In what ways can a systematic participatory approach to governance lead to Inclusive Growth in local development?
Introduction
The combination of an increase in intra-national inequalities and their exacerbation in
cities has led scholars and policymakers to focus increasingly on the concept of Inclusive Growth
(Lee, 2018). By promoting a type of growth that focuses on providing opportunities for
everybody and does not increase inequalities, Inclusive Growth has become a mantra in the
international development world (ADB, 2018, Rauniyar & Kanbur, 2010) as well influencing
urban policies (Broughton et al, 2019). Although there is some consensus on the definition of
Inclusive Growth, it remains a « fuzzy concept » in practice (Markusen, 2003, Lee, 2018) applied
by local authorities in different ways. It has been criticized for sugar-coating existing policies
(Lee, 2018), while cities do not have the ability to create growth, nor to make it inclusive (Turok,
2010).
It would be a shame to see this concept lose its meaning through loose applications as De
Haan (2015) argues that inequalities have political consequences, and Lee et al. (2018) have
linked inequalities to populist votes. To prevent this, this dissertation’s aims to approach
Inclusive Growth from a political angle, by focusing not only on economic exclusion but also on
political exclusion. Political exclusion appears when “socio-economic subgroups within society
face collective political and economic deprivations such as discrimination or lack of opportunities
to participate in mainstream political or economic life” (Gurr, 2000). Indeed, inequalities of
opportunities in the economic and political system are linked as highlighted by the United
Nations Economic and Social Council (2019): “tackling the underlying power relations in the
society by empowering groups is essential to address inequality”.
That is why this dissertation argues that empowerment through citizen participation is
essential for Inclusive Growth and can make the concept more operative by tackling some of its
weaknesses.
To this end, this research will try to identify how citizen participation can stimulate
Inclusive Growth by analysing the participatory strategy of Loos-en-Gohelle, a small town of
6000 inhabitants in the north of France. This town’s municipality (the commune) has
implemented an inclusive governance model since 1997. Although their approach was based
solely on inclusive governance, their intentions and actions would fit into an Inclusive Growth
agenda, which makes this city particularly interesting:
GY486_41570
6
– Their vision of development encompasses not only economic but also social and
environmental preoccupations.
– They have made the fight against fuel poverty one of their main priorities and taken
measures to increase the disposable income of poor people by diminishing water and
energy costs.
– In a mining region heavily struck by deindustrialization and where unemployment rates
are the highest in France, they are trying to shape growth in an innovative, ecological way
while taking measures to integrate the long-term unemployed into this strategy.
Furthermore, in a region dominated by Marine Le Pen’s far-right party, the persistence of
an ecological mayor is surprising. This is why this paper focuses on Loos-en-Gohelle as its case
study. Through the analysis of the links between the citizen participation and the growth model
developed at Loos-en-Gohelle, this paper will show in which conditions citizen participation
leads to the implementation of really inclusive policies so that Inclusive Growth does not become
a buzzword. Secondly, it will show how citizen participation can nurture an inclusive innovation
strategy attempting to shape growth and analyze the limits of this strategy.
The key contribution of this paper is to reveal the mechanisms implemented by actors in
Loos-en-Gohelle that enable citizens to participate in the local innovation strategy making it
really inclusive. Primarily, this is achieved through formal mechanisms ensuring citizen
participation in the decision-making and in leading public projects. This dissertation also
highlights the importance of learning mechanisms that empower citizens, create social capital and
ensure the quality of citizen participation. Although these mechanisms seem to be effective in
Loos-en-Gohelle, there are some barriers to the spreading of the model to the wider region. These
stem from a misalignment between the cultural and eco-construction strategy and the lack of
bridging and bonding social capital (Ansari et al, 2012) at the intermunicipal level.
This research begins with an overview of the literature on inclusive growth and inclusive
innovation. The dissertation focuses specifically in analyzing how authors have theorized the link
between citizen participation and inclusive growth and citizen participation in inclusive
innovation models to identify knowledge gaps. Next, this paper presents Loos-en-Gohelle and the
“inclusive economy” (Green et al, 2017) developed. After an overview of the research methods,
the dissertation will present the research findings. Finally, this paper will conclude and present
policy and research implications.
GY486_41570
7
2. Literature Review
2.1. Inclusive Growth and citizen participation
Most definitions agree that Inclusive Growth focuses on the pace and pattern (Lee, 2018)
of growth. The Asian Development Bank (2018) defines it as: « high, sustainable growth to
create and expand economic opportunities, broader access to these opportunities to ensure that
members of society can participate and benefit from growth, and social safety nets to prevent
extreme deprivation ». This definition differs from traditional redistribution models and the
preceding concept of « pro-poor growth » (Lee, 2018) by putting the emphasis on the processes
of growth (De Bruijne, 2015).
In reality, the most applied model of Inclusive Growth is a« Growth Plus » (Lupton &
Hughes, 2016) approach which puts growth first and then focuses on linking up individuals to the
benefits created. Another, more radical interpretation is that of an « inclusive economy » (Green
et al, 2017) where existing economic models and their governance structures are challenged to
enable citizens to « have a say on the orientation of the growth process » (Ranieri & Ramos,
2013). In this sense, authorities take an active stance, seeking to create monetary and nonmonetary
value, such as well-being (Green et al, 2017) or social welfare (ADB, 2018). Thus, for
Rauniyar and Kanbur (2010) « Inclusive Growth is about promoting efficient and sustainable
economic growth, ensuring a level political playing field and strengthening capacities while
providing a social safety net ». Similarly, Gupta et al (2015) define Inclusive Development as:
« development that includes marginalised people, sectors and countries in social, political and
economic processes for increased well-being, social and environmental sustainability and
empowerment ». Through this model, inclusive growth adopts a similar approach to poverty
reduction as Sen’s (1999) focus on capabilities, as it aims to increase disadvantaged population’s
ability to achieve (Ansari et al, 2012).
Given the diverse application of the concept of Inclusive Growth, case studies can better
inform how scholars from the Inclusive Growth perspective have apprehended citizen
participation in different contexts.
Authors concord that citizen participation in the decision-making process is an essential
component of Inclusive Growth. For the Royal Society of Art’s (RSA) Inclusive Growth
GY486_41570
8
Commission « designing growth strategies should be an inclusive process and should draw on the
ideas (…) of local people. ». Chou and Huque (2016) call for public participation in order for
growth to exceed its political boundaries and « take place in economical and social areas ».
Similarly, at a conference held by the Inclusive Growth Analysis (IGAU) of the University of
Manchester, participants agreed that « inclusive growth should be done with communities and not
to communities »
On the other hand, they also agree there was no clear « understanding of the relationship
between measures across policy areas (…) What measures of social participation would support
development in skills, health and jobs? ». In short, the mechanisms linking citizen participation
and the realisation of an inclusive economy model remain elusive. Furthermore, citizen
participation varies widely by status, gender and race (Dinda, 2013), reinforcing economic
disparities (OECD, 2015). To counter this, the RSA’s Inclusive Growth Commission
recommends that citizen engagement should be « genuinely inclusive; innovative – a source of
ideas; influential in the decision-making process; and live/ongoing, not a one-off consultation
process » but is still elaborating proposals to support this.
The literature introduces the link between innovative economic development strategy and
citizen engagement, but De Haan (2015) contends « in-depth qualitative analysis remains
critical ». Indeed, in terms of governance, authors call for the integration of all local stakeholders
(RSA, 2017, Centre for Progressive Policy, 2019) around a common vision, but do not articulate
how this can lead to an innovative economic strategy that ensures long-term development through
new ways of producing, marketing and distributing goods and services (OECD, 2015). Next, a
focus on literature linking innovation and inclusive growth will help understand how authors
have conceptualised an innovation model integrating wider stakeholders including local
population.
2.2. Inclusive Innovation and citizen participation:
Cowling and Tomlinson (2011) propose an organisational system based on small firms
supported by publicly funded associations and research institutes. Whilst they are wary of the
potentially monopolistic impact of big firms, they recommend the integration of wider
stakeholders to spur a merging of the economic and social spheres of development.
Though they struggle to define the direction innovation should take, they draw on Jacobs
(1961) to indicate that it could stem from « spontaneous ideas of the inhabitants ». For this, they
recognise the potential of social capital in « cooperation, ties and repeated interaction » which
GY486_41570
9
could lead to innovation, but only apply this concept to firms rather than the wider group of
stakeholders they invoke.
It is a shame not to extend the notion of social capital to the population given that authors
(Krishna, 2002) have shown the role of social capital as an enhancer of collective action for
mutual benefit and its potential in bridging people and opportunities by increasing capabilities
(Putnam, 1993, Ansari et al, 2012). Authors identify two different kinds of social capital: bonding
(Briggs, 1998) and bridging (Narayan, 1999) social capital. Bonding social capital are the links
maintaining a group’s cohesion, whereas bridging social capital ties the group to strategic
peripheral actors (Burt, 2001). These two types of social capital have structural, relational and
cognitive components and are generated through « time, interdependence, interactions and
closure » (Ansari et al, 2012).
Nevertheless, Krishna (2002) insists on the importance of a « coordinating agent » or
leader to direct the collective action. This again questions the extent to which citizens can
participate in decision-making and the role of leadership. Furthermore, building social capital can
be costly in both time and resources (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Finally, there remains the question
of the motivation and incitation of businesses to open up to a collaborative process with local
stakeholders (Ansari et al, 2012).
Carayannis and Rakhmatullin (2014) also incorporate civil society in their innovation
strategy encouraging inhabitants to « own and drive » innovation. From a user-centered approach,
they see citizens not only as a source of proposal but also as creators of innovation. They
highlight the importance of learning mechanisms leading to empowerment. They also separate
the actions of 3 systems: a coordinating and directing political system, an economic system
creating wealth and a knowledge system enhancing both these systems’ performances. All of
these systems interact around the innovation strategy creating an inclusive set-up where
innovation is co-created. The integration of the population in the innovation strategy marks the
passage from a triple innovation helix to a quadruple innovation helix.
The inclusion of citizens is essential but depends on the efficiency of the learning
mechanisms and on the strength of the resulting empowerment. In that case, to expect an
inclusion of all citizens could be seen as optimistic as De Haan (2015) notes « there are positive
effects of empowerment, but they are not strong ». Furthermore, Cornwall and Brock (2005)
warn that “empowerment” is a buzzword extensively used to justify « business as usual »
development policies while replacing more radical terms such as social justice. In France, the
notion of empowerment has been timidly imported as authors such as Jouve (2006) are wary of
its potential to remove the power of responsibility from the state, transferring it to communities
GY486_41570
10
that do not have the competencies to replace the State in its social, educational, health-care
missions. Bacqué and Biewener (2015) warn that for empowerment to be a social transformation
tool it must include « power to, power over and power with ». This ensures the power of
individuals to do things (participate, consume) but also their power and influence over processes
(economic, political) and their power to build collective capabilities.
Once again, academics have yet to find an effective process involving the population.
They must also define the tools and mechanisms needed to support priority selection of
innovation sectors (Carayannis & Rakhmatullin, 2014). Finally, they question the extent to
which, and with what motivations, the triple innovation helix can open up to its social context.
Lastly, authors have bridged the gap between innovation and Inclusive Growth by coining
the term « Inclusive Innovation » (George et al, 2012). Like inclusive growth scholars, they focus
on processes enabling innovative initiatives and identify three joint organisational processes:
– “Reframing constraints” in order to use context in a way that feeds innovation and creates
opportunities. This focus on the wider structural components of innovation is that adopted by
Cowling and Tomlinson (2011) in their proposal for Regional Systems of Innovation (RSI).
– “Enacting new models of organisation” responding to the constraints identified. Similarly,
Dinda (2013) suggests removing social constraints to create opportunities for all groups of the
population. Finding new, inclusive ways to organise stakeholders around an innovation
strategy is also deemed key by Carayannis and Rakhmutin (2014) and should lead to
empowerment.
– “Bridging access and integrating vulnerable populations” by using the organisations
created to link with peripheral actors. This can be done by mobilising bridging social capital as
highlighted by Ansari et al (2012).
These processes are interesting because they are wide enough to be applied not only to the
efforts of a private entity but could also structure the effort of a public entity trying to generate
innovation. Furthermore, they are useful to articulate different innovation theories in a coherent,
comprehensive way, as done above. Finally, they give a good idea of what to look out for when
judging an innovation strategy’s inclusivity.
However, the articulation of big and small companies for innovation and the role of local
authorities in supporting innovating firms is unclear (George et al, 2012). Again, the selection
and direction of innovation have yet to be defined.
Overall, the literature identifies possibilities for citizen participation to influence the
processes of growth through integration into innovation systems. Two main mechanisms through
GY486_41570
11
which citizen participation could shape the innovation strategy are identified: by mobilising
social capital to link-up with other actors and potentially drive innovation or benefit from
learning mechanisms and the subsequent empowerment to co-produce innovation. However,
there are limits to these processes (Dinda, 2013).
Using the French town of Loos-en-Gohelle as a case study, this research seeks to
understand how citizen participation can stimulate and benefit from the two aforementioned
mechanisms. It will investigate the role of leadership and the limits to citizen participation in
inclusive innovation strategies. The structure of the town’s innovation strategy is detailed below.
2.3. Contextual elements Loos-en-Gohelle and the regional economic strategy:
2.3.1 Administrative boundaries and capacities
The Communauté d’Agglomération de Lens-Liévin:
Since 2000, Loos-en-Gohelle has been part of the Communauté d’Agglomération de Lens-
Liévin (CALL), which is an administrative grouping of 36 communes (municipalities) around the
two cities of Lens (31,000 inhabitants) and Liévin (30,000 inhabitants). Its total population is of
241,934 inhabitants of which 6,751 live in Loos-en-Gohelle. Each of the 36 communes of the
CALL have an elected mayor. Each mayor and some of their communal counsellors sit on the
CALL’s community council, each commune having a number of seats proportional to its share of
the CALL’s population.
The CALL has certain obligatory competencies (CALL, 2020):
– Economic development: managing the economic activity areas and leading economic
development actions.
– Land-use of the communal area: drafting the Schéma Directeur (masterplan), realising urban
development projects, managing the urban transport systems.
– Maintaining the equilibrium of housing: managing supply and demand of housing,
management of social housing policy.
In agreement with the communes, the CALL has voluntarily taken charge of:
– Creating and enhancing a territorial project: incorporating the secondary and higher education
sector, the culture, tourism, sports and health sectors.
GY486_41570
12
– The assessment and undertaking of any project of intercommunal scope, with the agreement of
the concerned communes to delegate their responsibility.
The commune of Loos-en-Gohelle:
The commune also has competencies (Le Monde, 2015):
– Urbanism: it grants building permits, decides which plots are constructible and can lead urban
development projects.
– Education: it manages and finances the nursery and primary schools.
– Energy: it can produce, manage and distribute energy.
As we can see the commune does not strictly have the competence to lead economic
development. In fact, communes use their other competencies to stimulate the economy, notably
through their urbanistic role by, for example, giving away plots of land to enterprises.
2.3.2 Economic Development History of Loos-en-Gohelle and of the Bassin Minier:
Loos-en-Gohelle (LEG) is in the middle of the French northern mining basin which
extends from the southern point of the Pas-de-Calais département to the Namur province of
Belgium. Up until 1851 it was a farming village of 800 inhabitants, which drastically changed
when coal was found in 1855. In 1911 it had grown to 3,860 inhabitants mostly living in cheap,
mining houses (the corons) organised around the pits and completely disconnected from the
centre (Gagnebet, 2015). From 1946 onwards, and the nationalisation of the mining companies,
all of the mines of the Bassin Minier were managed by the paternalistic national mining
company: Houillères du Bassin du Nord et du Pas-de-Calais (HBNPC).
After 20 years of declining productivity and increasing competition, the mining pits were
closed down one by one in the 80s and the last lump of coal was extracted on the 21st of
December 1990 (Gagnebet, 2015). The pit 11/19 of Loos-en-Gohelle was one of the last to close
(1986) due to its modern extraction tower which enabled the formation of the distinctive terrils
(piles of excavated dirt) two of which subsist to this day. The closing of the mines not only
represented a huge loss of jobs but also of capabilities and social capital. Indeed, life in the
mining towns was completely organised by the mining companies who controlled the housing,
the health care, the schools and even leisure, in order to keep workers from drinking or
protesting. Thus, the inhabitants of Loos-en-Gohelle had strong bonding social capital, that was
GY486_41570
13
built around life as a mining town and the pride they took from this hard but important work as
mining was essential for the reconstruction of the country after World War II. This social capital
and the inhabitant’s trust in their ability to achieve – thus their capabilities – was hit hard when the
town lost 2000 jobs (Gagnebet, 2015). Their already limited – but essential – bridging social
capital was also drastically reduced, as the main actors the inhabitants interacted with were the
HBNPC or syndicates.
At the same time, the region’s other strategic economic sectors – the cloth and steel
industry – were also struggling and unable to provide the jobs needed by the local population.
Regional political leaders, used to relying on big industrial firms, tried to repeat this pattern by
attracting big automobile factories. This was a partial success, as the region became the centre of
automobile production in France and the sector employs more than 50 000 people today, but it
was not sufficient to compensate for the loss of jobs in the traditional sectors. Today, the Bassin
Minier remains scarred by deindustrialization as shown in Appendix 1. However, Loos-en-
Gohelle seems to be faring better than its close neighbours of the CALL. According to the
municipality, these results are the fruit of the citizens’ implications in the commune’s policies
(Caron et al, 2020).
2.3.3 Loos-en-Gohelle, « du noir au vert » (from coal to green)
Loos-en-Gohelle chose to carry out a transition to sustainable development, focusing on
the production of innovation in the sectors of renewable energies and eco-construction. They are
following a similar approach to the one proposed by Cowling and Tomlinson (2011) by
developing public organisations and research institutes focusing on eco-construction and circular
economy models.
Actor Year Key individuals Mission Scope
CPIE – La
Chaîne des
Terrils
Founded in
1989
Jean-François
Caron
Françis Maréchal
Promote and manage the terrils as a
natural park.
Regional
Culture
Commune
Arrived in
1998
Marcel Caron Promote and develop cultural projects National
CERDD Founded in
2001
Jean-François
Caron
Dominique Hays
Provide research to support the
development of sustainable
development ventures in the region
National
GY486_41570
14
CD2E Founded in
2002
Marcel Caron
Jean-François
Caron
Christian Trainel
Supporting the development of firms in
the eco-construction, renewable energy
and circular economy (recycling)
sectors through consulting and
specialised trainings.
Regional
TEAM2 Founded in
2010
Christian Traisnel Provide research and supports firms in
the areas of eco-materials, recycling
and decontamination. It provides them
with R&D and helps them find funds. It
works with more than 200 local SMEs
as well as major energy providers.
Participates in 4 different Interreg
Programs
European
Fondation
d’Auteuil
Arrived in
2013
Jean-François
Caron
Provide education to marginalised
people (joblessness, school dropouts)
between the ages of 16 and 29. In
Loos-en-Gohelle, they specialise in
training for eco-constructions and train
150 young people every year.
Regional
Les Anges
Gardins
Arrived in
2014
Jean-François
Caron
Dominique Hays
Professional reintegration of
unemployed individuals. In charge of
coordinating the municipal food
autonomy strategy.
Regional
Table 1 – Associations attracted and founded by the commune
Parallelly, Loos-en-Gohelle have been developing responsible tourism based on their
mining past. In 1986, the commune, whose mayor was Marcel Caron, took possession of the land
on which rest the terrils to save them from destruction. In 1992, the site was listed as a historical
monument under the name Base 11/19 and became the site of cultural events and outdoors sports.
The terrils are managed by the local association CPIE La Chaîne des Terrils and the cultural
events are held by the national theatre Culture Commune. In 2019 the site registered 150,000
visitors.
Project Year Key Actors
Listing of 11/19 pits as a National
Monument
Since 1992 Marcel Caron
CPIE
Marathon passing through the 11/19
Base
Since 2006 Jean-François Caron
CALL and city of Lille
Listing of the Bassin Minier as
UNESCO World Heritage
Since 2012 Jean-François Caron
CPIE
GY486_41570
15
Opening of an antenna of the
Parisian Louvre in Lens
Since 2012 CALL
New regional strategy based on
Jeremy Rifkin’s concept of the 3rd
Industrial Revolution. Rifkin (2013)
imagines a smart and decarbonated
economy where the dominant
industries are renewable energies
and actors are linked through
cooperation rather than competing
against each other.
Since 2013 Jean François Caron
Hauts-de-France region
Table 2 – Projects led by the commune
The CD2E, CERDD, TEAM2, Chaîne des Terrils and Culture Commune are all on the
11/19 base which has been partially renovated to accommodate these activities. Half of the site is
still a brownfield but renovation works are being carried out by the CALL. These organisations,
coupled with 7 start-ups incubated there by the CALL employ more than 150 people on the site.
The co-existence of so many structures of national importance in this small town is remarkable
and is the result of the commune’s pro-active attempt at building an inclusive economy model.
2.4. Summary:
Given the arguments and contexts exposed above, Loos-en-Gohelle is a pertinent case
study of a town leading an inclusive economy strategy (Green et al, 2017) whilst having to deal
with restricted competencies, diminishing budgets and having to reverse some severely negative
socio-economic dynamics. In this sense, it is relevant to a number of cities in the United
Kingdom facing similar situations (Payne, 2018). Furthermore, Loos-en-Gohelle has been
developing a uniquely extensive and systematic citizen participation programme (Caron et al,
2020). During Jean-François Caron’s first mandate from 2001 to 2008, more than 200 public
meetings were held and it was estimated that around 1,000 people participated in local projects
(Gagnebet, 2015). These efforts over 20 years to include the population in town policies, as well
as Loos-en-Gohelle’s push for a new kind of innovative economic growth, make this commune an
ideal place to study long term evolutions of social capital and citizen empowerment in the context
of an inclusive economy.
3. Research question and methodology:
3.1. Research Question:
GY486_41570
16
Using Loos-en-Gohelle as a case study, this dissertation aims at answering the question:
In what ways can a systematic participatory approach to governance lead to Inclusive
Growth in local development?
