Introduction
Solidarity at the Heart of Territorial Development

Territorial development is a relatively old field of knowledge, whose distinctive feature is that it seeks to cross disciplinary perspectives on the question of territory, in order to serve the idea of a territorial relay for economic development. Territories and the economy are thus intrinsically linked by the concept of territorial development. This coupling has been reinforced by the European institutional setup, which has tended to emphasize the regional (and not just national) level to maximize the potential for intra-European economic development. While this equation has been much in demand in the fight against the various economic crises, it has unfortunately not lived up to all the hopes it raised. The addition of transition issues to unresolved economic problems has led decision-makers and financiers to review the elements of the deal. Solidarity is now seen as a key factor in the analysis. From now on, a dialogue can be opened with Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) organizations, which are emerging as the key actors, so that we can envisage fair, equitable and more inclusive development on the ground. In this introductory chapter, we propose putting into perspective various experiences in which solidarity has played a decisive role in the construction of territories, and to explore which dimensions make it possible to support and develop solidarity.

I.1. Territory and solidarity: a recurring theme

The SSE is defined as a field characterized by its democratic governance, as specified in Article 1 of the French 2014 Law on SSE. The governance of SSE organizations has the particularity of being deployed on a double dimension of sociopolitical action. Internally, democracy engages processes of organizational transparency and the framing of decision-making mechanisms. Externally, it involves maintaining an open democratic dynamic with local actors in local public spaces (Laville 2011). From then on, the territory appears to be the fundamental locus for the exercise of democracy by SSE organizations. If SSE practices cannot be understood independently of the very idea of territory, they presuppose, in return, a support methodology. To this perspective, Subileau et al. (2024) suggest studying the solidarity city over the long term. In fact, this is the timeframe in which we can think about the making of the city in the flow of its urban and territorial history and envisage committed territorial strategies. On another note, the revitalization of rural areas is facilitated by the development of a plural economy that values reciprocity (Llena 2011). In other words, the organization of solidarity within the framework of a different economy is fundamentally linked to the perspective given to territorial development. Two ideas flow from this observation. Firstly, the territory (and its development) is at the core of our understanding of SSE issues. Secondly, solidarity is not an additional concept in the analysis and study of territories, which would enrich the view of territorial development. It is, in fact, a constitutive element in the making of territories. As such, it constitutes a strategic element in the formulation of a renewed agenda for territorial development (Eynaud and de França Filho 2019). In this context, Duverger et al. (2020) raise the question of the possible convergence between territorial dynamics and SSE dynamics. To this end, the authors focus on the systemic territorial regulation capacities that enable SSE organizations to organize according to a triptych of governance, regulation and territory (Demoustier and Richez-Battesti 2010).

In a classic economic approach, the territory is seen as a tool for hosting economic activities (Bouba-Olga and Grossetti 2018). The resulting vision of the territory is based on a primarily commercial interpretation. Indeed, the territory is expected to adapt to serve businesses and their needs. This presupposes specific developments in terms of transport infrastructure, logistics support and organizational, regulatory and tax arrangements for business parks. Together, these measures will define the attractiveness of the region. This is a one-way process. The region is called upon to show itself in its best light by providing guarantees, but investors are only accountable in return to market logic. They are therefore free to relocate at any time to other, more attractive areas. In this classic vision, the territory is an adjustment variable in a regulatory game that transcends it. Exogenous principles therefore take precedence over endogenous ones, and investors from outside the territory can be the masters of territorial development. As a result, territories can be exploited in ways that are neither socially just nor ecologically virtuous.

What sets the SSE apart from conventional economics is the reversal it promotes. Rather than seeing the economy as an end in itself, it sees it as a means to other ends. This is in line with Polanyi's substantive economic approach (Polanyi 1944, 2011). In opposition to the abstract vision of market economics, the substantive approach is pragmatic in that it questions mankind's profound dependence on nature and other people. In so doing, it points to the means required to cover natural needs and shows the plurality of economic logics - which the market tends to make invisible - to ensure a subsistence economy. Polanyi (1977) brings to light logics such as redistribution, reciprocity and domestic sharing. The strength of Polanyi's proposition lies in its focus on the question of reproduction. Whereas classical economics focuses on production, substantive economics is concerned with the reproduction of the material conditions of existence and social life.

The result is a completely new perspective on territorial development. It is no longer the economic attractiveness of the territory that is sought, but its maintenance (reproduction) in conditions of well-being and happy living (Eynaud and de França Filho 2019). Such a perspective cannot be sustainable without the support of the public actor and the framework of a dedicated public policy. The specificity of the SSE's territorial roots cannot be taken for granted. To do so would be to overlook the isomorphism of SSE organizations induced by the generalization of competitive calls for projects around public markets, or by the alignment of major SSE actors with conventional entrepreneurial practices (Itçaina and Richez-Battesti 2022). The aim is to provide regulatory protection for the region and filter out investment projects with negative externalities. It is also about opening up territorial development to institutional arrangements based on the idea of a plural economy (Aznar et al. 1997), i.e. an economy integrating the substantive approach and open to the SSE. Territorial Clusters for Economic Cooperation (Pôles Territoriaux de Coopération Economique or PTCE) thus make an essential contribution to the construction of a solidarity-based territory (Billaudeau et al. 2016; Itçaina 2018, 2021). The dual socio-political and socio-economic dimensions of SSE actors enable them to play a growing role in new territorial institutional compromises (Demoustier and Richez-Battesti 2010). Relying on local solidarity initiatives enables socioterritorial development (Tremblay et al. 2009), in which citizens can become co-designers of public policies (Scherer 2015).

Finally, Bucolo et al. (2020) consider revisiting the question of territories through the prism of the commons. With the concept of the trans local horizon, Defalvard (2023), for his part, proposes to take the commons out of localism alone, and value the capacities of SSE organizations to interact on a larger scale. In this context, we can take another look at institutional arrangements that facilitate new perspectives. These solidarity-based initiatives are interesting to explore in that they revisit the very heart of the territorial fabric.

I.2. Conceptualizations of territory renewed by the emergence of solidarity issues

The territory corresponds to both a practical reality and a conceptualization. As a practical reality, it is the object of action for many actors, who will propose defining its boundaries, identifying actors whose activities are linked to its specific features or identifying geographical and social features that differentiate it from other geographical locations, and on which it will be possible to build. The territory can "serve as a resource" (Raulet-Croset 2021), and the territorial level seems to hold great promise for thinking about the societal and environmental dimension in the strategic developments of economic and social actors present in territories, identifying more bottom-up and inclusive tools and mechanisms for public action, or even collaborative governance modalities enriched by the participation of actors who each develop different relationships to their root territory. The territory, which used to be seen more as an economic unit with an instrumental focus, is now also becoming a place where solidarity is created. As a conceptualization, the territory is also multiple, is mobilized by several scientific disciplines and is also the object of evolutions linked to new societal and solidarity expectations. How can a solidarity-based approach identify the practical and conceptual specificities of a territory? We propose here to consider the tensions and dilemmas that can help us qualify a territory and show how...