The gap between the policy analysis developed by policy actors and the existing academic knowledge on public policies has been identified in previous chapters as being central in France. This chapter aims at exploring and providing some explanation of this division. As with the rest of this book it relies upon the distinction between, on the one hand, policy analysis, defined as ‘applied social and scientific research – but also involving more implicit forms of practical knowledge – pursued by government officials and non-governmental organisations which usually focus on designing, implementing and evaluating existing policies, programmes and other courses of action adopted or contemplated by states’, and, on the other hand, policy (process) studies ‘ conducted mainly by academics and relate[d] to “meta-policy” or the overall nature of the activities of the state. It is generally concerned with understanding the development, logic and implications of overall state policy processes and the models used by investigators to analyse those processes’ (Dobuzinskis et al, 2007, 1).

In France this gap is particularly vivid, despite an importation of policy analysis in the 1960s and 1970s (see Chapter Three) and is illustrated by the absence of autonomisation of policy analysis in specific academic departments or institutions (corresponding to public policy schools). French policy analysis has not triggered the creation of a new disciplinary field. By contrast, policy studies have been integrated and have contributed to existing academic disciplines, in particular, sociology, political science and economics. This situation is sometimes obfuscated by the use of the French expression ‘analyse des politiques publiques’ which refers more to policy (process) studies in the abovementioned sense than to policy analysis.

Our hypothesis is that this strong segmentation between expert knowledge of public policies (policy analysis) and scientific knowledge of public policies (policy studies) is historically rooted in the power organisation of the French academic field at large, which has three main characteristics (Heilbron, 2015, 6). The first one is the centralisation of academic institutions and production in Paris. This centralisation produces specific centre–periphery relations. However, innovations are often initiated in the periphery to challenge the centre. The second one is the strong hierarchy between very selective elite higher education schools (Grandes Écoles) and universities (open to all students having a high school degree, without selection).