Tackling civic participation challenges with emerging technologies

2. Citizen Participation and deliberation face challenges

Citizen participation refers to the efforts by public institutions to hear the views, perspectives, and inputs from citizens and stakeholders. Participation allows citizens and stakeholders to influence the activities and decisions of public authorities at different stages of the policy cycle, and at all levels of government. The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017[18]) distinguishes among three levels of participation, which differ according to the level of involvement:

• Information: an initial level of participation characterised by a one-way relationship in which the government produces and delivers information to citizens and stakeholders. It covers both on-demand provision of information and “proactive” measures by the government to disseminate information.

• Consultation: a more advanced level of participation that entails a two-way relationship in which citizens and stakeholders provide feedback to the government and vice-versa. It is based on the prior definition of the issue for which views are being sought and requires the provision of relevant information, in addition to feedback on the outcomes of the process.

• Engagement: when citizens and stakeholders are given the opportunity and the necessary resources (e.g. information, data, and digital tools) to collaborate during all phases of the policy-cycle and in the service design and delivery. It acknowledges equal standing for citizens in setting the agenda, proposing project or policy options and shaping the dialogue – although the responsibility for the final decision or policy formulation in many cases rests with public authorities.

Governments can involve the public through different mechanisms, spanning from consultations to representative deliberative processes1. The OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes (2022[19]) provide detailed guidance and cases for eight different methods that governments can use to involve citizens in policy making:

• Access to information and data: Publishing information proactively and providing information reactively.

• Open meetings and townhall meetings: Gathering the public in face-to-face meetings with public authorities, in order to provide information and openly discuss topics of interest.

• Public consultations: A two-way relationship in which participants provide feedback to a public institution (such as comments, perceptions, information, advice, experiences, and ideas).

• Open innovation (crowdsourcing, hackathons, and public challenges): Tapping into the collective intelligence to co-create solutions to specific public problems via crowdsourcing, hackathons, or public challenges.

• Citizen science: Involving citizens in one or many stages of a scientific (or evidence-based) investigation, including the identification of research questions, collection of data and evidence, conducting observations, analysing data, and using the resulting knowledge.

• Civic monitoring: Involving citizens in the monitoring and evaluation of public decisions, policies, and services. Civic monitoring can be considered as a social accountability mechanism.

• Participatory budgeting: Mechanisms that allow citizens and stakeholders to influence budgetary public decisions through the direct allocation of public resources to priorities or projects or by being involved in public deliberations.

• Representative deliberative processes: A randomly selected group of people who are broadly representative of a community spending significant time learning and collaborating through facilitated deliberation to form collective recommendations for policy makers.

Main challenges to ensure that participatory and deliberative processes are impactful

Participation and deliberation face a series of challenges to ensure a positive contribution to democracy and trust. These challenges are not new nor emerging, having been identified by the OECD, practitioners and scholars. For example, Edelenbos (1999[20]) discusses challenges of process design and process management, pondering on how participation should be included in the policy cycle and how the process should be managed to produce the most effective outcomes. Kurkela et al (2024[21]) point out the relevance of building a culture of participation through trust and citizen empowerment, while Abas (2023[22]) stresses the lack of financial resources, low efficiency, language barriers and lack of adequate skills.

Building on evidence collected through interviews with the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain as well as the work with pilot projects throughout the European Union2, the OECD identified eight clusters compiling the most pressing challenges3 faced by both civil servants and citizens when designing and implementing participatory processes. These challenges unfold in distinct ways depending on the specific context and affect differently the actors involved (e.g. governments, citizens, specific groups, practitioners). Following sections will demonstrate how governments can make use of emerging technologies to address these challenges.

Table 2. Mapping of challenges

Category of challenge	Concrete challenges faced by both public authorities and participants
Trust	Low levels of public trust, in particular, not feeling that participation will have an impact. Lack of confidence in citizens’ skills and abilities to make informed decisions on policies.
Impact	Difficulty to evaluate the impact of participation. Low levels of accountability after a participatory process. Inconsistent feedback loop. Low levels of impact on decision making. Challenges in making sense of inputs received, such as analysing large volumes and understanding trends and conflicting interests.
Institutional	Lack of awareness or incentives in public administration Low levels of institutionalization. Disconnection from representative institutions and decision-making processes
Inclusion	Exclusion of usually underrepresented or marginalized groups. Process not accessible for individuals with special needs. Technical and complex language.
Design	Unappealing processes Multiplicity, opacity, and complexity of participatory processes. Gaining and maintaining participants’ interest.
Isolation	Gap between process (and its outcomes) and the wider public
Integrity	Vulnerability to undue influence or policy capture by interest groups.
Resources	Lack of resources, be they human or financial. Limited capacities and skills to organise (government officials) and to participate (citizens)

Author own’s elaboration

1. A significant portion of citizens do not trust their governments nor the outcomes of a participatory process.

The OECD defines trust as “a person’s belief that another person or institution will act consistently with their expectation of positive behaviour” (OECD, 2024[23]). According to the 2024 Trust Survey, only 39% of citizens trust their national government and less than 40% are convinced that a majority view against a national policy would be enough to nudge governments to review its implementation.

There is a strong sense that public authorities are not properly taking into account the inputs received or are implementing participatory processes as a box to be ticked or as a communication exercise (Slaev et al., 2019[24]) (Ianniello, Iacuzzi and Brusati, 2019[25]). On average across OECD countries, only 32% of citizens find it likely that the government would adopt the opinions expressed in a public consultation (OECD, 2024[23]). Participatory processes that are not followed up, or are perceived as pointless by citizens, can hinder trust in government and reinforce the perception that participation has no influence, creating frustration and deterring meaningful participation by citizens in the future (Gilman, 2022[26]).

2. Impact of participation can be hindered by lack of feedback and accountability.

Measuring the impact of participatory and deliberative processes is a long-standing issue reflected by public authorities, academics and practitioners (Abas et al., 2023[22]) (Ayano, 2021[27]) (Font, Pasadas del Amo and Smith, 2016[28]). The impact of a participatory and deliberative process can be understood in three levels: i) on decision-making, ii) on participants and iii) on society at large. Impact on participants can be deemed subjective, as it influences participants’ behaviour, changing their perception and behaviour (for example, reducing polarisation), and possibly having a positive impact on inter-personal and public trust. For these benefits to be extended to society, then governments need make participation a habit and ensure voices are heard (OECD, 2022[19]) (OECD, 2024[23]). Impact can be hindered if public authorities do not close the feedback loop, which means communicating back to participants and the broader public on the results of the process. Lack of feedback and clear accountability mechanisms can reinforce the perception that participation does not generate impact on policies and cause discourage among citizens to participate in future occasions (OECD, 2022[19]).

3. Institutional challenges and disconnection from decision-making remain a barrier to impact.

Interviews with the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, as well as evidence from other countries including Brazil (2022[29]), Romania (2023[30]), and Czechia (2023[31]) point to important institutional challenges as a barrier to ensure participation delivers impact. Namely, low levels of institutionalisation and political will among elected representatives and policymakers. Institutionalisation refers to establishing a legal or cultural form of commitment to go beyond one-off processes and embed participatory and deliberative mechanisms into existing decision-making structures such as local councils, governments, or Parliaments (OECD, 2021[32]). This helps ensure their continuity regardless of political change, builds a culture of participation and deliberation in and out of government, and increases the opportunities for citizens to participate in public decision and policymaking. There are different ways to institutionalise participatory processes, including through legislation, by embedding them in administrative or policy processes, or by establishing permanent mechanisms.

4. Participatory processes are not always inclusive nor accessible

According to the Perceptions of Democracy Survey run in 34 countries, most minorities groups, women and low-income individuals perceive higher barriers to access representative institutions and are more sceptical about governmental institutional performance (International IDEA, 2024[33]). Participatory and deliberative practices aim at enriching and complementing traditional representative spaces such as elected assemblies by offering spaces for usually underrepresented voices to have a say. Participatory and deliberative mechanisms need to be accessible and provide enabling conditions for all who wish to participate, nevertheless, lack of inclusion remains an important challenge. People can be excluded for a variety of reasons due to social, physical, economic, or cultural factors (Gilman, 2022[26]).

Steps can be taken to ensure that deliberative processes foster accessibility and inclusion for example by remunerating participants or covering for basic costs such as transportation to attend, daycare services, or translation (OECD, 2020[34]).

5. Poorly designed processes can create barriers to participation.

Participatory processes should be designed to ensure equal standing for all participants, reach the expected outcomes and provide participants with a positive experience. Their design should not only produce process and outcome satisfaction, but also attract and maintain the attention of the public (Abas et al., 2023[22]) (Kurkela et al., 2024[21]). For example, avoiding the dominance of certain participants or groups, be it because they are more vocal, informed or aligned with public authorities’ objectives is an important point of contention to observe and counter to ensure and not discourage the engagement of all participants (Escobar, 2012[35]). In this sense, an adequate use of dialogue, enabling a safe, respectful, and open environment, where participants can not only voice their views and opinions, but also feel comfortable to advocate for them is essential to ensure engagement throughout the process (Escobar, 2012[35]).

Governments have many methodological supports to use as blueprints for the design of their participatory processes including the OECD Guidelines4, the Council of Europe’s Code of Good Practice5 or the European Commission's corporate guidance6 on citizen participation.

6. Isolation from the broader society can hinder legitimacy and impact.

A recurrent challenge for participatory and deliberative processes is isolation from the wider public. The connection with the broader public enables increased awareness about the process and its outcomes and supports greater legitimacy for the whole process. It is vital to involve the wider community in the conversation to increase uptake of the results, especially when those will impact the community beyond the process’ participants (OECD, 2024[36]). Public communication throughout the process can help bridge the process and the broad public as well build legitimacy for the process’ outcomes (OECD, 2021[32]). Alternatively, using different forms of participation in combination can support expanding the reach and diversity of voices, for example, the Forum against Fakes in Germany combined a deliberative process with online consultations.

7. Participatory and deliberative process can be vulnerable to undue influence.

Integrity is understood as “consistent alignment of, and adherence to, shared ethical values, principles and norms for upholding and prioritising the public interest over private interests in the public sector” (OECD, 2017[18]). Participatory processes can be victim of undue influence by malicious actors (including foreign organisations) or by private interests through lobbying. Lobbying and other influence activities are understood as actions aimed at promoting the interests of other influence actors with reference to public decision-making and electoral processes (OECD, 2024[37]). Lobby frameworks are especially relevant since they can increase transparency in this field, by clearly revealing, who is lobbying, for what purposes and how are they are conducting their lobbying efforts (OECD, 2024[38]). This not only allows for governments to be transparent about the activities of lobbyists and public officials, but also to understand which interests are vying for representation in policymaking (OECD, 2024[38]).

The more open and often not institutionalised nature of citizen participation processes entails the risk that their results amplify the opinions and positions of single, organised and better resourced interests in the understanding of policymakers. While representative deliberative processes are designed to reflect the composition and the interests of the society as a whole (OECD, 2020[34]), governments should strive to design accessible and transparent participatory processes to provide a level playing field to all groups and interests.

8. Public authorities often lack adequate capacities and resources

Designing and implementing a participatory process requires dedicated resources to be successfully implemented and result in useful outputs for decision makers. The necessary resources vary depending on the design and implementation of the process. Some elements that will influence the amount and type of resources needed can include: the scope of the process (timeframe, number of participants), the method used, the type of recruitment, the tools, and some logistical considerations such as venues and facilitation. Resources can be human, financial, and/or technical (OECD, 2022[19]).

For example, it can take, on average, 8-12 months to set up, run and follow up on a Citizens’ Assembly, as well as the costs associated with selecting venues, experts, staff, materials, remuneration or expense coverage of participants, among others can require a budget commitment spanning several thousand euros (DemocracyNext, 2023[39]). Additionally, involving the public requires specific sets of skills and infrastructures to properly engage with citizens and process the inputs receive. Public officials need skills in facilitation, empathy, active listening, and capacity to summarise large number of inputs received (Ianniello, Iacuzzi and Brusati, 2019[25]) (Kurkela et al., 2024[21]).

Notes

← 1.  To consult additional OECD resources on the benefits of citizen participation and deliberation, as well as guidance for governments: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/open-government-and-citizen-participation/innovative-public-participation.html

← 2.  For more information on the collaboration between the OECD and the European Commission’s Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policies: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/engaging-citizens-in-cohesion-policy_486e5a88-en.html

← 3.  These challenges were collected through a variety of sources, such as desk research and literature review, and evidence from implementing 11 pilots in the European Union. They then underwent a round of validation with the Expert Panel assembled for this specific project and the OECD Innovative Citizen Participation Network (ICPN).

← 4.  OECD’s Guidelines on Citizen Participation Processes: https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/oecd-guidelines-for-citizen-participation-processes-f765caf6-en.htm

← 5.  Council of Europe’s Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation in the Decision-Making Process: https://www.coe.int/en/web/ingo/civil-participation

← 6.  European Commission's corporate guidance on citizen engagement: https://citizens.ec.europa.eu/document/download/ebc24405-4220-4273-9284-6ef84aa15344_sk?filename=Corporate%20Guidance%20on%20Citizen%20Engagement.pdf