Content uploaded by Jan-Hendrik Kamlage
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan-Hendrik Kamlage on Jan 28, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Public Participation and Democratic Innovations: Assessing Democratic Institutions and
Processes for Deepening and Increased Public Participation in Political Decision-Making
Authors:
Dr. Jan-Hendrik Kamlage
Prof. Dr. Patrizia Nanz
Head of the Research Field Culture of
Participation
Scientific Director
Institute for the Advanced Studies in the
Humanities (KWI)
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies
(IASS)
Germany
Germany
2
Table of Contents
I.Introduction....................................................................................................................................3
II. Systems and formats of face-to-face participation in political decision-making..........................4
III. Principles, norms and yardsticks for assessing the quality of democratic innovations and
participation procedures........................................................................................................................6
IV. Outlook and open Question.........................................................................................................16
Appendix: Examples of different types of participatory democracy practice…………………………………20
3
I. Introduction1
The last three decades have witnessed a global spreading of a huge variety of democratic
experiments and innovations (Smith 2009; problems: Ryfe 2005). Multiple forms of dialogue
and deliberation-based participation such as forms of digital participation2 nowadays
complement democratic governments all over the world (Participedia 2017:
Smith/Richards/Gastil 2015). There is a major transformation of democracy going on which
is bringing up new and innovative channels for citizens' involvement in politics. Many of
these innovations and experiments can be seen as a reaction on the current dissatisfaction,
distrust and alienation of people as well as certain shortcomings of contemporary
representative government (Held 2006: 84ff.) like bargaining and competition of self-
interested political elites and interest groups, lobbyism, populism, clientelism and less
reasoning and badly justified public policies (Crouch 2004; Cohen 2009; Council of Europe
2009).
At the same time the repertoire of political participation for individuals is continuously
increasing (Theocharis/van Deth 2016), which constitutes a situation of a new complexity in
public participation.3 Today, people increasingly engage in conventional and unconventional
political actions (Barnes/Kaase). Conventional actions refer to classical modes of political
action like voting, petitions and membership in parties, whereas unconventional actions add
demonstrations, flash mobs, critical consumption, protest marches4 and other forms of
(digital) protest, squatting, and civil disobedience.
These remarkable and dynamic changes are expressions of fundamental developments that
are driven by an ongoing, underlying social and technological change (Inglehart 1977;
Barnes/Kaase 1979). Social change and cultural shifts towards post-materialistic and liberal
values boost the willingness of people to participate and engage in democratic processes
(Welzel/Ingelhart 2005). Kaase (1982), therefore, already claimed in the 1980s, based on
survey data, that a “participatory revolution” is on the way. The digitalisation however
penetrates more and more people’s spheres of life. Subsequently, the internet and new
information/communication tools foster the exchange of information, enable mobilisation
and offer additional spaces for participation and protest (Emmer/Vowe 2004; Vedel 2006;
Garrett 2007).
As a consequence a tremendous transformation of democratic governance and forms and
processes of citizen and stakeholder participation in political decision-making is ongoing
(Fung 2015). These innovations are occurring worldwide and across a wide variety of policy
fields and problems (Cities of Change 2015). Moreover, ever more institutional changes in
political systems, systems of deliberation and participation develop (Mansbridge et al 2012;
1 The authors would like to thank Sebastian Sponheuer for his active assistance.
2 Within democratic theory most scholars differentiate between participative and deliberative democracy. The former
emphasizes the direct involvement of citizens in a variety of policy fields and problems. Participation is a catch-all term to
encompass a huge variety of means of individuals and groups in participating in collective decision-making and public
choices (cf. Tocqueville 1835, 1840; Rousseau 1762; Barber 1984; Cohen 2007). Deliberative democrats however emphasize
strongly the process and conditions of communication among equals as part of public reasoning and common opinion and
will formation (cf. Habermas 1992, Cohen 2007). In our perspective both views are important and need to be integrated.
We focus on structured democratic innovations, so called mini publics, dialogue-based or deliberative processes and not
individual forms of participation (Kamlage & Nanz 2017).
3 According to Kaase (2003), the concept of political participation of citizens encompasses all those actions and types of
behavior in which citizens engage of their volition with the aim of influencing the political and administrative systems and
decisions at various political levels.
4 Moreover, many forms of action cannot be classified easily because the individual motives of participation are not clear
cut between non-political and political participation. Obviously, this is the case for urban gardening and critical
consumerism.
4
Riedy/Kent 2017) complementing and influencing classical bodies of representative
democracy such as parliaments, administrations and parties (Definition: European Center for
Not-for-profit Law 2016, pp.3f). All these systems, approaches, and methods are designed
and implemented to “democratise the democracy” (Offe 2011).
The starting point and locus of transformation is the local political level (Parkinson 2007).
Cities invent, prove, and promote democratic innovations and experiments to deepen and
increase public participation and are more and more integrating these procedures within
their polity. In some places institutional frameworks for the administration and
implementation of participatory means were developed which regulate the fundamental
relation between citizenry, administration and politicians for enabling reliable and high
quality deliberation and participation.
In this paper we address significant questions regarding the ongoing change in established
democracies: What are the recent developments within the field of participative democratic
governance? How can we reasonably categorise these forms of structured participation in
democratic decision-making? Which guiding normative and practical criteria are available to
shape and assess these public participation processes? Which empirical standards could be
used to meaningfully assess these processes? Finally, what are the desiderata, challenges,
and open questions with respect to the outlined topic?
In doing so, we focus on face-to-face and digital processes of dialogue-based political
participation such as institutional systems which provide and guide these participatory
processes. We limit the scope of the paper to structured processes and innovations which
are related to political decision-making within a polity. Thus, we focus on governmentally
fostered processes of information, consultation, and co-governance, which contribute to an
increased quality of public opinion and will-formation in administration and legislative
bodies such as local parliaments (cf. Geissel 2008). These processes are implemented at
different stage of the policy circle: from agenda setting, decision-making to the
implementation and evaluation of policies (cf. Jann/Wegrich 2007).
II. Systems and formats of face-to-face participation in political decision-making
There is an incredible diversity of different methods and formats of innovative public
participation in the world (Overview see Participedia; Smith 2009; Nanz/Fritsche 2012;
Alcántara et al 2014). As mentioned earlier we are looking at dialogue-based processes of
citizen and stakeholder participation. These participation procedures have certain
characteristics such as (digital) face-to-face communication among the participants, the
support of competent facilitators, and regulated access of participants and integrated
experts/stakeholders whether necessary or not. Moreover, the deliberations focus on
facilitating an exchange of ideas and arguments with the aim of arriving at a consensus or at
least at an accepted dissent (Kamlage/Nanz 2017). Due to the diversity of formats and
methods there are only a few canonical forms of participation in democratic governance
available. The institutional design of dialogue-based participation procedures is highly
dependent on their purpose, culture, as well as on their resources and other surrounding
conditions (Dietz/Stern 2008).
Public participation has the potential to contribute to fostering three major democratic
values: legitimacy, justice and effectiveness of government decision-making (Fung 2015: 2;
5
Beierle 1999; for a detailed overview of empirical impacts see Delli Carpini et al. 2004).5
Whether these potentials can be realised or not depends strongly on the specific contexts
and professional design and implementation of participation processes. When we look at the
size and diversity of dialogue-based formats of participation, it can be said that they range
from forms of direct face-to-face participation i.e. citizen assemblies, public hearings,
wisdom councils6, town-hall meetings, planning cells, and deliberative polls to forms of e-
participation, i.e. discussion forums, online consultation, e-petitions, online citizen juries, e-
referenda and mixed forms combing both measures of face-to-face and online participation
(Gastil et al 2008; OECD 2003).
The table 1: Spectrum of information and public participation procedures today
The y-axis of this graph shows the amount of participants that participatory methods and
formats (from 10 people to several thousands) can include, whereas the x-axis displays the
intensity of involvement (from just information, consultation to co-and self-governance) (cf.
OECD 2003:32). Between these two axes there are different methods, formats, and
organisational types mapped which are only a cursory selection of examples and not a
comprehensive overview. In addition we included also types of self-organized participation,
which are clearly dialogue-based but miss the direct link to political decision-making in a
polity.
Against the backdrop of worldwide spreading of these and other methods and formats of
participation, we witnessed a fundamental transformation of local democracy in some
European states, furthermore also in North and parts of South America. Recent
developments in Germany and Austria for instance show that new institutional
arrangements are coming up mixing different forms of political representation. Thus,
systems of compounded representation (Benz 2003) developed on the local political level
combining instruments of direct democracy (i.e. referenda, plebiscites), representative
5 Legitimacy in this normative understanding focuses two basic dimensions. First, legitimacy is understood as the capacity of
democratic institutions and decision-making processes to be recognized as fair and just. These procedures and institutions
therefore should be shaped and designed in line with commonly accepted values and norms of justice and fairness. Second,
the citizen can expect from these institutions and procedures that they generate justifiable outcomes in a reasonable
quality to solve common problems. Acceptance, in contrast, encompasses individual empirical motives of people to accept
and tolerate political decisions, institutions and actors. The reasons for accepting or tolerating something are multiple,
ranging from corrosion and angst for sanctions to persuasion. Legitimacy, then, can be seen as one source among others to
generate acceptance.
6 In Austria and Germany this format is called Bürgerrinnenräte.
6
government (administrations, elected politicians in parliaments) such as participative
methods and formats (Bertelsmann Stiftung 2014).
Next to the already existing and differentiated promotion of civic engagement and
institutions of representative democracy, new institutional frameworks and processes of
well-structured public participation procedures are emerging which are to be integrated into
municipal institutional contexts.
These recently emerging governmental frameworks consist of different elements: specific
catalogues of quality criteria and guidelines, evaluation management tools, and
administrative provisions such as ombudsmen/ administrative bodies in charge of the
administration and implementation of participation procedures at the local level.7 Today,
these systems of compounded representation offer a framework and guidance for
implementing formats and types of face-to-face participation for citizens, administration and
politicians within the triangle of representative, direct and participative democracy. Due to
this task, they provide a legal and formalised basis for implementing these procedures,
regulating important questions of whom is able to initialise these procedures, under which
conditions and who has finally the authority to decide. Moreover, local actors developed
norms and guidance for the design and quality of these processes.
In a nutshell, there is a dynamic and deep change going on in contemporary democracy
grounded in developments on the local political level. Unfortunately, we do not know
enough about the different elements, the institutional designs, the distribution and impacts
of these systems of compounded representation in the European countries.
III. Principles, norms and yardsticks for assessing the quality of democratic innovations
and participation procedures
A large body of scientific literature in social science and governmental documents which
deals with abstract norms and principles for assessing and judging public deliberation and
participation (for example Dahl 1985; Habermas 1992; Gutman/Thompson 1998;
Rowe/Frewer 2000; European Commission 2001, Nanz/Steffek 2005: more recently Council
of Europe 2009, Newton/Geissel 2012; Goldschmidt 2013; Committee of Ministers 2017).
However, the assessment of whether face-to-face participation processes are more or less
participative, successful or of good quality is still complicated due to a missing common
understanding of success, failure and of the quality of procedures. The term ‘quality’
especially refers to preconditions and potentials of public participation processes and
systems whereas success and failure address the output and impact. One of the main
reasons for this unsatisfying situation is the diversity of different objectives, methods, and
contexts of means of public participation. This diversity does not allow an easy and coherent
judgement.8 In the last two decades however the scientific debate turned its focus towards
the application of these norms and principles to democratic practice. Thus, the theory
developed beyond a purely ‘theoretical statements’ phase into a more pragmatic ‘working
theory’ phase (Chambers 2003: 307). The empirical turn of deliberative democracy opened
7 In Germany for instance the Network Citizen Participation counts more than 50 cities which developed such guidelines (cf.
Netzwerk Bürgerbeteiligung 2017).
8 The famous “ladder of participation” by Arnstein (Arnstein 1969) for instance argues from a normative perspective that
the higher the level of involvement the more valuable it is.
7
up the debate for stronger empirically grounded norms and principles that are underpinned
by empirical considerations in the light of feasibility and practical concerns.
The level of abstraction of the norms and the related theory determines not only the
analytical scope but also the empirical application of these yardsticks (Kamlage 2012: 37ff.).
Generally we can say: the more abstract and universal they are, the better it is for a
comparison between larger samples of cases. On the other hand, the more abstract and
universalistic the catalogue of criteria is, the more individual qualities and specific contexts
of cases cannot be grasped and assessed. In contrast, the more case specific these norms
are, the less comparable and applicable they are for larger samples and comparisons
(Kamlage 2012).
The objective and scope of our paper is a comparison of certain types of cases i.e. processes
of structured participation (face-to-face and online participation). Moreover, we also look
closely at general frameworks to foster and implement these participation procedures.
Therefore, we need a rather universalistic sample of “common sense”9 criteria for assessing
the multitude of empirical examples regarding these very different categories. The sample
should be minimal to keep the assessment simple, justifiable, and traceable but still open
enough for variations in cases. But these master principles and norms are still too abstract to
offer useful guidance for the assessment and design of single empirical innovations, public
participation procedures and frameworks (Fung 2006: 66, Neblo 2007).
Therefore, a differentiation between abstract principles and norms on the one hand and
empirical standards on the other hand is necessary (Thompson 2008). In contrast to abstract
principles and norms, empirical standards are adapted to the specific form, purpose,
context/case conditions and environment of the public participation procedures. In the next
section we present a ‘common sense’ understanding of normative and pragmatic principles
and claims for assessing public participation procedures.
1. Overview of principles and norms of dialogue-based processes
Within the literature of deliberative democratic theory there is long and vivid debate on
principles and norms that should safeguard legitimacy, on the one hand, and on the proper
results of democratic processes on the other. Most of these principles and norms are
developed within and relate to normative theories, thus building a fixed standard of
assessing democratic processes (Abromeit 2004). As expressions of normative theories,
these norms and principles portray idealised preconditions and procedures of dialogue and
deliberation in public debate and dialogue-based processes. These procedural norms and
principles, for instance access of all potentially affected voices (inclusion), equality, trust and
respect among participants—such as responsiveness to the arguments and concerns at
stake—represent rather universalistic norms fitting generally all forms of public deliberation
(Dahl 1985; Habermas 1992; Renn et al 1995, Gutman/Thompson 1998; Nanz/Steffek 2005;
Newton/Geissel 2012; Goldschmidt 2013).
9 Obviously, deliberative democracy, which is the main source of theories for developing catalogues of criteria and norms,
offer different theory approaches with some overarching core values. However, these theories disagree as well within
significant aspects of dialog and deliberation. These aspects are formal vs. substantial equality of participants, consensual
vs. aggregative decision-making in participative processes, rational vs. plural forms of communication and common good vs
individual preferences (see Overview Neblo 2007; Kamlage 2012: 47).
8
But if we look at these different norms and values then we can analytically differentiate
between preconditions for, and potentials of public deliberation and dialogue (Sanders
2012). A precondition is for instance the transparency of objectives, process and results of a
dialogue-based format for both the participants and the general public. The equal access and
inclusion of rule-affected people and voices would be another precondition for the
successful exchange of different views and arguments within the process of reasoning. In
contrast to this, the open exchange of arguments and views aiming at bringing in the “force
of the better argument” (Habermas 1992) and fostering public reasoning reflects the
theoretical potentials of dialogue and deliberation. The quality of deliberations in turn
depends on social requirements such as mutual respect, reciprocity and trust among
participants and organizers, which supports the establishment of a constructive atmosphere
and open exchange of arguments (Gutman/Thompson 1996). Nevertheless, these norms
have to be complemented and underpinned by practical concerns and insights if they are to
be relevant for assessing concrete empirical institutions (example see Rowe/Fewer 2000).
The first task is then to select a reasonable catalogue among the universe of different
proposals and to underpin these norms and criteria with more empirical and practical
considerations from empirical work. The first column of table 2 and 3 represents our
selection of common sense norms and principles of dialogue-based institutions. Afterwards
we made a first step to relate these rather abstract norms and principles to our empirical
phenomena of (digital) dialogue-based processes of participation and the obstacles and
shortcomings which ought to be addressed by organisers and initiators. Therefore, we
develop a first sketch of empirical standards in terms of relevant questions with regard to
high quality processes and practical obstacles and shortcomings. Due to the fact that
standards are highly specific and generic they need to be further adapted to the respective
context of individual cases.
9
1.1. Yardsticks for assessing structured dialogue-based procedures
Dialogue-based democratic innovations suffer from different well known and described
shortcomings and deficits, which have to be particularly addressed by organisers and
designers of such processes (Overview see Parkinson 2006). The empirical standards and
guidelines in table 2 express and address these obstacles and shortcomings. One major
deficit is clearly a lack of publicity, which refers to the democratic ideal that collective
binding decisions and public choices have to be transmitted into and discussed within the
realm of the general public. Micro deliberations in dialogue-based processes have the
disadvantage of the insider/outsider problem in contrast to mass deliberation within the
general public. The participants inside the process are well informed and part of the
deliberative process whereas outsiders usually do not know what is happening inside the
participation process. Certainly, there are just a small number of people included within
these processes preparing collective binding decisions for the whole demos.
A second shortcoming refers to the inclusion of all rule-affected people and voices. We all
know that most participation processes are dominated by highly educated middle-class
people with time and money. Unequal representation therefore is one of the major
obstacles for the legitimacy and the recognition of participation procedures as fair and just.
Due to this, it is very important that organizers and designers search and find proper
instruments to include heterogeneous groups of participants through targeted recruitment.
Ideally, the group of participants represents the demos in relevant characteristics such as
gender, age, economic status, migration background and particular circumstances of life
(examples are single parents, unemployed people).
Finally, a lot of dialogue-based procedures suffer from the fact that these means have been
used instrumentally by politicians and administrators to get public support and acceptance
for their policy decisions and drafts. In doing so, initiators tend to involve the public too late
(end of pipe) and not at an early stage of the policy process (Rowe/Frewer 2000:14). As a
consequence, many processes fail because of limited room for manoeuvre and late
involvement of rule-affected people. Participants cannot voice their views and arguments in
a way that adequately influences the results. Such abuses of power harm the general
acceptance of participation and deliberation.
Table 2: Principles, norms, empirical standards and operationalisation of dialogue-based
face-to-face processes
Principles/criteria
Standards of evaluation
Operationalisation of guidelines
Inclusion and equal
access
All potentially rule-
affected people should
be included and have
access to the
processes of
participation and
relevant resources
To what extent are the
relevant and rule-affected
people and stakeholders
represented in the
processes?
Which means of targeted
recruitment of participants
have been applied to
safeguard the inclusion of all
How inclusive are the public participation procedures?
people with low income
unemployed
single parents
people with disabilities
geographical distribution
Did the organisers use incentives to include and
motivate people from different backgrounds to
10
(Knight/Johnson 1997/
Habermas 1992: 370)
relevant and
underprivileged/marginalised
voices?
To what extent do these
voices and people have equal
rights and access to
deliberation and were
included within the process
of deliberation through
facilitators or other
measurers?
participate?
Participation as educational leave
Allowance for time and resources
Which procedures of recruiting were chosen:
open door policy (which leads to unequal
representation)
random selection or direct recruitment via
canvassing and street work
activating channels of organised local interests
(i.e. churches, associations, activist groups
etc.)?
Do the organisers guarantee equal rights of
participation for all people and voices in the process?
Do they have:
equal rights to speak and add proposals
easy language use
allowances for languages of migrants
location (easy to access and acceptable for
different groups)
To what extent do the organisers provide
instruments/methods to better include all voices in the
process of deliberation?
Active facilitation balancing the voices at the
meeting
Implementing communication methods (group
work, dynamic facilitation, world cafe setting
etc.)
Using and supporting multiple forms of
expression (rational reasoning, painting,
playing, and building examples)
Transparancy
(internal)
Every rule-affected
people should have
the equal chance to be
fully informed about
the objectives,
processes and results
of public deliberations
(Habermas 1992)
To what extent do the
participants of public
participation procedures
have access to relevant and
professionally prepared
information in the process of
participation?
To what extent do the
organisers provide
information at an early stage,
during and after the process
about significant information
Do the organisers present at the beginning set
out objectives, a reasonable plan for the
process and anticipated results
Do the organisers proactively use different
and integrated channels to provide relevant
information to the participants such as
background documents, talks of
experts/stakeholders and information
required at the meetings
Do the organisers prepare a comprehensive
documentation of the process
Comprehensive and easy to understand
information material (homepage, flyer,
handouts, documentations)
11
at stake?
Integration of expert and stakeholder
knowledge with visual support
Publicity
The objectives,
processes, and results
of public participation
processes should be
transmitted and
justified vis-a-vis the
general public (Young
2001;
Gutmann/Thompson
2004)
To what extent have the
process, objectives and
results been communicated
towards the general public
and relevant target groups?
To what extent have
appropriate measures been
implemented to inform and
transmit the information at
stake?
Do the organisers have a strategy informing
the general public in which they define target
groups and appropriate means to achieve
these objectives?
Do they make use of different measures to
actively inform the general public or target
groups like homage, television, social media,
newspapers, blogs, newsletter, mailing lists
etc.?
Do the organisers cooperate with local media
actors or develop public meetings transmitting
objectives, process and results?
Do the organisers use local multiplicators such
as organised interests, non-governmental
organisations, social movement organisation,
churches, and administration to inform the
public/target groups?
Responsiveness and
quality of
communication
(Steffek/Nanz 2007,
Rowe/Frewer 2000)
To what extent has there
been room for manoeuvre
for the impact of arguments
and views of participants and
stakeholders?
To what extent have the
contributions of participants
the chance to influence the
agenda and final results of
deliberations?
What has been done with
the results of participation?
Do the organisers present a clear mandate for
the process?
Is it clear from the beginning what will happen
with the results after the participation
process?
Is the management and organisation of the
process independent and unbiased?
Is it possible for participants to influence the
agenda of the process and single meetings?
Do the organisers change the aims in the
course of the process?
Do the organisers/other actors try actively to
influence the agenda and discussions of the
meetings?
Do the facilitators respect and promote
dissenting opinions within deliberations?
Do the facilitators support the building of trust
and respect among participants?
Effectiveness
Problem-solving and
achieving goals
(Goldschmidt 2013,
Geissel 2008)
Coherent and justified design
and selection of objectives,
methods and context.
To what extent has the
participation procedure had
an impact on the problems
Do the initiators/organisers have a clear
objective and idea, integrating different
methods and formats to achieve the
objectives?
Do the participation procedures leave enough
room for manoeuvre for participants to
influence the policy at stake?
12
and issues at stake?
Do the methods and formats fit to the
objectives and do they have enough resources
(time, money)?
Do the organisers evaluate the process and its
output together with the participants?
Efficiency
A reasonable relation
between the limited
resources and the
means to achieve the
objectives
(Rowe/Frewer 2000)
Do the planned resources fit
the respective objectives of
participation?
To what extent are the costs
of the process justifiable
compared with other
alternative methods?
Do the organisers provide enough time and
resources?
Do they have straightforward and balanced
moderation?
Are they flexible and is there well done
planning of the process?
Do they provide an overview of costs and
benefits of the method?
1.2. Yardsticks for assessing online dialogue-based participation procedures
Dialogue-based democratic innovations suffer from different well known and described
shortcomings and deficits. The same is true for different forms online participation. First of
all, participation via the internet in dialogue-based processes suffers from a general lack of
inclusion (Escher 2010). Again, well educated people with time, high income and certain
resources and skills dominate these processes together with highly interested and
connected people (Escher 2010, van Dijk 2004, 2006). The challenge here is that the access
to these processes cannot be regulated effectively and that differences in skills to apply
digital media are very hard to counterbalance. There are no effective instruments and
technologies available to properly regulate access in the way that it maintains inclusion yet.
A second major obstacle refers to the question of safeguarding high quality deliberation in
online forums. The exchange of arguments and views is restricted and negatively influenced
by the technology. The anonymous situation in online forums limits the building of
important social requirements like trust, respect, and reciprocity. Balancing instruments like
nonpartisan moderations are expensive and hard to implement. As a consequence, in the
deliberation conflicts and abuses occur and hamper the open flow of arguments and
different views. A reduced deliberation quality together with less inclusion influences the
results and impacts of online participation negatively.
Table 3: Principles, norms, empirical standards and operationalisation of dialogue-based
online processes
Principles/criteria
Standards of evaluation
Operationalisation of guidelines
Inclusion and equal
access
All potentially rule-
affected people should
be included and have
access to the
To what extent are the
relevant and rule-affected
people and stakeholders
represented in the
processes?
Which means of targeted
How inclusive are the public participation procedures?
people with low income
unemployed
single parents
people with disabilities
13
processes of
participation and
relevant resources
(Knight & Johnson
1997/ Habermas 1992:
370)
recruitment of participants
have been applied to
safeguard the inclusion of all
relevant and
underprivileged/marginalised
voices?
To what extent do these
voices and people have equal
rights and access to
deliberation and were
included within the process
of deliberation through
facilitators or other
measurers?
Did the organisers have low barriers to include and
motivate people from different backgrounds to
participate?
Subscriptions and accounts
Usability of tools
Allowance for time and resources
Do the organisers guarantee equal rights of
participation for all people and voices in the process?
Do they have:
equal rights to speak and add proposals
easy language use
allowances for languages of migrants
means against specific barriers the internet
provides in terms of skills and lack of internet
access
To what extent do the organisers provide
instruments/methods to better include all voices in the
process of deliberation?
Active facilitation balancing the voices in real
time
Implementing communication methods to
display complex emotions (Emojies etc.)
Using and supporting multiple forms of
expression (rational reasoning, gaming)
Transparancy
(internal)
Every rule-affected
people should have
the equal chance to be
fully informed about
the objectives,
processes and results
of public deliberations
(Habermas 1992)
To what extent do the
participants of online
participation have access to
relevant and professionally
prepared information in the
process of participation?
To what extent do the
organisers provide
information at an early stage,
during and after the process
about significant information
at stake?
Do the organisers present at the beginning set
out objectives, a reasonable plan for the
process and anticipated results
Do the organisers proactively use different
and integrated channels to provide relevant
information to the participants such as
background documents, real time talks or
movies of experts/stakeholders and
information required at the consultation
Usable and comprehensive, easy to
understand information material
Integration of expert and stakeholder in
online deliberation via short movies or real
time
Publicity
The objectives,
processes, and results
of public participation
processes should be
To what extent have the
process, objectives and
results been communicated
towards the general public
and relevant target groups?
Do the organisers have a strategy informing
the general public in which they define target
groups and appropriate means to achieve
these objectives?
Do they make use of different measures to
actively inform the general public or target
14
transmitted and
justified vis-a-vis the
general public (Young
2001;
Gutmann/Thompson
2004:3)
To what extent have
appropriate measures been
implemented to inform and
transmit the information at
stake?
groups like homage, television, social media,
newspapers, blogs, newsletter, mailing lists
etc.?
Do the organisers cooperate with local media
actors or develop public meetings transmitting
objectives, process and results?
Do the organisers use multiplicators and
networks to inform the public/target groups?
Responsiveness and
quality of
communication
(Steffek/Nanz 2007,
Rowe/Frewer 2000)
To what extent has there
been room for manoeuvre
for the impact of arguments
and views of participants and
stakeholders?
To what extent have the
contributions of participants
the chance to influence the
agenda and final results of
deliberations?
What has been done with
the results of participation?
Do the organisers present a clear mandate for
the process?
Is it clear from the beginning what will happen
with the results after the online participation
process?
Is the management and organisation of the
process independent and unbiased?
Is it possible for participants to influence the
agenda of the process and events?
Do the organisers change the aims in the
course of the process?
Do the organisers/other actors try actively to
influence the agenda and discussions of the
meetings?
Do the facilitators respect and promote
dissenting opinions within deliberations?
Do the facilitators support the building of trust
and respect among participants?
Do they have enough capacity to react and
answer each contribution?
Effectiveness
Problem-solving
capacity, quality of
outcomes and
achieving goals
(Goldschmidt 2013,
Geissel 2008)
To what extent we have a
coherent and justified design
and selection of objectives,
methods and context.
To what extent has the
participation procedure had
an impact on the problems
and issues at stake?
Do the initiators/organizers have a clear
objective and idea, integrating different
methods and formats to achieve the
objectives?
Do the participation procedures leave enough
room for manoeuvre for participants to
influence the policy at stake?
Do the methods and formats fit to the
objectives and do they have enough resources
(time, money)?
Do the organisers evaluate the process and its
output together with the participants?
Efficiency
A reasonable relation
between limited
resources and means
to achieve the
Do the planned resources fit
the respective objectives of
participation?
Do the organisers have straightforward and
balanced moderation?
Is there well done planning of the process?
Do the organisers and administrators have
enough capacity and resources to react and
replay on each contribution of participants?
15
objectives
1.3. Yardsticks for assessing institutional systems of participation
The scientific debate about institutional systems of deliberation and participation has just
started. In the social sciences we have a very first sketch of single elements and processes of
these local governance systems, which is neither sufficient for a comprehensive description
and systematic overview nor for other more analytical endeavors like developing
comparable standards for assessment and evaluation. More specifically, we need more
qualitative and quantitative studies, which provide us with basic orientations in this field of
study. Then, additional case studies (‘thick’ description) and studies which provide us with a
more general overview (cross-national distribution of cases, variations in institutional design
according to different cultures and legal systems) would be essential. Subsequently, we
could start to analyse the impact of these fundamental changes on the processes, outputs
and impacts on democratic governments.
Obviously, our catalogue of norms and criteria could be applied to the whole systems and/or
single elements of these systems as well. Due to missing empirical foundations and
underpinnings, comparable standards and guidelines are not available now. In contrast to
structured dialogue-based procedures the variations of institutional solutions and practices
are higher. Empirically, on the local political level there are:
1. guidelines and quality criteria for implementing participative instruments and
formats,
2. digital transparency tools informing the local people about future policies and
whether public participation is planned or not,
3. direct democratic tools to initialise participative processes,
4. evaluation management tools assessing the quality of applied methods,
5. administrative provisions regulating and formalizing the use of participative methods,
6. administrative bodies/ombudsmen in charge of administrating and implementation
participation procedures at the local level.10
Against the backdrop of these changes on the local political level, there are as well some
pioneering regions which started to develop institutional solutions and practises, examples
can be found among others in Austria, Germany and Italy (cf. Büro für Zukunftsfragen
Voralberg, Lewanski 2013; Staatsministerin für Zivilgesellschaft und Bürgerbeteiligung
Baden-Württemberg 2017).
We can conclude that we witness a fundamental transformation of local governance
arrangements, which need to be better understood and critically accompanied by social
scientists and other disciplines.
10 In Germany for instance the Network Citizen Participation counts more than 50 cities which developed such guidelines
(cf. Netzwerk Bürgerbeteiligung 2017).
16
IV. Outlook and open Question
There is large body of academic literature dealing with general principles and abstract norms
for public participation procedures and institutions in the world. These norms and principles
allow us to assess democratic innovations, public participation procedures and even
institutional systems of participation. Unfortunately, the multitude of influential factors and
variances, such as different preconditions of the single cases, offer a limited scope for
endeavours of standardized and comparable assessments. The state of the art in the field
teaches us that the academic debate about the assessment of face-to-face, e-participation
and systems of participation and deliberation is both rather unconnected and unequally
developed. There are huge inequalities in the state of the art between these three research
objects. Obviously, desiderata can be found with regard to empirical standards and practical
concerns in the field of systems and online deliberation. In a nutshell, the state of the art
offers neither coherent nor consistent and overarching standards for the assessment of the
three categories at hand.
Due to the fact that there is now coherent set of standards, we propose an alternative
strategy for assessing and judging democratic innovations and structured public
participation procedures. In a first step a screening of the cases at hand could be done on
the basis of the general norms and principles. These norms and principles would structure an
open questionnaire which the organisers/initiators have to answer. In doing so, the general
principles and norms serve as basic orientation and guideline for the assessment of the
respective cases. In a second selection round an in depth assessment would follow. A review
based on a manual with more specific questions and empirical specifications would guide
the assessment of cases. Due to missing empirical foundations and underpinnings with
regard to systems of participation an empirical pilot study would be necessary.
We have argued here for more cross-national research, covering recent developments in
democratic governance, mapping and understanding the wide range of different processes
and systems of public participation coming up, dealing with the huge differences in legal
systems, contexts, and cultures. Moreover, we argue for addressing the question of how
these developments and changes are influencing the performance of democratic institutions
now and in the future.
17
References:
Alcántara, Sophia/ Kuhn, Rainer/ Renn, Ortwin/ Bach, Nicolas/ Böhm, Birgit/ Dienel, Hans-
Liudger/ Ullrich, Peter/ Schröder, Carolin/ Walk, Heike (2014). DELIKAT – Fachdialoge
Deliberative Demokratie: Analyse Partizipativer Verfahren für den Transformationsprozess
(Environmental Research Plan of Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und
Reaktorsicherheit, Texte 31/2014), Dessau-Roßlau, available at:
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/texte_31
_2014_delikat-fachdialoge_deliberative_demokratie.pdf.
Abromeit, Heidrun (2004). Die Messbarkeit von Demokratie: Zur Relevanz des Kontextes, in
Politische Vierteljahresschrift 45 (1), pp. 73-93.
Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation, in Journal of the American
Planning. Association, 35 (4), 216-224.
Barber, Benjamin R. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berke
ley, CA: University of California Press.
Barnes, Samuel/ Kaase, Max (1979). Political Action. Mass Participation in Five Western
Democracies. Beverly Hills/London: Sage Publications.
Beierle, Thomas C. (1999). Using Social Goals to Evaluate Public Participation in
Environmental Decisions, in Review of Policy Research 16 (3/4), pp. 75-103.
Benz, Arthur (2003). Compounded Representation in EU Multi-Level Governance, in Beate
Kohler-Koch (ed.), Linking EU and National Governance, Oxford: University Press, pp. 82-110.
Bertelsmann Stiftung (2014). Staatsministerium Baden-Württemberg, Partizipation im
Wandel. Unsere Demokratie zwischen Wählen, Mitmachen und Entscheiden, Gütersloh:
Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Büro für Zukunftsfragen (2017), available at: https://www.vorarlberg.at/zukunft
Chambers, Simone (2003). Deliberative Democracy Theory, in Annu. Rev. Polit. Science 6, pp.
307-326.
Citis of Change (2015), Poznan, available at:
https://www.daugavpils.lv/files/components/main_content/files/Cooperation%20of%20citi
es%20in%20the%20field%20of%20development_2015.pdf.
Cohen, Joshua (2007). Deliberative Democracy, in Shawn W. Rosenberg (ed.), Deliberation,
Participation and Democracy. Can the People Govern? London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 219-
236.
Cohen, Joshua (2009). Reflections on Deliberative Democracy, in Thomas Christiano and
Philip Christman (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-
Blackwell, pp. 17-247.
Committee of Ministers (2017). Guidelines for Civil Participation in Political Decision Making,
CM(2017)83-final, available at:
https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016807509dd
18
Council of Europe (2009). Code of good practice for civil participation in the decision-making
process, available at: https://rm.coe.int/16802eed5c.
Crouch, Colin (2004). Post-Democracy. Themes for the 21st Century, Malden, MA: Politiy.
Dahl, Robert A. (1985). A Preface to Economic Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Delli Carpini,. Michael X./ Cook, Fay L./ Jacobs, Lawrence R. (2004). Public Deliberations,
Discursive Participation and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature, in
Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.7 (1), pp. 315-344.
Dietz, Thomas/ Stern, Paul C. (eds.) (2008). Public Participation in Environmental Assessment
and Decision Making, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Emmer, Martin/ Vowe, Gerhard (2004). Mobilisierung durch das Internet? Ergebnisse einer
empirischen Längsschnittuntersuchung zum Einfluss des Internets auf die politische
Kommunikation der Bürger, in Politische Vierteljahresschrift 45, pp. 191-212.
Emmer, Martin/ Wollning, Jens (2010). Online-Kommunikation und politische Öffentlichkeit,
in, Wolfgang Schweiger andKlaus Beck (eds.), Handbuch Online-Kommunikation. Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 36-58.
Escher, Tobias (2010). Wi(e)der die „üblichen Verdächtigen“? Politische Beteiligung via
Internet, in Martin Emmer, Markus Seifert and Jens Wolling (eds.), Politik 2.0?, Baden-
Baden:Nomos, pp. 131-151.
European Center for Not-for-profit Law (2016). Civil Participation in Decision Making
Processes. An Overview of Standards and Practices in Council of Europe Member States,
Strasbourg.
Fishkin, James S. (2009). When the People Speak. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fung, Archon (2003). Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design
Choices and Their Consequences, in The Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3), pp. 338-367.
Fung, Archon (2006). Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance, in Public
Administration Review, pp. 66-75.
Fung, Archon (2015). Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges of Citizen
Participation and Its Future, in Public Admin. Rev. 75, pp. 513-522. doi:10.1111/puar.12361.
Garret, R. Kelly (2006). Protest in an Information Society: a review of literature on social
movements and new ICTs, in Information, Communication and Society 9 (2), pp. 202-224.
Gastil, John, Black, Laura, Kara Moscovitz (2008). Ideology, Attitude Change,and Deliberation
in Small Face-to-Face Groups, in Political Communication 25 (1), pp 23-46.
Geissel, Brigitte (2008). Wozu Demokratisierung der Demokratie? Kriterien zur Bewertung
partizipativer Arrangements, in Angelika Vetter (ed.), Lokale Bürgerbeteiligung, Wiesbaden:
Springer VS, pp. 29-49.
Goldschmidt, Rüdiger (2013). Entwicklung eines Kriteriensystems zur Evaluation von Dialog-
und Beteiligungsverfahren. Eine konzeptionelle Ausarbeitung der Metakriterien
Kompetenzentwicklung, Fairness, Legitimität, Transparenz, Effizienz und Effektivität, Diss.,
Stuttgart: Stuttgart Universitätsverlag.
19
Gutmann, Amy/ Thompson, Dennis (1996). Democracy and Disagreement, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Habermas (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des
demokratischen Rechtsstaates, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Held, David (2006). Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Inglehart, Ronald (1977). The Silent Revolution. Changing Values and Political Styles Among
Western Publics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, Ronald/ Welzel, Christian (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy:
The Human Development Sequence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jann, Werner/ Wegrich, Kai (2007). Theories of the Policy Cycle, in F. Fischer, G.J. Miller,
M.S.Sidney (eds), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis Theory, Politics, and Methods, New York
CRC Press, pp. 43-62
Kaase, Max (1982). Partizipatorische Revolution – Ende der Parteien?, Joachim Raschke (ed.),
Bürger und Parteien. Ansischten und Analysen einer schwierigen Beziehung, Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag, pp 173-187.
Kaase, Max (2003). Politische Beteiligung/Politische Partizipation, in U. Andersen and W.
Woyke (eds.), Handwörterbuch des politischen Systems der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,
Opladen: Leske & Budrich, pp. 495–500.
Kamlage, Jan-Hendrik (2012). Demokratische Potentiale zivilgesellschaftlicher Beteiligung im
Partnerschaftsmodell der Europäischen Regionalpolitik, Diss., Bremen: Universität Bremen.
Kamlage, Jan-Hendrik/ Nanz, Patrizia (2017). Crisis and Participation in the European Union:
Energy Policy as a Test Bed for a New Politics of Citizen Participation, in Global Society 31 (1),
pp. 65-82.
Knight, Jack/ Johnson, James (1997). What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative
DemocracyRequire? In James Bohman and William Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy:
Essays on Reason and Politics, Cambridge,Ma, London: MIT Press, pp. 279-319.
Massachusetts Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 279-320.
Lewanski, Rodolfo (2013). Institutionalizing Deliberative Democracy: the ‘Tuscany
laboratory’, in Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(1), pp.1-14
Mansbridge, Jane/ Bohman, James/ Chambers, Simone/ Christiano, Thomas/ Fung, Archon/
Parkinson, John/ Thompson, Dennis F./ Warren, Mark E. (2012). A systemic approach to
deliberative democracy, in John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge (eds.), Deliberative Systems,
New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-26.
Nanz, Patrizia/ Steffek, Jens (2005). Assessing the Democratic Quality of Deliberation in
International Governance: Criteria and Research Strategies, in Acta Politica 40 (3), pp. 368-
383.
Nanz, Patrizia/ Fritsche, Miriam (2012). Handbuch Bürgerbeteiligung. Verfahren und Akteure,
Chancen und Grenzen, Bonn: bpb.
20
Neblo, Michael A. (2007). Family Disputes: Diversity in Defining and Measuring Deliberation,
in Swiss Political Science Review 13 (4), pp. 527-557.
Netzwerk Bürgerbeteiligung, Sammlung kommunaler Leitlinien und Handlungsempfehlungen
für die Bürgerbeteiligung, available at: https://www.netzwerk-
buergerbeteiligung.de/kommunale-beteiligungspolitik-gestalten/kommunale-leitlinien-
buergerbeteiligung/sammlung-kommunale-leitlinien.
Newton, Kenneth/ Geissel, Brigitte (2012). Evaluating Democratic Innovations, Oxford:
Routledge.
OECD (2003). Promise and Problems of E-Democracy. Challenges of Online Citizen
Engagement, Paris, available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-
government/35176328.pdf.
Offe, Claus (2011). Shared Social Responsibility: the Need for and Supply of Responsible
Patterns of Social action, in Council of Europe (ed.), Towards a Europe of shared social
responsibilities: Challenges and Strategies, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, pp.15-
24, available at:
https://iris.unipa.it/retrieve/handle/10447/83526/92161/Trends_23_EN.pdf#page=16.
Parkinson, John (2007). Localism and Deliberative Democracy, in The Good Society 16 (1), pp.
23-29.
Participedia, available at: www.participedia.net.
Ravazzi, Stefania/ Pomatto, Gianfranco (2014). Flexibility, Argumentation and Confrontation.
How Deliberative Minipublics Can Affect Policies on Controversial Issues, in Journal of
Deliberation 10 (2), available at:
http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1338&context=jpd.
Renn, Ortwin/ Webler, Thomas/ Wiedemann, Peter (eds.) (1995). Fairness and Competence
in Citizen Participation. Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands.
Riedy, Chris/ Kent, Jenny (2017). Systemic Impacts of Mini-publics. Report prepared for new
Democracy Foundation, available at:
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/104435/1/nDF_RP_20170613_SystemicImpact
sOfMiniPublics.pdf.
Rousseau, Jean-Jaques (1762). The Social Contract.
Rowe, Gene/ Frewer, Lynn J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for
Evaluation, in Science Technology Human Values 25.
Ryfe, David M. (2005). Does Deliberative Democracy Work? in Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 8, pp. 49-
71.
Sanders, David (2012). The Effects of Deliberative Polling in an EU-wide Experiment: Five
Mechanisms in Search of an Explanation, in British Journal of Political Science 42, pp. 617-
640. doi:10.1017/S0007123411000494.
Smith, Graham (2009). Democratic Innovations. Designing institutions for citizen
participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21
Smith, Graham/ Richards, Robert C./ Gastil, John (2015). The Potential of Participedia as a
Crowdsourcing Tool for Comparative Analysis of Democratic Innovations, in Policy & Internet
7, pp. 243-262. doi:10.1002/poi3.93
Staatsministerin für Zivilgesellschaft und Bürgerbeteiligung Baden-Württemberg (2017),
available at: https://beteiligungsportal.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/informieren/die-
staatsraetin.
Theocharis, Yannis/ van Deth, Jan W. (2016). The Continous Expansion of of Citizen
Participation: A New Taxonomy, in European Political Science Review.
Thompson, Dennis F. (2008). Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science,
in Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, pp.497-520.
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1835, 1840). On Democracy in America.
Van Dijk, Jan A. G. M. (2006). Digital Divide Research, Achievements and Shortcomings, in
Poetics 34 (4-5), pp. 221-235.
Vedel, Thierry (2006). The Idea of Electronic Democracy: Origins, Visions and Questions, in
Parliamentary Affairs 59 (2), pp. 226-235.
Young, Iris M. (2001). Inclusion and Democracy, New York: Oxford University Press.
22
Appendix
I. Participation Methods
Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
Participants
10 - 2.000 participants; varies, possible: self-selection, random
selection or specific selection
Objectives/Function
Influence the public and society
Topics
Development of long-term objectives and measures
Context
organisation and/or internal questions
Duration
Normally 1 day, more is possible
Geographical distribution
Mostly USA, GB
Description
Appreciative Inquiry (AI) uses questions to build a vision for the
future, focusing on past and potential future successes. The questions
are designed to encourage people to tell stories from their own
experience of what works. By discussing what has worked in the past
and the reasons why, the participants can go on to imagine and create
a vision of what would make a successful future that has a firm
grounding in the reality of past successes. This process can be
implemented in a number of different ways as long as the principle of
retrospective appreciation and a future vision remains
(Participationcompass.org).
Cases
Charrette
Participants
10 - 100 people; self-selection, also specific selection
Objectives/Function
Influence on public discussions, advise decision makers
Topics
Local or regional problems; planning projects; design infrastructures,
parks etc.
Context
Questions on a local basis
Duration
For at least 4 days (plus 1 day each for preparation and post
processing); several meetings possible
Geographical distribution
Mostly USA, also Germany
Description
A charrette is a method of deliberation, through which participants
23
from different subgroups of society reach a consensus position in a
relatively short time. Charrettes are often used to design for example
parks and buildings, or to plan communities or transportation
systems. A team of design experts meets with community groups,
developers, and neighbours over a period of time. A charrette consists
of three phases. In the pre-charrette stage, the steering committee
prepares the logistics for the following two phases, defines the focus
of the project, and drafts a preliminary list of subjects which will be
discussed. During the charrette workshop itself, participants discuss
with each other and with other stakeholders and create priority lists
and recommendations and set out a strategy to implement specific
projects. The post-charrette phase creates a final document based on
these outcomes, containing an overview of action points
(participedia.net and epa.gov).
Cases
Charrette on new housing settlement (Inverness, Scotland, 2006)
Further Information
Siedlungsneubau: Charrette-Verfahren:
http://www.beteiligungskompass.org/article/show/39
Citizens’ Assembly
Participants
100 participants, random selection
Objectives/Function
Advise decision makers, consultation
Topics
Several political topics
Duration
For 2 days
several meetings possible
Geographical distribution
Ireland, Canada
Description
A Citizens’ Assembly is a representative group of citizens who are
selected at random from the population to learn about, deliberate
upon, and make recommendations in relation to a particular issue or
set of issues (citizensassembly.co.uk). The purpose is to employ a
cross-section of the public to study the options available to the state
on certain questions and to propose answers to these questions
through rational and reasoned discussions.
Cases
Citizens´ Assembly on Brexit 2017 (UK)
Citizens´ Assembly on how the State can make Ireland a leader in
tackling climate change (Ireland, 2017)
Further Information
The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit: how did it work? (2017):
https://www.involve.org.uk/2017/10/02/the-citizens-assembly-on-
brexit-how-did-it-work/
How the State can make Ireland a leader in tackling climate change
24
(2017):
https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/Submissions/How-the-State-can-
make-Ireland-a-leader-in-tackling-climate-change/
Citizen Council
Participants
8 - 12 participants, random selection
Objectives/Function
Influence on public discussions, consultation, advise decision makers
Topics
Local problems
planning projects
Context
Questions on a local basis
Duration
For 2 days
new Wisdom Council after 4 months
Geographical distribution
Austria, USA
Description
Aim is to bundle the public opinion to solve e.g. social problems. The
moderation does not provide a structure, instead it makes sure that
everyone is treated equal during the discussion and everyone can
participate. Furthermore, the moderation collects and organises the
statements in four categories: problems, solutions, concerns,
data/facts. All ideas are included in the problem solving process.
Cases
Wisdom Council on asylum and refugees (Vorarlberg, Austria, 2015)
Wisdom Council on revising the Official Community Plan (Victoria,
USA, 2010)
Further Information
Landesweiter Bürgerrat zum Asyl- und Flüchtlingsrecht:
http://www.partizipation.at/br_asyl.html
Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Baden-Württemberg:
https://buergerbeteiligung.lpb-bw.de/buergerrat0.html
Democracy pioneers: Citizen activists in Victoria BC:
http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page2/page33/wc_in_victoria.html
Citizens’ Panel
Participants
500 - 2.500 participants, random selection, maybe new-recruitment
Objectives/Function
Advise decision makers
Topics
Evaluation of opinions about local politics
25
Context
Questions on local level
Duration
3 - 4 annually, overall 3 - 4 years
Geographical distribution
Mostly GB, also Germany
Description
A Citizens' Panel is a large, demographically representative group of
citizens regularly used to assess public preferences and opinions. It
aims to be a representative, consultative body of local residents.
Once citizens agree to participate, they will be invited to a rolling
programme of research and consultation. This typically involves
regular surveys and, where appropriate, further in-depth research
tools, such as focus groups and workshops (from
participationcompass.org).
Consensus conference/citizens conference
Participants
10 - 30 participants, random selection
Objectives/Function
Influence on public discussions, consultation, advise decision makers
Topics
Controversial topics of public interest
Context
Questions on a local up to transnational level
Duration
For 3 days, plus 2 meetings to prepare
Geographical distribution
Mostly Denmark, Europe
Description
A consensus conference can be defined as, a chaired public hearing
with an audience from the public and with active participation of 10-
30 people, referred to as the jury or panel, and a corresponding
number of different experts. Essentially, Consensus Conferences are
meetings held in order to represent the average society member’s
view on a particular issue. The overriding goal striving to be achieved is
to connect the average day citizen in a community to the ideas and
advancements in the area under contention (participedia.net).
Cases
Consensus Conference on children, youth and physical activity in
schools and during leisure time (Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016)
Consensus Conference on Human Biomonitoring (Boston, USA, 2006)
Further Information
The Copenhagen Consensus Conference 2016: children, youth, and
physical activity in schools and during leisure time:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2016/05/27/bjsports-2016-
096325
A New Spin on Research Translation: The Boston Consensus
Conference on Human Biomonitoring (2008):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679590/
26
Deliberative Polling
Participants
300 - 500 participants, random selection (within specific criteria)
Objectives/Function
Information, influence public discussions
Topics
Diverse topics of public interest
Context
Questions on local to transnational level
Duration
2 surveys between a time span, in-between 2 - 3 days mediation of
information
Geographical distribution
Global, mostly USA
Description
Deliberative Polling is a unique form of political consultation that
combines techniques of public opinion research and public
deliberation to construct hypothetical representations of what public
opinion on a particular issue might look like if citizens were given a
chance to become more informed. As a polling method, the
Deliberative Poll seeks to account for the preferences and opinions
of citizens both before and after they have had an opportunity to
arrive at considered judgements based on information and exposure
to the views of fellow citizens (participedia.net).
Future-Conference
Participants
Specific selection of participants
Objectives/Function
Influence on public and society, advise decision makers
Topics
Anticipation of future development, references for diverse subjects
Context
Internal questions, also questions on a local basis
Duration
2 - 3 days
Geographical distribution
Mostly USA, UK, also Germany
Description
A Future-Conference exists out of a wider and heterogeneous group
of specific selected participants who have different (professional)
backgrounds: politics, administration or civil society. Aim is to find a
consensus during the time of the conference with local cornerstones
which help to create an image of a preferable future in the area.
Cases
Energiewende Ruhr 2016 (Ruhr Region, Germany)
Urban Future Global Conference 2016 (Graz, Austria)
Futures of a Complex World 2017 (Turku, Finland)
27
Future of Health and Safety Conference 2016 (Salford, England)
Further Information
Rahmenprogramm zur Umsetzung der Energiewende in den
Kommunen des Ruhrgebiets: energiewende-ruhr.de
Urban Future Global Conference: https://www.urban-future.org/
Futures of a Complex World (2016):
https://futuresconference2017.wordpress.com/
The Future of Health and Safety Conference 2016:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/events/future-of-hs-conference.htm
Future Workshop
Participants
5 - 200 participants, self-selection (within a natural group)
Objectives/Function
Influence the public and society, advise decision makers
Topics
Anticipate future developments and differentiation of
recommendations in relation to diverse topics
Context
organisation and/or internal questions on local level
Duration
2 - 3 days
Geographical distribution
German-speaking area, especially Austria
Description
A Future Workshop is a method for planning and forming a vision of
the future. Workshops help define aims and identify problems. They
incorporate a three phase process, sometimes preceded by
presentations which outline the workshop objectives:
• Critical analysis phase involving detailed analysis of the
situation/technology
• Visionary phase where future visions are built upon the analysis in
the first phase; these are then subject to a reality check.
• Implementation phase where the visions are turned into actions
(participationcompass.org)
Mediation
Participants
10 - 100 participants, specific selection
Objectives/Function
Influence public discussions, consultation, advise decision makers
Topics
Controversy topics of public interest
Context
Questions from local to regional level
28
Duration
1 -2 days, up to several years
Geographical distribution
Mostly Germany, other European countries
Description
Mediation aims to assist people in reaching an agreement. The
parties themselves have to determine the conditions of any possible
settlements. Mediation is effective in defining issues and developing
options when participants recognise the need to communicate the
conflict. Mediation is one of the tools used by practitioners of
'Alternative Dispute Resolution' with an emphasis on communication
to resolve mutually interdependent, opposing views or ideas
(participationcompass.org).
National Issues Forum
Participants
10 - 20 participants, self-selection
Objectives/Function
Information
Topics
Mediate information about societal relevant questions, possibly
feedback for decision makers
Context
Normally questions on a local level
Duration
1 - 2 days
Geographical distribution
USA
Description
The United States' National Issues Forum (NIF) is a nationwide
network of locally created public forums oriented towards the
deliberation of public and political issues. It is a non-partisan
network of smaller forums created nationwide whose goal is to
gather people to reason with each other, deliberate and make public
decisions together. Participants gather to discuss political issues and
matters of public importance. They converse, deliberate, generate
solutions to issues, and work together to select the best solution to
the problem (participedia.net).
Further Information
https://www.nifi.org/
Online Consultation
Participants
self-selection of participants
Objectives/Function
Exchange between government and citizens
Topics
Politics, government issues, policy development
29
Geographical distribution
UK, Denmark, Canada, USA, Australia
Description
Online consultations or e-consultations refer to an exchange
between government and citizens using the Internet. They are one
form of online deliberation. Further, online consultation consists in
using the Internet to ask a group of people their opinion on one or
more specific topics, allowing for trade-offs between participants.
Generally, an agency consults a group of people to get their thoughts
on an issue when a project or a policy is being developed or
implemented, e.g. to identify or access options, or to evaluate
ongoing activities. This enables governments to draft more citizen-
cantered policy (participedia.net).
Cases
The European Citizens Consultation 2009
Raising Standards and Improving the Quality of Road Works
(Scotland, 2017)
Further Information
The European Citizens’ Consultation 2009:
https://www.participedia.net/en/cases/european-citizens-
consultation-2009
Raising Standards and Improving the Quality of Road Works in
Scotland: https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/transport-scotland/quality-
of-road-works-in-scotland/
Open-Space-Conference
Participants
20 - 2.000 participants, self-selection
Objectives/Function
Influence on public and society
Topics
Collection of ideas and suggestions on diverse topics
Context
Questions on a local up to transnational basis, internal questions
Duration
1 - 5 days
Geographical distribution
Global, mostly USA, Germany
Description
Open Space events have a central theme around which participants
identify issues for which they are willing to take responsibility for
running a session. At the same time, these topics are distributed
among available rooms and timeslots. When no more discussion
topics are suggested, the participants sign up for the ones they wish
to take part in. Open Space creates very fluid and dynamic
conversations that are bound through a mutual enthusiasm for the
topic (participationcompass.org).
Cases
Opening Space for Peace and High Performance (New York City, USA,
2017)
30
Metropolitan Open Space (Berlin, Germany, 2017)
Further Information
Open Space Institute - US: http://www.osius.org/
metropolitan open space @ IGA 2017:
http://www.bdla.de/aktuell/top-themen/2111-metropolitan-open-
space-iga-2017
Participatory Budgeting
Participants
100 - 20.000 participants, self-selection
Objectives/Function
Advise decision makers, consultation, civil decisions
Topics
Municipal finance
Context
Questions on a local basis
Duration
For 1 day up to several days
Geographical distribution
Global, mostly South America and Europe
Description
Participatory budgeting is an umbrella term which covers a variety of
mechanisms that delegate power or influence over local budgets,
investment priorities and economic spending to citizens
(particpationcompass.org).
Cases
La Plata Multi-Channel Participatory Budgeting (Argentina, yearly
since 2008); Mobile Voting
Gender-sensitive Participatory Budgeting (Freiburg, Germany, 2008
and 2009)
Further Information
Ten examples of participatory budgeting from around the world
(2014): http://www.budgetallocator.com/2014/09/29/ten-examples-
participatory-budgeting-around-world/
Planning Cell/citizens report
Participants
100 participants, separated in groups of 25 people
random selection
Objectives/Function
Advise decision makers, influence on public discussions
Topics
Local or regional problems and planning tasks
31
Context
Questions on a local and regional basis
Duration
For at least 4 days
Geographical distribution
Mostly Germany, also Europe
Description
Planning cells is a method for deliberation developed by Prof. Dr.
Peter C. Dienel, and is designed to be a sort of "micro-parliament." In
one planning cell, 25 people from various backgrounds work
together to develop a set of solutions to a problem delegated to the
participants by a commissioning body. These solutions are then
assessed and final recommendations are presented to the
commissioning body as a "Citizen's Report" (participedia.net).
Cases
Planning Cell on intelligent energy and traffic revolution (Berlin,
Germany, 2015)
“Youth Citizens Jury” about several political topics (Bochum,
Germany, 2009)
Further Information
Liste der deutschen Planungszellen/Bürgergutachten (2015):
https://citizensjury.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/liste-der-deutschen-
planungszellen-buergergutachten/
Planning for Real
Participants
Unlimited, self-selection of participants
Objectives/Function
Influence on public and society, consultation
Topics
Local or regional problems, planning projects
Context
Questions on a local or regional basis
Duration
Multiple events for multiple weeks
Geographical distribution
Mostly UK, also Germany
Description
Participants make a 3D model of their local area and add suggestions
of how they would like to see their community develop. They then
prioritise these in groups and create an action plan for decision-
makers to take away (participationcompass.org).
Cases
What makes a good place? (Birmingham, Coventry, Walsall, England)
Parks masterplanning in Leigthon Linslade 2011 (UK)
Further Information
Planning for Real Projects: http://www.planningforreal.org.uk/our-
projects/
32
Scenario-Workshop/Scenario-Conference
Participants
25 - 30 participants per group, groups work parallel
Objectives/Function
Influence the public and society, advise decision makers
Topics
Anticipate future developments and differentiation of
recommendations in relation to diverse topics
Context
Question from local to transnational level, organisation and/or
internal questions
Duration
1 - 3 days of block events or several meetings
Geographical distribution
Mostly Europe
Description
A Scenario Workshop is a participatory method encouraging local
action with a mix of scenario and workshop which aims to solve local
problems and anticipate future ones. Scenarios involve narrative
descriptions of potential future problems that emphasize
relationships between events and decision points. In addition,
scenarios direct attention to causes, areas for development and the
span of exigencies that may be met in a local community issue. The
goal of a Scenario Workshop is to create a dialogue among policy-
makers, experts and ordinary citizens around a local and communal
matter such as water resources or transportation (participedia.net).
World Café
Participants
12 - 1.200 participants, self-selection
Objectives/Function
Influence the public and society
Topics
Versatile, applicable
Context
Question from local to transnational level, organisation and/or
internal questions
Duration
Several speaking rounds à 20 - 30 minutes
Geographical distribution
Mostly USA, GB, also Germany
Description
The World Cafe is a method which makes use of an informal cafe for
participants to explore an issue by discussing in small table groups.
Discussion is held in multiple rounds of 20 - 30 minutes. The event is
concluded with a plenary. The cafe situation supports a more
relaxed, creative and open conversation. Often participants are
provided with pens and are encouraged to draw and record their
conversations on the paper tablecloths to capture free flowing ideas
as they emerge (participationcompass.org).
33
Cases
Further Information
http://www.theworldcafe.com/what.htm
II. Promotion of Participation
Tuscany Regional Participation Policy (Italy)
Description
The Tuscany Regional Participation Policy (TRPP) is a pioneer
initiative in the Italian and European context. It is an important
administrative tool and example for institutionalization of
participation and deliberation within a region´s political system.
Public participation is institutionalised through regional laws (No
69/2007; 46/2013) and became a regular form of government. The
law supports the development of a participative culture in Tuscany.
The law strengthens the participation of the civil society and
promotes participation in various thematic fields, with a multitude
of methods and acting in various complexity levels.
Institution
Laws (No 69/2007; 46/2013); Tuscany’s Regional Authority for the
Promotion of Participation (APP): independent government body
Background
Tuscany is well known for its history of political activism and social
mobilisation. A strong culture of public participation developed since
the end of the 1980s promoted through groups that were critical
towards political parties, and public authorities.
Tuscany is a region in central Italy with a population of about 3.5
million inhabitants. The regional capital is Florence (Firenze).
Methods/Tool
The participatory methods vary
Often used are `Public debate`: a process of information and
participation on works, projects or interventions that are of
particular relevance to the region's environment, territory,
landscape, society, culture or economy. Debates usually take place
in the preliminary stages of drafting a project and make use of a
number of deliberative tools to involve the general public. Therefore
tools like Testimony and meetings with experts and scientists or
online consultation were used.
Further Information
Open Toscana - Partecipa Toscana (Italian):
http://open.toscana.it/web/partecipa
34
Lewanski (2013): Institutionalizing Deliberative Democracy: the
‘Tuscany laboratory’:
http://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=118
5&context=jpd
Participedia - The Tuscany Regional Participation Policy, Italy
https://www.participedia.net/en/cases/tuscany-regional-
participation-policy-italy
Office for Future-Related Issues (Austria)
Description
The Office for Future-Related Issues (OFRI) is a staff unit in the Office
of the Vorarlberg state government. It promotes public participation
and volunteering on a regional and local level. The OFRI initiated for
example over 40 Wisdom Councils/Bürgerinnenräte in the last ten
years. The office was founded in 1999 and has around 10
employees.
Institution
Office for Future-Related Questions and state law (Change of the
regional constitution (Landesverfassung) 2013)
Background
For over ten years Wisdom Councils were held by the Office for
Future-Related Issues in the Austrian state Vorarlberg. Therefore,
Voralberg is a European pioneer in the institutionalisation of public
participation. Since the beginning of the 1990s the states promotes
public participation and the transformation to sustainability by
financing the office.
Vorarlberg is the westernmost federal state of Austria. It has the
second-smallest area after Vienna, and although it has the second-
smallest population with around 380.000 people.
Methods/Tool
Wisdom Council/Bürgerinnenräte
Dynamic Facilitation is a specific form of working with small groups
that helps participants to engage creatively with divergent
perspectives
Further Information
Office for Future-Related Issues:
https://www.vorarlberg.at/english/vorarlberg-
english/environment_future/officeforfuture-
relatedis/officeforfuture-relatedis/officeforfuture-relatedis.htm
Centre for Wise Democracy:
http://www.wisedemocracy.org/page2/page4/wisdom_councils_in_
35
austria.html
Heidelberg (Germany)
Description
The city of Heidelberg agreed on guidelines of public participation in
2012. The guidelines are a result of a meta deliberation process of
the ‘Arbeitskreis Bürgerbeteiligung’ in 2011. The members of this
working group have been experts, politicians and lay citizens of the
city. Nowadays public participation plays a crucial role in formal
decision-making processes within the city.
Institution
Regional Administration Office (Koordinierungsstelle) and laws
Background
In 2010, the rebuilding of the ancient congress centre has been
stopped due to a public referendum. The protest and the lack of
support in infrastructure projects led to a new way of thinking and
strengthened the role of public participation.
Heidelberg is a college town in Baden-Württemberg situated on the
river Neckar in south-west Germany. Its population is around
150.000, with roughly a quarter of its population being students.
Methods/Tool
Several methods and tools depending on the issue (online and face-
to-face deliberation)
Further Information
Bürgerbeteiligung in Heidelberg (German):
http://www.heidelberg.de/hd,Lde/HD/Rathaus/Buergerbeteiligung.
html
36
