{"word_count": 1450, "character_count": 11124}
ArgumentaireDe tous les acteurs qui constituent le champ des activit&#233;s &#233;conomiques, l&#8217;entreprise est probablement celui que la sociologie doit le plus syst&#233;matiquement investir pour rendre compte des transformations du capitalisme contemporain. Cet appel &#224; contributions fait l&#8217;hypoth&#232;se que les formes organisationnelles des firmes et leurs strat&#233;gies constituent des variables interm&#233;diaires importantes dans la compr&#233;hension d&#8217;&#233;volutions historiques plus g&#233;n&#233;rales, se rapportant au salariat, &#224; la division internationale du travail, et par extension aux mutations du capitalisme. Les contributions que cet appel sollicite proposeront donc un regard empiriquement fond&#233; sur ces mutations, en faisant de la firme, de sa strat&#233;gie ou de son organisation leur point d&#8217;entr&#233;e privil&#233;gi&#233;. Cette analyse empirique s&#8217;appuiera sur des observations r&#233;centes. Il sera opportun de les replacer dans une perspective historique de long terme.Les tendances caract&#233;ristiques du capitalisme contemporain se pr&#234;tent &#224; des interrogations dont nous donnons ici quelques exemples, sans pr&#233;tention &#224; l&#8217;exhaustivit&#233; : les modes de financement des entreprises et la recomposition de leur actionnariat influencent-ils la lutte entre les fonctions qui concourent &#224; leur orientation strat&#233;gique et &#224; leur choix d&#8217;organisation ? Comment les relations d&#8217;interd&#233;pendance et de pouvoir entre les firmes et les &#201;tats se recomposent-elles dans un contexte de mondialisation ? Quelles formes &#233;pousent d&#233;sormais, au sein des firmes, les luttes constitutives du capitalisme &#8211; &#224; commencer par celles qui opposent travail et capital ? La transformation des formes qu&#8217;adoptent les entreprises contemporaines, et notamment le d&#233;veloppement de la firme en r&#233;seau, permet-elle encore de les assimiler &#224; des organisations ? Quel est le poids des nouveaux prescripteurs &#8211; par exemple, les analystes financiers ou les consultants &#8211; dans la d&#233;finition de leur strat&#233;gie et leur dynamique de modernisation ?&#192; cette analyse de la transformation pourra s&#8217;ajouter une r&#233;flexion d&#8217;ordre th&#233;orique : l&#8217;entreprise doit-elle &#234;tre constitu&#233;e comme concept par l&#8217;analyse sociologique ? Les clivages disciplinaires traditionnels opposent les &#233;conomistes aux sociologues : les premiers voient dans la firme le r&#233;sultat d&#8217;un calcul d&#8217;optimisation (Williamson, 1975 ; Jensen et Meckling, 1976) ; les seconds la consid&#232;rent comme une organisation dont on ne peut comprendre la forme et les orientations qu&#8217;en les repla&#231;ant dans un espace de r&#233;f&#233;rents normatifs de port&#233;e plus g&#233;n&#233;rale (Scott, 2001). Au sein de la sociologie des organisations, certaines options th&#233;oriques saisissent l&#8217;entreprise comme une institution dont elles constatent l&#8217;importance (Sainsaulieu et Segrestin, 1986) ou dont elles appellent la restauration (Roger, 2012), en soulignant son r&#244;le de socialisation et d&#8217;int&#233;gration communautaire. D&#8217;autres s&#8217;attachent au contraire &#224; l&#8217;analyser comme un espace de domination (Clegg, Courpasson et Phillips, 2006) ou de conflits (Fligstein, 1990 ; Roy, 1997) o&#249; s&#8217;affrontent des acteurs aux int&#233;r&#234;ts et aux r&#233;f&#233;rents normatifs oppos&#233;s. Les contributions mobiliseront ces perspectives th&#233;oriques, les discuteront ou les amenderont. D&#8217;autres perspectives th&#233;oriques apportant des &#233;clairages originaux sur l&#8217;entreprise sont aussi les bienvenues.Modalit&#233;s de soumissionLes propositions de contribution (min. 500 mots &#8211; max. 1 000 mots), en fran&#231;ais ou en anglais, devront &#234;tre adress&#233;es &#224; Christelle Germain (christelle.germain@pouchet.cnrs.fr), secr&#233;taire de r&#233;daction, ainsi qu&#8217;aux deux coordinateurs, Pierre Fran&#231;ois (p.francois@cso.cnrs.fr) et Thomas Reverdy (thomas.reverdy@grenoble-inp.fr),avant le 30 septembre 2013.Elles feront l&#8217;objet d&#8217;un examen conjoint par les signataires de cet appel et par un repr&#233;sentant de la R&#233;daction.La notification d&#8217;acceptation sera rendue aux auteurs au plus tard le 31 octobre 2013.Les auteurs dont la proposition a &#233;t&#233; retenue devront remettre leur texte, dont la longueur ne d&#233;passera pas 75 000 signes (espaces, figures et tableaux compris), au plus tard le 31 mars 2014.Chaque article sera &#233;valu&#233; ind&#233;pendamment par les coordinateurs scientifiques du dossier et, de mani&#232;re anonyme, par le comit&#233; de lecture de la Revue.Celui-ci rendra sa d&#233;cision finale d&#8217;acceptation aux auteurs au plus tard le 30 juin 2014.Responsables scientifiquesPierre FRAN&#199;OIS, CNRS (Sciences Po/CSO), &#201;cole polytechniqueThomas REVERDY, PACTE/Grenoble INPBibliographieClegg S., Courpasson D., Phillips N., 2006, Power and organizations, Los Angeles, Sage.Fligstein N., 1990, The transformation of corporate control, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Hall P., Soskice D. (eds.), 2001, Varieties of capitalism, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H., 1976, &#171; Theory of the firm : managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure &#187;, Journal of financial economics, 3, 4, p. 305-360.Roger B. (dir.) 2012, L&#8217;entreprise, formes de propri&#233;t&#233; et responsabilit&#233;s sociales, Paris, &#201;ditions Lethellieux.Roy W. G., 1997, Socializing capital, Princeton, Princeton University Press.Sainsaulieu R., Segrestin D., 1986, &#171; Vers une th&#233;orie sociologique de l&#8217;entreprise &#187;, Sociologie du travail, 28, 3, p. 335-352.Scott R. W., 2001, Institutions and organizations, Thousand Oaks, Sage.Williamson O. E., 1975, Markets and hierarchies, New York, The Free Press.ArgumentOf all the actors involved in the field of economic activities, it is the enterprise that is probably the most important for sociology, if it is to take account of change in contemporary capitalism. This call for papers is based on the hypothesis that the organisational forms taken by firms and their strategies are important intermediating variables for understanding the most general historical developments, such as those that concern employees, the international division of labour and by extension the changes within capitalism.The papers that we invite will thus be ones that offer an empirically-based perspective on these changes by making the firm, its strategy and its organisation their specific point of entry to the subject. This empirical analysis will be one that is based on recent data. It will be helpful to put them in a long term historical perspective.The characteristic tendencies of contemporary capitalism lend themselves to certain questions, of which a few examples are given here, though without any claim to completeness: do modes of corporate finance and the restructuring of their shareholder base influence the conflict between the various functions that contribute to their strategic direction and their choice of organization? How are the relationships of power and interdependence between firms and states being reconstructed in the context of globalization? What forms are now being taken within firms by the struggles that constitute capitalism―to begin with, that which pits labour against capital? Do the contemporary changes in the forms taken by firms, especially that of the networked firm, still allow them to be compared to organisations? What is the influence of new prescriptive forces―such as that of financial analysts and consultants―in defining their strategy and their dynamics of modernization?A theoretical question can also be added to this analysis of change: should the enterprise be constituted as a concept by sociological analysis? Disciplinary disputes divide economists and sociologists, with the former seeing the firm as the result of a calculation about optimisation (Williamson 1975; Jensen and Meckling 1976); whilst the latter see it as an organisation whose form cannot be understood unless it is placed within a space of normative referents of more general relevance (Scott 2001). Within the sociology of organisation, some theoretical perspectives see the enterprise as an institution whose importance they recognise (Sainsaulieu and Segrestin 1986) or whose restoration they recommend (Roger 2012), by emphasizing its role in community socialisation and integration. Others arecommitted to analysing it as a space of domination (Clegg, Courpasson and Phillips 2006) or of conflict (Fligstein 1990; Roy 1997) where actors with opposing interests and normative referents confront each other. Papers will use these theoretical perspectives, and debate them or amend them. Other theoretical perspectives which cast new light on the enterprise will also be welcomed.Submission guidelinesProposals for papers (min. 500 words&#8211;max. 1,000 words), in French or English should be sent to Christelle GERMAIN (christelle.germain@pouchet.cnrs.fr), editorial secretary, as well as to the two coordinators, Pierre FRANÇOIS (p.francois@cso.cnrs.fr) and Thomas REVERDY (thomas.reverdy@grenoble-inp.fr),before 30 September 2013.They will be reviewed by the co-signatories of this call for papers and by a member of the editorial board. Notification of acceptance will be sent to contributors, at the latest by 31 October 2013.Contributors whose proposal has been accepted should send their paper, whose length must not exceed 75,000 characters (including spaces, figures and tables), at the latest by 31 March 2014.Each article will be independently reviewed by the scientific coordinators of this topic and, anonymously, by the review board of the Revue. The latter will provide its final decision on acceptance to contributors at latest by 30 June 2014.Scientific coordinatorsPierre FRANÇOIS CNRS (Sciences Po/CSO), École polytechniqueThomas REVERDY PACTE/Grenoble INPBibliographyClegg, S., Courpasson, D., Phillips, N., 2006, Power and Organizations. Los Angeles: Sage.Fligstein, N., 1990, The Transformation of Corporate Control. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress. Hall, P., Soskice, D., eds., 2001, Varieties of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H., 1976, &#8220;Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.&#8221; Journal of Financial Economics 3(4): 305-60.Roger, B., ed., 2012, L&#8217;entreprise, formes de propriété et responsabilités sociales, Paris: Éditions Lethellieux.Roy, W.G., 1997, Socializing Capital. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Sainsaulieu, R., Segrestin, D., 1986, &#8220;Vers une théorie sociologique de l&#8217;entreprise&#8221; Sociologie du Travail 28(3): 335-52.Scott, R. W., 2001, Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Williamson, O.E., 1975, Markets and Hierarchies. New York: The Free Press.