Mini-publics embody the most advanced form of empirical realization of the deliberative ideal. Gathering a representative sample of the population, they also allow for good quality deliberation given the small number of participants and the proceduralization of facilitation. Yet, one of the greatest challenges for deliberative democracy is to overcome the micro-level to reach the macro public sphere to get a greater impact on society that it has had so far (Chambers, 2009). An attempt to bridge the micro/macro gap took place in the fall of 2009, with the simultaneous organization of 44 mini-publics across the globe, in 38 different countries and 5 continents, on the issue of global warming, namely the World Wild Views on Global Warming, coordinated by the Danish Board of technology in the wake of the Copenhagen Summit (COP15). Using direct observation, questionnaires, interviews with participants, and content-analysis of the discussions, the paper argues that the procedural design allowed for a good quality deliberation, but failed in some regards to go beyond the national level. The move from the micro to the macro level was indeed ensured only through aggregative means: recommendations and vote results were compared from one country to the other, without any macro or transnational public opinion being produced. The project therefore failed to have a significant impact on Copenhagen summit discussions. The paper concludes on the need to develop deliberative procedures to face the micro-macro dilemma.
