The Shipyard Foundation (Fundacja Stocznia) organised Poland’s first national citizens’ assembly to address the growing crisis of energy poverty. 78 participants convened in Warsaw to produce 100 recommendations on high energy costs, low building efficiency and low incomes.
Problems and Purpose
As of 2017, 9.8% of Polish households were considered to be multidimensionally energy-poor [1] – driven by a combination of energy costs, low incomes and inefficiency of building infrastructure. Due to its complex nature and inability to be easily defined, national policy did little to address the issue with a coherent long-term strategy. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 accelerated the crisis by exposing the limitations of Poland’s energy system, pushing many more of its population towards energy poverty. Parallel to this, Poland had no existing precedent for deliberative democracy on a national scale with its citizens excluded from the design of energy and climate policy.
The Shipyard Foundations aimed to simultaneously address the aforementioned problems, citizens were given meaningful influence over complex policy while generating a democratic mandate for national reform. The participants of the innovation were tasked with generating recommendations across three dimensions of energy poverty: high energy costs, low energy efficiency of buildings and low household income. The goal of the assembly was to present their findings to the Polish parliament, influencing the discourse surrounding these issues with
Background History and Context
June 4th, 1989, saw the landslide victory of the Solidarity movement in contestable elections that signalled the end of communism and Soviet involvement in Polish politics. The political trajectory following the collapse of communism was characterised by rapid marketisation and a prolonged period of economic growth that left heavy inequality between high-income and low-income households, as well as between urban and rural regions. Despite the modernisation of the economy, Poland remained as one of the most coal-dependent energy systems in the EU as coal was responsible for 68.5% of energy generation as of 2020. [2] Consequently, Polish energy price increases are above the global average due to their reliance on more energy intensive industries. This structural dependence on fossil fuels, combined with inefficient residential housing inherited from Poland’s communist era and persistently low household incomes in post-industrial/rural areas would create the conditions for energy poverty.
Energy poverty was a marginal concern in Polish national policy in the transition period after communist collapse, Polish politics would focus on tackling hyperinflation and integrating with the West and Europe – notably with EU accession in 2004. The issue of energy poverty would only receive a statutory definition by 2021 with minimal attention given to the issue. The most notable example of this is a programme to help vulnerable consumers’ energy bills, however the energy allowances were paid to just 0.6% of households (75 636 households) as of 2019, [3] displaying the incompetence of energy poverty legislation. Academic analysis argues that ‘’a lasting reduction in the risk of energy poverty requires a shift in policy focus from ad hoc subsidies to investment measures’’ [4] with financial incentives to encourage this investment from private enterprise. The National Energy and Climate Plan of 2019 committed Poland to the development of a comprehensive strategy, with the Energy Policy of Poland also setting a target to reduce energy poverty to below 6% by 2030. However, neither of the documents could produce substantial policy instruments that could address the structural roots of the crisis.
The policy vacuum was exacerbated by the political context in Poland. From 2015-2023, Poland was governed by the Law and Justice party (PiS), a right-wing party who oversaw democratic backsliding and the concentration of institutional power away from civil society. Formal citizen participation in national policy was absent through institutions but also explicitly made unwelcome. Participatory budgeting had been adopted in some municipalities, but there was no mechanism for citizens to engage with national policy questioning in a meaningful way.
The catalysing event for the first National Citizens’ Assembly was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Russia was formerly Poland’s primary supplier of both coal and natural gas, with the war triggering an immediate disruption of supplies – leading to price increases and fears of energy security. Consumer price inflation would rise to over 17% by January 2023 with 3.8 million households facing uncertainty over coal supplies for the 2022/2023 heating season. [5] Suddenly the crisis of energy poverty became visible in the political sphere due to Russia’s aggression, generating a public demand for policy responses and exposing the inadequacy of existing instruments.
The Shipyard Foundation (Fundacja Stocznia), a civil society organisation from Warsaw involved in participatory democracy and research, identified this moment as an opportunity to be pioneers for democratic innovation on a national level with no existing precedent in Poland. [6] Using familiarity from citizen’s assembly models deployed in the United Kingdom or France the Shipyard Foundation framed the assembly around energy poverty specifically as a tractable policy domain with identifiable victims and measurable indicators, as energy poverty ‘’had numerous causes and numerous consequences’’ that required ‘a wide range of instruments.’ [7] This allowed for meaningful deliberation over abstract debating.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The National Citizen’s Assembly on Energy Poverty was organised entirely under the guidance and leadership of the Shipyard Foundation, a Warsaw-based civil society organisation that has no government mandate or any backing from public authorities or institutions. This is a unique feature of this initiative, as many citizens’ assemblies have convened at the direction of nation government – such as Irish Citizens Assembly (2016-2018) or The French Citizens' Convention on Climate (2019). However, the Polish Citizens’ assembly was grassroots in origin with ‘’no host on the government side’’ [8], being conceived and delivered in entirety by the third sector without any formal commission or legal obligation for the state to engage in its findings.
The principal institutional partner of the Shipyard Foundation was the Copernicus Science Centre in Warsaw, it provided the capacity, logical infrastructure and legitimacy to the assembly’s process. Whilst the Copernicus centre’s involvement signalled institutional investment into the process, the design, methodology, and leadership of the process remained entirely with the Shipyard Foundation. This was beneficial to the Citizens’ Assembly as there was systemic influence despite no government mandate, instead of simple nominal sponsorship.
Assembly sessions were facilitated through independent moderators coordinated by the Shipyard Foundation, with many representatives from The Field of Dialogue Foundation (Fundacja Pole Dialogu) – a deliberative facilitation organisation who work to animate cooperation between institutions and citizens [9]. These moderators would guide discussion in the deliberation weekend under the strict protocol of political neutrality and avoidance of partisan statements. This led to the Polish assembly having no concerns about impartiality in independent observer reports.
The whole process was funded through resources of the foundation and civil society grants. The total budget was around €195,000, of which €14,000 was allocated to recruitment alone. There was no government funding, which kept the process independent in exchange for reduced institutional authority. Any other contributors from organisations such as the Polish Energy Forum or ClientEarth, contributed their own expertise on a voluntary or subsidised basis – being recruited by the Shipyard Foundation and not a government body. This organisational model ensured independence but limited a lot of formal leverage the assembly could have exercised over public authorities and political discourse.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Due to the nature of the initiative as a nationwide citizens’ assembly, all adult Polish citizens (over 18) were eligible for selection. The Shipyard Foundation sought to recruit a group that would be the voice of ‘’Poland in a nutshell’’ [10], by having a microcosm of the adult population of Poland that it representative across all major sociodemographic dimensions.
The Shipyard Foundation report explains that the recruitment process was conducted entirely by telephone, with 111 interviewers making a total of 113,00 calls between the 12th of September and 20th October in 2022. These figures reflect the huge scale of the logistical operation but also the challenge of convincing members of the Polish public to commit to an unprecedented national experiment, particularly one with no government mandate. Of those reached by the 113,000 calls, 221 gave preliminary consent to participate – from which 96 were selected to become ‘’Poland in a Nutshell’’. This included 8 individuals from local civic councils.
Stratified random sampling was used to see a group that was reflective of the adult Polish population across the variables of: ‘’gender, education, place of residence and income level’’ [11]. This helped to counteract what Graham Smith identified as the fundamental weakness of voluntary participation, that ‘’self-selection leads to unequal participation’’ [12] - affecting voluntary participatory processes systematically disadvantage participants that are less educated, less politically engages or more geographically remote. To keep the retention rate of participants high and remove any financial complications, compensation was offered for time and travel. All three sessions (Education, Deliberation and Voting) were held in Warsaw with accommodation and travel organised and provided by the Shipyard Foundation from those travelling from outside the capital.
Methods and Tools Used
The overarching method used was a Citizens’ Assembly, whereby a demographically representative group of citizens produce policy recommendations for public authorities. It is a different innovation compared to something like participatory budgeting, which sees citizens allocated a set budget – a citizens’ assembly can only produce recommendations instead of direct policy decisions. See: https://participedia.net/method/citizens-assembly
The assembly focused on balanced information provision through an expert panel instead of just a single curated perspective, with 18 organisations (think tanks, NGOs and research institutions) covering environmental protections, energy efficiency and energy poverty. By splitting into tables of 10 and rotating, the Shipyard Foundation effectively created a collection of mini-publics. This is in line with Smith’s (2009) argument that participants should have accessed to balanced information and the ability to engage with multiple varying perspectives before reaching a conclusion. The rotation of 10 tables however would have reduced depth of relationship-building that different deliberative formats produce, potentially weakening the quality of discussion.
Another distinct methodological tool was the ‘personae’ exercise, a structured exercise ‘‘which represented the types of people most often affected by energy poverty’’ [13], helping assembly participants to easily imagine different perspectives to their own. This is important as it helps to bring any potential participants that may have not been represented by ‘Poland in a nutshell’ into the discussion. An empathetic dimension to deliberation is not necessarily always effective, as it is hard to quantify whether perspective shifts persist beyond the assembly.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The assembly operated through 3 distinct phases to address how to encourage local and central authority in Poland to act against energy poverty. These phases were: preparation with local civic councils, an education weekend and a national deliberation weekend followed by online voting.
Before the convening of the national assembly, a preparatory phase was observed with 45 civic councils being held across Poland between September and early October, engaging 700 participants in community level discussions about energy poverty [14]. The goal of these sessions was to generate a basis for the National Assembly to take place – creating a direct channel between local experiences and national deliberation. Councils varied in scale or format, but all provided written summaries of their findings into documentation accessed by assembly participants in the next phase.
The first official phase of the National Citizens’ Assembly at the Copernicus Science Centre in October was attended by 75 participants. The weekend started with an orientation session to introduce participants to the assembly’s rules of procedure, moderators and facilitators and fellow participants. Three key dimensions of energy poverty were presented by experts: high energy costs, low building efficiency and low household income – with participants rotating between these expert-led sessions on rotation. Volunteers from civil society organisations and advocacy groups presented this evidence to the groups, with time being allotted after each presentation for the participants to engage with. An important feature of the education weekend was the inclusion of stakeholder interests to present their position on the issue, such as representatives from climate organisations and energy suppliers. As a design feature this shows recognition of considered judgement, with participants exposed to the explicit competition of stakeholder interest and expert evidence to form their own opinions. There was approximately 6 hours and presentation and 4 hours of discussion with 470 questions being asked [15], a figure that is notable as an indicator of genuine engagement rather than passive reception of the expert’s information.
78 participants attended the deliberation weekend in November, the core productive phase of the assembly. Participants were dived into ten tables of eight, each with a moderator. These would be shuffled 10 times across the weekend, to maximise exposure to diverse perspectives and prevent any dominating voices. Questions such as ‘’ what kind of housing support should be provided to people in energy poverty?’’ [16] were posed to the participants, who then discussed and generated proposals. Over the weekend these proposals would be refined and developed with input from the different groups of 10, with the belief that the ‘common good’ would prevail over personal interests. The facilitation team ensured equal speaking time across participants and would intervene to keep it that way, with the Shipyard Foundation reporting 98% felt that assembly provided a comfortable platform for divergent views to be expressed.
The process concluded with online voting with a simple majority system, with the finalised recommendations published and voted upon by 77 participants of the initial 96 recruited – a high retention rate for a voluntary initiative led by a civil society organisation. A ‘power of support’ system was used behind each recommendation: “I support / I neither support nor don’t support / No. I don't support it / I have no opinion”. These results are published in full transparency on the final report. See: https://naradaoenergii.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/podsumowanieen.pdf
To conclude the process, the recommendations were presented at a public ceremony attended by all of the major Polish political parties. The Shipyard Foundation would later present the findings formally to committees of both the Senate and Sejm alongside some participants from the assembly.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
Assessing the influence of the assembly is a complicated manner, due to it being non-binding and civil-society led endeavour with no government obligation to respond. Any assessment of influence must therefore carefully distinguish between formal implementation and informal political uptake – as well as considering the broader democratic effects of the case.
The formal output of the assembly was 100 recommendations on three thematic dimensions presented to the Polish parliament and Senate special committee on climate affairs. Evaluation from KNOCA argued that the presentation ‘’gathered important media attention’’, particularly in the advocation for more citizens’ assembly to deal with other pressing issues such as public media or migration policy [17]. This shows the assembly exerted an agenda-setting influence beyond just energy poverty, linking to a desire for a more active Polish state, a state who will seek the common good through its citizens.
While there is no official government response due to the independent nature of the assembly, there is some alignment between recommendations and policy – with the Civic Coalition (party in government after October 2023 election) pledging to expand the grid to create a decentralised energy system [18], further showing the national assembly had influence outside of its ‘political moment’.
The Assembly’s most crucial legacy is its proof of concept, establishing that a nationally representative deliberative process was organisationally feasible in Poland. The Shipyard Foundation’s publication of an English-language guide to the model [19] for any internation organisers is also significant, as it shows the model used is transferable – potentially having impact outside of Poland on an international scale.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
The first ever National Citizens’ Assembly in Poland attempted to employ a form of deliberative democracy on a national scale when no precedent existed. Graham Smith presents an analytical framework that can be used for comparative analysis of democratic innovations under 6 different ‘’democratic goods’’ [20] - inclusion, considered judgment, popular control, transparency, efficiency, and transferability. Smith’s first good is inclusion, more specifically the genuine capacity for all voices to be heard. The report claims that the distribution of gender, education, income level and place of residence amongst the participants is reflective of the distribution of the Polish population. Crucially, the report does not publish the demographic breakdown of the participants – a transparency limitation that weakens the evidentiary basis for the claim of inclusion. One figure that is published is the reason participants gave for joining the assembly, with 41% of participants claiming it was ‘’important for Polish democracy’’ [21]. This implies that within a randomly selected group, those who consent to participate skew towards being civically motivated. This is a form of residual self-selection that the Shipyard Foundation could not eliminate by stratification of the aforementioned sociodemographic criteria. Neblo et al. (2010) argued instead that ‘’those less likely to participate in traditional partisan politics…are most interested in deliberative participation’’, this is because they are seeking an alternative to ‘’politics as usual’’ [22] from a feeling of isolation with ‘’85% of those who said they had not attended a meeting to discuss public issues reported they had never been invited to do so.’’ [23] These findings defend the inclusiveness of the citizens’ assembly by suggesting that in the political context of populist government and institutional distrust, the assembly format was innovative in mobilising citizens who had disengaged from representative politics - not out of apathy, but out of alienation from a system that had never invited their participation.
Smith’s considered judgement criterion requires that participants can access balanced, high-quality information to reach ‘’an informed and reflective assessment of the matter in hand’’ [24]. Smith addresses this as tackling a sceptical challenge to democratic innovation: Schumpeter’s claim that ‘’the typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance’’ when involved in politics (Schumpeter, 1976: 262, cited in Smith, 2009, p. 15). It can be argued that the Polish assembly demonstrates evidence against this scepticism, with the ‘personae’ exercise demonstrating this. Smith grounds his account of considered judgment in the Arendtian concept of ‘enlarged mentality’, which is the ‘’capacity to imaginatively place ourselves in the position of others’’ and to ignore ‘’private circumstances that limit and inhibit the exercise of judgement’’ (Arendt, 1982: 42–3, cited in Smith, 2009, p. 24). The ‘personae’ exercise maps precisely onto this as participants got into the perspective of those more heavily affect by energy poverty, incorporating what Arendt identified as a precondition for public deliberation into the methodological setup of the assembly. The president of the Shipyard Foundation stated this brought about conditions for the ‘common good’ to prevail over any private interest at the assembly. This in conjunction with the 18 expert groups who spoke at the education weekend as well as strong quantitative evidence - 71% of participants reported changing their minds on at least one issue, and there was a 30 percentage point increase in participants believing everyday citizens' experiences are as important as expert knowledge [25] – displayed strong evidence of considered judgement being at the core of the Polish assembly and being one of the stronger ‘democratic goods’ under Smith’s analytical framework.
Smith highlights a four-stage model in the evaluation of popular control including ‘’problem definition, option analysis, option selection and implementation’’. Using this we can identify the democratic contribution of the assembly and its structural limitations. The Polish assembly exercised substantial citizen influence at the option analysis stage, with participants generating 60 draft recommendations with reformulated proposals voted on as well – but the assembly exercise no formal popular control at the problem definitions, option selection or implementation stages. The Shipyard Foundation chose both the topic and thematic framing before recruitment of participants, with option selection at policy level remaining with public authorities who made no binding commitment to respond – implementation was also outside the scope of the assembly. Smith stated ‘’innovation may realise inclusiveness…but citizens may be participating on an issue that has little political salience’’ (Smith, 2009, p.23), for the Polish case the reverse was observed – with a highly salient issue where citizens’ had no formal control, being limited to a non-binding advisory output. Leading on from this, Lafont (2015) argues that mini-publics like the assembly act as an epistemic tool for the wider public instead of a substitute for representative decision making, as a small number of citizens with privileged access to information cannot justify their decisions to the non-participating public [26]. Smith’s understanding on this issue makes it clear that this is not genuine popular control with citizens just being drawn into a ‘’participation exercise’’ with no mechanism to challenge ‘’established practises’’ (Smith, 2009, p.23). The KNOCA case profile confirms that all major parties attended the December 2022 presentation, and all recommendations were shown to the Sejm and Senate. However, Smith’s framework demands that agenda-setting should be separate from popular control, and therefore the assembly sits at the weakest end of Smith spectrum. This is because it achieved visibility for the problem of energy poverty instead of decision-making authority. The assembly is a meaningful democratic contribution in the polish context, but an incomplete realisation of the democratic good by Smith’s standards.
The democratic good of transparency is defined by both participants having a clear understanding of the conditions under which they are participating, and the external transparency – the ‘’transmission of information from the institutions and its decisions to the wider public’’ (Smith 2009, p.25). Furthermore, Smith notes that ‘’Publicity can also act as an inducement for participants to come public-spirited’’ instead of ‘’self-interested’’ (Smith, 2009, p.26). This means that transparency is both a mechanism of accountability for a democratic innovation but also a design feature than can help to promote considered judgement. The assembly performed strongly on its internal transparency, making rules of procedure, expert materials and session programmes available to all participants always. The lack of government host and inability for binding decisions was also addressed honestly, with participants made aware of the limits on formal authority. To meet external transparency requirements, a team was appointed to observe the process under scientific purposes and to ensure compliance with standards and methodology. An independent evaluation of the process was also conducted and will assess the impact of the process [27]. The full publication of results ins Section IV of the final report was also significant as a democratic act as years of PiS institutional opacity caused distrust in public bodies, therefore the Shipyard Foundation modelled open and accountable governance that the political system had failed to provide.
The democratic good of efficiency to Smith is the assessment of ‘’the costs that participation can place on both citizens and public authorities’’, this is a unique good as assessment must be ‘’highly contextual’’ (Smith, 2009, p.26). Smith’s argument for the evaluation of efficiency is that the comparison must involve the perceived costs and benefits of not embedding participation in the decision-making process. This case is unique is it is not a government initiative, so evaluation of efficiency takes a different form to government hosted innovation. The assembly's total budget of approximately €195,000 with €14,000 for recruitment alone is modest relative to its outputs: producing 100 policy recommendations, a parliamentary presentation, measurable shifts in participants' democratic attitudes, and a replicable model now available to international organisers. Contextualised against the IEA's finding that Poland's existing energy allowance programme reached only 0.6% of affected households at a much higher recurring cost compared to the assembly. The comparison is therefore between the cost of inadequate instruments and ‘ad hoc subsidiaries’ Karpińska and Śmiech identify (see reference 4) and not having a nationally legitimate deliberative process on energy poverty, compared to the €195,000 investment by the Shipyard Foundation. For citizens, the financial barrier for participation was removed as all travel and accommodation expenses were to be covered by the Shipyard Foundation. This helped to create a 100% retention rate of participants (those who participated in the education weekend and final vote), which provides strong evidence that the assembly’s costs should be perceived as worth bearing and thus, efficient. One can debate the 113,000 telephone calls required to recruit 96 participants, raising legitimate about the scalability of this recruitment model. Spada and Paulson argue that ‘’large-scale participation makes high-quality deliberation more difficult’’ [28], supported by the data which purports that 1,300 calls were needed per recruitment of one participant – suggesting telephone-based methodology is poorly suited to a greater scale. The polish assembly sought to remedy this by recruiting a small, stratified group instead of seeking mass participation to uphold deliberative quality.
Smith asks whether democratic innovations "will function effectively only within particular types of political system" and whether cultural and political differences "render problematic the import of particular institutions" (Smith, 2009, p. 27). The Polish assembly scores strongly on all dimensions of this criterion. Spatially, the Shipyard Foundation published an English-language organisers' guide in 2024, enabling principled transfer. Temporally, the assembly inspired calls for further deliberative processes within Poland on other policy domains and culturally marked a shift in Eastern Europe.
Assessed against the six democratic goods outlined by Smith, the Polish National Citizens’ Assembly on Energy Poverty achieves an uneven combination of success. It performs most strongly on considered judgement, by refuting the Schumpeterian scepticism that Smith stated must be confronted. It also sees success in its transferable nature. It has adequate performance in the areas of inclusion, transparency and efficiency. The Polish assembly struggles with popular control, while its reasons for structural weakness have some context it still underperforms. Smith states that innovations need an ‘’attractive combination’’ (Smith, 2009, p.27) of the goods to be worthy of institutionalising into political systems. The Polish assembly realises a partial combination of this – its deliberative achievements are strong, but its integration into institution and policy is limited. Smith would see the Polish Assembly as representing a high-quality Mini-public operating in an institutional vacuum. The design of the innovation addressed scepticism of unequal participation and citizen incompetence but failed to address scepticism around participation having no effect on political decisions. Therefore, future iterations will require formal government involvement and a binding agreement to respond to the outcomes.
See Also
Main Method: https://participedia.net/method/citizens-assembly
References
[1] Sokolowski, Jakub et al, ‘’A multidimensional index to measure energy poverty: the Polish case’’ (2020) p.97 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15567249.2020.1742817?scroll=top&needAccess=true#abstract
[2] Subramaniam, Tara, ‘Nature Energy / CNN’ (2023) https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/17/energy/energy-costs-ukraine-war-millions-poverty-report-intl-hnk/
[3] IEA/OECD, Poland 2022 Energy Policy Review (Paris: IEA, 2022), p. 26. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/b9ea5a7d-3e41-4318-a69e-f7d456ebb118/Poland2022.pdf
[4] Karpińska & Śmiech, Energies (MDPI, 2026) https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/19/5/1145
[5] Stala-Szlugaj, Katarzyna. "Households in Poland vs. Energy Carriers: One Year after Russia's February 2022 Invasion of Ukraine." Polityka Energetyczna – Energy Policy Journal 26, no. 4 (2023) pg.5 https://epj.min-pan.krakow.pl/pdf-171879-97920?filename=Households-in-Poland-vs.-.pdf
[6] Shipyard Foundation, About Shipyard https://stocznia.org.pl/en/about-shipyard
[7] Shipyard Foundation, Copernicus Science Centre, Final Report of the Polish Citizens’ Assembly on Energy Poverty (English Translation, January 2023) pg.7 (Kuba Wygnanski)
[8] Shipyard Foundation, Copernicus Science Centre, Final Report of the Polish Citizens’ Assembly on Energy Poverty (English Translation, January 2023) pg.14 (Kuba Wygnanski)
[9] The Field of Dialogue Foundation (Fundacja Pole Dialogu), https://participedia.net/organization/6422
[10] Shipyard Foundation, Copernicus Science Centre, Final Report of the Polish Citizens’ Assembly on Energy Poverty (English Translation, January 2023) pg.8
[11] Shipyard Foundation, Copernicus Science Centre, Final Report of the Polish Citizens’ Assembly on Energy Poverty (English Translation, January 2023) pg.18
[12] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2009) p. 26.
[13] Shipyard Foundation, Copernicus Science Centre, Final Report of the Polish Citizens’ Assembly on Energy Poverty (English Translation, January 2023) pg.17
[14] KNOCA, Polish Citizens' Assembly on Energy Poverty https://www.knoca.eu/national-assemblies/polish-citizens-assembly-on-energy-poverty
[15] Shipyard Foundation, Copernicus Science Centre, Final Report of the Polish Citizens’ Assembly on Energy Poverty (English Translation, January 2023) pg.10
[16] KNOCA, Polish Citizens' Assembly on Energy Poverty https://www.knoca.eu/national-assemblies/polish-citizens-assembly-on-energy-poverty
[17] KNOCA, Polish Citizens' Assembly on Energy Poverty https://www.knoca.eu/national-assemblies/polish-citizens-assembly-on-energy-poverty
[18] Kardas, Szymon, ‘Getting on track: New ways to deliver Poland’s energy ambitions’ https://ecfr.eu/article/getting-on-track-new-ways-to-deliver-polands-energy-ambitions/
[19] Shipyard Foundation, ‘National citizens’ dialogue: Guide to the model for organizers’ https://naradaoenergii.pl/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NationalcitizensdialogueGuidetothemodelfororganizerswww.pdf
[20] Smith, Graham. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (2009) p. 12
[21] Shipyard Foundation, Copernicus Science Centre, Final Report of the Polish Citizens’ Assembly on Energy Poverty (English Translation, January 2023) pg.19
[22] Neblo, M.A., Esterling, K.M., Kennedy, R.P., Lazer, D.M.J. and Sokhey, A.E. (2010) 'Who Wants to Deliberate — And Why?', American Political Science Review, 104(3), pg.566 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/who-wants-to-deliberateand-why/B918F30F1EF25FEE40DFD8313BD83B79
[23] Cook, F. L., M. Delli Carpini, and L. Jacobs. 2007. “Who Deliberates? Discursive Participation in America.” In Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern? ed. Shawn W. Rosenberg. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
[24] Smith Graham. ‘Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework. In: Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Theories of Institutional Design.’ Cambridge University Press; 2009 pg.24
[25] Shipyard Foundation, Copernicus Science Centre, Final Report of the Polish Citizens’ Assembly on Energy Poverty (English Translation, January 2023) pg.19-20
[26] Lafont, C. (2015) 'Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-Publics Shape Public Policy?', Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(1), pp. 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12031
[27] KNOCA, Polish Citizens' Assembly on Energy Poverty https://www.knoca.eu/national-assemblies/polish-citizens-assembly-on-energy-poverty
[28] Spada, P. and Paulson, L. (2023) 'Measuring the Effect of Collective Intelligence Processes that Leverage Participation and Deliberation', in Boucher, S. et al. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intelligence for Democracy and Governance. London: Routledge, pp. 79. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003215929-6
External Links
Link for the final report: https://naradaoenergii.pl/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/podsumowanieen.pdf
KNOCA report: https://www.knoca.eu/national-assemblies/polish-citizens-assembly-on-energy-poverty
Notes
In text citation used for Graham Smith's work to avoid reference bloat.
