Abstract (EN)

In this paper, we investigate various so-called ‘decision aiding’ practices based on ‘economic arguments’ used to design and implement environmental public policies. We analyse these practices to determine whether they truly provide an aid to decision-making. We tackle this issue using a case-based inquiry applied to the ‘red muds’ of Gardanne. This case exemplifies practices, which claim to take advantage of economic science, but are in fact based on fallacious rationales incapable of meeting even minimal rigorousness and scientificity requirements. We do not claim to produce quantitative evidence that our observations are generalizable. Rather, we claim that our empirical elements can be used to articulate ideas whose generality should be investigated in future quantitative studies: (i) decision aiding, when applied to environmental public policies, is barely, if at all, based on economic science; (ii) it is nevertheless overrun with economic vocabulary, which suggests that (iii) the legitimacy of environmental public policies can be undermined by decision aiding practices which, for lack of a robust anchorage in economic science, weaken the possible justification of these policies.