Between the late 1960s and the beginning of the 1980s, the wide recognition that simple dynamical laws could give rise to complex behaviors was sometimes hailed as a true scientific revolution impacting several disciplines, for which a striking label was coined-"chaos." Mathematicians quickly pointed out that the purported revolution was relying on the abstract theory of dynamical systems founded in the late 19th century by Henri Poincaré who had already reached a similar conclusion. In this paper, we flesh out the historiographical tensions arising from these confrontations: longue-durée history and revolution; abstract mathematics and the use of mathematical techniques in various other domains. After reviewing the historiography of dynamical systems theory from Poincaré to the 1960s, we highlight the pioneering work of a few individuals (Steve Smale, Edward Lorenz, David Ruelle). We then go on to discuss the nature of the chaos phenomenon, which, we argue, was a conceptual reconfiguration as much as a sociodisciplinary convergence. C 2002 Elsevier Science (USA) Entre la fin des années 1960 et le début des années 1980, la reconnaissance du fait que des lois dynamiques simples peuvent donner naissanceà des comportements très compliqués aété souvent ressentie comme une vraie révolution concernant plusieurs disciplines en train de former une nouvelle science, la "science du chaos." Rapidement, les mathématiciens ont réagi en soulignant l'ancienneté de la théorie des systèmes dynamiques fondéeà la fin du XIXème siècle par Henri Poincaré qui avait déjà obtenu ce résultat précis. Dans cet article, nous mettons enévidence les tensions historiographiques issues de diverses confrontations: l'histoire de longue durée versus la notion de révolution, les mathématiques pures versus l'utilisation des techniques mathématiques dans d'autres domaines.1 A first version of this paper was delivered at the workshop "Epistémologie des Systèmes dynamiques," Paris, November 25-26, 1999. We thank the organizers and our colleagues from the sciences (and especially Yves Pomeau) for their useful comments. In the course of our research, interviews have been conducted and letters exchanged with various people; we thank in particular Vladimir Arnol'd, Alain Chenciner, Pedrag Cvitanovic, Monique Dubois, Marie Farge, Mitchell Feigenbaum, Micheal Hermann, Igor Gumowski, Edward Lorenz, Jacques Laskar, Paul Manneville, Paul C. Martin, Christian Mira, Mauricio Peixoto, David Ruelle, René Thom, and JeanChristophe Yoccoz. For their comments on parts of this paper, we thank Umberto Bottazzini, Philip J.

This article develops the concept of ‘‘Functional Regulatory Space’’ (FRS) in order to analyze the new forms of State action addressing (super) wicked problems. A FRS simultaneously spans several policy sectors, institutional territories and levels of government. It suggests integrating previous policy theories that focused on ‘‘boundary-spanning regime,’’ ‘‘territorial institutionalism’’ or multi-level governance. The FRS concept is envisaged as a Weberian ‘‘ideal-type’’ of State action and is applied to the empirical study of two European cases of potential FRS: the integrated management of water basins and the regulation of the European sky through functional airspace blocks. It will be concluded that the current airspace regulation does match the ideal-type of FRS any better than the water resource regulation does. The next research step consists in analyzing the genesis and institutionalization of potential FRS addressing other (super) wicked problems such as climate change and economic, security, health and immigration issues in different insti- tutional contexts as well as at various levels of governance

The ArgumentThe group of mathematicians known as Bourbaki persuasively proclaimed the isolation of its field of research — pure mathematics — from society and science. It may therefore seem paradoxical that links with larger French cultural movements, especially structuralism and potential literature, are easy to establish. Rather than arguing that the latter were a consequence of the former, which they were not, I show that all of these cultural movements, including the Bourbakist endeavor, emerged together, each strengthening the public appeal of the others through constant, albeit often superficial, interaction. This codependency is partly responsible for their success and moreover accounts for their simultaneous fall from favor, which, however, can clearly be seen as also stemming from different internal problems. To understand this dynamics, I argue that Bourbaki's role can best be captured by using the notion of cultural connector, which I introduce here.

Learning is decisive for successful problem solving in governance networks: it is by acquiring, interpreting and diffusing information that public and private actors build joint action and innovative policy solutions. Yet, little is ORCID Cécile Riche