IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02551892.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tension Between Stability and Representativeness in a Democratic Setting

Author

Listed:
  • Victorien Barbet

    (AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Juliette Rouchier

    (LAMSADE - Laboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Noé Guiraud

    (FSAA - Faculté des sciences de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation)

  • Vincent Laperrière

    (ESPACE - Études des Structures, des Processus d’Adaptation et des Changements de l’Espace - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - AU - Avignon Université - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

Abstract

We present a model showing the evolution of an organization of agents who discuss democratically about good practices. This model feeds on a field work we did for about twelve years in France where we followed NPOs, called AMAPs, and observed their construction through time at the regional and national level. Most of the hypothesis we make here are either based on the literature on opinion diffusion or on the results of our field work. By defining dynamics where agents influence each other, make collective decision at the group level, and decide to stay in or leave their respective groups, we analyse the effect of different forms of vertical communication that is meant to spread good practices within the organization. Our main indicators of the good functioning of the democratic dynamics are stability and representativeness. We show that if communication about norms is well designed, it has a positive impact on both stability and representativeness. Interestingly the effect of communication increases with the number of dimensions discussed in the groups. Communication about norms is thus a valuable tool to use in groups that wish to improve their democratic practices without jeopardizing stability.

Suggested Citation

  • Victorien Barbet & Juliette Rouchier & Noé Guiraud & Vincent Laperrière, 2020. "Tension Between Stability and Representativeness in a Democratic Setting," Post-Print hal-02551892, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02551892
    DOI: 10.18564/jasss.4218
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://amu.hal.science/hal-02551892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://amu.hal.science/hal-02551892/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18564/jasss.4218?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Norma L. Abrica-Jacinto & Evguenii Kurmyshev & Héctor A. Juárez, 2017. "Effects of the Interaction Between Ideological Affinity and Psychological Reaction of Agents on the Opinion Dynamics in a Relative Agreement Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(3), pages 1-3.
    2. Rainer Hegselmann & Ulrich Krause, 2002. "Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis and Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 5(3), pages 1-2.
    3. Amblard, Frédéric & Deffuant, Guillaume, 2004. "The role of network topology on extremism propagation with the relative agreement opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 343(C), pages 725-738.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gary Mckeown & Noel Sheehy, 2006. "Mass Media and Polarisation Processes in the Bounded Confidence Model of Opinion Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11.
    2. Pedraza, Lucía & Pinasco, Juan Pablo & Saintier, Nicolas & Balenzuela, Pablo, 2021. "An analytical formulation for multidimensional continuous opinion models," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    3. Jalili, Mahdi, 2013. "Social power and opinion formation in complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(4), pages 959-966.
    4. Huang, Changwei & Dai, Qionglin & Han, Wenchen & Feng, Yuee & Cheng, Hongyan & Li, Haihong, 2018. "Effects of heterogeneous convergence rate on consensus in opinion dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 499(C), pages 428-435.
    5. Maciel, Marcelo V. & Martins, André C.R., 2020. "Ideologically motivated biases in a multiple issues opinion model," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 553(C).
    6. Daniel Röchert & Manuel Cargnino & German Neubaum, 2022. "Two sides of the same leader: an agent-based model to analyze the effect of ambivalent opinion leaders in social networks," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1159-1205, November.
    7. Martins, André C.R., 2022. "Extremism definitions in opinion dynamics models," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 589(C).
    8. Pedraza, Lucía & Pinasco, Juan Pablo & Semeshenko, Viktoriya & Balenzuela, Pablo, 2023. "Mesoscopic analytical approach in a three state opinion model with continuous internal variable," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    9. Song, Xiao & Shi, Wen & Tan, Gary & Ma, Yaofei, 2015. "Multi-level tolerance opinion dynamics in military command and control networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 437(C), pages 322-332.
    10. Song, Xiao & Zhang, Shaoyun & Qian, Lidong, 2013. "Opinion dynamics in networked command and control organizations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 392(20), pages 5206-5217.
    11. Kurmyshev, Evguenii & Juárez, Héctor A. & González-Silva, Ricardo A., 2011. "Dynamics of bounded confidence opinion in heterogeneous social networks: Concord against partial antagonism," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 390(16), pages 2945-2955.
    12. Muslim, Roni & Wella, Sasfan A. & Nugraha, Ahmad R.T., 2022. "Phase transition in the majority rule model with the nonconformist agents," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 608(P2).
    13. Shane T. Mueller & Yin-Yin Sarah Tan, 2018. "Cognitive perspectives on opinion dynamics: the role of knowledge in consensus formation, opinion divergence, and group polarization," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 15-48, January.
    14. Evangelos Ioannidis & Nikos Varsakelis & Ioannis Antoniou, 2020. "Promoters versus Adversaries of Change: Agent-Based Modeling of Organizational Conflict in Co-Evolving Networks," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-25, December.
    15. Fan, Kangqi & Pedrycz, Witold, 2015. "Emergence and spread of extremist opinions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 436(C), pages 87-97.
    16. Laurent Salzarulo, 2006. "A Continuous Opinion Dynamics Model Based on the Principle of Meta-Contrast," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13.
    17. Diemo Urbig & Jan Lorenz & Heiko Herzberg, 2008. "Opinion Dynamics: the Effect of the Number of Peers Met at Once," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(2), pages 1-4.
    18. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    19. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    20. Andreas Koulouris & Ioannis Katerelos & Theodore Tsekeris, 2013. "Multi-Equilibria Regulation Agent-Based Model of Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 11(1), pages 51-70.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agent-Based Model; Opinion Dynamics; Democracy; Non-Profit Organization; Communication; Short Food Chain;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02551892. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.