Métropolisation et résistance des territoires : l’exemple luxembourgeois.

Résumé Fr En

Le phénomène de métropolisation s’accompagne souvent d’une réorganisation des territoires institutionnels, qu’elle soit à l’initiative des communes ou bien des Etats centraux. Dans ce contexte globalisé de mutation, le Luxembourg fait figure d’exemple atypique, voire de modèle de stabilité puisque les territoires en place semblent « résister » à toute forme de changement malgré l’émergence d’un processus de métropolisation. En étudiant deux aspects très spécifiques de la gouvernance dans ce pays que sont la forte interpénétration de la représentation politique entre les niveaux local et national, ainsi que la cohésion des représentants du milieu des affaires et leur proximité avec le pouvoir politique, cet article tente de contribuer à expliquer la permanence de certains territoires institutionnels en place dans une économie mondialisée et incarnée dans les métropoles, qui favorise souvent la décentralisation et la coopération intercommunale.

The emergence and assertiveness of world-class cities tend to transform - at local levels - the shapes of institutional organizations that are in place. Indeed, new management territories for metropolitan areas provide an answer to the local populations increasing demands and also a reaction to competitions between world-class cities, whether those territories are the results of a voluntary cooperation between municipalities or whether they come from States projects. In this global context of institutional change, the example of Luxembourg appears to be quite exceptional, and could even represent a model of stability. Through the study of the links between central and local authorities, and through the description of relationships between business elites and political leaders, this article attempts to analyze the stability which can be observed in the political organization in Luxembourg. This stability has to been interpreted as a proof of the effectiveness of the governance in place. Indeed, a change in an institutional organization has to be interpreted as an answer to a crisis situation. More than a simple case study, the example of Luxembourg represents a laboratory for the analysis of State and communal resistance in a world-class cities’ globalized economy, which generally leads to decentralization and cooperation between municipalities. However, Luxembourg remains a very specific example for several reasons. It is a very small country, with only 2 586 square kilometers for 476 000 inhabitants, and just one major city. Moreover, as opposed to other European countries, the institutional distance between political and business leaders is reduced. As a result, the benefits which, in other countries, are generally provided by the emergence of a metropolitan governance can be found in the whole Luxembourg national territory.