Social Politics of the State and Territories

Taking into consideration the reality of the territory, we are presented with a particular sharpness in the field of social politics. Since the social politics of the state are about fundamental rights, essential for social cohesion and individual well-being (health, occupation, training and insertion into society, etc.), we cannot see their effectiveness if we are looking at the place of people’s lives: this headline the territorializing of the state in the social field should be carried out in an exemplary way. At the same time this field comes across multiple problems which give several different politics. These services have been placed historically, culturally and operatively but have nothing in common with one another. In this way what we evidently see in the public sector the inter-ministerial approach rather than the global approach to situations which are associated to this most of the time. Overall, it is important to estimate that the territorializing of state action risks, in a social way, appear at a brutal breaking point with major inheritance, building up over tens of years of intervention which answered to the approach by (population). We can therefore see at first sight that it would be potentially risky for the effectiveness of the politics in question and also for the population it is addressed to. The promotion of territorializing levels out and upsets the naturalization of such matter. It would be better if we could manage the two approaches together rather than separating them. It is therefore clear that we are faced with a difficult task to collect a fortiori for the Ministers whose ways are often seen as being too weak compared to the depth of their mission. This would result in problems for the organizations whose task would be to pull out the best of both logics. It is from this point we would like to start our paper. The paper is logic and does not take on board the political side of things in which the sustainable level of decentralization is about and is an example of engaged debates on extensions of new competences to be transferred to the occurrence or case-for-case, to the collective territories. Thinking about the present equilibrium of those competent in this area, and without breaking away from the field which is to be looked at, the paper is essentially limited to examining the coming together of the levels of pilot schemes and putting into action the politics that can help bring them closer to adapting to the characteristics of the territory in which they will be implemented. It will touch on better ways to answer the needs of the citizens and the local actors. To be more precise, two questions go through the paper: local services and central, which are competent in social fields, if they have managed to integrate the first evolutions linked to the territorializing of the politics and are they prepared to manage to get over the new steps that are more probable. The important point of view is that of the politics of the state: the depth of covered areas in social politics, the multiplicity of the politics, the number of the partners interested, and the variety of the devices which make them unrealistic to ambitious choices. To this, the thought politics put into being from the collective territory are not treated in the studied argument; on the other hand, for each time the state and the collective territories put forward prerogatives in the same field, the tie is evidently established. One of the key elements of the problem of the territorializing is the influence which it has managed to have on decentralization and on the adaptation of the territories of the state politics