Annual Study 2025 – Embedding Public Action in the Long Term

🔍💡 Long-term public action: how can we move beyond permanent political “crisis management” to seriously address climate, demography, health, education, and housing? A study by the French Council of State sets out 20 very concrete levers to stabilise decision-making, strengthen planning, and better involve citizens, elected officials, and frontline actors over time. 🌍📊

Source :     📒 Conseil d'État (2025). Inscrire l'action publique dans le temps long - Étude annuelle 2025.

  📜🔗LIEN 

1. Analytical summary

Context, instability, and democratic challenges

The study starts from the observation of an almost continuous sequence of crises, described as a “permacrisis”, which pushes the State to prioritise short‑term reaction over structural issues (demographic transition, climate, education model, housing, health system). It describes major normative instability: proliferation of laws, frequent revisions of major codes (criminal law, immigration, environment, housing) and multiplication of derogatory regimes, leading to loss of institutional memory and difficulty in designing durable schemes. This dynamic fuels distrust toward public action, in a context of political polarisation and of questioning the very possibility of shared, long‑term diagnostics. The report also analyses the fragmentation of actors working on the long term (agencies, operators, expert bodies) and the limits of existing tools for planning, financial programming, and democratic participation.

Operational contributions to stabilise and plan public action

The Council of State formulates 20 proposals structured around three areas: reshaping the democratic conditions for long‑term thinking, better protecting collective resources (climate, health, public finances, heritage), and equipping the State with planning tools consistent with budget constraints. It proposes to refocus legislation on a stable framework, improve evaluation, create strategic “livres tricolores” by major policy area, and strengthen Parliament’s role via tools such as programming laws and long‑term dedicated bodies. The report also recommends structuring participation of stakeholders and citizens (Grenelle‑type processes, conventions, national consultations) with clearer mandates and follow‑up, and improving the coherence of multi‑year budgetary programming, potentially through constitutional change. For frontline actors, the interest lies in greater visibility of long‑term priorities and reduced instability of the legal and financial frameworks that shape their work.

2. Key points of the document

Normative instability and the “reign of the short term” (pp. 65‑72)
The study shows an increase of over 70% in the number of legislative articles between 2004 and 2025, driven by successive sectoral reforms (immigration, housing, environment) passed under accelerated procedures, often without prior evaluation or long‑term vision. This situation is described as an aggravating factor for policy coherence and for understanding by frontline actors.

Crisis of consensus and polarisation of the public debate (pp. 71‑73)
The Council of State documents growing polarisation, fuelled by social media and “information bubbles”, which undermines the search for compromise on major long‑term orientations (education, health, housing, pensions). It draws on CEVIPOF data (trust barometers) showing high political distrust and a strong sense of national decline.

Fragmented long‑term thinking and the role of operators (pp. 208‑212, 90‑91)
The study describes a very fragmented ecosystem of prospective work (RTE, ADEME, health agencies, social operators, central bank, insurers), with climate, energy, demographic or financial scenarios sometimes better resourced than those of the State itself. This richness is only fully useful if the State manages to coordinate it into a coherent strategic framework.

Proposal for “livres tricolores” and strengthened role of Parliament (pp. 165‑167)
The report recommends that Parliament and Government co‑produce, together with civil society and social partners, synthetic reference documents by major domain (health, social policy, ecological transition, education, etc.), setting long‑term objectives on a multi‑year basis. These “livres tricolores” would be debated in committees and plenary sessions, without legal force but with strong political weight, to anchor policies in the long term.

Multi‑annual budgeting and possible constitutional reform (pp. 168‑171)
The study highlights the “knot” created by annual budgeting for any long‑term strategy and criticises the weak effectiveness of current public finance programming laws over annual finance acts. It proposes, first, to reinforce the reference role of the programming law (vote at the start of the legislature, more precise sectoral breakdown, stronger role of the Haut Conseil des finances publiques), and, second, to explore constitutional reform that would create a more binding multi‑year programming instrument.

3. Actionable avenues for local actors

Prioritise stability over multiplying micro‑schemes (pp. 65‑69, 168‑170)
For local authorities, health agencies, social and medico‑social providers or NGOs, the study encourages prioritising appropriation of existing frameworks and, in discussions with the State, arguing for more stable legal and financial environments instead of new schemes for each crisis. Local actors can leverage the report’s arguments to negotiate clearer multi‑year commitments with funders (performance contracts, multi‑year agreements).

Use existing prospective diagnostics to structure territorial strategies (pp. 208‑212, 90‑91)
Prospective work on climate, energy, demography or health produced by national operators (RTE, ADEME, health agencies, insurers) offers scenarios that can feed regional health projects, local health contracts, prevention strategies or climate plans. Local actors can use these as a basis for dialogue with the State and elected officials to justify long‑term investments (prevention, climate adaptation, ageing).

Build territorial “mini livres tricolores” (pp. 165‑167, 171‑175)
Pending national documents, local authorities and health actors can develop simplified “long‑term reference” documents at territorial level, setting 10‑15‑year priorities on key issues: access to care, prevention, adaptation to ageing, environmental health, social inclusion. Co‑produced with users, professionals, NGOs and social partners, these can guide multi‑year planning (local health contracts, departmental schemes, territorial mental health plans).

Structure stakeholder participation with clear mandates and follow‑up (pp. 172‑175)
The report stresses the need to clarify mandate, composition and timelines for consultations (Grenelle processes, national debates, CNR, etc.) and to organise follow‑up. Frontline actors can transpose this locally by framing consultations with clear themes, expectations, room for manoeuvre, timeline and indicators, and by setting up follow‑up committees involving users, professionals and elected officials.

Base multi‑year funding advocacy on Council of State arguments (pp. 168‑171)
For health, social and medico‑social organisations, the study offers a strong rationale for arguing that strictly annual budgeting is counter‑productive for policies whose effects emerge only in the medium or long term (prevention, mental health, inclusion, housing). These elements can strengthen advocacy with ARS, departments, family funds or State departments