Pierre Lascoumes is director of research emeritus at the CNRS and at the Center for European Studies and Comparative Policies of Sciences Po. After having carried out work in the sociology of law, he turned to the analysis of public policies. He was also interested in environmental policies. More recently, Pierre Lascoumes has devoted his research to the fight against financial crime. In his most recent book, The moral economy of ruling elites (Presses de Sciences Po, 240 pages, 17 euros), he returns to the way in which political and economic leaders free themselves from certain moral principles by relying on the position of authority they occupy. Pierre Lascoumes thus studies the rhetorical procedures used by various personalities implicated in recent politico-financial scandals, such as Jérôme Cahuzac, Nicolas Sarkozy or Carlos Ghosn. In particular, it shows how the attachment to self-regulation of the political world remains strong, despite repeated promises by various candidates in the presidential election to commit themselves to strengthening control and transparency measures.
Why do our political leaders rely more and more on these consulting firms?
These cabinets have the advantage of meeting various expectations. The first, which is always put forward, is that of their competence in the management of delicate operations. Despite the hollow phrases found in some of their reports, these firms continue to have a label of seriousness. The analyzes they provide make it possible to accredit that the actions implemented are based on sound reflections. Roger Fauroux, former boss of Saint-Gobain and ex-industry minister, said so in an interview with World (January 19, 1999): “A company president is more credible if his projects are supported by a study carried out by one or other of the big names on the board. A fortiori a minister, whose administrative services are sometimes incomplete or very hexagonal. With a report from McKinsey or the Boston Consulting Group, we find ourselves somewhat in the position of Moses coming down from the mountain with the Tables of the Law. »
This seriousness attributed to large consulting firms comes in particular from the fact that they are present in most industrialized countries, which allows them to practice « benchmarking », that is to say more or less substantiated comparative studies. Political leaders therefore rely on their analyzes to explain that the reforms introduced have produced good results elsewhere, supposed proof of their effectiveness. The elected officials also play the ventriloquists a bit, they leave it to these experts to say what they think quietly. Thus, others than them are responsible for announcing the bad news: the modernization of public services will be difficult, particularly for those it directly affects, but it is necessary, the “specialists” say so. We can also see a dependence of consulting firms on their sponsors. Finally, the sellers of reforms that are these firms shower the government and the ministries with notes, studies and models supposed to improve performance. In short, they always have something to offer to political leaders, anxious, as we know, to be committed and dynamic.
You have 63.73% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.