Local Development, Proximities and Productive Encounters: The Case of Development Dynamics in the Region of Toulouse/Developpement Local, Proximites et Rencontres Productives : Le Cas Des Dynamiques De Developpement Dans la Region De Toulouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The first part of this contribution underlines the necessity of proposing a dynamic definition of what a territory is, and suggests characterising territory as an active combination of different dimensions of proximity. This analysis leads us to identify three modes of territorial development (agglomeration, specialisation, specification) and to attempt a configuration of diverse forms of firm/territory productive encounters. This part ends with an overall presentation of the relations between the different dimensions of proximity, the different modes of territorial development and the firms' strategies in the context of globalisation. The second part of the contribution puts the concepts advanced in the first part to the test of an empirical case, that of the territory of Toulouse. In it, we show that the three identified modes of local development coexist in the territory of Toulouse, and we illustrate this proposition through the presentation of two new institutional devices: competitive clusters and the setting up of a economic observatory focusing on economic mutations and the support to structuring firms. Resume La premiere partie de cette contribution souligne la necessite de proposer une definition dynamique de ce qu'est un territoire et suggere que celui-ci se caracterise par une combinaison active de trois dimensions de la proximite. Cette analyse conduit a identifier trois modes de developpement local (l'agglomeration, la specialisation, la specification) et diverses configurations de rencontres productives entre et territoires. Cette partie se termine par une representation d'ensemble des relations entre les differentes dimensions de la proximite, les differents modes de developpement local et les strategies des dans un contexte de mondialisation. La seconde partie du texte vise a employer les concepts definis dans la premiere partie pour evaluer un cas empirique, celui du territoire toulousain. Dans cette partie, nous montrons que les trois modes de developpement identifies co-existent dans le territoire de Toulouse. Nous illustrons par la suite cette proposition en presentant deux nouveaux Objets institutionnels : les poles de competitivite et le dispositif regional d'information sur les mutations economiques centre sur l'observation de firmes structurantes. Introduction: Productive Encounters between Firms and Territories The present contribution proposes a synthesis of various reflections that have been developed over the past fifteen years or so about the notion of proximity (Bellet et al 1993; Torre and Gilly 2000). More precisely, our aim is to explain or clarify our suggested distinction between resources and assets on the one hand, and between generic and specific factors on the other hand (Colletis and Pecqueur 1993, 2005). This synthesis has led us to single out three modes of local development which we correlate with the strategies implemented by firms (Colletis and Rychen 2004). This then enables us to identify different configurations corresponding to various possible forms of productive encounters between firms and territories. In the second part, we show how this conceptual framework enables us to better understand the development dynamics at work in the region of Toulouse. More explicitly, the first part of the present contribution provides the conceptual components of our reflection and is structured around four main points. The first point underlines the necessity of proposing a dynamic definition of what a territory is. The second point suggests characterising a territory as an active combination of different dimensions of proximity. This analysis then leads us to put forward three modes of territorial development--agglomeration, specialisation, specification--and to attempt a configuration of diverse possible forms of firm/territory productive encounters. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".