TY - JOUR
T1 - “Co-construction” in deliberative democracy
T2 - lessons from the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate
AU - Giraudet, Louis Gaëtan
AU - Apouey, Bénédicte
AU - Arab, Hazem
AU - Baeckelandt, Simon
AU - Bégout, Philippe
AU - Berghmans, Nicolas
AU - Blanc, Nathalie
AU - Boulin, Jean Yves
AU - Buge, Eric
AU - Courant, Dimitri
AU - Dahan, Amy
AU - Fabre, Adrien
AU - Fourniau, Jean Michel
AU - Gaborit, Maxime
AU - Granchamp, Laurence
AU - Guillemot, Hélène
AU - Jeanpierre, Laurent
AU - Landemore, Hélène
AU - Laslier, Jean François
AU - Macé, Antonin
AU - Mellier, Claire
AU - Mounier, Sylvain
AU - Pénigaud, Théophile
AU - Póvoas, Ana
AU - Rafidinarivo, Christiane
AU - Reber, Bernard
AU - Rozencwajg, Romane
AU - Stamenkovic, Philippe
AU - Tilikete, Selma
AU - Tournus, Solène
N1 - Funding Information:
All authors participated in the observation of the Citizens’ Convention for Climate (CCC) and contributed to the analysis within the research protocol that is described in the article. L-GG led the writing of the article and most authors contributed to the reviewing and editing processes. We thank Graham Smith and Jane Mansbridge for their invaluable comments on an early draft.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/12/1
Y1 - 2022/12/1
N2 - Launched in 2019, the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate (CCC) tasked 150 randomly chosen citizens with proposing fair and effective measures to fight climate change. This was to be fulfilled through an “innovative co-construction procedure”, involving some unspecified external input alongside that from the citizens. Did inputs from the steering bodies undermine the citizens’ accountability for the output? Did co-construction help the output resonate with the general public, as is expected from a citizens’ assembly? To answer these questions, we build on our unique experience in observing the CCC proceedings and documenting them with qualitative and quantitative data. We find that the steering bodies’ input, albeit significant, did not impair the citizens’ agency, creativity, and freedom of choice. While succeeding in creating consensus among the citizens who were involved, this co-constructive approach, however, failed to generate significant support among the broader public. These results call for a strengthening of the commitment structure that determines how follow-up on the proposals from a citizens’ assembly should be conducted.
AB - Launched in 2019, the French Citizens’ Convention for Climate (CCC) tasked 150 randomly chosen citizens with proposing fair and effective measures to fight climate change. This was to be fulfilled through an “innovative co-construction procedure”, involving some unspecified external input alongside that from the citizens. Did inputs from the steering bodies undermine the citizens’ accountability for the output? Did co-construction help the output resonate with the general public, as is expected from a citizens’ assembly? To answer these questions, we build on our unique experience in observing the CCC proceedings and documenting them with qualitative and quantitative data. We find that the steering bodies’ input, albeit significant, did not impair the citizens’ agency, creativity, and freedom of choice. While succeeding in creating consensus among the citizens who were involved, this co-constructive approach, however, failed to generate significant support among the broader public. These results call for a strengthening of the commitment structure that determines how follow-up on the proposals from a citizens’ assembly should be conducted.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132430517&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1057/s41599-022-01212-6
DO - 10.1057/s41599-022-01212-6
M3 - Article
C2 - 35757681
AN - SCOPUS:85132430517
SN - 2662-9992
VL - 9
JO - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
JF - Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
IS - 1
M1 - 207
ER -
