Abstract.  The overall project aims to establish a dialogue between normative democratic theory and research on policy formulation and implementation. This introductory article first notes the growth of various participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making, portrays the context of this growth and justifies the cases selected. It then presents the conceptual framework used for the study of these procedures, which mainly draws on participatory and deliberative democratic theory and the literature on the shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. Based on this conceptual framework, the article focuses on four research questions the authors consider particularly important for the assessment of the contribution of the devices under scrutiny to democratic and effective decision making: questions of openness and access (input‐legitimacy); questions regarding the quality of deliberation (throughput); questions of efficiency and effectiveness (output‐legitimacy); and the issue of their insertion into the public space (questions of transparency and accountability).

No abstract

Public policy « beneficiaries » The term « beneficiaries » is commonly used in public policy analysis. In its generally accepted meaning, it refers to the diversity of target groups and individuals. This survey of French and English language literature captures peculiarities but no real differences in the meanings given to this term by the various analytical approaches : groups or individuals are always perceived as contributing (or meant to contribute) to the production of public choices or modes of public action. This observation leads to a criticism of the tacit concept of demo­cracy underlying these approaches, which prevents the identification of « beneficiaries » as « political subjects ».

Abstract.  In this concluding note, the editors of this special issue first produce a synthesis of the findings of the empirical cases. Regarding delegation problems in the participatory devices under scrutiny, the conclusions are contrasting, and the outcome depends very much on the institutional design of each procedure, and on the kind of skills that are necessary to participate. Regarding the quality of deliberations, moderately positive conclusions are reached as a rule. With respect to the efficiency of these mechanisms, the results are much more limited: their decisional impact is weak, with the exception of the most elitist mechanisms, and the procedures under scrutiny did not seem to have any lasting integrative or ‘educative’ effects on the participants. Also, the situation with respect to transparency is problematic: there is no link between the degree of formalisation and influence on decisions, and most mechanisms are weakly publicised. In the end, the editors underline shifts in legitimacy principles induced by these procedures and sketch some paths for future research that should include a survey of the interplay between these procedures, the representative framework at large and other kinds of shifts in policy making.

No abstract

No abstract

Associations are increasingly participating in matters concerning social policies in France. The fight against the problems of social exclusion and the development of a social urgency field offer many opportunities for partnerships between the associative/nonprofit and public actors. Associations are invited to implement policies, with or sometimes instead of government administrations. At the same time, many strong associative networks intervene directly as experts supporting the ministerial cabinets that coordinate policy formulation. From this point of view, individual and contractual relations play an important role. Today, all the main social reforms in France are, in large part, founded on analyses and ideas provided by associative actors. Beyond the reinforcement of associations, and despite the fact they are simultaneously partners and interest groups, different associative leaders are working with some administrative and political actors to develop a new foundation for joint action between the government and nonprofit sectors. Under the guise of recent laws which normalize the position of the associations, this coalition is seeking to transform the national public accountancy in order to acknowledge the activities and riches produced by the nonprofit sector.

No abstract