Given the limits of geographical proximity (negative externality, absence of spontaneous links, etc.), other relational logics between scientific and industrial actors have been studied. Estades, Joly and Mangematin propose three relational logics (Estades et al. 1996): proximity, club and market. These three logics were later completed by Grossetti and Bès (2001), who then distinguished a “network logic” in which the contact results from a relational chain linking the two officials responsible for the collaboration. Most often, this relational chain has its roots in the university courses studied by the two officials. This network logic partially challenges the logic of proximity established by Estades, Joly and Mangematin, insofar as, for Grossetti and Bès, personal networks do not only stem from local proximity. They also identify “institutional logic”, which is almost similar to the “club logic” of Estades, Joly and Mangematin, since both refer to the intervention of an external body, most of the time governmental, which provokes interactions between enterprises and laboratories. Finally, the two studies establish a third similar logic: that of the market. Estades, Joly and Mangematin consider that partnerships of this type are often the result of the will of industrialists who need solutions provided by researchers, whereas Grossetti and Bès consider that both scientific and economic actors can lead this market logic (Grossetti and Bès 2003, p. 343).
Ten years after the Grossetti and Bès study, Julien Barrier also identifies three major patterns of academic and industrial interaction (Barrier 2014). For him, the relationship is most often created on the initiative of industrialists who seek to: (1) enter into collaboration with researchers in order to acquire specific knowledge and know-how in a well-defined field, (2) optimize an existing technology that enables researchers to test theoretical models in an industrial context or (3) jointly explore, upstream of the development or application phase, concepts or research objects that are beneficial to the scientific production of academic researchers (Barrier 2014, p. 63). Geographical proximity is therefore gradually being supplemented by analyses that focus on other types of proximity and relational logic. Alongside these proximities, the sharing of a common social capital, which is decisive for establishing links, has also been the subject of several works.
1.3.3. Social capital as a driver of innovation
A number of works emphasize the role of individuals’ social capital in facilitating the development of economic activities (Bourdieu 1980; Coleman 1994; Burt 1992). Coleman was particularly interested in the relationships and knowledge of individuals. In this approach, the social network becomes a resource in the same way as cultural or economic capital. In his works on Rational Choice Theory, he defends the idea that the individual determines his choices, not only on the basis of the economic calculation in terms of cost/benefit ratio but also on the basis of his relationships and knowledge. These authors do not question the idea that individual behavior is determined by economic incentives and financial resources. They add that they are also determined by motivations and social resources such as reputation, legitimacy and address books (Lanciano-Morandat et al. 2009, p. 180). This position is in line with the Bourdieusian thesis that capital must be accumulated in order to be fully operational. Another resource is then regularly evoked in the study of these social exchanges: trust. Social capital is not enough, and some authors argue that the condition for economic progress is the development of trust between people, understood to be the expectations nurtured by one individual towards the explicit or implicit promises of another (Dasgupta 2011, p. 50). Thus, in line with this work, some have analyzed the social capital of entrepreneurs as a decisive resource in the realization of a cluster (Feldman 2001; Feldman et al. 2005), considering that a network analysis of firms is, in fact, a network analysis of individuals:
The firm is, in the best of cases, considered as a network of individuals, or as being akin to an individual. We remain in a universe where the active force is the individual and where the collective is constructed or reduced to a set of relations between these individuals (Callon and Ferrary 2006, p. 39).
Further to the main distinction made by the proximity school between a geographical and organized dimension, Michel Grossetti and Olivier Bouba-Olga propose a new decomposition of socio-economic proximity by an approach at the level of individuals. They distinguish between two types of situations: proximity of resources and proximity of coordination, for which, first of all, resources are cognitive (“in the heads of the actors”), and they evoke a plethora of notions used in the social sciences to describe the behavior of actors from the inside: “strategies”, “dispositions”, “affects”, “habitus”, etc. The authors specify that these resources are shareable between them (language, values, standards) and can be mobilized to coordinate (Bouba-Olga and Grossetti 2010, p. 8). The resources are also material and social proximity is played out at the level of the resources possessed (assets, income, qualifications, social status, etc.). Alongside the proximity of resources, they mention the proximity of coordination, which is made up of both mediation mechanisms and social networks. They cite the often used example of the resources mobilized in the labor market: individuals rely as much on intermediaries (job applications, classified ads, recruitment agencies, etc.) as on personal relationship networks (word of mouth). Grossetti believes that these chains of interindividual relations are the most empirically founded of the various theories describing proximity effects (Grossetti 2004, p. 168). Indeed, many case studies highlight the existence of local interindividual social networks that cross organizational boundaries.
Another view also relies on the social capital of individuals but underlines the relations between individuals and the advantages created by the constitution of a network. A significant proportion of literature is based on the concept of embedding in the study of concentrations of industrial and/or scientific activities. This notion was developed by Granovetter in a celebrated article on the relations between principals and subcontractors in construction companies (Granovetter 1989). Within these interactions, he highlights the fact that the actors are personally involved in the economic relations they maintain. This personal dependence between individuals forms the notion of embeddedness. Relationships between enterprises cannot be understood without paying attention to the personal ties that unite the individuals involved in these interactions. Granovetter adheres to the tradition of social network analysis, which considers that interactions are the only acceptable starting point for sociological analysis. However, according to Grossetti, this approach tends to reduce economic activity to these sets of social relations (relational reductionism), when he considers that:
The social structure is not reducible to a network, it also includes groups (or circles, fields, worlds, etc.), in other words collective entities endowed with boundaries of name, affiliation procedures, etc (Grossetti 2006b, p. 85).
Consequently, alongside the notion of embedding, Grossetti and Bès use the notion of decoupling developed by Harrison White (1993). While he is one of the founders of the network approach, White also considers that it can easily lead to a naturalization of relationships, leaving aside other types of social structures: families, organizations, groups, etc. Therefore, embedding always refers to the dependence of an actor on the personal ties he has with others, and decoupling is, conversely, the self-nomination of this actor with respect to these relationships in a new embedding process. In this context, Grossetti and Bès speak rather of network dynamics in order to evoke the two complementary processes of embedding and decoupling. On the question of where relationships originate, Grossetti and Bès rely on the work of Claude Fischer (2011), who, based on an empirical study during the 1970s, tells us that most individuals meet through structures deemed stable and lasting (family, work, neighborhood, school) and that brief encounters in a bar or restaurant rarely convert into strong ties. Thus, when we look at the genesis of relationships, the notion of embedding works in reverse, with individual relationships embedded within collective structures. Nevertheless, they may become autonomous from those frameworks from which they originate, which is called decoupling. Grossetti and Bès indicate that this process “can be perfectly transposed to firms whose exchanges are initiated in a given framework
