Lamsade – Université Paris IX Dauphine

Lamsade – Université Paris IX Dauphine

Indexes socially "understandable"

4th December 2008

Context : AIDHY project

• Deployment of hydrogen technology policy

• Assessment of social acceptability of this technology

• Actors :

• industrials

• legislators

• civil society

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 ?

Indexes socially "understandable"

Goals of such indexes

• Assessment of public policy

• throughout of its different phases :

• Conception

• Construction

• Implementation

• Monitoring

• Revision

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”

Indexes socially "understandable"

Plan

• An assessment aiding process

• Specificities of public policies assessment process

• Other elements of reflection

• Proposal

Indexes socially "understandable"

Situation

Define values systems

Using objectives structure

Expertise

Data

AggregationConsultationResults Criteria

Decision maker

Objectives hierarchy

Indexes socially "understandable"

Indexes

Assessment aiding process

Plan

• An assessment aiding process

• Specificities of public policies assessment process

• Other elements of reflection

• Proposal

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

Indexes socially "understandable"

Implications

More constraining in public policies decision process than in

assessment process

• Differences of rationality of actors

• objectives

• knowledge

• values system

• stakes

Indexes socially "understandable"

Specificity of public policies assessment process

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

• Complexity and uncertainty

• contingencies of public objects, interdependences

• incomplete available knowledge

• natural variability of systems, evolution

Indexes socially "understandable"

Specificity of public policies assessment process

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

• Analysis phases

• reproducible and rigorous frame

• consensus among experts

• technical assessment

Indexes socially "understandable"

Specificity of public policies assessment process

Implications

Those analysis phases look to correspond to the experts phases

of criteria definitions

• Deliberation phases

• interaction among actors based frame

• better understanding of the problem and opinions

Indexes socially "understandable"

Specificity of public policies assessment process

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

Plan

• An assessment aiding process

• Specificities of public policies assessment process

• Other elements of reflection

• Proposal

Indexes socially "understandable"

• Approach based on communicative rationality of Habermas

• Using concepts concerning the pretending to validity of an

argument :

• intelligibility

• scientific truth

• normative accuracy

• sincerity

Elements of reflection

Indexes socially "understandable"

• 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.

Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index :

Indexes socially "understandable"

• Scientific truth:

• based on admitted scientific arguments

• conforming to current scientific theories

• (=> such a truth can change as scientific theories do

change)

Indexes socially "understandable"

Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index :

=> Such indexes have to integrate part of scientific

expertise when it is necessary and possible

• 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

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 ?

Indexes socially "understandable"

Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index :

Four levels of expectations of a consultation process (Roy):

1. increase the level of information of the different actors

2. increase the actors’ understanding of stakes, motivation and

expectation of the other actors

3. reach agreement on certain types of reasoning, progress

towards the recognition of priorities, even to fragments of

solution,

4. according legitimacy of decisions (faithfully to the results of

the consultation)

Indexes socially "understandable"

Elements of reflection

Plan

• An assessment aiding process

• Specificities of public policies assessment process

• Other elements of reflection

• Proposal

Indexes socially "understandable"

Proposal

Indexes socially "understandable"

Shared objectivesActors Group 1 Actors Group 3Actors Group 2

• 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?)

Proposal

Indexes socially "understandable"

Shared Index

IndexIndustrials

IndexLegislators

IndexCivil

Society

• Result of assessment: is the deployment of

hydrogen technology:

• fully acceptable

• acceptable

• controversial

• non acceptable ?

Proposal

Indexes socially "understandable"

• To establish a global conclusion :

• MCDA

• “Argumentation theory” can be useful to

explain for example the reason of a

controversial situation

Define the assessment context

Definition - Consultation

Deliberation

Expertise - Analyze

Take in account uncertainties

Aggregation

Argumentation

ConsultationDeliberation Criteria

Actorsgroups

Objectives hierarchies

Indexes socially "understandable"

Indexes

Conclusion

Knowledge