Thèse de doctorat en DROIT PUBLIC
Sous la direction de François-Guilhem Bertrand.
Soutenue en 1990
à Paris 11 .
L'etude de la decentralisation en matiere culturelle suppose que l'on fasse le point de l'action culturelle de l'etat et de la legislation existante en la matiere avant de presenter le contenu et la portee des nouvelles lois de repartition des competences du grand mouvement de la decentralisation de 1982. Posee comme un principe directeur de l'action de l'etat tournee vers la democratisation culturelle, la reforme en matiere culturelle ne vise pas a donner aux collectivites decentralisees des competences. Les collectivites locales en general, les communes en particulier, exercaient de toute facon ces competences. En revanche, et de maniere originale, elle vise plutot a developper une action de partenariat entre l'etat et les collectivites locales, qui consiste en l'elaboration de formules tendant a une definition conjointe des objectifs de l'action culturelle locale et au partage des charges. Mais les realisations ne sont pas toujours a la hauteur des principes et des objectifs affiches. Une reconnaissance de la diversite des competences exercees (alors que l'on attend un transfert de responsabilites et de ressources), un accompagnement des responsabilites (qui semble placer la culture en decentralisation surveillee), laissent subsister les problemes de l'autonomie des collectivites locales et de l'echec de la democratisation culturelle.
The cultural decentralization
The study of the decentralization in cultural matter implies to take stock of the cultural state's action and of the existing legislation on that matter. It must be done before setting out the content and repercussion of the new laws of sharing out of the competences of the great movement which took place in 1982. The reform in the matter of culture, stated as a guiding principal of the state's action bent towards the democratization, doesn't aim at giving to decentralized communities competences. Anyway, the local communities in general, the municipalities in particular, exercised these competences. In the other hand, and in an original way, the reform rather aims to develop an action so that the state and the local communities will become partners; this action consists in the elaboration of expressions which aims at a joint definition of the purposes of the local cultural action and of the sharing out of the costs. But the realizations are not always equal to the principals and to the planned purposes. A recognition of the diversity of exercised competences (whereas a transfer of responsabilities and of resources is expected), an accompaniement of responsabilities (which seems to set the culture in a supervised decentralization) let remain the problems of the autonomy of the local communities and of the sailure of the cultural democratization.