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

Abstract

This article analyzes the impact of multilevel governance (characterized by the joint production of public goods by several government level types) on the use of the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). We discuss several compelling reasons for adapting the CVM—which was conceived for a single‐level governance system—as a tool to assist public decision making where multiple levels of government are involved. We argue such adaptation of the CVM promises to allow various public decision makers to discuss the relevance of jointly producing public good, from a shared basis. However, this transferred application of the CVM also illuminates some important difficulties, due to the intrinsic complexity of the method, the highly unequal levels of expertise of actors, and the reservations that it can provoke among some of the latter. The study identifies the key opportunities and problems associated with applying the CVM to subnational education policy evaluation in two territories in Normandy, France. Related Articles Related Media CIRIEC (International Centre of Research and Information on the Public, Social and Cooperative Economy). 2017. http://www.ciriec.ulg.ac.be/en/ and http://www.ciriec.ulg.ac.be/en/publications/

The impact of EU development policy on the governance capability of peripheral regions

“…The Resolution stresses the importance of good governance and efficient public administration in lagging regions, as they contribute significantly to creating the conditions for economic growth (cf. Bance et al 2017). It considers that the involvement of all levels of government and stakeholders in the planning and implementation of strategies, specific programmes and actions targeting these regions is essential to create effective added value for citizens.…”

Citizen Advisory Committees in the Contingent Valuation Method Process

“…With the CVM, the decision makers “furthest from the citizens” are often also those who have by far the highest level of technical expertise. This leads them to consider themselves omniscient (Bance and Chassy 2017). Thus, the lack of public debate causes citizens to call into question the choices made.…”

“…CAC involvement in this phase is all the more beneficial since the results of the contingent valuations are often difficult for the public to interpret, particularly in multilevel regimes, and react in different ways to the results depending on their political sensibilities, their areas of expertise, and their regional positioning. In this regard, Bance and Chassy (2017) have pointed out that run significant risks—particularly in terms of their reelection—if they take a final decision solely on the basis of the results of the CVM questionnaires. Some may also find an opportunity in the results obtained to assert their own interests over those of their other public partners—these situations may lead to disagreement in the process, in which case, CACs can be useful mediators.…”

“…Hausman (2012) also notes that a contingent valuation does not provide a solid basis for assisting with policy development, to which Carson (2012) replies that the debates seeking only to criticize the method should be stopped and efforts made instead to improve it. The difficulties of applying the CVM are all the greater for public authorities operating within a multilevel governance regime—that is to say when different levels of government (local, regional, national, or supranational) act jointly to produce public goods: levels of expertise among decision makers are particularly uneven and some of them have reservations concerning the method (Bance 2016; Bance and Chassy 2017, 2018). However, the CVM enables the various decision makers to analyze and debate, on a common and enlightened basis, the relevance of producing public goods together.…”

Conclusion. Public - Social and Solidarity Economy Partnerships (PSSEPs) and collective action paradigm

“…They are, in actual fact, the product of sometimes contradictory interests that may lead to recommendations or to implementations that are, at the end of the day, out of alignment with the social needs. The evaluation methods, inspired by standard economic analysis, for example contingent evaluation, are not to be dismissed out of hand as long as they bring an exterior view based on the criteria of a scientific methodology, but with three main provisos: maintaining a critical distance with regard to the frame of reference of market and monetisation of the advantages that founds those methods; apprehending them only as tools among others that must be crossed with participative and pluralist methods so as to appreciate their real scope (Bance and Chassy, 2017); steering clear of approaches driven by lobbying and a doctrinaire vision of collective action that, in fine, yields to the interests of all-powerful public players or decision-makers.…”