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 Aggregation Consultation Results 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 objectives Actors 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 Industrials Index Legislators Index Civil 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 Consultation Deliberation Criteria Actors groups Objectives hierarchies Indexes socially "understandable" Indexes Conclusion Knowledge