Policymaker perceptions of the use of deliberative mini-publics to support climate policymaking

Deliberative mini-publics (DMP) such as citizens’ juries or assemblies on climate change are seen as promising means by which citizens can advise policy makers on just transition to carbon neutrality. Deliberative forums are expected to enhance the cognitive capacities of citizens to consider complex environmental questions. They are also assumed to create collective judgments, which reflect a more socially equitable assessment of public environmental goods. A large body of literature has addressed the role of DMPs in contributing to learning and preference change among the participating citizens. However, few studies have addressed the impacts of DMPs, even though the rationale and meaningfulness of climate juries and assemblies ultimately depends on the actual use of their outputs in policy processes. Furthermore, the evidence from the limited number of studies is mixed. Some indicate that policymakers are skeptical about the value of DMPs (Koskimaa and Rapeli 2020) while others show that policymakers hope that DMPs can increase the acceptance and legitimacy of climate policy measures (Sandover et al. 2021). In this paper, we examine policymakers’ perceptions of the use and usefulness of DMPs in climate-related policymaking. We draw on focus group interviews as well as semi-structured interviews with national (n=10) and municipal (n=12) level authorities and politicians (n=15) in Finland. We analyse policymakers’ willingness to apply DMP methods and to consider DMP recommendations. We also identify factors that either promote or hinder the uptake of DMP recommendations. According to the tentative results, municipal authorities saw that DMP could complement well existing citizen engagement methods. In their view, public hearings and similar participatory settings often elicit polarized views ("Only the opponents show up") while the random selection of participants to citizens’ juries and assemblies can provide a more balanced consideration of diverse aspects related to policy proposals. The authorities in charge of policy preparation at the ministerial level were more cautious about the use and usefulness of DMPs. Their reservations were related to representativeness, resources and the need for capacity building. The interviews with policy makers will be carried out in the Spring 2024. It will be interesting to know whether elected politicians see DMPs as democracy innovation, which can increase active citizenship, or whether they see it as a threat to the accountability of representative political institutions. References: Koskimaa, V., Rapeli, L. 2020. Fit to govern? Comparing citizen and policymaker perceptions of deliberative democratic innovations. Policy & Politics 48(4): 637–652. Sandover, R., Moseley, A., Devine-Wright, P. 2021. Contrasting Views of Citizens’ Assemblies: Stakeholder Perceptions of Public Deliberation on Climate Change. Politics and Governance 9(2): 76–86.