Imagining the future with citizens: participatory foresight and democratic policy design in Marcoussis, France

IF 3.1 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Policy Design and Practice Pub Date : 2021-06-07 DOI:10.1080/25741292.2021.1930687
C. Gouache
{"title":"Imagining the future with citizens: participatory foresight and democratic policy design in Marcoussis, France","authors":"C. Gouache","doi":"10.1080/25741292.2021.1930687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The idea that the future is too serious and strategic to be discussed with people who are not “experts” is so commonly shared that citizens’ voices are lacking in most decision-making processes and future-oriented choices whether we look at political or research and innovation agendas. Yet, proofs to contradict this vision are now multiplying and can be found in a growing number of case studies and scientific publications. Citizens are proving not only to be legitimate actors to contribute to the future agenda-setting of local, national or European levels but also relevant and pertinent contributors. However, this practice of participatory agenda-setting—even though it is getting greater attention—remains relatively experimental, atypical and sporadic. The limits and drawbacks of citizen participation processes have already been highlighted in the literature but rather than calling this practice to an end it actually calls for more experimentation as the difficulties do not diminish the democratic need, legitimacy and value of such governance practices. Especially, since many western democracies are becoming very fragile. We will see in the preliminary part of this paper, the many challenges that undermine not only the functioning of democratic processes but also the citizens’ role and sense of agency in the governance of the society they live in, as well as the role of elected officials and experts regarding agenda-setting, then we will look into the lack of future thinking not only in the political sphere but also the educational and social practices, analyze the values of participatory processes and its potential limits and risks and finally review an experimental case of participatory foresight and policy design from the small town of Marcoussis (France) which successfully conducted a participatory agenda-setting experiment—and voted—after a 2 years-long process, their local agenda for the future together with its inhabitants, civil servants and elected officials. Marcoussis has engaged around 600 people (out of a population of 8000 inhabitants) in 25 moments, using very diverse methods and techniques (forum-theater, philosophy talks, market of ideas for the future, collective distillation) and setting the process in unusual and non-administrative contexts (entering into schools, ‘hacking’ their local popular festivals) to touch a very diverse set of citizens and gather as many contributions as possible. In this case analysis, we will inspect the preliminary conditions of how Marcoussis set up their participatory foresight and agenda-setting process, then review the creative tools and design methods that were experimented and finally, draw the lessons learned in terms of participatory agenda-setting processes and democratic innovations.","PeriodicalId":20397,"journal":{"name":"Policy Design and Practice","volume":"5 1","pages":"66 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/25741292.2021.1930687","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Design and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1930687","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract The idea that the future is too serious and strategic to be discussed with people who are not “experts” is so commonly shared that citizens’ voices are lacking in most decision-making processes and future-oriented choices whether we look at political or research and innovation agendas. Yet, proofs to contradict this vision are now multiplying and can be found in a growing number of case studies and scientific publications. Citizens are proving not only to be legitimate actors to contribute to the future agenda-setting of local, national or European levels but also relevant and pertinent contributors. However, this practice of participatory agenda-setting—even though it is getting greater attention—remains relatively experimental, atypical and sporadic. The limits and drawbacks of citizen participation processes have already been highlighted in the literature but rather than calling this practice to an end it actually calls for more experimentation as the difficulties do not diminish the democratic need, legitimacy and value of such governance practices. Especially, since many western democracies are becoming very fragile. We will see in the preliminary part of this paper, the many challenges that undermine not only the functioning of democratic processes but also the citizens’ role and sense of agency in the governance of the society they live in, as well as the role of elected officials and experts regarding agenda-setting, then we will look into the lack of future thinking not only in the political sphere but also the educational and social practices, analyze the values of participatory processes and its potential limits and risks and finally review an experimental case of participatory foresight and policy design from the small town of Marcoussis (France) which successfully conducted a participatory agenda-setting experiment—and voted—after a 2 years-long process, their local agenda for the future together with its inhabitants, civil servants and elected officials. Marcoussis has engaged around 600 people (out of a population of 8000 inhabitants) in 25 moments, using very diverse methods and techniques (forum-theater, philosophy talks, market of ideas for the future, collective distillation) and setting the process in unusual and non-administrative contexts (entering into schools, ‘hacking’ their local popular festivals) to touch a very diverse set of citizens and gather as many contributions as possible. In this case analysis, we will inspect the preliminary conditions of how Marcoussis set up their participatory foresight and agenda-setting process, then review the creative tools and design methods that were experimented and finally, draw the lessons learned in terms of participatory agenda-setting processes and democratic innovations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与公民一起想象未来:法国马库锡的参与性远见和民主政策设计
摘要认为未来过于严肃和战略性,无法与非“专家”讨论的观点非常普遍,以至于无论是从政治议程还是研究和创新议程来看,在大多数决策过程和面向未来的选择中都缺乏公民的声音。然而,与这一观点相矛盾的证据正在成倍增加,并且可以在越来越多的案例研究和科学出版物中找到。事实证明,公民不仅是为地方、国家或欧洲各级未来议程制定做出贡献的合法行为者,而且也是相关和相关的贡献者。然而,这种参与式议程制定的做法——尽管它越来越受到关注——仍然是相对实验性的、非典型的和零星的。文献中已经强调了公民参与过程的局限性和缺点,但它并没有要求结束这种做法,而是要求进行更多的实验,因为这些困难并没有削弱这种治理做法的民主需求、合法性和价值。尤其是,许多西方民主国家正变得非常脆弱。我们将在本文件的初步部分看到,许多挑战不仅破坏民主进程的运作,而且破坏公民在治理他们所生活的社会中的作用和机构感,以及民选官员和专家在议程制定方面的作用,然后,我们将不仅在政治领域,而且在教育和社会实践中,分析参与式进程的价值及其潜在的局限性和风险,最后回顾一个来自法国小镇马库锡的参与式远见和政策设计的实验案例,该案例成功地进行了参与式议程制定实验,并在2 他们与当地居民、公务员和民选官员一起制定了长达数年的地方未来议程。马库锡在25个瞬间吸引了大约600人(8000名居民中),使用非常多样化的方法和技术(论坛剧场、哲学讲座、未来思想市场、集体升华),并将流程设置在不同寻常的非行政环境中(进入学校、“黑客攻击”当地流行的节日),以接触到非常多样化的公民群体,并收集尽可能多的贡献。在这一案例分析中,我们将考察马库锡如何建立其参与性远见和议程制定过程的初步条件,然后审查所试验的创造性工具和设计方法,最后总结参与性议程制定过程和民主创新方面的经验教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Policy Design and Practice
Policy Design and Practice PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Data governance for smart cities in China: the case of Shenzhen Policy labs on the fringes: boundary-spanning strategies for enhancing innovation uptake After the announcement: an interdisciplinary analysis of blockchain development in governments Beyond the hype—the actual use of blockchain in government Governance impacts of blockchain-based decentralized autonomous organizations: an empirical analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1