristics of which do not matter in comparison with their present value. On this basis it becomes possible to study the dialectics of the forms of heritages. The invention of heritage as a resource carrying an economic value, widens the variety of heritages between individual and public ones: territories' heritages, firms' heritages, industries' heritages, … Then heritage evolves according to two contradictory trends: on a side, considering that its historical conditions of building and emergence are strong characteristics and induce some specific ways of management, on the other side be unaware of them and only consider heritages as economic values. By compressing the past in the present heritage, the modern régime d'historicité favours the abstraction of historical conditions and allows falling back the category of heritage on the category of capital. At the same time, the limits of market in managing the social life explain the researches for identity and roots and lead to promote new ways of managing existing heritages.

Heritages are not only legacy of the past and results of specific strategies of entrepreneurs in heritages. Scholars can use it as a category to understand the working of social life as soon as it takes into account the effects of past on the choices and behaviours of the economic actors and on institutions.

References

Aglietta M. [1997], Régulation et crises du capitalisme, réédition 1997 avec une postface ‘Le capitalisme au tournant du siècle. La régulation à l'épreuve de la crise', Odile Jacob, Paris.

Andrieux, J-Y. [2006], Le patrimoine et la mutation des identités à l'âge des mondialisations en Europe, dans Martin Drouin (dir.), Patrimoine et patrimonialisation du Québec et d'ailleurs, MultiMondes, p. 231-248, Montréal.

Aubry C. et C. Rau [1873], Cours de droit civil français d'après la méthode de Zachariae, t. VI, § 573 et s., 4° éd., Marchal et Billard, Paris. 

Babelon J-P. et A. Chastel [1994], La notion de patrimoine, Liana Levi, Paris.

Bagnasco, A. [1977], Tre Italie. La problematica territoriale dello sviluppo economico italiano, Il Mulino, Bologna.

Barel Y. [1984], La société du vide, Le Seuil, Paris.

Barni J. [1872], Le manuel républicain, réédition 1992, Kime, Paris.

Barrère C. [2007], Les industries du luxe, des industries du patrimoine ?, Economie appliquée, numéro spécial "L'économie du patrimoine", 2007/3.

Barrère C. [2004], "Les dynamiques économiques du patrimoine » in Réinventer le patrimoine, L'Harmattan, p. 109-120, Paris.

Barrère, C., Barthélémy D., Nieddu M., Vivien F-D. (sous la dir. de), [2004], Réinventer le patrimoine, L'Harmattan, Paris.

Barrère C. [2013a], Heritage as a basis for creativity in creative industries : the case of taste industries, Mind and Society, 2013, 12, p. 167-176.

Barrère C. [2013b], Patrimoines gastronomiques et développement local, les limites du modèle français de gastronomie élitiste, Mondes du tourisme, n°7, Juin 2013, p. 15-36.

Barrère, C. et Santagata, W. [2005], La mode, une économie de la créativité et du patrimoine à l'heure du marché, La Documentation Française, Paris.

Barthélémy D. [2000], Être et avoir. Patrimoine versus capital : le cas de l'agriculture, Économie rurale, 2000, n° 260, p. 26-40.

Barthélémy T. [1988], Les modes de transmission du patrimoine : Synthèse des travaux effectués depuis quinze ans par les ethnologues de la France, Études rurales, n° 110/112, p. 195-212.

Barthélémy D., Nieddu, M., Vivien F.D. [2004], Economie patrimoniale, identité et marché in Réinventer le patrimoine, p. 121-150, L'Harmattan, Paris.

Becattini, G. [1998], Distretti industriali e made in Italy, Le basi socioculturali del nostro sviluppo economico, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino.

Benjamin W. [1936], The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

Boltanski L. [1982], Les cadres, La formation d'un groupe social, Ed. de Minuit, Paris.

Bouglè C. [1907], Le solidarisme, Giard et Brière, Paris.

Bourdieu P. [1972], Les stratégies matrimoniales dans le système de reproduction. In : Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations. 27e année, n° 4-5, 1972. p. 1105-1127.

Bourgeois L. [1902], Solidarité, nouvelle édition 1996, Presses du Septentrion, Toulouse.

Choay F. [1992], L'allégorie du patrimoine, Le Seuil, Paris.

Cova V. et B. Cova [2001], Alternatives marketing : réponses marketing aux évolutions récentes des consommateurs, Dunod, Paris.

Craig Wight A. and John Lennon J. [2007], Selective interpretation and eclectic human heritage in Lithuania, Tourism Management 28 [2007], p. 519-529.

Dubar C. [2008], Temporalité, temporalités : philosophie et sciences sociales, Temporalités, 8/2008

Durkheim E. [1893], De la division du travail social, PUF, Paris.

Elias, N. [1973], La civilisation des mœurs, Calmann-Lévy, Paris.

Gautier C et Valluy J. [1998], Générations futures et intérêt général, Politix, 42, p. 7-36.

Greffe, X. [1990], La valeur économique du patrimoine: la demande et l'offre de monuments, Anthropos-Economica, Paris.

Greffe X. [2003], La valorisation économique du patrimoine, Ministère de la culture ; Département des Etudes de la Prospective et des Statistiques (DEPS), Paris.

Hartog F. [2003], Régimes d'historicité. Présentisme et expériences du temps. Le Seuil.

Harvey D.C. [2008], The History of Heritage, chapter 1 of the Ashgate Research Companion on Heritage and Identity , p. 19-36, Farnham.

Heinich N. [2009], La fabrique du patrimoine, Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.

Hirschmann E.C. et Holbrook M.B. [1982], Hedonic consumption : Emergoing Concepts, Methods and Propositions, Journal of Marketing, 46, p. 92-101

Horkheimer M. et T.W. Adorno [1947], Dialectic of Enlightment. Philosophical Fragments. English translation [2002]. Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, Frankfurt.

Jeudy P.H. [1990], (dir). Patrimoines en folie. Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication. Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.

Jeudy P.H. [2001], La machinerie patrimoniale. Sens & Tonka, Paris.

Koselleck R. [1990], Le futur passé : contribution à la sémantique des temps historiques. Editions de l'EHESS, Paris.

Lacour P. [2004], Figures temporelles. EspaceTemps.net. Livres 01/06/2004. http://www.espacestemps.net/articles/figures-temporelles/

Leniaud J.M. [2001], Chroniques patrimoniales, Editions Norma, Paris.

Loué P. [2008], Du présent au passé : le temps des historiens. Temporalités, n°8/2008. http://temporalites.revues.org/60.

Macpherson C.B. [1962], The political theory of possessive individualism: from Hobbes to Locke, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Moatti C. [1988], Tradition et Raison chez Cicéron : l'émergence de la rationalité politique à la fin de la République romaine, Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome. Antiquité T. 100, N°1. 1988. p. 385-430.

Munasinghe H. [2005], The Politics of the Past: Constructing a National Identity through Heritage Conservation, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2005, p. 251-260.

Nieddu M. [2013], Patrimoines productifs collectifs versus exploration/exploitation : le cas de la bioraffinerie, Revue économique, à paraître.

North, D. [1991], Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ollagnon H. [2004], Stratégies patrimoniales pour un développement durable in Barrère, C., Barthélémy D., Nieddu M., Vivien F-D. (sous la dir. de), Réinventer le patrimoine, L'Harmattan, Paris.

Payen P. [2005], François Hartog, Régimes d'historicité. Présentisme et expériences du temps. Anabases1/2005, p. 295-298.

Poirrier P et L. Vadelorge (directeurs) [2003], Pour une histoire des politiques du patrimoine. La Documentation française, Paris.

Poirrier P. [2007], Introduction au numéro 9 de Culture et musées, janvier-juin 2007.

Riegl, A. [1903], Der moderne Denkmalkulus. Vienne, Leipzig. 1903. Le culte moderne des monuments, son essence et sa genèse, trad. D. Wieczorek, avant-Propos F. Choay, 1984, Editions du Seuil, Paris.

Rioux J-P. [1985], L'émoi patrimonial, Le temps de la réflexion, 1985, n°6, p. 39-48.

Rioux J-P. [2006], La France perd la mémoire, Perrin, Paris.

Rochefort R. [2001], La société des consommateurs, Odile Jacob, Paris.

Santagata, W. [2010], The Culture Factory. Creativity and the Production of Culture. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.

Santagata, W. [2002], Cultural districts, property rights and sustainable economic growth. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 26, Issue 1, March 2002, p. 9-23.

Scott A.J. [2010], Cultural economy and the creative field of the city. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, Volume 92, Issue 2, p. 115–130, June 2010

Steiner G. [2001], Grammaires de la création, Gallimard, Paris.

Sucharitkul S. [1987], FAO Essays in memory of Jean Carroz. The Law and the Sea. Sri Lanka. http://www.fao.org/docrep/s5280T/s5280T00.htm

Thomas Y. [2002], La valeur des choses. Le droit romain hors la religion. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales. 57° année, n°6, p. 1431-1462.

Tunbridge J.E. et Ashworth G.J. [1996], Dissonant Heritage : the management of the past as a resource in conflict, Wiley, Hoboken.

Vadelorge L. [2003], Le patrimoine comme objet politique. Introduction au livre Pour une histoire des politiques du patrimoine, Poirrier P et L. Vadelorge (directeurs), La Documentation française, Paris.

Villers R. [1977], Rome et le droit privé, Albin Michel, Paris.

Wight A. Craig, Lennon J. John [2007], Selective interpretation and eclectic human heritage in Lithuania, Tourism Management, Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2007, p. 519–529

Witz, C. [1997], Privilèges, Droit de gage général. Jurisclasseur-Civil, art. 2092 à 2094, Fasc. 80, Privilèges, Droit de gage général, 1997, §§ 5 à 14. Revue de droit Henri Capitant, n°2, 1/05/2011 

Zukin S., Braslow, L. [2011], City, Culture and Society, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Heritages and wine soils: the case of Bordeaux vineyard (Patrimoines et terres de vins - Application à la viticulture bordelaise)

Économie appliquée, tome LXVII, n°4, décembre 2014, special issue "Le patrimoine, d'un objet à un instrument d'analyse", pp. 71-100

Marie Lemarié-Boutry (marie.lemarie-boutry@irstea.fr), Clarisse Cazals (clarisse.cazals@irstea.fr)

*Irstea UR ETBX, Environnement, territoires et infrastructures et Université de Bordeaux UMR CNRS 5113 GREThA Groupe de recherche en économie théorique et appliquée,

The study of an industry's productive heritage, its management and its promotion might help having a better understanding of the various possible paths in a changing environment. Based on that assumption, we submit in this article an heritage analysis of the Bordeaux wine industry in an ever changing market and with an ever hardening competition.

Although Bordeaux's wine production is old and reputed across the world, it has to address political and economic changes nevertheless, sometimes even brutal ones. As facing these changes, both the industry's identity and its lands' are at stake. This would have a social and economic impact as these identities are essential in the fields of wine or tourism. They are critical for differentiation and creation of value in these highly competitive fields.

The ability of the Bordeaux wine industry to resist (and resort) to the changes and the pressures especially at the dawn of the 21st century will depend on how the actors will answer these questions: reproduce or innovate, pass on or sell, protect or use… The answers are complex and cannot follow a single line of decision as it is the case for constrained optimization, simply because the commercial and non-commercial logics are so strongly mixed together. The wine actors will have to address issues, keeping in mind that this is a heritage matter: preserve a productive heritage and keep an identity over time, therefore allowing future generations to have the required tools at their disposal in order to carry in producing and selling a world famous wine.

Contributing for maintaining a certain know-how across time and space, the Bordeaux productive heritage owns both material (vines, landscape, ancient building) and immaterial (know-how, product conception) assets, as well as institutions (wine rating, Protected designation of origin, PDO). It relies on lands, buildings, but also on norms and ratings that embody the diversity of its activity. Our heritage analysis will especially deal with this diversity.

Globally, it appeared to us that four categories of practices are relevant in order to understand the path that the wine industry took: land-use, production technics, natural resources management and commercial practices for production valorization. Each of them experience pressure between continuity with the past and evolution of the field. The state of the industry depends on the combination of these parameters.

We might say these elements form a system as they are all connected. This system falls with an institutional environment defined by rules, norms and heritage conventions based both on a commercial and non-commercial logic. These logics can be opposed or complementary. Run on different levels (exploitation, PDO, State…), answering collective and individual needs, the arbitration following on from these logics are likely to preserve or change the productive power of the industry.

Three of these categories – land-use, production and commercial practices – have specifically been analysed through interviews and regional daily press. Thanks to these leads we have been able to observe the wine production system and the recurrent problematics of the industry throughout years.

In order to understand more easily the links between practices, representations and institutions, we needed data that were mixing speech, actors ‘voice and some description of the practices, and this over the years.

So we analyzed 658 articles published between 2002 and 2010 in the regional press magazine Sud Ouest. They write as well about breaking news as wine industry issues specific to the region. You can also find articles about national issues such as PDO' or even about debates on the Evin law (The French legislation [...] on tobacco and alcohol addiction). We added to this press review semi-directive interviews of twenty farms' managers and employees, but also interviews of researchers and public institutions.

This textual statistical analysis of the press with some important material, enabled us to produce a quantitative treatment of qualitative data, completing the interviews perfectly.

This analysis is based on technics developed and implemented in the textual analysis software ALCESTE, made by Reinert [2008]. With this method, we spotted words repetitions and associations in the articles, which enabled us to segment the corpus around broad lexical themes, called "lexical groups". Here, each lexical group is a collective construction because it is coming from a corpus having many voices/speakers (journalists, wine producers, institutions, etc.). It is located "between the individual representations and the cultural patterns" [Reinert M. (1993)]. This press textual analysis makes sense considered from an institutional point of view.

When you consider the lexicon adopted, the way words are put together and the context they are in, logics and practices in the wine industry can then be identified within each big theme and then enabling us to study their own coherence.

Seven groups are emerging from this press corpus, forming two different semantical groups. We are talking about two very different groups, clearly identified within the wine production press.

The first lexical group refers to one kind of wine production technics: the lands' history, the difficulties of a landslide or a vintage, the institutional fights. The second lexical group reveals a touristic dimension within the viticulture, the one being publicly shown and which is opened to visitors. This gap inside the corpus is interesting because through it we can analyze the heritage both from the protection and the adaptation points of view, considering effectively the valorization.

The first semantic group enables us to get different points of view on the tensions that can appear within an industry when it comes to redefining practices, when times of uncertainties arrive, on different scales. A good wine's production and business depends on vintage restrictions, on applicable rules and on market constraints, but also on land management and property construction.

Nevertheless, when the Bordeaux wine industry is facing difficulties to manage and protect some of its resources, it is far from being stuck : wine actors are seeking to create new dynamics, for example by mixing its heritage with other's, like art, nature or local history. The goal is to make people dream when they think of wine, of their specialty and of its producers' specialty. These are heritages that the wine industry is sharing with art and luxury, binding with them. Indeed there are various habits in the Bordeaux region, when it comes to the valorization of specific local resources, not only natural but also cultural.

In the end, we notice in this paper that there are three practices that make the identity of the Bordeaux wine industry hold still, in a changing context : the land-use practices, the production technics and the commercial practices for the valorization of production. This system is changing in time and is consistently called into question on the different scales of the industry. Indeed, we observed this phenomenon between 2002 and 2012 : in order to face the economical and ruling mutations but also to face the climate change threat, the industry is, for instance, refreshing its wine-tourism practices. But actors are also defining new limits for its vineyards, thinking about the sustainability of both its plantations and its production technics.

One resource in particular embodies the interdependence between the different groups of practices : the land-use resource. Indeed, it is at the heart of the discussions , whether they are about family businesses, PDO, production regulation or even valorization of the farming environment. Then we could sort out different types of land-use in the results : "the chateau land-use", "the vineyards land-use", "the substrate land-use" and finally "the landscape land-use". Unlike any other heritage object, each of these « land-uses » are the bases of tensions between breaks and continuity and imply different "administrators" : individual and collective, professional and institutional. In this study, the land-use status as a cornerstone is confirmed among the mechanisms to keep the Bordeaux vineyards difference on the national and foreign wine market and on the wine-tourism one. It expresses perfectly "all the social relationships" [Jouve A.-M. And Vianey G. (2012), p.27].

This heritage approach might bring back the agricultural land-use at the inner center of the sectorial debates, despite the fact that it was sometimes left aside. Furthermore, it suggests a widening of the land-use economic analysis, surpassing the historical theory of the land-use annuity. This is possible thanks to the use of more recent approaches, like the institutional one.

References

Alberti F. G. and Giusti J. D. [2012], "Cultural heritage, tourism and regional competitiveness: The Motor Valley cluster", City, Culture and Society, n°3, p. 261-273

Barham E. [2003], "Translating terroir: the global challenge of French AOC labeling", Journal of Rural Studies, Tome 19, n° 1, p. 127-138.

Barrère C. [2014],  « Les quatre temps du patrimoine » / "The four times of heritage", Économie Appliquée, Tome 67, n°4, p. 10-44.

Barrère C., Bonnard Q. and Chossat V. [2011], Food, gastronomy and cultural commons,

Œnometrics XVIII, May.

Barrère C., Barthélemy D., Nieddu M. et Vivien F.D. [2005], Réinventer le patrimoine : de la culture à l'économie, une nouvelle pensée du patrimoine ?, L'Harmattan.

Calvet J. [2005], « Les clusters vitivinicoles français à AOC. Une analyse en termes de biens clubs », Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Tome 4, p. 481-506.

Chauvin P.-M. [2010], Le Marché des Réputations, Éditions Féret, Bordeaux.

Crenn C. and Téchoueyres I. [2007], "Local heritage to singularize a wine terroir: the example of pays Foyen (Gironde, France)", Anthropology of food, S2.

Easingwood C., Lockshin L. and Spawton A. [2011], "The Drivers of wine Regionality", Journal of wine Research, n° 22, p. 19-33

François P. [2011], Vie et mort des institutions marchandes, Presses de Sciences-Po.

Gintrac A. [2007], « La crise des vins de Bordeaux: une recherche d'explications », Market Management, Tome 7, n° 3, p. 63-87.

Godard O. [1990], « Environnement, modes de coordination et systèmes de légitimité: analyse de la catégorie de patrimoine naturel », Revue économique, Tome 41, n° 2, p. 215-241.

Jouve A.-M. et Vianey G. [2012], « Le foncier, une ressource territoriale difficile à construire en périurbain », Économie rurale, Tome 330-331, n° 4-5, p. 27-41.

Landel P.-A. [2007], « Invention de patrimoines et construction des territoires » in H. Gumuchian et B. Pecqueur [eds], La ressource territoriale, Economica.

Mitchell R., Charters S. and Albrecht J. [2012], "Cultural systems and the wine tourism product", Annals of Tourism Research, n°39, p. 311-335.

Nieddu M., Garnier E. et Bliard C. [2010], « L'émergence d'une chimie doublement verte », Revue d'économie industrielle, Tome 132.

Reinert [2008], Mondes lexicaux stabilisés et analyse statistique de discours, 9èmes Journées internationales d'Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles.

Reinert M. [1993], « Les "mondes lexicaux" et leur "logique" à travers l'analyse statistique d'un corpus de récits de cauchemars », Langage et société, Tome 66, n° 1, p. 5-39.

Roudié P. [2000], « Vous avez dit "château" ? Essai sur le succès sémantique d'un modèle viticole venu du Bordelais », Annales de Géographie, Tome 109, n° 614, p. 415-425.

Simpson J. [2005], "Cooperation and Conflicts: Institutional Innovation in France's wine Markets, 1870-1911", The Business History Review, n°79, p. 527-558.

Smith A., Maillard J.d. et Costa O. [2007], Vin et politique: Bordeaux, la France et la mondialisation, Les Pressesde Sciences Po, Paris.

What contributions of patrimonial economics to the analysis of transitions towards sustainability? The example of the "doubly green chemistry (Quels apports de l'approche patrimoniale pour l'analyse des transitions vers un développement soutenable ? L'exemple de la « chimie doublement verte »)

Economie appliquée, tome LXVII, n°4, décembre 2014, special issue "Le patrimoine, d'un objet à un instrument d'analyse", pp. 45-70.

Martino NIEDDU, Franck-Dominique VIVIEN

Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, EA 6292 REGARDS

martino.nieddu@univ-reims.fr, fd.vivien@univ-reims.fr

This work has been realized in the CPDD ANR program (ref. ANR-09-CP2D-01-01 AEPRC2V)

Following the methodology proposed by Piore (2005), a case study allows us to test the respective capacities of the regulationnist approach and of the theory of sectoral systems of innovation and production (=SSIP) to explain actors behaviors in sustainable technological change and environmental innovations. This case study describes the construction of a sector dedicated to the transition towards renewable resources in Chemistry that we call "doubly green chemistry".

The French 'théorie de la régulation' is traditionally considered as a macro institutionnalist approach ; but recent developments (Laurent et Dutertre, 2008) are about sector and territory regulation. We intend to show that such approach can be mobilized for discussing and helping to clarify the Evolutionary economics of SSIP used in sustainability transition research (into the "MultiLevel Perspective" school of thought (see a presentation of this research school in Nieddu, Nature science et Société, 4/2013).

Regulationnist approach analyses in an 'historicism perspective' the dynamics of sectoral systems; So, we use the conceptual framework of collective productive patrimoinies (patrimoines productifs collectifs). Collective Productive patrimonies are, first and foremost, non-material resources (e.g. collective visions of the future, or the construction of intermediate objects -in the sense of sociology of science) producing coordination between users and producers and and collective learning. CPP are also material resources: dedicated public or private collective laboratories and technological development activities, or pre-industrialisation pilot units. CPP can be sectoral institutions and institutional tools for the constitution of communities -such as Europe's ‘technological platforms' or competitiveness clusters.

In the first section we discuss the scenario of spontaneous emergence of a 'dominant design' into 'innovative niches' -a strong hypothesis of the Multilevel perspective of sustainability transition Studies -by showing the importance of the logic of collective productive patrimonies to understand the emergence and the management of these "niches of innovation". This scenario of spontaneous emergence of a dominant design into the innovation niches must be discussed considering the strategies of entrenched actors and their backcasting institutional operations.

In the second section we describe the origin of collective productive patrimonies into biomass refining that contribute to form the new sector. We show that the ideas and the new technologies of transition towards renewable in chemistry are the product of food and fiber industries' dynamics rather than issues of sustainability transition or environmental innovations.

In the third section, we focus on four collective productive patrimonies. Each one seeks - through innovations- to project into the future its own existence. Into each of these four productive patrimonies, the set of innovation has its own logic of environmental progress.  Two "Majority pathways" search to mimic the division of labor and the supply chains of petrochemicals chemistry. Two "minority reports" search to exploit the macromolecular complexity of biomass into another pathways. Therefore, the assumption of the formation of a dominant design must be rejected; and the explanation that use technological path-dependency must also be discussed. Innovations that are presented as radical innovation appear as enforcing existing productive patrimonies. And we discuss the theoretical sens of this results in a final section.

Short development

Economic activities can only exist when a certain number of resources are "lumped together" as collective productive patrimonies (we want to explain why we prefer this polysemic french term to the term assets). "In innovative, fast-changing environments it becomes more and more difficult to pinpoint firms … as the correct unit of analysis. Problems are solved 'socially', and understanding how problem-solving strategies unfold within communities of specialists that cut across firm boundaries is a challenge to both practitioners and scholars." (Brusoni et alii, 2004:20).

What we refer to as collective productive patrimonies (patrimonies productifs collectifs) are resources which (1) are sought -after for their collective value, (2) have to be shared in order to exist, and (3) justify, through their own characteristics, the effort expended to preserve them, in phases of strong doubt as to their actual ability to produce new objects, at acceptable market conditions (Nieddu, 2007). Productive patrimonies are, first and foremost, non-material resources (e.g. construction of visions to the future, or construction of intermediate objects, as cognitive tools) producing coordination and collective learning between users and producers (Foray, 1994).. These immaterial resources are systems which recognize free resources – scientific knowledge, for example – as being ripe for mobilization as resources in a given sector or network (Billaudot, 2004). As material resources, collective productive patrimonies is a matter of ‘localized' facilities which allow scientists and economic actors to meet: dedicated public or private collective laboratories and technological development activities, demonstration and pre-industrialisation pilot units. Collective productive patrimonies can also be sectorial dedicated institutions (Barrère, 2007) or institutional tools for the constitution of a community, such as Europe's ‘technological platforms' or French competitiveness clusters (pôles de compétitivité).

We want to show that this concept can illuminate a problematic issue in the literature of transition towards uses of renewable resources. This literature2 borrows from three major theoretical fields (Grin et al, 2010): "Science & Technology Studies", Evolutionary Economy, and Giddens' theory of structuration, which seek to unify their respective contributions in a general theory of the transition from one socio-technical regime to another. Evolutionary economics suggests the idea that technological change tends to follow a two-stage cycle: the first stage being an exploration of the spectrum of possibilities and the creation of a powerful technological variety; and the second, selection by the markets of a dominant design (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978; Arthur, 1988; Jolivet, 1999). Hence, recent literature suggests that the competition/selection model of technologies is in need of re-evaluation: "this model is attractive due to its simplicity, but could be too simple to effectively describe change processes" (Sanden & Hillman, 2011:403). Mutations happen "on the edges" of existing technologies and productive specializations, starting out as "niches" [Grin et al. 2010, op.cit.)]. Yet it is important to note that these niches are treated as patrimonies. Given their technological promises, they are protected from competition and from economic calculation in the course of the exploration of their potential.

The notion of collective productive patrimonies takes these different aspects into account (inter-organisational pooling of resources, path-dependency, and desire to maintain technological variety, or preserve niches). This notion indicates heritage as much as it does the desire for projection into the future: The heritage that you want to see recognised, preserved and developed in the future is a tool to organize a "taking power" on the future and control of this future. Therefore situation of transition must be analysed as competition to control the creation of "visions to the future", as well as competition of technologies into transition.

A supply chains case study illustrates the theoretical framework and describes an arena of confrontation between productive collective patrimonies. Biorefineries are presented as the new paradigm for using renewable resources to produce energy and chemicals. The biorefinery concept has been worked on in USDA "technological roadmap" exercises (1999, 2001), and in European projects as the Biorefineries Support Action Call (2008) to elaborate the new paradigm's "vision for the future". These projects were part of strategies of instrumentalisation of the oil shocks, and takes root in the history of agricultural production excess cycles. In the United States, the "chemurgy" movement, and the 1935 creation of the National Farm Chemurgic Council (Finlay, 2003) bear witness to this investment. Productive patrimonies presented in section 3 have thus long since been documented. The technological foresight exercises following the first oil shock, did no more than pick up the technological hopes of chemurgy.

And it is striking to note, in consulting documents of the time (Chesnais, 1981: 226) that it could be reproduced today without any modification. In the 1960-1970 period, the emergence of industrial engineering in food industrialization was dominated by an agribusiness fracturation (cracking) and refining model: Therefore, the collective patrimonies contributing to a "plant refinery" are not historically organised around fuels – even though, with installation in a world of structural agribusiness excesses, the idea of regulatory constraints aimed to incorporate a minimum amount of "biofuel" in petrol return. This seems all the more natural because of the fact that the agricultural profession has merely reactivated solutions that are already deeply engraved in its memory.

During the 1970s, research into the fractionation of the main agricultural substrata (cereals, milk and sugars) dreamed of recomposing any type of chemical intermediates using any raw material. (Hudson, 1976, p.579). The rapid biotechnological progress in the 1980s seemed capable of turning these hopes to reality.

The future of the use of renewables: four productive patrimonies

The documents resulting from the Biorefinery Euroview and Biopol projects, and the debates with the scientific leaders of research communities, suggest that the "vision of the future" that emerges from the institutional documents is a compromise between the actors of the thermochemical and biochemical pathways to biofuels. This compromise masks the tensions between actors having a preference for bioethanol or biodiesel technologies (coupled with the transformation of co-products to chemical products with high added value), and other industrial actors, reticent to follow the same path. These others were seeking to discuss both the definition of initial fractionation and the dominant destination. We have therefore produced a stylized representation of four main pathways towards intermediate products. These four pathways were based on biomass most widely-used biomass fractionalition patrimonies, arising from philosophies of chemistry and organisation of various value chains.

Our representation is understood by giving a brief overview of the chemistry paradigm which serves as the sectorial knowledge-base. The constant dilemma of chemists using renewable resources is to choose between two strategies: (1) the perfecting of the "destructuring" fractionation pathways that are typical of the oil industry, conceptually well-mastered by the chemists, (2) a "weak-destructuring" pathways (i.e.: which preserve the functional properties or active principles contained in the complexity of living organisms). This leads some of them to identify the fractionation-modification pathways in order to obtain functionalities without having to go through the full destructuring phases.

The American forecasting exercises carried out an inventory of substitution pathways for products which were from agricultural origin before the era of cheap oil. They conclude that proposed to scientific research efforts should be directed towards these searchs of substitution. This pathway sets out a strategy which comes back to "mimicking" the traditional organisation of petrochemicals, the basic chemistry of which is founded on five major oil intermediates that were precursors to specialty chemistry. The "technological roadmap" exercises offer to invite both public and private actors to concentrate their learning efforts on a "Top 12" biobased platform molecules. This "top 12" was to be specified by some actors as going in a very particular direction: towards strict complementarity with existing petrochemistry. This is an installation strategy for refineries of major chemical industrial strongholds -such as the ports of Gand, Rotterdam, or Singapore. The challenge lies in making the transition towards renewables resources sustainable for these currently petrochemical industrial areas (by mobilizing an agricultural resource delivered to world markets).

The chemical industry could thus remain essentially identical, even as the "biosourced" revolution happens. The processing of plants aims to return towards known chemical intermediates, modifying neither their structure, nor their intrinsic properties. "Biosourcing" thus requires no evolution in production processes for plastics manufacturing, and the the applicative scope remains similar to that of existing markets : "everything needs to change, so everything can stay the same"(Prince Salinas in The Leopard).

Minority reports"?

One feeds on the tradition of agribusiness or oleochemistry processes which isolate natural polymers, then, using their specific structure, modifies them in limited ways, without intensive deconstruction. In "minority reports" one prefers "weak fractionation" into long, complex chains. If we take the example of starches, we are not seeking to attain the monomer stage, through fractionation operations, but to achieve a limited transformation of "native" starches so as to "functionalize" them - that is, to endow them with specific functions that are of interest to a particular market; these treatments mobilize the families of know-how which can be physicochemical (through the extruder with the addition of a reagent for thermoplastic starches) or photochemical (grafting of additives to the starch via treatment radiation or triggering of self-organizational reactions on the basis of the properties of its structure to obtain PVC substitutes, for example).

Conclusion: What is changing and What does not change?

Evolutionary economics emphasize the importance of two dimensions of the Schumpeterian inheritance: disruptive or radical innovation as origin of change, and pressure of selection to identify a winning technology. The Multi-Level Perspective theory is faced with the need to link two levels: the level of niches where relevant environmental innovations are supposed to emerge as winning technologies (considered in MLP as the start point of change), and the level of a new sustainable socio-technical regime as target of desired change (considered as endpoint).

Our case study shows that this scenario must be discussed; if one accepts the analytical framework in terms of collective patrimonies, the niches as the starting point nor socio-technical regime as the end-point cannot be accepted. They are embedded in collective patrimonies that organize the trajectories of learning from chemist knowledge to innovation. Therefore, the explanation using the evolutionary concept of technological path-dependency does not be sufficient, because the exploration of niches to maintain the context and the competitiveness of a specific collective patrimony needs radical innovations.

The (desired) socio-technical regime is itself a stake in the competition. The dynamics of "entrenched actors" do not consist into a realization of forecasting analysis into the niches to discover the future. But the collective operations of US Agriculture department or European Commission mentioned in this text are especially exercises of backcasting from a dominant vision of the future to organize the technological and economic choices today. Regulationists economists and politists ((Jullien and Smith, 2011) theorize this as political problematization of the sector; this problematization consists in a "patrimonialization" of specific collective patrimonies.

Bibliography

Abernathy, W.J., Utterback, J.M., 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review 80, 40–47.

Anastas P., Eghbali N., (2010) Green Chemistry: Principles and Practice, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2010, 39, 301–312

Arthur, B.W., 1988. Competing technologies: an overview. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C.,Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (Eds.), Technical ChangeAnd Economic Theory. Pinter Publishers, London, 590–607.

Avadikyian A., Llerana, (2009) Transitions technologiques, stratégies d'investissement et options réelles: le cas des véhicules hybrides (Rapport PREDIT-ADEME, Mars 2009)

Bennett S.J. (2009) The socio-technical Dynamics of Chemical feedstock transitions: the case of renewable raw materials in the UK, Thesis of Imperial college, London, 275p. + annexes

Borup, M. et alii (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, V. 18, (3-4), 285-298

Brusoni S., Marengo L., Prencipe A., and Marco Valente (2004) The Value and Costs of Modularity: A Cognitive Perspective, SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, Paper No. 123, 23p.

Chesnais F. (1981) Biotechnologie et modifications des structures de l'industrie chimique : quelques points de repère, Revue d'Eco. Industrielle. Vol. 18, 4, 218-230.

Clark, J.H. & Deswarte F.E. (2008), Introduction to Chemicals from Biomass, Wiley (ch1 : The biorefinery concept-an integrated approach).

Evon P. (2008) Nouveau procédé de bioraffinage du tournesol plante entière par fractionnement thermo-mécano-chimique en extrudeur, Université de Toulouse, dir. L. Rigal, 388p.

Gallezot P (2011 ) Critical Review : Conversion of biomass to selected chemical products, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2012, Advance Article, non paginé)

Genus A. Coles A.M. (2008) Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions, Research Policy, 37, 1436–1445

Garnier E., Nieddu M., Barbier M., Kurek B. (2007)- The dynamics of the French hemp system and its stakeholders, in Journal of Industrial Hemp, 67-88.

Grin J., Rotmans J, Schot J. & alii, (2010) Transitions to Sustainable Development, Routledge, 381 pages.

Hayes D.J. (2009), An examination of biorefining processes, catalysts and challenges, Catalyst Today, 145, 1-2.

Hudson J.P. (1976) Food crops to the future, J. of Royal Soc. for the Encourag. of Arts /, 124(5242), 572-585

Jolivet E. (1999) L'innovation technologique comme processus d'apprentissage industriel : analyse de la Formation et de la diffusion des connaissances en France et au Japon, Thèse de l'Université de la Méditerranée, 579p.

Kamm B., et alii, (2006) Biorefineries, – Biobased Industrial Processes and Products. , Vol. 1 et 2, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim.

Kemp R., Rootmans, J. (2005) Management of the co-evolution of technical, environmental and social systems, in Weber M., Hemmelskamp J. Towards environmental Innovation Systems, Springer, Berlin, 2005, 33-57

Lancaster, M.(2002) Green chemistry, an Introductory text, Royal society of chemistry, 310p.

Lecoq B (1993) Dynamique industrielle et localisation : Alfred Marshall revisité, Revue Française d'Economie, 8-4, 195-234.

Kemp R., Rootmans, J. (2005) Management of the co-evolution of technical, environmental and social systems, in Weber M., Hemmelskamp J. Towards environmental Innovation Systems, Springer, Berlin, 2005, 33-57

Malerba F. (2002) "New Challenges For Sectoral Systems of Innovation in Europe", DRUID Summer Conference 2002 on Industrial, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 6-8, 2002.

Marquardt W. et al., (2010) The Biorenewables Opportunity - Toward Next Generation Process and Product Systems, AIChE September 2010 Vol. 56 (9)

Nicolas F., Hy M.. Apprentissage technologique et innovation en agro-alimentaire, Économie rurale. N°257, 27-41

Nieddu M. (2011) Le vivant doit-il être (seulement) réduit à de grands intermédiaires chimiques? un point de vue d'économiste in Maxim, Laura (ed.), 2011. La chimie durable, au-delà des promesses, Paris, CNRS Editions.

Nieddu M., Garnier E., Bliard C. (2010) - L'émergence d'une chimie doublement verte, Revue d'Economie Industrielle, n°132, 4ème trimestre 2010, pp.53-84.

Nieddu M. (2007), « Le patrimoine comme relation économique » in Econ. Appliquée LX,n°3, 2007, 31-57.

Nieddu M. (2000) Science et dynamiques économiques, le cas des biopolymères, Sciences de la Société, 49, 87-104.

Nieddu M. et alii (1999) Biopolymères et agromatériaux : les entreprises prennent position, Industries Alimentaires et Agricoles, 11/12, 52-59.

Nill J., Kemp R. (2009) Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm? Research Policy, 38(4), 668-680.

Peck P. et alii (2009) Examining understanding, acceptance, and support for the biorefinery concept among EU policy-makers, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref., 3(3), 361 - 383.

Octave S., Thomas D. (2009) Biorefinery : Toward an industrial metabolism Biochimie, 91, 659–664

Oltra V. , Saint Jean M. (2007) Incrementalism of environmental innovations versus paradigmatic change: A comparative study of the automotive and chemical industries, http://cahiersdugretha.u-bordeaux4.fr/2007/2007-14.pdf.

Ruef A., Markard J. (2006) What happens after a hype? Changing expectations and their effect on innovation activities, EASST Conference 2006, August 23-26, University of Lausanne.

Rosenberg, N., 1976, On Technological expectations Economic journal, 86, 523-535.

Sandén B.A., Hillman K.M., (2011) A framework for analysis of multi-mode interaction among technologies with examples from the history of alternative transport fuels in Sweden, Research Policy 40, 403–414

Smith, A.; Voß, J.-P.; Grin, J. (eds.) (2010): Innovation studies and sustainability transitions. Research Policy 39/4: Special Section on Innovation and Sustainability Transitions.

Van Haveren, J., Scott E.L., Sanders J. (2008) Bulk chemicals from biomass, Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 2, 41–57

Vinck D. (2009) De l'objet intermédiaire à l'objet-frontière. Vers la prise en compte du travail d'équipement, Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances,3(1),51-72

Patrimony, Common Good and Natural Capital: Conceptual Debates and Perspectives in the Water Management Sector

Economie appliquée, tome LXVII, n°4, décembre 2014, special issue "Le patrimoine, d'un objet à un instrument d'analyse", pp. 101-124.

Iratxe Calvo-Mendieta(a), Olivier Petit(b), Franck-Dominique Vivien(c)

a. TVES, Université du Littoral Côte d'Opale, Dunkerque, France

b. CLERSE-CNRS, Université d'Artois, France

c. REGARDS, Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, France

This paper aims to compare a set of economic analysis developed over the last thirty years in the field of water management. Today the largely dominant way of thinking about water management is to make a strict separation between humans and the world, between economic agents and the goods and services obtained from nature, and then assume that individual rationality will organize their relationships. This individual rationality (which, according to authors, may be substantive or bounded), the adverse effects it is likely to induce at the macrosocial level and the characteristics of water lead economists to recommend the use of other coordinating institutions than market, which may be public or community institutions.

Under both this world view, standard economics adopts an allocative perspective by analyzing water as an "impure public" good, while the approach of "common goods" proposed by E. Ostrom, while rooting in the previous perspective, continues by focusing on good governance rules.

Hydrosystems appear to standard economists as a set of goods and services that are available to aims and activities pursued by economic agents for production and consumption. Hence the need to make them identifiable, separable and commensurable in monetary terms, to allow the expression and the meeting of individual supplies and demands. In other words, water systems are considered as "natural capital" providing a number of "ecosystem services" to take care to maintain the level of well-being of human societies in the long term. In that view, the first step of neoclassical reasoning consists in reviewing the total economic value that may account the variations of well-being that affect economic agents as a result of a change in the quantity and/or quality of the resource water. A second step then is to measure these variations of well-being by using a set of monetarization techniques proposed in the environmental economics literature : hedonic prices method, contingent valuation method... The standard economics approach conceives the issue of water management as an economic undervaluation problem.

Differing from the early works developed by old institutionalists focused on the concept of "common property", members of the Bloomington school, around E. Ostrom, are interested in "common-pool resources", characterized by substractibility (sample taken by a user reduces the amount of resources available for another user) and the joint use of the resource by a group of "appropriators". The analysis developed by Ostrom and his followers highlights the existence of success criteria of collective action, based in particular on the definition of co-constructed rules at the local level by actors moved by their economic rationality and taking into account the specificities of natural (fisheries, forests, groundwater) and artificialized (irrigation channels) resources. In fact, this approach does not break with methodological individualism.

Another analytical perspective, which is what we claim, acknowledges that relationships that humans develop with certain natural objects are more complex than those previously assumed by economists. This other way of thinking about economic water management refers to the notion of "patrimony". Its advantage is that it allows to link, through time and generations, the dialectics of "being" and "having" of human communities in relation to territories and natural objects. In other words, it is necessary to jointly address issues of allocation and water resources governance. This is what we show by reinterpreting institutional compromises made in the context of water management policy implemented in France since the "great" 1964 water law. While the devices developed for this occasion are usually interpreted by economists as a strict implementation of the standard environmental economics recommendations of internalization of externalities - OECD views them as an exemplary case in implementation of the "polluter pay principle", inspired by a Pigouvian approach - they can also be analyzed from the perspective of patrimony economics as the introduction of a sort of "polluter member" principle, i.e. a supportive care expenditures and investments related to the management of water within a set of communities (even if the load distribution remains still unequal between the different actors). In the system of charges for water agencies, the fruit of the revenue function is to balance a multi-year intervention program, the content is largely defined by the contributors themselves. We show that this dynamics of water management in France continued, as environmental issues attached to hydrosystems were recognized, between a gradual entry of water into the traditional economic sphere and the establishment of patrimonial community institutions.

References

Aligica P.D., Boettke P.J. [2009], Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School, Routledge, London.

Babin D., Antona M., Bertrand A., Weber J. [2002], « Gérer à plusieurs les ressources renouvelables. Subsidiarité et médiation patrimoniale par récurrence », in Cormier-Salem M.-C. et al. (dir.), Patrimonialiser la nature tropicale, IRD Éditions, Paris, p. 79-99.

Babin D., Bertrand A. [1998], « Comment gérer le pluralisme: subsidiarité et gestion patrimoniale », Unasylva, vol. 49, n° 194, p. 19-25.

Barde J.-P., Gerelli E. [1977], Économie et politique de l'environnement, PUF, Paris.

Baron C., Petit O., Romagny B. [2011], « Le courant des « Common-Pool Resources » : un bilan critique », in Dahou T., Elloumi M., Molle F., Gassab M., Romagny B. (dir.), Pouvoirs, Sociétés et Nature au Sud de la Méditerranée, Éd. INRAT/IRD/Karthala, Paris/Tunis, p. 29-51. 

Barrère C., Barthélemy R., Nieddu M., Vivien F.-D. (éds) [2005], Réinventer le patrimoine. De la culture à l'économie, une nouvelle pensée du patrimoine ?, L'Harmattan, Paris.

Barthélemy D. [2007] « Économie identitaire versus économie marchande », Économie appliquée, t. LX, n° 3, p. 57-84.

Barthélémy D, Nieddu M., Vivien F.-D. [2005], « Économie patrimoniale, identité et marché », in Barrère C., et al. (éds), Réinventer le patrimoine. De la culture à l'économie, une nouvelle pensée du patrimoine ?, L'Harmattan, Paris, p. 121-150.

Barthélemy D., Nieddu M. [2007], « Non-Trade Concerns in Agricultural and Environmental Economics: How J.R. Commons and Karl Polanyi Can Help Us », Journal of Economic Issues, vol. XLI, n° 2, p. 519-527.

Barthélemy D., Vivien F.-D. [2007], « La conditionnalité réciproque du patrimoine commun et de la propriété privée : le cas des quotas laitiers et des quotas d'émission de gaz à effet de serre », Economie appliquée, t. 60, n°3, septembre, p. 199 -234.

Barthélemy D., Nieddu M., Vivien F.-D. [2004] « Externalités ou production de patrimoines ? Les enseignements de travaux récents sur l'agriculture et l'environnement », Géographie, Économie, Société, vol. 6, n° 3, p. 331-352.

Beaumais O., Laroutis D., Chakir R. [2008], « Conservation versus conversion des zones humides : une analyse comparative appliquée à l'estuaire de la Seine », Revue d'Économie Régionale et Urbaine, n° 4, p. 565-590.

Bertrand A., Montagne P. [2006], « Transfert de la gestion des ressources forestières aux communautés rurales : expériences du Niger, du Mali et de Madagascar », in Bertrand A., Montagne P., Karsenty A. (éds.), L'État et la gestion locale durable des forêts en Afrique francophone et à Madagascar, L'Harmattan/CIRAD, Paris, p. 297-311.

Boettke P.J., Coyne C.J. [2005], « Methodological Individualism, Spontaneous Order and the Research Program of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis », Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 57, n° 2, p. 145–158

Boltanski L., Thévenot L. [1987], Les économies de la grandeur, PUF & Centre d'Etudes de l'Emploi, Paris.

Braat L.C., de Groot R. [2012], « The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy », Ecosystem Services, vol. 1, n° 1, p. 4-15.

Bromley D.W. (ed.) [1992], Making the Commons Work. Theory, Practice, and Policy, Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, San Francisco, CA.

Bromley D.W. [1989], Economic Interests and Institutions. The Conceptual Foundations of Public Policy, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Calvo-Mendieta I. [2005], L'économie des ressources en eau : de l'internalisation des externalités à la gestion intégrée. L'exemple du bassin versant de l'Audomarois, Thèse de doctorat en Sciences économiques, Université de Lille 1.

Calvo-Mendieta I., Petit O., Vivien F.-D. [2010a], « Entre bien marchand et patrimoine commun, l'eau au cœur des débats de l'économie de l'environnement », in Schneier-Madanès G. (sous la dir.), L'eau mondialisée : la gouvernance en question, La Découverte, Paris, p. 61-74.

Calvo-Mendieta I., Petit O., Vivien F.-D. [2010b], « Le patrimoine commun : une autre manière d'analyser la gestion collective des ressources naturelles. Le cas de la gestion de l'eau en France », in Maillefert M., Petit O., Rousseau S. (sous la dir.), Ressources, patrimoine, territoires et développement durable, P.I.E. Peter Lang, Bruxelles, p. 205-218.

Calvo-Mendieta I., Petit O., Vivien F.-D. [2011], « The patrimonial value of water: how to approach water management while avoiding an exclusively market perspective », Policy & Society, vol. 30, n° 4, p. 291-330.

Calvo-Mendieta I., Petit O., Vivien F.-D. [2014], « Patrimonial Economics and Water Management: A French Case », in Schneier-Madanès G. (Ed.), Globalized Water. A question of Governance, Springer, p. 19-33.

Chanteau J.-P., Labrousse A. [2013], « L'institutionnalisme méthodologique d'Ostrom : quelques enjeux et controverses », Revue de la régulation, n°14, URL : http://regulation.revues.org/10555.

CICPN [1986], « Les comptes du patrimoine naturel », Les collections de l'INSEE, n° 535-536, série D, n° 137-138.

Ciriacy-Wantrup S.V., Bishop R.C. [1975], « ‘Common property' as a Concept in Natural Resource Policy », Natural Resources Journal, vol. 15, n° 4, p. 713-727.

Commissariat Général du Plan [1997] ? Évaluation du dispositif des Agences de l'eau. Rapport au gouvernement, La Documentation française, Paris, 215 p.

Cook B.R., Spray C.J. [2012], « Ecosystem services and integrated water resource management: Different paths to the same end? », Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 109, p. 93-100.

Davigo J. [2000], « La gestion patrimoniale de l'eau. Application au bassin de la Sèvre nantaise et ses affluents », in Falque M., Massenet M. (dir.), Droits de propriété, économie et environnement. Les ressources en eau, Dalloz, Paris, p. 369-377.

de Montgolfier J. [1987], « La gestion des ressources naturelles et le calcul économique », in de Montgolfier J., Natali J-M. (dir.), Le patrimoine du futur. Approches pour une gestion patrimoniale des ressources naturelles, Economica, Paris, p. 139-148.

Desaigues B., Point P. [1990], « Les méthodes de détermination d'indicateurs de valeur ayant la dimension de prix pour les composantes du patrimoine naturel », Revue économique, vol. 41, n° 2, p. 269-319.

Desaigues B., Point P. [1993], Économie du patrimoine naturel, Economica, Paris.

Faucheux S., O'Connor M. [2003], « Le capital naturel et la demande sociale pour les biens et les services environnementaux », in Levêque C., van der Leeuw S. (éds), Quelles natures voulons-nous ? Pour une approche socio-écologique du champ de l'environnement, Elsevier, Paris, p. 86-109.

Godard O. [1990], « Environnement, modes de coordination et systèmes de légitimité : analyse de la catégorie de patrimoine naturel », Revue économique, n° 2, mars, p. 215-242.

Godard O. [1992], « La science économique face à l'environnement : la « résilience » d'une discipline », in Jollivet M. (éd.), Sciences de la nature, sciences de la société : les passeurs de frontières, CNRS Ed., Paris, p. 195-222.

Godard O. [2005], « Les trois courants complémentaires du champ de l'économie de l'environnement : une lecture systémique », Cahiers d'épistémologie, UQÀM, n°2005-09.

Gómez-Baggethun E., de Groot R., Lomas P.L., Montes C. [2010], « The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes », Ecological Economics, vol. 69, n° 6, p. 1209-1218.

Hardin G. [1968], « The Tragedy of the Commons », Science, vol. 162, n°3859, p. 1243–1248

Henry C. [1984], « La microéconomie comme langage et enjeu de négociations », Revue économique, vol. 35, n° 1, p. 177-198.

Hotelling H.A. [1931], « The Economics of Exhaustible Resources », Journal of Political Economy, vol. 39, n° 2, p. 137-175.

Le Roy E., Karsenty A., Bertrand A. [2003], La sécurisation foncière en Afrique. Pour une gestion viable des ressources renouvelables, Karthala, Paris.

Lupton S., Bauby P. [2010], « Quelles évolutions pour le service public français face aux directives européennes ? », in Schneier-Madanès G. (sous la dir.), L'eau mondialisée : la gouvernance en question, Ed. La Découverte, Paris, p. 109-141.

MEA [2005], Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Synthesis report, URL : http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.

Norgaard R.B. [2010], « Ecosystem services : from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder », Ecological Economics, vol. 69, n° 6, p. 1219-1227.

Ollagnon H. [1979], « Propositions pour une gestion patrimoniale des eaux souterraines : l'expérience de la nappe phréatique d'Alsace », Bulletin ministériel pour la rationalisation des choix budgétaires, n° 36, La Documentation française, Paris, p. 33-73.

Ollagnon H. [2000], « La gestion en patrimoine commun de la qualité de l'eau dans un bassin », in Falque M., Massenet M. (dir.), Droits de propriété, économie et environnement. Les ressources en eau, Dalloz, Paris, p. 325-345.

Ollagnon H. [2007], « La gestion de la qualité de l'eau : quelles stratégies patrimoniales », Communication orale à la Journée d'études La mise en patrimoine de l'eau, Arras, Université d'Artois, 9 mars.

Ostrom E. [1965], Public Entrepreneurship: A Case Study in Ground Water Basin Management, PhD Diss., University of California, Los Angeles.

Ostrom E. [1990], Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ostrom E. [2005], Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Ostrom E. [2010], « Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems », American Economic Review, vol. 100, n° 3, p. 641-72.

Pennington M. [2013], « Elinor Ostrom and the robust political economy of common-pool-resources », Journal of Institutional Economics, vol. 9, n° 4, p. 449-468.

Petit O., Romagny B. [2009], « La reconnaissance de l'eau comme patrimoine commun : quels enjeux pour l'analyse économique ? », Mondes en développement, n° 145, 2009/1, p. 29-54.

Point P. (sous la dir.) [1990], Économie de l'environnement et du patrimoine naturel, n° spécial, Revue économique, vol. 41, n° 2.

Point P. [1986], « Éléments pour une approche économique du patrimoine naturel », in CICPN, Les comptes du patrimoine naturel, Les collections de l'INSEE, n°535-536, série D, n°137-138, p. 453-533.

Point P. [1992], « Les services rendus par le patrimoine naturel : une évaluation fondée sur des principes économiques », Économie et prévision, n° 258-259, p. 11-18.

Point P. [1999], « La mesure économique des services délivrés par les hydrosystèmes », in Point P. (sous la dir.), La valeur économique des hydrosystèmes. Méthodes et modèles d'évaluation des services délivrés, Economica, Paris, p. 1-12.

Point P. [2010], « Quelle méthodologie pour la confrontation des valeurs de conversion ou de conservation des zones humides ?, Revue d'Économie Régionale & Urbaine, n° 5, p. 855-876.

Samuelson P. [1954], « The pure theory of public expenditure », Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 36, n°4, p. 387-389.

Schumacher E.F. [1973], Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, New York Harper &? Row.

Shaw W.D. [2005], Water Resource Economics and Policy. An introduction, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Solow R.M. [1974], « The economics of resources or the resources of economics », American Economic Review, vol. 64, n° 2, p. 1-14.

Vatin F. [1998], « Aménagement forestier et métaphysique économique du XVIIIe au XIXe siècle : le premier débat sur le ‘développement durable' », in Maréchal J.-P., Quenault B. (sous la dir.), Le développement durable. Une perspective pour le XXIe siècle, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, p. 51-67.

Wade R. [1987], « The management of common property resources: collective action as an alternative to privatisation or state regulation », Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 11, n° 2, June, p. 95-106

Weber J. [1995], Gestion des ressources renouvelables: fondements théoriques d'un programme de recherche, Miméo, URL: http://cormas.cirad.fr/pdf/green.pdf

Practising a heritage approach (La pratique de l'approche patrimoniale)

Economie appliquée, tome LXVII, n°4, décembre 2014, special issue "Le patrimoine, d'un objet à un instrument d'analyse", pp. 163-201.

Christian Barrère - Laboratoire Regards (Université de Reims) et ISMEA (Paris)

Martino Nieddu - Laboratoire Regards (Université de Reims)

Keywords: heritage; heritage approach; institutions.

This paper considers how to practice a heritage approach and the main results it has already given. It proposes a first appraisal of the works that had been using a heritage approach and shows the numerous results they produced. The first section develops the idea that some new and strong analyses of the time effects of institutions can be interpreted and extended to new topics when they are interpreted in terms of heritage. The second one precises the analytical framework used by the authors to conduct their works on heritages. The third section gives some examples of these analyses.

In the first section (Fournir un cadre de relecture d'analyses institutionnelles éclatées permettant d'en faire fructifier les apports, pp. 164-166) we interpret the analysis by Douglass North of the comparison between the paths of development of North and South America in terms of heritage. Institutions matter and stay behind the difference occurring in the development paths. These institutions pass through time and constitute heritages leading to lock-in effects. In the same way the model of the Third Italy is based on the role of cultural heritage in developing cooperation and competition within a community linked to specific culture and territory. Then reasoning using the notion of heritage allows understanding the influence of time on economic behaviours and structures. It is possible to use this framework to consider a lot of different heritages, from the macro-level to the micro-level.

The second section (Le cadre analytique, pp. 166-172) develops the analytical framework we already used in different studies. Heritages are sets, situated in time and space, related to communities, groups and socialised individuals, and expressing the components of their identity and specificity. These sets result from an historical process of building and appear as a legacy of the past. They include material resources (equipment, premises, ..), immaterial resources (savoir-faire, recipes, knowledge, reputation, ..), behaviours and institutions (Barrère, Barthélémy, Nieddu, Vivien, 2004, p. 116). A process of cultural transmission reproduces them but they are also confronted with competing heritages. While economists usually fall back heritages on capital (standard capital for equipment, human and social capital, natural capital and cultural capital) we consider that the components of heritages carry different dimensions, generally intertwined, which prevent from abstracting the non-economic dimensions of heritages when analysing their economic dimension. This interdependence often leads to manage them through both market and non-market relations, procedures and institutions. Considering that processes of building, transmission and management of heritages strongly depend on their content, their use-value, we use a substantivist point of view, in the way opened by Malinowsky (1944), Mauss (1923), Polanyi (1983), Arensberg (Arensberg and Polanyi, 1975), Godelier (1966, 1977) and Sahlins (1976).

The category of heritage is, thus, prior to the category of capital. If some heritages can be managed as capital (as in the iconic case of luxury industries) others are managed by non-market, collective, communitarian, state relations. Moreover, when market and capitalist regulation rule heritages, they have to respect the specificities of heritages, mainly their relation to the past and to the territory and evolve towards hybrid regulations. For the same reasons, heritages are not reducible to commons (Barrère et Hédoin, 2014), even if they have commons properties. They are not a collection of common resources but specific commons as long as they include specific social relations within their titular and specific structures that contribute to their coherence. Moreover the role of time in their building and reproduction is here decisive.

The section also analyses the relations between the coherence of heritages and the contradictions between some of its components and the relations between the territory dimension and the historical dimension. It concludes with the consideration of the dialectics between market and non-market ways of managing them.

The third section (Une approche heuristique, pp. 172-198) presents the results of six case studies using systemically the category of heritage to illustrate the ability of the heritage approach to produce new knowledge.

Heritage approach leads to a new economic interpretation of the history of the Champagne wine (Barrère, 2000, 2003) explaining the exceptional success of this local industry. Instead of only considering the monopoly situation of the wine in terms of industrial economics and public choice analysis, the heritage approach explains the specific organisational structure and regime emerging from a long historical process of construction driven by specific actors, the great Maisons de Champagne. These actors built a global heritage, related to a specific territory, including legal procedures (the Protected Designation of Origin), precise strategies (increasing the quality of the wine), behaviours (search for a professional and collective agreement on the price of the grape) and institutions (the CIVC, joining winegrowers and merchants which defines a collective management of the industry). The heritage approach also brings into light the territorial consequences of the management of the Champagne (Barrère, Bonnard, Delaplace, 2014), mainly the contradiction between a very successful activity (the Champagne wine) and a poor region (the Champagne region). The competition for sharing the rent, within the Champagne industry, leads to strategies that reduce the spillovers and produce lock-in situations instead of developing clusterisation.

The second case study concerns the luxury industries. The examination of the French and Italian fashion (Barrère et Santagata, 2005) shows how they produce on the basis of a virtuous circle between creativity and heritage. Heritages include savoir-faire heritage, creative knowledge heritage, reputation heritage and institutional heritages. Since the seventies, the French luxury groups (mainly LVMH and PPR, now Kering) had been extending this logic to the whole range of luxury goods, transforming luxury industries in heritage industries, i.e. industries based on the exploitation and the development of heritages (Barrère, 2007). The heritage approach allows also to consider the different effects on the path development of heritages: virtuous circle between creativity and heritages can be close to lock-in effects and barriers to innovation; increasing the value of heritages by developing creativity can be close to rent-seeking policies that exploit past heritages without developing them. It leads to examine the question of property rights on creative goods and creative heritages (for the case of the fashion, see Barrère and Delabruyère, 2011).

The third case concerns the 'traditional' industries as the chemical industry and uses the concept of productive collective heritage. The study of the "doubly green chemistry" (Nieddu et alii., 2014; Nieddu et Vivien, 2015) identifies these productive collective heritage at work and how they support stakeholders' strategies that help to regulate the technological change. By that way, it enriches both the analyses of sectorial systems of innovations and the approach of Sustainability Transition Management. It leads to reject the hypothesis that the adoption of a dominant design is the main driver of the management of technological change and the only way towards a new sustainable sociotechnical system. The recognition of a technological diversity may instead play a crucial role in managing the transition to sustainable development. The case shows how some actors built an original heritage to produce a common view of the industrial and technological future, the "bioraffinerie" idea. The construction of this common view was as more important as four different types of collective productive heritages could be used and competed to found the new common view. Public policies plaid a strong role in the formation of the communities that sustained these heritages. The firms used simultaneously the private heritages they inherited from their past and collective heritages, produced by other firms, firms' networks and institutions, which allowed them to take part in the common view of future.

The fourth case is the case of French culinary heritages. This case allows considering heritages that include heterogeneous elements. The analysis interprets the constitution of the French gastronomic heritage on the basis of the organisation of the French gastronomy according to two different models, a model of elitist gastronomy and a model of popular and territorial gastronomy. The French gastronomic system mixes them both under the domination of the elitist model and develops a gastronomic heritage that passes through time, is reproduced and enriched or impoverished (Barrère, 2013). Moreover, both models have different consequences on the development of territories. Another result, by comparing the French and the Italian systems, is the observation of the diversity of path developments according to the logic of heritages (Barrère, Buzio, Mariotti, Corsi, Borrione, 2012).

The fifth case is about the taste heritages. It extends the heritage approach to individual behaviours and choices. The present diversity of tastes, on globalised markets, is accompanied by similarities, regularities and norms, almost always defined on a national basis. Chinese consumers of luxury goods do not have the same desires and references as the Japanese or the Russian consumers: their preferred colours differ, their relation with the trademark is different and the luxury sellers integrate these differences into their strategies. Considering the different tastes as belonging to different taste heritages allows analysing the construction and the evolution of these heritages and the effects of sellers' strategies on their relation to the demands.

The sixth case is the analysis of agricultural multi-functionality. It gives some interesting results for studying the dialectics between market and non-market forms and regulations. Multi-functionality refers to the definition of farmers as simultaneously producing foodstuffs and reproducing the quality of soils and environment. That leads to bring in(to) light the notions of identity and heritage (Nieddu et Barthélemy, 2003, 2007), with their relation to space and time, conversely to the abstraction made by the market regulation. Instead of reasoning by the way of the notion of externalities, it is possible to focus on the heritage dimension of agricultural activity that implies reference to market rationality and to heritage rationality (preserving and transmitting the heritage through generations). The heritage rationality links goods and territories to their identity i.e. their relation to a specific titular that implies specific conditions of production, exchange and allocation. Instead of defining two close categories, market and non-market goods, economists have to analyse goods owning simultaneously to market and non-market characteristics. Thus it is possible to study the working of specific institutions and ways of regulation that manage both relations and characteristics.

References

Arensberg C. et Polanyi K. [1975], Les systèmes économiques dans la théorie et dans l'histoire, Larousse, Paris.

Bagnasco, A. [1977], Tre Italie. La problematica territoriale dello sviluppo economico italiano, Il Mulino, Bologna.

Barrère C. [2000], La constitution d'un patrimoine juridique comme mode de construction d'un patrimoine économique : l'appellation d'origine Champagne, Revue de droit rural, n°288, Décembre, p. 601-608.

Barrère C. [2003], Un processus évolutionnaire de création institutionnelle d'une convention de qualité, l'histoire exemplaire de la création d'un produit de luxe, le Champagne, Economie Appliquée, n° 3, p. 133-170.

Barrère C. [2004], "Les dynamiques économiques du patrimoine » in Réinventer le patrimoine, L'Harmattan, p. 109-120, Paris.

Barrère C. [2004], Le dualisme des ordres de la modernité, Revue Géographie, Espaces, Société, 2004, vol. 6, n°3, juillet-septembre, p. 243-263.

Barrère C. [2007], Les industries du luxe, des industries du patrimoine ?, Economie appliquée, numéro spécial "L'économie du patrimoine", n° 3, p. 235-264.

Barrère C. [2013a], Heritage as a basis for creativity in creative industries : the case of taste industries, Mind and Society, 2013, 12, p. 167-176.

Barrère C. [2013b], Patrimoines gastronomiques et développement local, les limites du modèle français de gastronomie élitiste, Mondes du tourisme, n°7, Juin 2013, p. 15-36.

Barrère, C., Barthélémy, D., Nieddu, M., Vivien, F-D. [2004], Réinventer le patrimoine, de la culture à l'économie, une nouvelle pensée du patrimoine ? L'Harmattan, Paris.

Barrère, C., Q. Bonnard and V. Chossat [2010], Democratization in the Gastronomic Market: from Michelin Stars to Michelin Bibs, The 16th ACEI Conference, 9th -12th June, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Barrère C., Bonnard Q. et M. Delaplace [2014], Valorisation des patrimoines et dynamique régionale : quelques enseignements à partir du cas du Champagne, Territoires en mouvement, n° 21, Patrimoine et territoire, janvier 2014, p. 27-39.

Barrère, C., Buzio, A., Mariotti, A., Corsi, À., Borrione, P [2012], Industria del gusto : Un nuovo paradigma italiano. Florens 2012. Essays and Researches. International Biennal of Cultural and Environmental Heritage. Bandecchi & Vivaldi. Pisa.

Barrère, C., Santagata, W. [2005], La mode, une économie de la créativité et du patrimoine à l'heure du marché, La Documentation française.

Barrère C et S. Delabruyère [2011], Intellectual property rights on creativity and heritage: the case of the fashion industry, European Journal of Law and Economics, vol 32:3, p. 305-319.

Barthélemy, D. [2000], Etre et avoir. Patrimoine versus capital : le cas de l'agriculture. Economie Rurale , 260, p.27-40.

Barthélemy, D. [1997], Evaluer l'entreprise agricole , Paris, PUF, Collection Gestion, 229 p.

Barthélemy, D. [1988], La naissance de l'entreprise agricole Paris, Economica, 184 p.

Barthélemy D., Boinon J.P., Nieddu M. [2003], Le dualisme comportemental des agriculteurs : une interprétation institutionnelle dialectique, in Economie et Institutions, Amiens, n°3, p.131-167.

Barthélemy D., Nieddu M. [2007], Non-Trade Concerns in Agricultural and Environmental Economics : How Commons and Polanyi can help us, Journal of Economic Issues Juin 2007.

Barthélemy D., Nieddu, M. [2003], Multifonctionnalité agricole, biens marchands ou biens identitaires ? Economie rurale n°273-274/janvier-avril 2003, pp.103-120.

Barthélémy D., Nieddu M., Vivien F-D. [2004] Externalités ou production de patrimoines ? Les enseignements de travaux récents sur l'agriculture et l'environnement, Revue Géographie, Espaces, Société, 2004, vol. 6, n°3, juillet-septembre, p. 331-352. DOI : 10.3166/Barthélémy D., Nieddu, M., Vivien F.D. [2004], Economie patrimoniale, identité et marché in Réinventer le patrimoine, p. 121-150, L'Harmattan, Paris.

Becattini, G. [1998], Distretti industriali e made in Italy, Le basi socioculturali del nostro sviluppo economico, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino.

Berard, L., Marchenay, P., Rautenberg, M., Micoud, A. (2000) - Campagne de tous nos désirs. Patrimoines et nouveaux usages sociaux , Maison des Sciences de l'Homme

Boltanski L., Thevenot L. [1991], De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur, Gallimard, Paris, (Coll. NRF-« Les Essais »)

Bonnard Q. [2011], Les districts gastronomiques, des districts d'un nouveau type. Thèse pour le doctorat es sciences économiques. Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne.

Boyer R. [2002], Variété du capitalisme et théorie de la régulation, L'année de la régulation, 2002, n° 6, p. 125-195.

Chantelat P. [2002], La nouvelle sociologie économique et le lien marchand : des relations personnelles à l'impersonnalité des relations, Revue Française de Sociologie , 43-3, pp. 521-556.

Commons J.R. (1990) [1934] Institutional Economics. Its place in Political Economy , The Mac Millan Company, Transaction Publishers, vol 1 & 2, (New York: Macmillan).

David P.A. [1998], Comprendre les aspects économiques de Qwerty : la contrainte de l'histoire, traduit par E. Zeitlin, Réseaux, CNET, 1998, vol. 16, n° 87, p. 9-21 [édition originale, « Clio and the Economics of Qwerty », The American Economic Review, 75 [2], Papers and proceedings of the Ninety-Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association [mai, 1985], p. 332-337. American Economic Association, 1985].

Debref R. [2014], Le processus d'innovation environnementale face à ses contradictions : le cas du secteur des revêtements de sol résilients, Thèse d'Economie, Université de Reims, 513. + annexes

Montgolfier J. (de) [1987], L'évaluation de projets. L'approche multicritère, in Montgolfier J. (de), Natali J.-M. (éds) Le patrimoine du futur. Approche pour une gestion patrimoniale des ressources naturelles , Paris, Economica, pp. 149-168.

Dulbecco P., Garrouste P. [2000], Structure de la production et structure de la connaissance. Eléments pour une théorie autrichienne de la firme, Revue économique. Volume 51, n°1, 2000. p. 75-101.

Dumez H. et Jeunemaître A. [2005], La démarche narrative en économie, Revue économique, vol 56, n° 4, p. 983-1005.

Foray D. [1989], Les modèles de compétition technologique. Une revue de la littérature, Revue d'économie industrielle, Vol. 48. 2e trimestre 1989. p. 16-34.

Gatelier, E., Delaplace, M., Pichery, M.C. [2012], Patrimonialisation de la vitiviniculture et développement du tourisme dans les régions viticoles, Une comparaison Bourgogne / Champagne, XLIXe Colloque de l'ASRDLF, Belfort, 9-11 juillet.

Godard, O. [1993], Stratégies industrielles et conventions d'environnement : de l'univers stabilisé aux univers controversés, in INSEE-Méthodes, ‘Environnement et économie', (39- 40), décembre, pp. 145-174.

Godard O. [1990], Environnement, modes de coordination et systèmes de légitimité : analyse de la catégorie de patrimoine naturel, Revue économique , 41, 2, pp. 215-241.

Grossetti M., Bes M-P. [2003] Dynamiques des réseaux et des cercles. Encastrements et découplages, Revue d'économie industrielle, Vol. 103, 2e et 3e trimestre 2003. La morphogénèse des réseaux. p. 43-58.

Hodgson G.M. [1998], The Approach of Institutional Economics, Journal of Economic Literature , vol 36, March, pp ; 166-192

Lahire B. [1998], L'Homme pluriel. Les ressorts de l'action, Paris : Nathan.

Laurent C. [2000] La multifonctionnalité de l'agriculture », in Durand M.F. et al. , Towards an agreement between Europe and Mercosur, Paris, Ed. de Science Po.

Le Bras H. et E. Todd [1981], [2012] (réédition), L'invention de la France : atlas anthropologique et politique, Paris, Gallimard, NRF.

Marshall A. [1890] [1920], Principles of Economics, 8ème edition, 1920. London, Macmillan.

Nieddu M., Garnier E, Bliard C. [2014], Patrimoines collectives versus exploration-Exploitation, le cas de bioraffinerie, Revue Economique, vol 67, disponible en pré-publication sur le site CAIRN, http://www.cairn.info/revue-economique-2014-0.htm.

North D. [1991], Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Parkhurst Ferguson P. [2004], Accounting for Taste: the Triumph of French Cuisine, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Piore M.J. [2006], « Qualitative research: does it fit in economics? », European Management Review, 3, p. 17-23.

Pupin Vincent [2008], Taking charge of the world : patrimonial appoaches. [les approches patrimoniales au regard de la question de la prise en charge du monde, Thèse sous la direction d'Henry Ollagnon, Humanities and Social Sciences. AgroParisTech, 2008. English. <NNT : 2008AGPT0048>. <pastel-00004920>.

Ollagnon H. [2004], Stratégies patrimoniales pour un développement durable in Barrère, C., Barthélémy D., Nieddu M., Vivien F-D. [sous la dir. de], Réinventer le patrimoine, L'Harmattan, Paris.

Ramstad Y. [2001], Johns R. Commons's Reasonable Value and the Problem of Just Price , Journal of Economic Issues , n°2, June, p. 253-277

Salais R., Storper M. [1993], Les mondes de production, enquête sur l'identité économique de la France, Ed. de l'EHESS, Paris, 456p.

Santagata W [2006], Cultural districts and their role in developed and developing countries, in V. Ginsburgh et D. Throsby [eds], Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, North Holland, p. 1101-19.

Santagata W. [2000] Distretti Culturali, Diritti di Proprietà e Crescita Economica Sostenibile, in Rassegna Economica, 1

Santagata, W. [2010], The Culture Factory. Creativity and the Production of Culture. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.

Santagata, W. [2002], Cultural districts, property rights and sustainable economic growth. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 26, Issue 1, March 2002, p. 9-23.

Vivien F.-D. (2009) « Pour une économie patrimoniale des ressources naturelles et de l'environnement », Mondes en Développement, vol. 37, n°145, pp. 17-28.

_____________________________________________

adresser commandes et paiements à:

Les Presses de l'ISMEA, 38 rue Dunois - 75013 PARIS, France

tel: +33 (0)1 53 18 80 76 - fax: +33 (0)1 53 18 80 77

courriel: presses.ismea@libertysurf.fr