La politique de la crédibilité : argumentation et influence des groupes d’intérêt dans un forum environnemental

The following work proposes to take argumentation and credibility in politics seriously. Rather than analyzing highly publicized partisan debates, I am interested in the argumentation of a population of interest groups in the consultations of the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE), a relatively unknown environmental forum. This choice is based on the idea that the policy process is both fragmented and sectoral, in which decision-making is constantly reformulated by a variety of knowledgeable players, more or less experts in their field. This type of forum is an interesting gateway for interest groups seeking to influence policymaking. Increasingly, governments are setting up consultation mechanisms invested by interest groups, often more aware of existing problems and solutions on nested, complex issues. As the interest groups literature suggests, their expertise plays a crucial role in influencing them. But rather than defining expertise by organizational characteristics, I propose a different avenue by measuring their argument directly. In a context of democratization of expertise, I suggest that interest groups have an advantage in mobilizing a specific argumentative strategy, expert mimicry, which is based on the use of argumentative procedures borrowed from scientific experts such as analytical tractability, quantification and data processing. The thesis revolves around three questions: what makes an interest group credible? Does participation in a forum encourage the learning of an argumentative vii strategy? Does the information produced by a coalition of interests influence decisionmaking? To answer this, I created an original database of 1,853 briefs produced by 1,378 interest groups as part of 108 BAPE consultations, whose mission is to assess the environmental and social impact of industrial projects. After conducting consultations, BAPE produces reports in which recommendations on the projects evaluated are made to the government. The consultations are led by panels of commissioners who, supported by a team of analysts, systematically quote the participants of the consultations in their reports and thus give them relative credibility. The thesis paints a rather positive portrait of the process of public policy making. First, the interest groups’ argumentation, and expert mimicry in particular, plays a crucial role in the credibility they are granted, particularly with regard to public interest groups such as citizens' groups or environmental associations. This relationship between argumentation and credibility holds despite the fact that we neutralize time-invariant, non-observable variables effects, such as reputation or prestige. Second, by examining the participation trajectories of interest groups, I show that argumentative, strategic learning is mediated by the work of the commissioners. The marginal returns to argumentation are decreasing, which indicates that the commissioners are not particularly receptive to strategic learning and prefer reasoned, ad hoc interventions, to inform their decisions. Third, the information produced by interest groups during the consultations influences BAPE’s recommendations made to the government. By distinguishing three types of information processing by the commissioners, I show that viii their reactivity is twofold: while the degree of social acceptability of the project influences the commissioners to authorize or not the projects, the recommendations they make, which indicate a greater or lesser degree of regulatory constraint, are based on the responsiveness of the commissioners to the diversity of information cues. Overall, these results show that argumentation and credibility, concepts little explored in political science, can play an important role in the influence of civil society actors who participate in the formulation of public policies. These results also show that small-scale consultation mechanisms like the BAPE can foster democratic reactivity thanks to their capacity to process complex information.

Keyphrases: Argumentation, Information, Credibility, Interest groups