International conference Research & Regulation 2015
The theory of regulation
in times of crisis
Paris, June 10-12th, 2015.
To know more about the program, about registration, etc.: > presentation of the RR2015 conference > presentation of the RR2015 workshops > Contact
The concept of “regulation” has inspired a significant body of research during the past forty years. An initial wave of studies analyzed the unprecedented post-World War II growth regimes in Western economies, in order to understand their structural crisis since the late 1960s. Since that time, the field has developed international systemic comparisons in order to explore alternatives. The success of the concept, witnessed both by its heuristic power and its key presence in major debates at that times, is undoubtedly due to its ability to combine various complementary approaches ranging from Kaleckian, Keynesian and Marxist to institutionalist and socio-economy methods and theories. This success also stems from shared concerns for the general interest, particularly the Keynesian emphasis on full employment.
To date, however, regulation theory has not taken full advantage of its competitive advantage, despite significant—if not widely known—developments and outcomes: beyond public macroeconomics, the field now encompasses new research areas such as sectorial analysis (finance, services, health, farming…) and regional economics, analysis of institutions and politics, and microeconomics. Clearly, this lack of prominence is at least partly due to three types of misunderstandings:
1. semantic, given the mainstream confusion with the customary American sense of ‘regulation’;
2. interpretative, by limiting the scope of the concept of regulation to Fordism, which is only one of its outcomes (i.e. a historical configuration of an accumulation regime and mode of regulation, in some countries and for a given period);
and 3. conceptual, involving confusions between method, school, and theory.
Still, the resilience of mainstream economics—although grossly ignoring the many possibilities of market failures—remains puzzling given the current crisis. Therefore, from a more constructive perspective, the critical survey of the achievements of the regulation agenda is challenging, and calls for clarifying and strengthening relationships with concepts and issues (such as institution, convention, or governance) both within economics and in other social sciences.
The challenge is thus two-fold: empowering alternatives to mainstream economics, which actually fuels the current crisis; and addressing socio-economic structural changes and political demands for a more sustainable world that question the very conceptual foundations of economics. Shared by several contemporary approaches, these challenges should lead economists to develop new research projects and synergies within economics and with other social sciences. The organizers of the “Research & Regulation 2015 Conference” intend this occasion to be fully open to critical discussion and collaborative research projects.
TOPICS. All proposals are welcome, but the organizing committee especially encourages contributors to take positions on particularly pressing issues in times of crisis, whether to explore how to translate them into a scientific research program or to discuss their results.
➢ WHAT SHOULD BE THE PRIORITIES FOR A RESEARCH PROGRAM ON REGULATION ISSUES TODAY?
➢ THE ECONOMIST AND THE EXPERT, SCIENCE AND POLITY.
➢ NEED AND POSSIBILITY FOR AN INTEGRATED RESEARCH?
➢ IS THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL STATUS DECISIVE?
Robert Boyer (Institut des Amériques) ou Jean-Pierre Chanteau (université Grenoble-Alpes).
Pierre Alary (CLERSE, université Lille-I), Gilles Allaire (INRA), Nicole Azoulay (LADYSS, université Paris-Diderot), Bernard Billaudot (université Grenoble-Alpes), Robert Boyer (Institut des Amériques), Jean-Pierre Chanteau (CREG, université Grenoble-Alpes), Benjamin Coriat (CEPN, université Paris-Nord), Marie Coris (GREThA, université Bordeaux-IV), Jean-Paul Domin (REGARDS, université Reims Champagne-Ardenne), Pierre Labarthe (AgroParisTech), Agnès Labrousse (CRIISEA, université Picardie), Thomas Lamarche (LADYSS, université Paris-Diderot), Catherine Laurent (INRA), Jacques Mazier (CEPN, université Paris-Nord), Sandrine Michel (ART-Dev, université Montpellier-I), Martino Nieddu (REGARDS, université Reims Champagne-Ardenne), Pascal Petit (CNRS-CEPN), Bruno Théret (CNRS-IRISSO), Julien Vercueil (INALCO), Michel Vernières (université Paris-I), Franck-Dominique Vivien (REGARDS, université Reims Champagne-Ardenne), Olivier Weinstein (CEPN, université Paris-Nord).
Michel Aglietta (université Paris-Ouest), Bruno Amable (PSE, université Paris-I), Suzanne Berger (MIT Cambridge), Robert Boyer (Institut des Amériques), Isabelle Cassiers (université de Louvain), Lynne Chester (University of Sydney), Ève Chiapello (EHESS, CEMS), Charlie Dannreuther (University of Leeds), Giovanni Dosi (Santa Anna, Sienna), Gerald Epstein (University of Massachusetts), Olivier Favereau (université Paris-Ouest), Ève Fouilleux (CNRS-CIRAD Moisa), Marie-France Garcia-Parpet (INRA), Jean-Christophe Graz (Université Lausanne), Geoffrey Hodgson (Hertfordshire University), Jean-François Huchet (INALCO), Yasuo Inoue (Nagoya City University), Ahmet Insel (Galatasaray Üniversitesi), Florence Jany-Catrice (CLERSE, université Lille-I), Bob Jessop (Lancaster University), Emmanuel Lazega (CSO, Sciences-Po Paris), Julio Cesar Neffa (CONICET, UN Moreno, UNLP Argentina), André Orléan (CNRS-PSE), Mary O’Sullivan (université Genève), Pepita Ould-Ahmed (IRD), Stefano Palombarini (université Paris-8), Nicolas Postel (CLERSE, université Lille-I), Michael Reich (University of California), Andy Smith (FNSP-Centre Emile Durkheim), Richard Sobel (CLERSE, université Lille-I), Kathleen Thelen (MIT Cambridge), Bruno Théret (CNRS-IRISSO), Hiroyasu Uemura (Yokohama National University).