تجزیه و تحلیل هزینه - منفعت با توجه به آمارتیا سن: کاربرد در ارزیابی زیرساخت های حمل و نقل در فرانسه

Made compulsory in France for major transport infrastructures, cost-benefit analysis is constantly being improved to achieve the best socio-economic evaluation possible. According to the philosopher and economist Amartya Sen, this analysis should meet two requirements: one ethical, the other democratic. We will examine the evaluation procedure in France and highlight the gap between its officially more democratic character and its still insufficiently ethical character, from the viewpoint of this dual requirement.

In 2009, the French General Commission for Sustainable Development declared that the high speed rail programme, developed over the last 30 years in France, was cost-effective at the socio-economic level. This cost-effectiveness, which consists of time-saving and productivity gains, facilitated by high speed in the rail transport service, has a global aspect because it is important, according to the French Commission, “for the programme both as a whole and by zone” ( CGDD, 2009). Why should one only judge a programme by its collective surplus, i.e. the difference between all the benefits and all the costs? In other words, why select only the programmes that generate, as Bentham said, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”? Does this method not lead to the tyranny of the majority? The answer to these questions is provided by the method of calculation of the cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

First, in Section 2, we have recalled how Sen understands CBA, what he believes are the main problems with this method of evaluation, and what are the solutions for these problems. Then, to underline the gap between taking capabilities and public opinion into account in French policy on evaluating transport infrastructures, we have, in Section 3, looked at three examples which illustrate the lack of consideration of capabilities: the HSRL North Europe, the HSRL PACA and the “Grand Paris” Project. Finally, in Section 4, we have examined the 2002 Local Democracy Act to show the progress – at least theoretical – of this policy on freedom of expression.