Who wants to pay for deliberative democracy? The crowdfunders of the G1000 in Belgium

Abstract

Thanks to crowdfunding, deliberative mini-publics can be funded bottom-up to reach a wider support in the population and secure financial autonomy for their design. But who are the people willing to pay for deliberative democracy and why? This article answers this twofold question using an original survey with crowdfunders of the G1000 in Belgium. First, the financial support for deliberative democracy mainly comes from the more socially advantaged groups. But second, the crowdfunders largely diverge in their democratic preferences. Some are critical and favour any forms of alternative decision-making process, including technocratic forms. Others demonstrate a stronger attachment to electoral institutions and their political actors. Hence, the study of the crowdfunders of the G1000 shows that deliberative democracy attracts the support of citizens with different political orientations. This sheds light on the complex and intertwined links between a mini-public and its larger maxi-public.

Messages and Familiar Faces: Crowdfunding in the 2017 U.K. Electoral Campaign

“…Similar to other types of political donations, those who donate to crowdfunding have more resources available than the average citizen. Research on the crowdfunding supporters for a project on deliberative democracy in Belgium indicates that most donors were highly educated, more often male than female, and already politically active (Jacquet and Reuchamps ). Similarly, political donors have strong political viewpoints, are generally richer, older, and highly educated compared to those who are not (Hill and Huber ).…”

“…Research on the crowdfunding supporters for a project on deliberative democracy in Belgium indicates that most donors were highly educated, more often male than female, and already politically active (Jacquet and Reuchamps 2016). Similarly, political donors have strong political viewpoints, are generally richer, older, and highly educated compared to those who are not (Hill and Huber 2017). Since people with these characteristics are more prone to donate, they also receive more requests for donations (Hassell and Monson 2014).…”

“…So far, research on crowdfunding has focused on issues, such as who participates, why people donate, how it functions, and exploratory studies of crowdfunding platforms (Dushnitsky et al ; Gerber and Hui ; Greenberg and Mollick ; Lu et al ; Mollick ; Stiver et al ; Zheng et al ). Only isolated research has been conducted on the uses of crowdfunding in politics and how it functions in particular case studies (Jacquet and Reuchamps ; Sokolov ). The importance of crowdfunding in electoral campaigns remains largely unexplored and little is known about why some candidates collect more funds than others through crowdfunding.…”

Satisfaits de la démocratie ? Une analyse du soutien démocratique à partir de la comparaison de deux méthodes de classification des citoyens

“…Il s'agit des individus qui sont à la fois critiques envers le fonctionnement de la démocratie, mais qui, en même temps, sont fortement attachés à ses principes. Ce profil a fait l'objet d'une attention croissante en raison de l'augmentation constante de la part d'individus, qui sont aussi généralement les plus éduqués, répondant à ce profil depuis les années 1970 (Dalton, 2004 ; Font et al, 2015 ; Jacquet et Reuchamps, 2016). Qualifiés de « non-démocrates », les individus qui sont critiques tant vis-à-vis du fonctionnement de la démocratie que de ses principes constituent un deuxième profil (Webb, 2013).…”

La fabrique des publics de la participation : l’aléatoire et l’obligatoire dans la constitution des conseils citoyens à Amiens et Lille

“…Sont souvent décrites en détail les différentes opérations techniques (nombre de lettres envoyées, reçues, refus…) (Goidel et al, 2008 ;Griffin et al, 2015), mais on ne sait pas comment s'opèrent le choix des techniques, ni les difficultés rencontrées et les nouvelles décisions prises pour y remédier. On dispose certes de travaux nombreux sur l'usage et la diffusion du tirage au sort (Sintomer, 2007(Sintomer, , 2011, notamment dans les dispositifs dits « mini-publics », et sur les difficultés de sa mise en oeuvre concrète (Delannoi, Dowlen, 2010 ;Vergne, 2012 4 ;Jacquet, 2017 ;Jacquet, Reuchamps, 2018). Partant de ces constats, Vincent Jacquet (2017) s'est attaché dans une thèse récente aux raisons pour lesquelles les personnes sollicitées ne participent pas, mais le travail de fabrication des publics demeure un angle mort ou peu documenté.…”