Works in progress  Social network analysis and development economics: an opportunity for pluralist perspectives? (with J-P. Berrou, Q. Chapus, A. Piveteau)
Over the past decades, there has been an explosion of interest in network research in social sciences generating a powerful common paradigmatic vision across disciplines (Borgatti et al.; 2009). Social scientists using social network analysis (SNA), assume that individuals are not alone in the market, they are embedded in social relations creating functioning institutions, norms, and societies (Polanyi, 1944; Granovetter, 1985). A strong implication is that the unit of analysis or modeling is not the individual, but an entity made up of a set of individuals and the relationships established between them. From the 80s, SNA advances focused on both relational and structural properties of the networks. On the one hand, relational structure and actor relative position to the others matter to understand the power, social cohesion, and the collective actions affecting social, economic or political processes (Scott, 2000; Borgatti et al., 2013; Lazega, 1998). This perspective was the most developed in SNA, requiring specific analytical and methodological tools (whole network analysis) focused on social groups and all relationships between all pairs of actors, outside of the common social science empirical approach based on household or individual surveys. On the other hand, network scientists also focus on solidarity and social support through personal networks based on the actor, considering a set of alters directly linked to ego and the links existing between them (Small et al., 2021). Until the 90s, if the network concept had been used in Development studies, particularly in anthropology, political science and sociology, its used remained metaphorical and paradoxically disconnected to the SNA studies (Grégoire and Labazée, 1993; Evans, 1995; Tendler, 1997; Woolcock, 1998; Khan, 2005). The large movement of mainstream economic expansion in social sciences from the 90s and the use of social capital concept by the international organizations such as the World Bank open the network perspective to standard development economics. Looking at the development economists studies in the last 30 years, although integrating a network perspective, we can see the denaturation of the paradigmatic ambition of the SNA approach. Development economics, when it doesn’t make relationships an asset that can be individually maximized, sees social relations as an informal mechanism serving the exchanges between individuals, solving market failures, and offering a good channel for technology or practices adoption (Chaung and Schechter, 2014). In this idea, networks become an entity on which to act to promote “good” economic behaviors and, in the end, growth (Barrett, 2005). This paper try to understand why SNA type approaches have remained a minority in development economics and draws, from these observations, perspectives for future research. We especially call for a general integration of the SNA pluralistic perspective in development studies, reconnecting to the crucial paradigmatic ambition and the important issues of power, social cohesion and reciprocity for the development concept outside of the limited standard development economic approach.
 How much should we trust block modeling strategies to identify advocacy coalitions in policy processes? A methodological proposal from two Sub-Saharan policy networks (with J. Schlegel, O. Djibo, J-P. Berrou, A. Piveteau)
Identify different political coalitions of interest and power at different scales is crucial to understand precisely a policy process. In policy studies in and now outside the Western areas, an important current offers a very fertile approach, introducing policy network analysis in the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Studies in this field use frequently Block Modeling and Community Detection Strategies (BMCDS) to capture political groups in the policy process in various policy sectors. However, two important methodological issues affect the results of this literature. First, the theoretical works on the BMCDS are growing quickly showing a variety of algorithms much more diverse than methods used in ACF. For ACF researchers selecting one option from this "methodological jungle'' is hard and few studies give explicit justifications of their choices. Secondly, few ACF works offer a systematic comparison between different methods on benefits and costs for analyzing policy processes. To answer both crucial questions, we revise different BMCDS using original African Policy Network data collected in Madagascar and Niger. We offer a systematical comparison of 12 most important methods in BMCDS literature, testing the robustness and the sensitivity of the results in different policy processes. We provide a useful set of practical recommendations for ``good practices'' in further ACF studies: (i) the context matters to select the best method and particularly the density of the network analyzed, (ii) the "best method'' defining the most robust coalitions as possible can be rigorously identified by maximizing the convergence and minimizing the variability of the BMCDS through the Normalized Mutual Information (NMI) matrix and the summary offers by the new relevant indicator.
Transnational policy coalition(s) and the making of social protection policy in Africa. An inter-organizational network analysis of the National Social Protection Strategy of Madagascar (with J-P. Berrou, A. Piveteau, C. Gondard-Delcroix and L. Delpy)
This article questions the form of the political compromise that underpins the development of the social protection policy in Madagascar. What coalition of actors is at stake, in a context where the economic and institutional conditions for the implementation of such a policy do not presently appear to exist (a "failed" state, declining economic capacities, an employment structure characterized by informality, etc.) ? It draws on the policy networks literature (Kapucu & al., 2017, Varone & al., 2016, Ingold, 2011; Laumann & Knoke, 1989) and proposes an analysis of the inter-organizational network of actors involved in the policy making process. Combining in a pragmatic approach different methods (nominalist and realistic) and tactics (Laumann, Marsden & Prensky, 1983), the specification of the complete network's boundaries start form the list of GTPS’ members from which some actors have been removed and others added. An original survey was conducted between 2018 and 2019 to interview key informants within each of these organizations. The sociometric questionnaire focuses on six types of relationships between actors: (i) collaborative links; (ii) information-sharing links; (iii) links of agreement on the orientations of the policy; (iv) links of disagreements on the orientations of the policy; (v) links of influence; (vi) interpersonal links. The collected data then make it possible identify within the policy making process of the social protection in Madagascar: the key actors with strong capacity for mobilization and influence, the emerging coalitions of actors, the main circuits for information circulation and resource exchanges.
Revising tie strength effect in Emerging countries' labor markets: Reaching information or reducing asymmetry? Evidence from Colombia (with J-P. Berrou)
The relevance of personal networks to explain how job markets work is commonly admitted by social scientists. However, the association between the strength of ties and labor outcomes constitutes one of the more debatable issues in economics and sociology. On the one hand, a long and known tradition following Granovetter's work (1973, 1975) demonstrates the strength of the weak ties (WT) to get a better job because of their capacity to convey novel informations. On the other hand, more and more studies show the strength of strong ties (ST) to increase labor market outcomes because having a strong contact and a recommendation is crucial like the Guanxi effect in China (Bian, 1997). Looking at this current opposition, we offer a possible articulation linking theory and institutional context. Theoretically, ties are considered as a fundamental institutional mechanism to solve numerous information problems and market failures. But the answer provided by the WT diers from the ST one. The WT are ecient in solving the reaching information problem whereas the ST are useful to reduce the asymmetric information issue. Finally, the value of WT or ST will depend largely on the more important issue in the specific labor market context. In this way, Emerging countries are marked by unequal labor systems, thus connecting disconnected groups through weak ties is crucial to get a better job. At the same time, emerging markets are particularly aected by institutional weaknesses, and solving the asymmetric information problem constitutes a fundamental step to climbing the labor ladder. We offer an empirical test with using mixed data recollected in Bogota (Colombia) 2016-2018. Firstly, based on a qualitative data recollected in Bogota (Colombia), we associate income variation and income mobility to both information problems in a Latin American context. Secondly, we offer a multidimensional index of the strength of ties and we use econometric models with and without instrumental variable in order to identify precisely the effect of WT and ST. Our quantitative results confirm that having WT is useful to increase relative income, but ST are more relevant for climbing the income ladder. The WT eect works especially for lower-income people because information coming from other groups is particularly needed in an unequal context. However, ST generate deeper and higher-income mobility for all social groups by providing other kinds of resources. This result is in line with the qualitative exploration highlighting the relevance of the job recommendation as a signal to move in the market marked by institional weaknesses. Finally, we discuss why our results are interesting to conciliate WT and ST approaches and understand the stability of inequality in the Colombian labor market and more generally in Emerging contexts.
 The transformations of the French financial system: the elite network of general financial inspectors in action (with N. Bédu and C. Granier)
 Opening the blackbox of the gig-economy in developing countries: labor quality of gig-workers and gender differences in Argentina (with Mariana Pellegrini)
2021 10th AFEP Annual Conference ("Social Networks" session co-organizer with L. Delpy, U. Bordeaux), June 29-July 2, Online.
2020 EAEPE Annual Conference, September 2-4, organized online. LADYSS (Workshop 1) Seminar, Université Paris Cité, January 30, Paris, France.
2019 BRICS & Emerging Economies Seminar, INALCO-EHESS, November 27, Paris, France. 30th SASE Annual Conference, June 27-29, New York, US. XXXIX Sunbelt Social Networks Conference of the INSNA, June 18-23, Montreal, Canada.
2018 5th WINIR International Conference, September 14–17, Hong Kong, China. 8th AFEP Annual Conference ("Social Networks and Job" session main organizer), July 3-6, University of Reims, France. LAM Research Seminar, Sciences Po Bordeaux, January 25, Bordeaux, France.
2017 Workshop IEDES-DIAL, University Paris 1 & IRD, October 23-24, Nogent-sur-Marne, France. Workshop DIAL-GREThA, University of Bordeaux, June 13, Bordeaux, France. Research Lab Seminar, Paris School of Business, May 18, Paris, France. XXXV International Congress of the LASA, April 29 – May 1, Lima, Peru. Social Science Research Seminar, University of Los Andes,March 31, Bogota, Colombia. Doctoral Workshop: Methods in Social Sciences, University of Bordeaux, January 31, Bordeaux, France.
2016 LAM Research Seminar, Sciences Po Bordeaux, December 8, Bordeaux, France. 28th SASE Annual Conference, June 24–26, Berkeley, US. 6th GREThA International Conference on Economic Development, June 16–17, Bordeaux, France.
2015 Development Seminar GREThA-LAREFI-LAM, University of Bordeaux, November 24, Bordeaux, France. BRICS & Emerging Economies seminar, EHESS–FMSH, October 8, Paris, France. 4th ILO Conference of the Regulating for Decent Work Network, July 8–10, Geneva, Switzerland. 3rd DIAL–IRD Development Conference, July 2–3, Paris, France. International Conference Research & Regulation, June 10–12, Paris, France. XXXIII International Congress of the LASA, May 27–30, San Juan, Puerto Rico. XXV International Symposium of CEDIMES, October 30–31, Moscow, Russia.
Data and scripts/do-files
Do not hesitate to mail me if you'd like to ask for / request data and scripts/do-files