Conference Program

Public policy instruments are often presented as technical, neutral, and depoliticized tools. However, following the sociology of policy instruments (Halpern et al., 2014; Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2004; Lascoumes & Simard, 2011), this paper argues that they carry political rationalities that orient public action. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in Marseille between 2020 and 2024, it examines how three educational instruments—the school catchment system, “elite linguistic sections,” and the educational component of the Marseille en Grand plan—contribute to the construction of territorial attractiveness. These instruments are embedded in a neoliberal framework that promotes performance, competitiveness, and inter-territorial competition (Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Harvey, 1989).

The analysis shows, however, that the effects of these instruments are neither mechanical nor homogeneous. Their scope depends on how local actors use them, in connection with power relations and territorial strategies. Some instruments, such as the school catchment system, particularly illustrate this plasticity. Introduced in 1963 as a rational tool for managing student flows (Van Zanten & Obin, 2010), it has gradually become, in the context of the territorialization of educational action (Frandji, 2017), a political instrument mobilized differently depending on local contexts: at times a lever for combating segregation, at other times a tool serving the production of social and school homogeneity. The analysis of two different catchment boundaries adopted for the same school—first in 2019 and then in 2021 by two different municipal majorities—highlights the political dimension of this instrument (Gervais & Audren, 2022). This dimension lies not only in the intentions behind its initial design but also in the situated practices that shape its uses (Francou & Mavrot, 2020).

This paper thus aims to shed light on the political dimension of educational policy instruments through an empirical approach. It will also outline a reflection on the engaged dimension of such a research posture, questioning the position of the researcher when studying instruments that contribute to the production of educational inequalities.

The methodology relies on a qualitative approach combining several elements: semi-structured interviews (n=74) with a wide range of local educational actors; analysis of grey literature and administrative documents; field observations; and cartographic analysis of the instruments studied. This diversity of materials makes it possible to capture the logics embedded in the instruments, their conditions of implementation, and the variability of their uses. Rooted in the geography of education, this research adopts an interdisciplinary perspective and draws on tools and concepts from the sociology of public action.