Contenu du sommaire

In analysing the dynamics of different territories in France over a long period, Gérard-François Dumont shows how three very distinct periods can be distinguished. Up until the end of the 18th century, the country was mainly rural. It became more urban from 1936 onwards and the populations of mid-sized towns then began to grow at the expense of the big cities. However, this trend was reversed 40 years later when the cities began to take off. The author examines the reasons for the rise and fall of these different spaces, showing that there is no inevitability about the futures that different territories will enjoy. This is attested by the fact that highly contrasting dynamics are seen at different levels, as Dumont shows here with three examples. His first is the town of Vitré near Rennes, which seemed in danger of becoming a “dormitory town” for the nearby city, as Rennes, with its industrial development, drew in enormous numbers of workers. The second example is the small town of Espelette, which also seemed doomed to decline but, thanks to the Confrérie du piment d'Espelette — an association for the promotion of the local variety of red pepper — actually developed an impressive dynamism through agricultural activities and tourism. The third is a little village in the Haute-Loire department called Saint-Bonnet-le-Froid, which was also transformed into a tourist and culinary destination by the efforts of the management of the Auberge des cimes hotel. From these case studies, Gérard-François Dumont draws a number of lessons regarding the factors that determine a territory's future. As we are constantly repeating in Futuribles journal, no territory is doomed in advance. Its future depends primarily on the ability of local actors to combine their efforts to serve a vision rooted in the particular characteristics of the locality.

This article by Jean-Pierre Worms forms part of the series begun in our September-October issue on the contribution made by companies to the common good. It is in three parts, which complement each other closely. In the first section, Worms stresses the colossal scale of the challenges facing us today, particularly at the ecological level, and hence the responsibilities we bear. In the second, he points out the limitations of — if not, indeed, the distortions produced by — a strictly rational conception of the economy, which leaves out of account the essential human factor, a factor whose boundless virtues he demonstrates. But this is not a purely exhortatory piece — far from it — as can be seen from the third section, in which Jean-Pierre Worms tells the story of “Initiative France”, which was founded in 1980 to promote the creation (and resumption) of activities and jobs in the regions. He relates the success of that project and provides some insights into how it was achieved.

In our September/October issue, we began a series of articles on the contributions made by companies to the common good. We continue that series in this issue with the stories of some of the actors at the centre of these activities. After the experience of “Initiative France”, presented in the foregoing article by Jean-Pierre Worms, it is the turn of Gilles Vermot-Desroches to lay out what Schneider Electric has done in terms of sponsorship and developing its social responsibility in the broader sense. Launched in 1998, as CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) was beginning to become an established norm, the Schneider Electric Foundation provided a logical continuation and expansion of the initiatives taken by the company within its sector across the world, bringing the greatest possible number of stakeholders together. Twenty years later, we can see here how a company can, concretely and at its own particular level, participate in promoting the common good, and extend its activity as new societal challenges emerge.

More and more writers take the view that industrial society is threatened with “collapse”. But the very concept of collapse is vague and is interpreted in many different ways ; and there are many views of the consequences that may ensue (end of the world, end of a world etc.). Moreover, the lessons that may be drawn from past collapses — the collapse of ancient civilizations — cannot necessarily provide relevant insight into a future — or, indeed, imminent — collapse.In this article, Gabriel Salerno shows why such a collapse looms on our horizon : first, because our developmental model is clearly no longer effective, either economically or socially ; second, because it is deeply destructive of our environment. His argument is supported by a broad review of the literature on the subject, which underpins his thinking on the various types of collapse — those of the past and, more speculatively, the collapse (or collapses) of tomorrow. But what might come after the collapse ? Gabriel Salerno distinguishes three “meta-interpretations” (three possible cases) : the first ensues from a cyclical view of history and envisages not an “eternal return of the same” but a transition to a new model ; the second, deriving from a progressive vision, foresees a levelling-off followed by a new rise ; the third is “declinist” and, in that vision, collapse precedes chaos. This article, which is strongly supported by an analysis of the diverse publications on the subject, casts valuable light on a possible future that is too often overlooked.

At a time when some analysts are sounding the alarm about the risks of societal collapse, principally as a result of the over-exploitation of our planet's resources (see the article by Gabriel Salerno in this issue), and, as a means of confronting this, advocating a degree of reduced demographic growth (neo-Malthusianism), other voices can be heard — in this case, at the national level — calling either for an increase in the birth rate or, at least, for a new look at family policy. Jacques Bichot is one such, calling in this “Forum” for a “rejuvenation” of French family policy that aims to take account of the concrete contribution made to the economy by having and raising children. Jacques Bichot begins by pointing out how “disastrously” that family policy has evolved — particularly with the distortion over time of the meaning of dependents' allowances and various non-rational transfers within the Social Security budget from family to old-age provision. He then argues for a fair and objective consideration of the contribution of the family and of investment in young people, particularly in a country that has a system of pay-as-you-go retirement pensions. In this article, he proposes a different view of how the (economic) exchange between generations should be organized, taking account of each person's contribution in terms of demographic renewal and investment in youth (education included) — a point of view that seems likely to feed into current and future debates on welfare (different types of benefit, retirement pensions etc.).