"Co-construction" in deliberative democracy: lessons from the French Citizens' Convention for Climate
Overview
Paper Summary
The French Citizens' Convention for Climate (CCC) demonstrated that external input from experts and organizers did not undermine citizens' agency in proposing climate measures. However, the co-constructive approach failed to generate significant support among the broader public, and the government's limited follow-up on the CCC's proposals led to disappointment among the citizens. These results highlight the need for stronger commitment structures to ensure policy uptake and greater public engagement in citizens' assemblies.
Explain Like I'm Five
Scientists found that when everyday people helped suggest ways to fix climate problems, their ideas were good. But not enough others cared, and the government didn't use many of the ideas, which made the people sad.
Possible Conflicts of Interest
Some of the researchers involved in the study were granted access to the CCC proceedings and worked collaboratively to document and analyze the process. This close involvement could potentially introduce bias, although the researchers adhered to a charter to minimize interference.
Identified Limitations
Rating Explanation
This paper provides valuable insights into the dynamics of co-construction in a large-scale citizens' assembly. The mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative observations, surveys, and voting data, offers a rich understanding of the process. While some limitations exist, such as the reliance on self-reported data and the lack of a control group, the study's strengths outweigh its weaknesses. The findings are relevant for both academics and policymakers interested in deliberative democracy and climate action.
Good to know
This is the Starter analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.
Explore Pro →