Speaker
Description
Since the 19th century, the term "infrastructure" has encompassed all the physical supports and technical structures (which are "infra", i.e. "below") underpinning transport. Prior to the emergence of this all-encompassing term in the 19th century, in connection with railway infrastructure policies, transport 'infrastructures' were conceived according to compartmentalised modal logics (roads and bridges, navigable rivers, canals). The aim of this paper is to understand how the ambitious infrastructure policy driven by the French monarchy in the 18th century and its funding constraints contributed to the emergence of the notion of infrastructure, even before the term became established in language in the following century.
The extension of powers to the Ponts et Chaussées department was an important milestone in the formalisation of the concept of infrastructure. In addition to the bridges and roads that traditionally formed the core of its activities, in the second half of the 18th century this department gradually took on responsibility for the development of certain seaports and waterways. It was at the end of the 18th century that the term "inland navigation" was introduced, bringing together canals and navigable rivers in an integrated system. The extension of the prerogatives of the Ponts-et-Chaussées administration marked a significant shift in the objectification of the concept of infrastructure, at the same time as defining a fundamental area of State intervention and clarifying the legal status of major communication routes. The simple fact of grouping them together under a single competent authority enabled engineers to think globally about their functions and their relationships. In this way, the State promoted a logic of interconnection between these different elements in a communications network.
Depending on the mode of transport, however, the infrastructure has specific technical and functional characteristics. As the communications network becomes more complex, engineers are thinking about their specific timeframes, in terms of both construction times and maintenance management to ensure their longevity. In principle, the scale of the investment and the expected lifespan of the infrastructure could have justified borrowing, which would have allowed the costs to be shared between current users and those of future generations.
While infrastructure is largely considered from a technical point of view, it is also considered from the point of view of its political, economic and social uses. Communication routes are no longer seen simply as structuring elements of political control and military systems, but also as essential market infrastructures. These functional changes are accompanied by a reflection on the ways in which infrastructure is financed, by taxpayers or by users.
Biography
Full Professor in Economic and Social History at the University of Paris I-Panthéon-Sorbonne and Researcher in IDHE.S (Institutions et dynamiques historiques de l’économie et de la société-UMR 8533). My research focuses on financing of transport infrastructure, transport companies and the role of traffic in market dynamics (17th-early 19th centuries).
