A Toolkit for Adopting Ideas from Other Cities

3. Step 2: Assessing which ideas to pursue

Abstract

This chapter focuses on how cities assess which external ideas to pursue. Without careful assessment, there is a risk of investing in approaches that are poorly suited to local needs or constraints. Understanding how and why an idea worked elsewhere, and whether those conditions can be replicated, is a critical first step. The chapter sets out four actions to support this process. These include gathering the right evidence to move beyond headline success stories, assessing how well an idea aligns with local priorities and constraints, engaging target groups early to test its relevance, and working with national governments where additional analytical capacity is needed. Together, these actions help cities make more informed decisions about whether and how to take forward ideas from elsewhere.

Why it matters

Assessing whether an idea from elsewhere is suitable for local adoption requires understanding how it works, why it succeeded, and under what conditions it can be adapted. It begins with understanding the original project by unpacking the idea’s key components such as the specific problem it solves, the governance and staff needed to design and sustain it, the capabilities and infrastructure required, and the metrics tracked throughout implementation. This assessment work benefits from engaging the originator city or, secondarily, intermediaries with a deep understanding of the idea (e.g. city networks, NGOs). Learning through site visits, discussions, and follow-ups can deepen understanding. Indeed, “information only becomes knowledge when it is understood and when it can be used or applied by its recipient” (Haupt et al., 2019, p. 146[1]).

Ideas are more likely to travel when originating cities craft compelling narratives around their initiatives. Narratives, including success stories, are the most readily available form of evidence relating to any successful urban initiative that originators wanted to showcase. Through conferences, study tours, and international networks, these stories circulate, often more powerfully than technical reports or formal evaluations (Montero, 2018[2]). These narratives simplify complex policies into accessible storylines emphasising clear problems, innovative solutions, and visible results, which makes them easier for other cities to understand, adapt, and adopt. For example, cities frequently “brand” their policies in ways that resonate beyond their local context: framing a transport reform as a story of efficiency and modernisation, or presenting a housing initiative as a replicable low-cost solution for peers.

These narratives are powerful resources for cities that wish to identify good ideas, and to use them to raise awareness and motivate action locally. However, when engaging with these stories, cities should keep in mind that these branded narratives may leave aside some important contextual enablers or barriers faced during implementation. As highlighted by experts consulted through this project, oversimplifying the storytelling risks losing nuances that are critical for effective adoption, such as important social and economic complexities, or learning opportunities that often come from failures. Adopting cities should endeavour to get a full picture of these enablers and barriers when assessing the idea for local implementation.

For cities that wish to adopt an idea from elsewhere, narratives are valuable starting points, but not sufficient to fully understand whether and how an idea can work locally. It is important to assess the impact of the idea, including by examining the causal mechanisms underpinning the outcomes produced by the idea. This implies asking the following questions: which specific aspects of the intervention led to which outcomes? Through which pathways? Is there any evidence to support a causality? Importantly, even when there is strong causal evidence that an intervention produced positive effects in its original setting (i.e. high internal validity), this does not automatically guarantee that similar effects will materialise elsewhere. Questions of external validity are central: what works, for whom, and under what institutional, social and political conditions may differ substantially across cities.

As such when assessing an idea for local fit, cities need to consider the context in which the idea will be implemented, and how this differs from the city of origin. Such key factors include population size, geography, climate risks and broader geopolitical dynamics, as well as governance, legal and financial frameworks (Li, Taeihagh and Tan, 2022[3]). These elements can both enable and constrain the success of a transferred policy. Moreover, translating a policy into a new context means recognising that institutional structures, cultural norms, and community priorities vary widely between cities. For example, the Housing First model, developed in New York City (US), was adapted to Helsinki’s (Finland) welfare-oriented context, leading to different operational approaches under the same guiding principle.

To avoid the pitfalls of uninformed replication, cities must look beyond what worked elsewhere and ask why it worked and under what conditions. Recognising these differences in context and governance has direct implications for how cities assess ideas from elsewhere, and for the types of evidence they rely on to do so. In some cases, successful adoption of ideas can require changes to the legal or policy framework, or changes to the local governance and institutional structure. This, in turn, shapes what kinds of information cities need to seek out in order to truly understand an idea. Acknowledging this has implications for the types of evidence cities will need to find to truly understand an idea. The OECD/Bloomberg Philanthropies survey results highlight that cities widely rely on data, cost-benefit analysis, and feasibility studies to evaluate new ideas, demonstrating a strong commitment to evidence-based decision-making. Most cities depend on internal data (88% of 67 responding cities) and piloting (72%) rather than external evaluations or community input (61%). Yet, discussions with case-study cities also suggest that assessing ideas from elsewhere is not necessarily an evidence-based and formal process.

In practice, external inspiration often feeds into broader local ideation processes, where ideas are explored, adapted, and combined rather than evaluated individually against a fixed set of criteria. This more informal approach is both common and, in many cases, does allow local authorities to meet their policy goals. Rather than seeking to replace this approach, this toolkit proposes a set of practical reflection points to help cities make these processes more deliberate and transparent.

Taken together, these insights suggest that assessing local fit is not a single technical exercise, but a practical process of reducing uncertainty and maximising fit. Cities need to move from inspiration to informed judgement: first by gathering the right evidence to understand what an idea is, how it worked, and under what conditions; then by testing whether it is compatible with local needs, realities, priorities, and constraints; and, where relevant, by checking that it resonates with the needs and expectations of target groups. In some cases, this process also requires support beyond the city itself, particularly when legal, fiscal, or data-related questions depend on national frameworks. The actions outlined support cities in clarifying what is known about an idea, how well it fits the local context, what evidence exists of its impact, what costs and benefits it may entail, and whether it can be sustained over time, with the aim of maximising value for local residents.

Practical actions

Four practical actions are suggested to evaluate ideas for local fit: Gather the right evidence to unpack success stories; Assess the compatibility of the idea with the local context; Test local relevance with target groups before committing to adoption; Work with national governments to strengthen local capacity to assess ideas.

Gather the right evidence to unpack success stories

Success stories and peer exchanges are often the starting point for learning from elsewhere. But on their own, they rarely provide enough information to support adoption decisions. Cities that adopt ideas effectively go further: they are explicit about what decision they are trying to make and gather evidence accordingly. In practice, cities draw on a range of sources. Peer exchanges and networks are the most common sources of new ideas, used by more than two-thirds (67%) of 62 responding cities to the OECD/Bloomberg Philanthropies survey, followed by stakeholder engagement (56%), internal research (50%), and formal publications (40%). Among these, peer learning through exchanges, site visits, partnerships or twinning is seen as particularly valuable for understanding the challenges associated with implementing an idea, with 64% rating it as “very useful”.

Discussions with cities indicate that the appropriate depth and type of evidence depend on how an external idea is intended to be used locally. This does not imply lowering evidentiary standards but rather aligning evidence to purpose and decision stage. The examples below illustrate how different purposes call for different types of evidence:

• To raise awareness or build political momentum, qualitative insights and success stories shared through conferences, peer exchanges, or communication materials can be sufficient. At this stage, detailed implementation information is not always necessary.

• To decide whether an idea is worth adopting, cities may need a strong understanding of their own administrative capabilities, digital and physical infrastructure, legal framework and staff skills. For example, a city considering the adoption of a digital permitting platform may first need to assess whether it has an up-to-date digital cadastre, interoperable IT systems, sufficient technical staff and whether residents or businesses have digital access themselves. In such cases, evidence on internal capacity and feasibility may be as important as evidence on the policy idea itself. This internal evidence-gathering stage should not be neglected, as it may also imply co-operating with stakeholders beyond the local government (e.g. national government, statistical agencies, universities).

• To adapt or expand an existing local policy, cities are more likely to need technical and quantitative data to assess costs, feasibility, risks, and expected impact in the local context.

• Across all stages, direct discussions with technical staff in the originator city or intermediaries familiar with implementation are critical to uncover the implementation challenges, hidden costs, and risks that are often absent from success stories or public-facing materials.

Overall, these practices highlight that learning from elsewhere is most effective when cities are deliberate about the information they seek. A structured, purpose-driven approach to gathering and analysing insights can help cities prioritise ideas, identify enabling gaps early, and reduce the risk of misalignment.

Box 3.1. The role of success stories at different steps of the idea adoption process

Success stories play different and evolving roles across the steps of policy idea adoption. The global spread of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems, notably inspired by Bogota’s (Colombia) 2000 model, illustrates how storytelling drives urban policy adoption. Although Curitiba (Brazil) introduced a similar system in 1974, it was Bogotá’s narrative of transformation that accelerated BRT’s worldwide uptake and put the idea on the map. The examples below show how success stories may play a key role at different stages of the idea adoption process.

Step 1 – Building your city’s capacity to learn from others

At early stages, success stories primarily serve as inspirational devices. Cities such as Colombo (Sri Lanka) or the Liverpool City Region (the United Kingdom) note that success stories can be useful exactly for what they are: inspiring images. Colombo stresses that these inspiring images served the ideation process and avoid wasting resources on “reinventing the wheel”. Learning from countries that are judged to offer a comparable context is deemed most valuable. For example, inspired by Bangkok’s (Thailand) public communication approach, they applied it to their own city’s healthy eating campaign. The Liverpool City Region argues that stories are key to create momentum within local governments by raising interest for an idea, encouraging political leaders to take ownership of the idea, securing budget and staff resources. At this stage, stories matter less for their technical details than for their ability to mobilise interest and align actors around a shared vision.

Step 2 – Evaluating ideas for local fit

As cities move from inspiration to assessment, the limitations of success stories become more apparent. All cities interviewed note that these success stories tend to leave out critical technical details that may be necessary for successful adoption. Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), for instance, treats success stories such as Mexico City’s (Mexico) sustainable building legislation as a starting point, rather than a blueprint. The city complements high level narratives, in-person exchanges and site visits, using face-to-face discussions to ask questions and unpack the success story to identify the takeaways and risks that would be key to ensure local success. Candid, informal conversations are seen as particularly valuable for revealing implementation challenges and identifying potential risks.

Step 3 – Adapting and implementing ideas

At later stages, cities place greater emphasis on local data, experimentation and adaptation than on the success story itself. The Okayama government (Japan) illustrates this approach: technical teams focus first on assessing the compatibility between local needs and the experience of other cities. Only where strong alignment exists do they engage directly with the originator city. This helps to collect additional insights about potential implementation challenges. Finally, pilots are used to further explore how the idea might fare locally and then adapt it to local needs.

Source: Interviews with cities.

Implementation tip

Cities can review the following questions to define a plan to gather and assess evidence about the idea of interest, in a way that supports the critical assessment of success stories.

 

Key questions	If not…
Do you know what problem this idea was initially meant to address, and can you characterise the original issue in a precise manner?	Explore which type of insights may help understand the issue in the originator city and assess the idea and related success stories (e.g. qualitative data about impact for awareness raising; socioeconomic data to assess compatibility between the originator and adopter city).
Can you precisely define which local issue the adopted idea would solve, and can you characterise it in an evidence-based manner?	Clarify internally whether the idea is meant to raise awareness, inform a decision, pilot a solution or improve an existing policy. Review all available evidence about the issue of interest and identify gaps.
Do you have a clear overview of the capabilities, infrastructure and resources this idea requires?	Contact the originator city or intermediaries familiar with the idea (e.g. city networks, NGOs) to better understand the capabilities, infrastructure and resources that were needed to implement this idea. Consider staff skills, digital or physical infrastructure, legal frameworks, funding and delivery partners.
Is there plausible evidence that this idea has worked in the city? Detailed evidence about its impacts? Evidence about why it worked, and for whom? Evidence about whether it worked in another place beyond the originator city?	Consider organising a site visit and meetings with the originator city to better understand impact.
Is there credible (rigorous, independent, peer-reviewed) evidence that this idea could work better than what you currently do?	Liaise with city government stakeholders to gather evidence about current practice, so as to be able to compare the expected benefits of adopting the idea with the status quo.
Is this problem a priority for key decision makers and the public in your city?	Consult relevant stakeholders within your city (Cabinet members, advisors to the Mayor) to identify whether this idea could fit in with political priorities. Even technically sound ideas are unlikely to progress without political support, leadership buy-in or public demand.

Assess the compatibility of the idea with the local context

Ideas that work in one demographic, legal or financial setting may not work elsewhere. Local conditions that are both within and beyond the local government’s control will shape whether the policy adopted from elsewhere may be successful. Having a clear understanding of context before embarking on idea adoption helps to maximise public value and use resources as efficiently as possible. Important considerations include population size, geography, natural disaster risks and broader geopolitical dynamics, as well as governance, legal and financial frameworks (Li, Taeihagh and Tan, 2022[3]), but also political priorities and institutional capacity to adopt and implement new ideas. Other factors, such as social and cultural norms, may also be valuable to consider (Towns, 2012[4]). These elements can both enable and constrain the success of a policy adopted from elsewhere. One in three surveyed cities (34%) mention legal and regulatory barriers may impede the adoption of ideas from elsewhere.

Box 3.2. Geography, topography and climate matter for local adaptations

Checking for compatibility with the local context can mean several things, including assessing geography, topography or climate, including both similarities and differences. For example, Rotterdam (the Netherlands) has pioneered innovative water management solutions such as “water squares,” which combine public space with temporary rainwater storage. Cities such as Ho Chi Minh City (Viet Nam) and New Orleans (the United States), both facing frequent flooding linked to heavy rainfall and rapid urbanisation, identified an initial point of compatibility: like Rotterdam, they experience recurrent surface water accumulation that strains conventional drainage systems. Another city’s early assessment of local conditions could highlight differences rendering the idea incompatible. Rotterdam’s model is designed for a low-lying delta city with high groundwater levels, prompting other cities to question whether similar infrastructure would perform effectively under their own conditions.

Similarly, Anchorage (the United States) explored a housing model developed in Atlanta (the United States) that used shipping containers to create dignified housing for people experiencing homelessness. An initial point of alignment was the shared policy objective: rapidly increasing the supply of low-cost, transitional housing. However, an early assessment of the local context quickly surfaced potential constraints: Anchorage’s colder climate and different construction ecosystem raised questions about the suitability of shipping containers as a primary building material, as well as the availability of local contractors with relevant expertise. Recognising these mismatches at the outset allowed the city to determine that, while the core idea was relevant, its original delivery model would not be directly transferable.

Source: Interviews with cities; Baurick and Granger (2020[5]), Special Report: The Dutch Mastered Water for a Millennium. Could Their New Approach Save New Orleans?, https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/special-report-dutch-mastered-water-millennium-could-their-new-approach-save-new-orleans; C40 Cities (2016[6]), C40 Good Practice Guides: Ho Chi Minh City - Triple-A Strategic Planning, https://www.c40.org/case-studies/c40-good-practice-guides-ho-chi-minh-city-triple-a-strategic-planning/.

Implementation tip

The questions below can be used to assess the compatibility of the idea to the local context. They are not exhaustive and should be selected and/or adapted depending on their relevance to the idea of interest. For any questions the answer of which would be “no”, cities should explore whether some adaptations would be possible, and whether those would be feasible and affordable. If that is the case, they can move on to the next stage. Should many blocking points be spotted, this may be grounds for considering another idea instead.

• Is the geographical / topographical structure of my city compatible with this policy (e.g. mountainous or flat terrain; wide or narrow streets; seaside, riverside city; climate; etc.)?

• Is the economic profile of my city compatible with this policy (e.g. informal vs. formal housing sector, transport sector or garbage collection sector; industrial vs. service-based economy; etc.)?

• Is the social profile of my target group compatible with that of the original target group (e.g. age, gender, income, family structure, work status)?

• Are widespread norms and representations in the city compatible with this policy (e.g. cycling being perceived as unsafe would challenge the success of a cycling lane development, if no redress mechanisms are added)?

• Is the time right for this policy to be successful locally (e.g. consider potential impact of geopolitical, health, or economic crises on its success)?

• Does my city have the same responsibilities and prerogatives as the originator city?

• Does my city have sufficient resources (budget) and capacity (staff) to dedicate to implementing and sustaining this idea?

• Is this policy compatible with the relevant strategies already adopted at the city level and at the metropolitan, regional and national levels?

• Is there a legal framework in place to develop this idea?

Policymakers may take advantage of harmonised and internationally comparable data produced by international organisations such as the OECD. The OECD Data Explorer and Local Data Portal are of particular value for cities and can help them assess the comparability of the originator city’s context to their own.

The actions listed under Step 3 “Adapting and Implementing the Idea” offer some guidance on how to address some of these incompatibilities by adapting the idea to the local context.

Test local relevance with target groups before committing to adoption

Before committing to adopting an external idea, cities may verify problem-solution alignment by working with the target groups. Rather than focusing on how to implement the idea, engaging residents at the idea assessment stage aims to understand how the issue is experienced on the ground. It can help determine whether the externally inspired approach addresses locally expressed needs and is aligned with community priorities, so as to be perceived as legitimate. Citizen input at this stage complements data analysis and exchanges with the originating city by adding contextual knowledge that may not be visible in other sources of evidence. It can help identify mismatches between the imported model and local expectations, raise potential unintended consequences, and clarify whether alternative approaches should be considered. At this stage, engagement with target groups remains exploratory and diagnostic. The objective is not yet to co-design the intervention, but to assess whether adoption is justified.

The OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes (OECD, 2022[7]) stress that citizen participation can help public authorities solve complex problems, particularly those that do not have straightforward solutions and that imply numerous trade-offs. Citizen participation enables city governments to draw on collective intelligence as a resource to explore ideas from elsewhere, gather contextual knowledge to assess the suitability of an idea, and identify potential unintended consequences early. In policymaking, co-creation refers to approaches that “engag[e] diverse stakeholders in the process of understanding complex problems, and designing and evaluating contextually relevant solutions” (Vargas et al., 2022, p. 2[8]). Drawing inspiration from these approaches, cities may consider working with communities early on to better understand how the issue at hand is experienced by constituents, and what they would need to improve that experience. Once this baseline is established, local governments may continue engaging with the target group to assess, together, which solutions would be most likely to succeed locally.

Early consultation (that is, before an idea is selected for adoption) can also strengthen implementation prospects by building trust in the local government’s idea adoption strategy. The OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions (OECD, 2024[9]) shows that local authorities are already more trusted than national governments, with 45.0% of the population reporting high or moderately high trust in local authorities compared with 39.3% for national government. It also finds that citizens who feel they have a say in decision making report higher levels of trust in government. Meaningful early engagement signals that municipal authorities value residents’ perspectives and are committed to developing solutions with, rather than simply for, the communities they serve.

Implementation tip

The goal at this stage is to assess fit, not to design delivery. Consulting target groups early may appear challenging, as city governments might fear citizens will not be able to grasp the complexity of the issue, will not commit to the process, or may use it as an avenue to voice grievances rather than share constructive feedback. The OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation and Processes (OECD, 2022[7]) underline that a well-designed participation exercise helps to overcome all these risks. Among the practical insights shared in these guidelines, the six following design principles are highlighted (OECD, 2022, p. 18[7]):

• Giving citizens a clear task

• Being transparent about the process and its intended impact

• Providing an opportunity for learning

• Giving enough information for people to come to an informed point of view

• Having well-moderated, well-facilitated dialogue and deliberation (especially to ensure that some voices are not crowded out by those of more confident participants)

• Providing compensation for the time/travel/other costs

In addition to these principles, city governments should also carefully design the recruitment processes for these consultation exercises to ensure a variety of voices are represented, and that it is not always the same citizens who join such participatory exercises. Some citizens may decide not to engage if they feel they would lack the skills to voice an opinion. Stressing that the process will allow them to come to an informed opinion is key. Finally, carefully planning these consultations exercises is also important to avoid consultation fatigue among stakeholders.

Box 3.3. Consulting the community to guide idea adoption: the case of Renca (Chile)

Early and structured engagement with residents can help cities clarify priorities, assess whether external ideas respond to local needs and shape how these ideas are adapted and implemented.

In Renca (Chile), large scale community consultation played a decisive role in validating priorities before the city engaged with an external model. When Mayor Claudio Castro Salas (incumbent at the time of publication) arrived in power, he organised a series of workshops to understand residents’ main concerns. These consultations identified youth drug consumption as a key local concern.

At the same time, the Mayor learned about Iceland’s Planet Youth from the Mayor of Reykjavik through the OECD Champion Mayors Initiative. Rather than adopting the model wholesale, Renca used community consultation results as a basis to evaluate whether, and how, it could be applied locally. Constituents had shared concerns around youth well-being and substance use, and a clear preference for preventive approaches that strengthen families, schools, peer networks, and neighbourhoods. These insights confirmed that Planet Youth’s underlying logic resonated locally and helped guide how the city framed, adapted, and introduced the programme. The programme has generated measurable results, including reductions in youth substance use and increased participation in extracurricular activities. Early citizen engagement was identified as a critical factor in ensuring the borrowed idea fit local needs.

Source: Interviews with cities.

Work with national governments to strengthen local capacity to assess ideas

Assessing whether a policy or practice developed elsewhere is compatible with a city’s own context requires a solid understanding of local conditions. While cities are best placed to interpret their own social, economic and spatial realities, national governments can play a critical enabling role by strengthening the data and analytical foundations on which such assessments rely (ITF, 2024[10]) (OECD, 2023[11]).

In particular, national government can support cities by:

• Facilitating access to relevant, up-to-date baseline data at sufficiently granular geographical levels, including demographic, socio-economic, environmental, and transport data that are often costly or difficult for cities to collect independently.

• Providing guidance, standards and resources for the collection, maintenance, interoperability, and governance of local data, helping ensure consistency and quality across jurisdictions while reducing the administrative burden on individual cities.

Beyond support on data, which may be a national priority irrespective of its link to idea adoption, cities can also work with national governments to strengthen their capacity to assess the local fit of external ideas. When national authorities explicitly support learning and idea adoption across cities, they are often well positioned to help cities:

• Access comparative insights by aggregating evidence from multiple cities experimenting with similar approaches, and by identifying recurring drivers of success, common failure points, and contextual conditions that shape outcomes.

• Clarify legal, regulatory, and fiscal constraints early on, helping cities assess the feasibility of adopting specific ideas before investing significant time and resources in detailed design or piloting.

• Interpret national policy objectives and frameworks in ways that allow cities to understand how externally sourced ideas might align with, complement, or challenge existing national priorities.

• Facilitate peer exchange at scale, for example by convening thematic working groups or learning networks that enable cities to jointly reflect on adaptation challenges and assessment criteria.

• Provide analytical tools or light-touch methodologies, such as checklists, self-assessment frameworks, or typologies of local contexts, that cities can use to systematically evaluate compatibility while retaining discretion over final decisions.

Cities that have the capacity to proactively engage with national governments on these issues can reduce uncertainty around policy feasibility, avoid duplicating analytical work already conducted elsewhere, and make more informed, context-sensitive decisions about which ideas to pursue and how to adapt them. Smaller cities may rely on national-level city associations to engage the national government together.

Implementation tip

To engage with national authorities and discuss potential support, cities can prepare a short scoping note to:

• Detail the idea under consideration, the issues it would address and the encouraging results from other cities that encourage considering its adoption

• Summarise the preliminary assessment of the idea and outline data gaps and needs

• Outline preliminary assumptions about legal, fiscal and policy alignment

• List specific questions for the national level regarding fit or potential reform

• List potential support that would enable idea adoption (e.g. regulatory sandboxes to allow for local experimentation).

References

[5] Baurick, T. and C. Granger (2020), Special Report: The Dutch Mastered Water for a Millennium. Could Their New Approach Save New Orleans?, https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/special-report-dutch-mastered-water-millennium-could-their-new-approach-save-new-orleans.

[6] C40 Cities (2016), C40 Good Practice Guides: Ho Chi Minh City - Triple-A Strategic Planning, https://www.c40.org/case-studies/c40-good-practice-guides-ho-chi-minh-city-triple-a-strategic-planning/.

[1] Haupt, W. et al. (2019), “City-to-city learning within climate city networks: definition, significance, and challenges from a global perspective”, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, Vol. 12/2, pp. 143-159, https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2019.1691007.

[10] ITF (2024), Advancing Sustainable Mobility in Greence: Supporting the Uptake of SUMPs, OECD Publishing, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/advancing-sustainable-mobility-greece-sumps-full_en.pdf.

[3] Li, L., A. Taeihagh and S. Tan (2022), “What factors drive policy transfer in smart city development? Insights from a Delphi study”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 84, p. 104008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104008.

[2] Montero, S. (2018), “Leveraging Bogotá: Sustainable development, global philanthropy and the rise of urban solutionism”, Urban Studies, Vol. 57/11, pp. 2263-2281, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018798555.

[9] OECD (2024), OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en.

[11] OECD (2023), Smart City Data Governance: Challenges and the Way Forward, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e57ce301-en.

[7] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.

[4] Towns, A. (2012), “Norms and Social Hierarchies: Understanding International Policy Diffusion “From Below””, International Organization, Vol. 66/2, pp. 179-209, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818312000045.

[8] Vargas, C. et al. (2022), “Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health – a perspective on definitions and distinctions”, Public Health Research and Practice, Vol. 32/2, https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3222211.