Lamsade – Université Paris IX Dauphine

1. Indexes socially "understandable" Lamsade – Université Paris IX Dauphine 4th December 2008

2. Indexes socially "understandable" Context : AIDHY project • Deployment of hydrogen technology policy • Assessment of social acceptability of this technology • Actors : • industrials • legislators • civil society

3. Indexes socially "understandable" General research question • How to built indexes : • understandable and acceptable by the different actors of the process, • taking in account the different aspects of a public policy, stakes of each actors ?

4. Indexes socially "understandable" Goals of such indexes • Assessment of public policy • throughout of its different phases : • Conception • Construction • Implementation • Monitoring • Revision

5. Indexes socially "understandable" Bibliography • Habermas J., 1987, “Théorie de l’agir communicationnel” • Keeney R.L., 1992, “Value Focused Thinking” • Mazri C., 2007, “Apports méthodologiques pour la construction de processus de décision publique en contexte participatif” • Rousval B., 2005, “Aide multicritère à l’évaluation de l’impact des transports sur l’environnement” • Roy B., 2006, Conf. “Les outils pour décider ensemble : nouveaux territoires, nouveaux paradigmes” • Toulmin S.E., 2003, “The uses of arguments” • Tsoukiàs A., 2007, “On the concept of decision aiding process”

6. Indexes socially "understandable" Plan • An assessment aiding process • Specificities of public policies assessment process • Other elements of reflection • Proposal

7. Decision maker Criteria Situation Indexes socially "understandable" Objectives hierarchy Define values systems Using objectives structure Expertise Aggregation Consultation Results Data Indexes Assessment aiding process

8. Indexes socially "understandable" Plan • An assessment aiding process • Specificities of public policies assessment process • Other elements of reflection • Proposal

9. Indexes socially "understandable" Specificity of public policies assessment process • Repartition of power between actors of the process: • economic and social • => power of resources • administrative or juridical • => legitimacy power Implications More constraining in public policies decision process than in assessment process

10. Indexes socially "understandable" Specificity of public policies assessment process • Differences of rationality of actors • objectives • knowledge • values system • stakes Implications It looks very difficult to summarize objectives, values and stakes in a unique hierarchy It is necessary to increase the level of knowledge of actors

11. Indexes socially "understandable" Specificity of public policies assessment process • Complexity and uncertainty • contingencies of public objects, interdependences • incomplete available knowledge • natural variability of systems, evolution Implications The assessment context has to be define precisely (limits…) The model has to take in account uncertainties Evolution of the model is necessary during the different phases of the life of the public policy

12. Indexes socially "understandable" Specificity of public policies assessment process • Analysis phases • reproducible and rigorous frame • consensus among experts • technical assessment Implications Those analysis phases look to correspond to the experts phases of criteria definitions

13. Indexes socially "understandable" Specificity of public policies assessment process • Deliberation phases • interaction among actors based frame • better understanding of the problem and opinions Implications • Those phases look to correspond to: • the definition of objectives of each other • the understanding of objectives of the others • the understanding of the result of assessment

14. Indexes socially "understandable" Plan • An assessment aiding process • Specificities of public policies assessment process • Other elements of reflection • Proposal

15. Indexes socially "understandable" Elements of reflection • Approach based on communicative rationality of Habermas • Using concepts concerning the pretending to validity of an argument : • intelligibility • scientific truth • normative accuracy • sincerity

16. Indexes socially "understandable" Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index : • Intelligibility : • using a understandable language • seen as a precondition • => Such indexes have to be interpretable in a univocal language and to be understandable by all actors.

17. Indexes socially "understandable" Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index : • Scientific truth: • based on admitted scientific arguments • conforming to current scientific theories • (=> such a truth can change as scientific theories do change) • => Such indexes have to integrate part of scientific expertise when it is necessary and possible

18. Indexes socially "understandable" Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index : • Normative accuracy • argument is valid if it uses norms or values that individuals join • => confrontation of norms or values • => confrontation of different interpretations of those norms or values • => As possible, indexes need to be built on a set of values shared by the different actors

19. Indexes socially "understandable" Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index : • Sincerity • correspondence among what says the argument and what the person who give the argument thinks • part of subjective • => challenging the validity of the argument is equivalent to challenging sincerity of the person who give the argument • => Difficulty : how to test the sincerity of actors when they speaking about their own values ?

20. Indexes socially "understandable" Elements of reflection • Four levels of expectations of a consultation process (Roy): • increase the level of information of the different actors • increase the actors’ understanding of stakes, motivation and expectation of the other actors • reach agreement on certain types of reasoning, progress towards the recognition of priorities, even to fragments of solution, • according legitimacy of decisions (faithfully to the results of the consultation)

21. Indexes socially "understandable" Plan • An assessment aiding process • Specificities of public policies assessment process • Other elements of reflection • Proposal

22. Indexes socially "understandable" Proposal • Structure a set of shared objectives • For each group of actors : • Structure a set of specific objectives in a common language • Understanding the objectives of the other groups of actors (check their sincerity?) Shared objectives Actors Group 1 Actors Group 2 Actors Group 3

23. Indexes socially "understandable" Proposal • Result of assessment: is the deployment of hydrogen technology: • fully acceptable • acceptable • controversial • non acceptable ? Index Industrials Index Legislators Index Civil Society Shared Index

24. Indexes socially "understandable" Proposal • To establish a global conclusion : • MCDA • “Argumentation theory” can be useful to explain for example the reason of a controversial situation

25. Actors groups Criteria Define the assessment context Indexes socially "understandable" Objectives hierarchies Knowledge Definition - Consultation Deliberation Expertise - Analyze Aggregation Argumentation Consultation Deliberation Take in account uncertainties Indexes Conclusion