Critique de la Méthode d’évaluation Contingente au sein des politiques éducatives territorialisées

Abstract

Electronic referenceAngélique Chassy, « Critique de la Méthode d'Évaluation Contingente au sein des politiques éducatives territorialisées », Politiques et management public [En ligne], Vol 32/2 | 2015, mis en ligne le 11 mai 2019, consulté le 14 juin 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/pmp/9315 Résumé Aujourd'hui en France, l'arbitrage des dépenses publiques est devenu une question majeure, toutes échelles territoriales confondues. Il est donc utile de doter les décideurs publics, placés dans un contexte multi-niveaux, d'outils de mesure économique ex ante des effets de ces politiques. Le défi consiste alors à trouver de nouveaux instruments d'évaluation aidant à la décision publique multi-niveaux. La Méthode d'évaluation contingente (MEC) permet d'assigner une valeur monétaire à un bien public non-marchand à partir des préférences exprimées par les citoyens-consommateurs. Bien que fréquemment utilisée dans le domaine environnemental, la méthode reste à ce jour très controversée. D'où la nécessité de réaliser des expérimentations dans d'autres champs des politiques publiques. Le travail de recherche ainsi présenté dans cet article a pour objectif d'étudier si la MEC appliquée au champ des politiques éducatives territorialisées est socialement et politiquement pertinente. © 2015 IDMP/Lavoisier SAS. Tous droits réservésMots clés : bien public non-marchand, évaluation des politiques publiques, gouvernance multi-niveaux, décision publique, monétarisation, consentement à payer, politiques éducatives territorialisées, justice sociale. Abstract AbstractCritique of the Contingent valuation method (CVM) within localised educational policies. Today in France, the arbitration of the public spending became a major question, any confused territorial scales. It is thus useful to provide public authorities, placed in multilevel context, tools for ex ante economic measure program effects. The challenge is to find new measuring instruments to assist multi-level public decision. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) allows you to assign a monetary value to non-profit public assets 04 Critique de la Méthode d'Évaluation Contingente au sein des politiques éducatives territorialisées

The Rollout of the Multilevel Governance System: A Source of Reworking the Contingent Valuation Method?

“…At this point, the conditions are both broad and tentative, though they follow logically from the arguments outlined above. However, to add detail, as well as identify and evaluate some methods of adapting the CVM to the MLG system, we now turn to the results of a contingent valuation carried out in France by way of two field surveys (see Chassy ). The method was used in the framework of a territorialized education policy (involving school support, cultural activities, and hobbies) which fell under the city policy over two territories in Normandy (Chassy ).…”

“… Notes : Data National institute of the statistics and the economic studies (INSEE)—population concerned (CBA): number of households of urban area outside of the commune, then districts of the commune WTP: WTP SI (€21, 04), WTP S2 (€30, 24), and WTP S3 (€31,15) (Chassy ).…”

“…The WTP figures obtained in the field survey (Chassy ) were obtained by telephone surveys ( n = 192) and self‐administered ( n = 144) for a total of 336 households (see Table ). The different scenarios (S1, S2, and S3) reported in the tables aim to assess the impact of the location of the people surveyed on their acceptance, or not, to take part in the education program (YCC) and on the WTP amount.…”

“…Our findings suggest that public decision makers may therefore feel less interested in using the method when: (i) the territory is small; (ii) the number of representatives is low; and (iii) direct discussion with the people is already comfortable. The responses made by those elected from the communes (urban and rural) during field survey interviews carried out on the implementation of priority education policy in Normandy (see Chassy ) are, in this regard, clear. They show the difficult understanding, even misunderstanding, of local public decision makers over the CVM.…”

“…For instance, an urban mayor said, “I do not understand this method really.” Likewise, a suburban mayor asked, “Can you define to me what you mean by the term: non‐market public goods? I do not know about this way of working.” While a rural mayor declared, “I have had problems in understanding the document” when talking about the CVM presentation (Chassy , 270‐1). We should also note that those local elected representatives who were questioned sometimes revealed that they were not very interested in the CVM report or in the possibilities of using the results that emerge from it.…”