Disruptive technologies are achieving the digital transformation by supporting more decentralized coordination processes and more responsive modes of governance. Applied the provision of public good and to the design and implementation of public policies, these technologies could favor new combinations of public and private interventions to benefit from a more decentralized and organic collective governance, and from more efficient public services. The aim of this proposal is to develop analyzes and to manage experimentations to explore how these technologies could: (i) propose alternatives to state-based governance by empowering communities and facilitating self-governance; (ii) support new organizational arrangements among heterogeneous stakeholders to provide public services; (iii) and enhance the performance of the public sector. Since digital technologies are diverse and result into different types of (organizational) impacts and since governments are responsible for very different types of actions, the project will consider three main roles of the governments and will analyze how digital technologies will impact each of them. First, we will investigate how digital technologies could change the ways rights and the enforcement of rules are guaranteed, with potential important consequences for the rule of law in our democracies and economies. Second, we will study how the ability of the government to regulate the behaviors of organizations and groups is impacted, which question the regulation of the info-structure and of digital platforms. Third, we will explore to what extent the renewal of the relationship with the citizens and with the operators in charge of the provision of services of general interest could impact upon their quality, but also upon the social compromises behind their definition. In all the three domains of investigations we will combine general investigations to study how disruptive technologies question the traditional organizations and vectors of public action, with field studies and targeted experimentations performed in cooperation with governmental agencies, tech companies and (individual or professional) users. We will analyze in particular (i) the alternative design of digital services, (ii) the sustainability of the business models supporting them, and (iii) the feasibility of the institutional changes necessary to allow their implementation. To better inform policies and collective choice making in matter of disruptive public governance technologies, it is essential to analyze in depth the societal, economic and political challenges behind alternative technological designs. Also, data and technology ubiquity are likely to have direct effects on individual and group behaviors, on the social and organizational structures and thereby on the nature institutions. We therefore propose to embrace a multidisciplinary perspective anchored in institutional and organizational science, combining economics with political science, law, sociology, and management. This perspective will be articulated with capabilities in data science, machine learning and artificial intelligence to study the interactions between the dynamic of technological change and the transformation of the institutional set-up, and of social interactions. The consortium, still under construction, will be organized around a core group of scholars renowned for their expertise on the interaction between the technology and institutional and organizational arrangements. They are all working in academic institutions hosting centers of excellence in data-science and in digital technologies. The consortium will also involve governmental agencies and private corporations not only to run experiments, but also to benefit from their expertise in exploring innovative applications of disruptive technologies, and to manage a consistent dissemination policy in cooperation with them.

The fact that many people do not believe in scientific truths has important and sometimes even dramatic consequences. Since people's rationality is bounded, trust in experts and in processes set up by experts is necessary. Trust in experts may depend on who the expert is. Furthermore, trust in a process may be affected by whether we like the outcome of the process or not. Our project is articulated in 4 axes. The first axis is interested in algorithm aversion, the distrust the public can have in a scientific procedure aiming at reaching an outcome, namely the allocation of prospective students to universities. The second axis investigates trust in experts depending on their gender and the gender-stereotypes associated to the field of expertise. Are we more likely to follow the recommendation when it comes from a male expert than from a female expert when the area of expertise is perceived as masculine? Will one also rather receive a recommendation from a male expert rather than from a female expert? Do the answers to these questions change when the area of expertise is perceived as feminine? The third axis is interested in the trust we have in human reasoning depending on whether we agree with the conclusion or not. Is it more difficult to perceive flaws in logical reasoning when one agrees with the reasoning process's conclusion than when one does not? The fourth axis will propose a theoretical mode that will aim at getting al deeper understanding of the interplay and dynamics between trust in a scientific process-matching algorithm- and the outcome of the process-an allocation of students to universities. It may also allow us to evaluate the performance of algorithms along a new dimension by distinguishing those for which a high-trust equilibrium exists from those for which trust is not a sustainable outcome.

Organisations today are facing critical transformations requiring approaches other than classic analytical and rationalist methods to apprehend situations and take action. One must take into account a sensible dimension – whether it be affective or political. To do so, art can be used in an active way to open up many possibilities. With the ability to reveal the complex and contradictory facets of reality or influence reality concretely, art acts as a transformative agent that remains under-explored by management sciences. The ABRIR project aims to investigate cases of organisations facing critical transformations (restructuring, relocation, identity transformations, mergers…) using two complementary types of data: on the one hand, we will work on the basis of real case studies of artistic productions in the context of organisations facing transformations; on the other hand, we will directly analyse a series of artistic works dealing with critical transformations in organisations. We will focus on three specific types of art forms: documentary theatre, fiction films and contemporary visual arts. This corpus of real and fictitious cases, based on various artistic approaches and types of expression, will be analysed with an innovative, collective and dialogic method of investigation – the ABCD method – fostering the comparison of interpretations and experiences. The objective of the ABRIR project is to develop a valid art based method, which is collective and dialogical, to apprehend some implicit, diffuse and dissensual dimensions of critical transformations. This will lead to question managerial and organisational representations and practices. This project is conducted jointly by the Most team at the DRM laboratory (Paris Dauphine University) and the Art & Flux team (Paris 1 La Sorbonne University), with the support of the M-A-I (Mutations-Anticipations-Innovations) Chair at the IAE of Paris.

As a contribution to the societal challenges of adaptive societies and industrial renewal, this project examines the processes through which business actors contribute to the dynamics of generating and (de)legitimating new legal categories. Empirically we look at the legal integration of sustainability (i.e., the collective belief and expectation that companies should pursue other societal purposes in addition to profit generation) within several industries, notably new energies and finance. We target three emergent categories that are related to sustainability and that are currently objects of heated debate and controversy: 1/ “multi-purposes corporation”, which refers to companies whose mission and activities are adapted to not only creating profit for shareholders but also to pursuing sustainable purposes, 2/ a new organizational form that expresses itself as a kind of “hybrid partnership” between multiple private and public actors who collectively pursue a shared organizational objective while remaining distinct organizations, and 3/ the notion of “excessive speculation” as a category that may have some legal consequences for business actors in the financial industry to the extent that it limits the amount and/ or the risk associated with certain types of financial transactions. We will conduct empirical case studies on the generation of these three categories in France, at the European level, and in the United States. Data sources include mainly interviews, participant observations, archival data, and other secondary sources. In terms of academic impact, we aim to advance the rapidly developing international research frontier on category emergence through the study of institutional work, notably material and visual means of legitimation. We will also contribute to the disciplinary interface between management and corporate law. As for practice impact, we seek to develop actionable knowledge that can enhance the ability of corporate and public actors to manage societal expectations related to sustainability.

The project MultiRisk (Econometric Methods for the Modelling of Multiple Risks) is a multi-disciplinary research project in the fields of financial econometrics and finance. MultiRisk brings together researchers in business, economics and mathematics. The aim of MultiRisk is to promote a better analysis of financial risk focused on three specific dimensions: market risk, liquidity risk and systemic risk. The measure of financial risk is one of the main research topics of financial econometrics. It is fundamentally related to the regulation policy issues. In particular, the post-crisis regulation (Basel 3, Financial Stability Board) highlights the importance of risk dependences and considers financial institutions as parts of a system. In this context, MultiRisk will propose new tools to measure and to manage the multiple risks in a multivariate and a systemic approach. First, MultiRisk aims at developing new econometric methods to estimate the risk parameter in multivariate GARCH-type models. By estimating the risk parameter of the multivariate process of the risk factors, we will be able to take into account the dynamic interactions of the risk factors. The policy implications are obvious: by distinguishing the volatility shocks with persistent effects to those with temporary effects, one may expect time-varying risk measures leading to sufficiently large capital requirements in tumultuous periods and smaller capital requirements in low volatility periods. Second, we will also consider the liquidity risk. Until recently, the liquidity of financial assets has typically been viewed as a second-order consideration in the asset-management industry. Liquidity was frequently associated with simple transaction costs that impose little effect, temporary if any, on asset prices and whose shocks could be easily diversified away. Yet, the evidence, especially the recent liquidity crisis, suggests that liquidity is now a primary concern. MultiRisk aims at proposing a static liquidity risk measure leading to a better evaluation of the latter risk by distinguishing the market volatility shocks with persistent effects from liquidity shocks with temporary effects. This approach will allow isolating the liquidity risk even in the case where volumes are not observed. Finally, the recent financial crisis has also fostered extensive research on systemic risk, either on its definition, measurement, or regulation. Of particular interest is the identification of the financial institutions that contribute the most to the overall risk of the financial system -- the so-called Systemically Important Financial Institutions (SIFIs). Their identification relies on systemic risk measures which are generally based on market data and dynamic econometric models. However, the comparison of these systemic risk measures usually ignores the estimation risk. Furthermore, there is no validation test for these risk measures. Within this project, we aim at developing original and useful inference procedures. These tests will be designed to answer the following questions: how to validate these systemic risk measures? Which are the SIFI’s whose contribution to the systemic risk is significantly larger than that of the other firms? MultiRisk gathers researchers with a strong background in the field of financial econometrics from three Universities. Beyond its scientific objectives, MultiRisk aims at promoting a reproducible econometric research. An important element of the project will be the development of interactive websites devoted to the econometrics of financial risks that will allow the professional and the academic community to beneficiate from the results of our research. These websites will be developed as a SaaS (Software as a Service) and will enable users to replicate our methodologies (test-estimation techniques) on their own data in a very simple way, through an Internet service.