Citizen Participation for Better Cohesion Policy

3. Lessons learned: Well-designed participation improves policies while strengthening trust and legitimacy

Abstract

This chapter shares lessons learned from the experience of the 11 pilots by highlighting the benefits of well-designed citizen participation on three dimensions: quality of citizen participation processes, policy impact, and societal benefits. It also describes the common challenges encountered by the regions and cities involved when designing and implementing the pilot initiatives in the context of Cohesion Policy.

Citizen participation carries both instrumental and intrinsic benefits. The instrumental benefits refer to the value of participation in improving policies and services thanks to citizens’ lived experiences, insights, and knowledge that participatory processes allow to surface. Engaging with citizens can also enhance the public acceptability and legitimacy of policy decisions (OECD, 2025[1]; OECD, 2025[2]; OECD, 2020[3]) The intrinsic benefits, which underline the democratic and societal value of participation, include the potential of participatory processes to build democratic skills in society and increase public trust in governments by impacting positively the sense of individual agency and by providing citizens with meaningful opportunities to have their voice heard (OECD, 2024[4]). Participatory processes should be valued both as a democratic right and as a means to achieve better and more effective policies and services add value in policymaking. Focusing on only one of these two dimensions risks either reducing participation to a box-ticking exercise or ignoring whether processes actually solve problems or deliver impact (OECD, 2024[5]). The OECD Government Unstuck Initiative acknowledges citizen participation as a core governance process, needed to harness the “human drivers of change” that governments should activate to be effective and responsive in their action.

The objectives of the 11 OECD-DG REGIO pilots were to generate practical evidence, including successes and challenges, to showcase the benefits of participatory practices in Cohesion Policy. The lessons learned from the pilots aim to inform and inspire other public authorities, build capacities for both public authorities and CSOs, foster a community of practice across the European Union, and provide insights valuable for all OECD member countries.

This chapter shares the lessons learned from the 11 pilots. It does so not by assessing each pilot in isolation, as the regions and cities that took part in the project were starting from different levels of readiness, capacities, and prior experiences of citizen participation, but rather by drawing on the evidence gathered transversally from these experimental approaches to identify good practices, surface success factors, and highlight common challenges. More specifically, this chapter looks into: (1) the good practices adopted during the design and implementation of the pilots, (2) the positive impact of these participatory processes on policies, (3) the broader societal benefits of participatory governance and (4) the common challenges encountered.

All in all, the pilots provided evidence that citizen participation can help policymakers deliver better and more responsive policies. Whilst the intrinsic benefits of participation are anchored in the long-term, the pilots provided a glimpse of the democratic and societal value that participation can yield. In particular, several pilots broke new ground in their local contexts, offering valuable learning opportunities. In addition, the OECD and DG REGIO sought to lay the groundwork for embedding participation in the Cohesion Policy cycle, to promote a more systematic use of participatory approaches in the allocation of European funds.

As the analysis presented in this chapter covers the experience of the 11 pilots, it does not look in detail at the preconditions and other important factors, for example, rule of law, information integrity, and a protected and promoted civic space. The findings are primarily qualitative, as they are derived from observation and case analysis rather than quantitative measurement. To fill these gaps, the OECD is currently developing a set of indicators and criteria to collect and analyse quantitative evidence. The forthcoming OECD Citizen Participation Barometer (CPB) is a measurement tool designed to assess the de facto implementation of citizen participation practices across OECD countries, structured around three pillars (Inform, Engage, and Enable) to capture how governments share information, involve citizens in decision-making, and protect civic space.

Designing and implementing meaningful participatory processes

Meaningful citizen participation relies on the quality of the design and implementation choices. For example, how clearly the mandate of the participatory process is defined, how different groups and publics are included, and how results are communicated and acted upon. In order to improve existing participation practices and experiment purposefully with new methods, public authorities can act on multiple fronts. First, they can design processes to be fit-for-purpose, selecting methods and tools that align with the policy context and create the right space for citizens to inform decisions through structured outputs (e.g. policy recommendations, feedback on policy documents, selection of projects, budget orientations) (OECD, 2024[6]). Second, they can improve the accessibility of existing practices and methods to ensure the representation of a broad audience, including distant and underheard groups. Third, they can establish clear accountability mechanisms to “close the feedback loop” and ensure the impact of participants’ efforts on policy outcomes, also by leveraging public communication strategically.

There is no standard evaluation framework to assess the quality of citizen participation processes. Many governments, research institutions, think tanks, and practitioners have developed their own principles and frameworks. For example, the OECD’s Guiding Principles for Citizen Participation Processes (2022[7]) promotes nine elements to consider when designing and implementing a participatory process (see Box ‎3.1).

Box ‎3.1. OECD’s Guiding Principles for Citizen Participation Processes

1) Clarity and impact: The objective of a citizen participation process should be defined from the outset and linked to a defined public problem or challenge. It should aim for a genuine outcome – and whenever possible, a clear link to decision making.

2) Commitment and accountability: Public authorities should be clear about the expected results of the process to manage participants’ expectations. There should be a public commitment to respond to or act on participants’ recommendations.

3) Transparency: There should be full transparency on any applicable decision-making process which will follow the participation process. The response to the inputs received from participants and should be publicised. Public authorities can make use of public communication mechanisms to increase awareness beyond participants.

4) Accessibility: the methods chosen must be appropriate for the intended audience, efforts are made to reduce barriers to participation and to consider how to involve underrepresented groups. Participation can also be encouraged and supported through remuneration, covered expenses, and/or providing or paying for childcare and eldercare.

5) Integrity: Depending on the scale of the process, there can be oversight by an advisory or monitoring board, and the participation process can be run by an arms’ length co-ordinating team that is different from the commissioning authority. Efforts should be made to protect the process from private interests or policy capture by specific interest groups.

6) Privacy: There should be respect for participants’ privacy. Any data collected and published should have participants’ consent. All participants’ personal information and data should be treated in compliance with international good practices.

7) Information: Participants should have access to a wide and diverse range of accurate, relevant, and accessible evidence and expertise.

8) Resources: Public authorities should secure the necessary resources to properly implement participatory processes. Such resources can be human, financial, and technical. Public authorities might need to call on external expertise, but, when possible, should build capacities internally to foster a culture of participation.

9) Evaluation: Participation processes should be evaluated to create an opportunity to learn and improve. Evaluation strengthens the trust of policy makers, the public, and stakeholders in any recommendations or other outcomes of participation processes.

Source: (OECD, OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, 2022).

The European Commission (2023[8]) also proposes key principles to consider when planning participatory processes: 1) Anticipation; 2) Clear expectations; 3) Clear mandate and scope; 4) Multilingualism; 5) Inclusiveness; 6) Representation of Diversity; 7) Transparency; 8) Integrity; 9) Facilitation for respectful dialogue and knowledge management; 10) Accountability; and 11) Follow-up, feedback and evaluation.

Both the OECD and the European Commission underline that successful participatory processes share a set of common principles. In practice, this means ensuring clarity of purpose, accessibility and representation, transparency, integrity, accountability, and systematic follow-up and evaluation. These elements provide a practical checklist for policymakers to design processes that are not only credible but also impactful.

Lowering the barriers to participation to include all groups in society

The OECD and DG REGIO supported the pilots in ensuring accessible processes (in terms of disabilities as well as other barriers such as complex language) and promoting the participation of usually underrepresented groups and minorities. All pilots were encouraged to reach out beyond the “usual suspects” (for example younger audiences, women, rural populations, minorities) and to design processes that are welcoming and accessible to all, by for example, providing information in simple and accessible language. For the pilots using digital technologies, the OECD encouraged organisers to think about those that do not have access to the internet or to digital devices, and if possible, to always provide an offline alternative to participate.

In GZM Metropolis, the pilot made remarkable efforts to involve residents with disabilities to reflect their needs in the outcomes of the participatory process. Their active involvement allowed organisers to capture their voices and ensure future train stations meet accessibility standards (see Box ‎3.2).

Box ‎3.2. Involving people with disabilities in Poland

GZM Metropolis in Poland decided to consult and involve residents, with particular attention to people with reduced mobility or other disabilities such as blindness. GZM, with technical support from the OECD, designed and implemented a multi-stage participatory methodology that combined stakeholder consultations, research methods, and a deliberative process. The participatory process included four phases (GZM Metropolis, 2024):

Public authorities (CEUTP and GZM) partnered with the social cooperative FADO to reach out and involve people with different forms of disabilities throughout the participatory process. Dedicated spaces and specific actions were put in place to promote and encourage the involvement of people with disabilities. For example, it is necessary to provide access to sign language interpreters during public meetings, to create versions of documents in the format available for people with visual impairments (e.g. in the Braille alphabet, audio description), and to organize meetings in places accessible to wheelchair users.

About 4–5% of total respondents of the initial survey reported some form of disability or accessibility need. During the research walks, people with visual and hearing disabilities participated and contributed with observations to include audible and tactile information at stations and put in place actions to increase the independence of blind passengers. Members of the Citizen Jury reflected on the accessibility question and recommended strict compliance with the law on design regulations oriented in terms of people with disabilities.

Source: https://forumobywatelskie.transportgzm.pl/

Some pilots actively promoted the participation of usually underrepresented groups in policymaking. In Emilia-Romagna, authorities targeted young people by collaborating with Bangherang, a civil society organisation specialised in youth involvement and by going towards the targeted group. The project team decided to organise the participatory process in schools and in partnership with the authorities responsible for education to pursue a two-fold objective: on one hand, meeting the target audience in a familiar space, on the other hand, to underscore the importance of participating in public life by scheduling it as part of school activities. As a result, the Students’ Assembly enabled young people to co-design the Innovation Hubs, ensuring those spaces would reflect their needs and aspirations. In Cantabria, the process sought to capture the voices of unemployed people to tailor the region’s upskilling and reskilling policies to the needs of those most affected by deindustrialisation. They did so by including both individual people in a phase of unemployment and by engaging with trade unions. Beyond the intentional targeting of specific groups, some pilots decided to focus on the representativeness of the whole society at the regional or municipal level. The three pilots that implemented a representative deliberative process – GZM, Râmnicu Vâlcea, and Normandy - where participants were selected through a civic lottery (random selection), opened the door to everyday citizens to join the policymaking process.

Closing the feedback loop and ensuring accountable processes

Getting back to participants and the broader public about the results of the participatory process is extremely important, as it ensures accountability and shows respect and consideration for participant’s time and effort (OECD, 2024[6]; OECD, 2022[7]). Unaccountable processes risk discouraging people from participating another time and potentially diminishing the benefits of participation, such as increased sense of trust, efficacy, and agency, and leading on the contrary to consultation fatigue (OECD, 2024[6]). The OECD and DG REGIO insisted on getting back to participants with the immediate results of their participation and communicating the results to the broader public.

The pilots introduced various feedback mechanisms for participants and the broader public, ranging from public meetings and written responses to dedicated communication campaigns. For example, in Râmnicu Vâlcea, participants were invited to the Municipality to a symbolic meeting with local and national authorities where they were given a diploma for their participation. In addition, the Municipality communicated the Citizen Jury’s recommendations in the local media and committed to regularly share updates and implementation status. In Catalonia, public authorities organised a public event to communicate the results of the consultations to both participants and the broader public and in Cantabria, the results of the processes were widely communicated online, through a dedicated website, a public event, local media, and a final report (Government of Cantabria, 2023[9]). Both GZM Metropolis and Banská Bystrica went beyond the usual activities by ensuring participants and the broader public have a clear understanding of the results of the participatory processes as well as the commitment from public authorities to implement its outcomes (see Box ‎3.3). Normandy adopted a “citizen’s right to accountability” (droit de suite citoyen), which makes it compulsory to provide citizens with timely information on the implementation of the outputs of citizen participation processes.

Box ‎3.3. Closing the feedback loop: good practices

Closing the feedback loop refers to the efforts taken by the conveners of a participatory process to get back to participants about the status of their inputs and the ultimate outcome of their participation. This step is considered by the OECD as an essential step in the design and implementation of a participatory process.

After the deliberative process, GZM Metropolis in Poland organized a workshop with local transportation operators and authorities responsible for managing transportation and transportation infrastructure at the local and metropolitan government levels to review the recommendations, assign them to relevant units, and plan a public response to citizens. The results of the Citizen’s Forum (a representative deliberative process) were presented to local authorities on October 29th in a public meeting in the presence of the mayors of partner cities, members of the Citizens’ Forum, observers, the monitoring committee, partner organisations, and the OECD. The final report which includes the results of the research walks and the deliberative panel is available online and the results of the process has been shared by local media.

In Banská Bystrica in the Slovak Republic, all projects submitted as part of the ideathon and later reviewed by the Municipality were publicly available online. The Municipality published a detailed review of the projects received with scores from the selecting committee as well as notes regarding their feasibility and the administrative services in charge of their implementation. This level of transparency enables participants and the broader public to understand the response from the Municipality and monitor the implementation of the participatory process’ outcomes.

Source: https://www.Banskábystrica.sk/ideathonbb/; https://ideathonbb.eu.consider.it/?tab=Domov, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qyWJ6yHKDqIxo46xNPdEMn5ztftWc4SL/edit, https://www.rynek-kolejowy.pl/wiadomosci/gzm-z-wnioskami-po-transportowym-forum-obywatelskim--129086.html, https://www.cupt.gov.pl/aktualnosc/partycypacja/wspolnie-projektujemy-transport-dla-kazdego/; (CEUTP, 2024[10]).

Integrating citizens’ inputs into concrete government actions

According to the OECD Trust Survey, only 30% of people on average believe the political system in their country allows citizens to have a say in government actions (OECD, 2024[4]). Even when feedback is solicited, people do not always feel that opinions are considered in decision-making. Slightly below one third think that the government would adopt the opinions expressed in a public consultation. Involving the public through different forms of participation is one thing, making those processes impactful is the challenge that many OECD countries face. To move towards meaningful participation, public authorities need to get back to participants and the broader public on the results of their participation, explain the impact of inputs receive, and provide clear expectations about the role of participatory practices within the representative democracy system (OECD, 2024[4]).

The recommendations of the deliberative process organised by Cantabria’s regional government in 2022 were partially included in the Besaya Integrated Territorial Strategy (ITS), in particular those related to the issue of upskilling and reskilling to preserve employment while transitioning towards a low carbon economy. For example, three recommendations suggested to increase support to the circular economy to support the environmental and employment transitions in Besaya, which were integrated in the ITS. Another recommendation suggested to develop new economic activities by investing in sustainable agriculture – an activity that was not initially present in the ITS and has been included as financial support to aquaculture (Deliberativa, 2023[11]).

In Râmnicu Vâlcea, recommendations from the Citizen Jury were adopted as part of a City Resolution to translate them into policy action (City of Ramnicu Valcea, 2025[12]). Some recommendations will be integrated into future policies, and some refer to already budgeted or existing projects providing a space for the Municipality to better communicate its action whilst increasing awareness of how EU funds are used in the city.

In Catalonia, the Regional Government committed to integrate the findings of Parlem de Pressupostos into the 2026 budget cycle, including accompanying the draft budget with a synthesis report detailing how citizen input was reflected in fiscal decisions (Pérez-Raynaud, 2025[13]).

In Emilia Romagna, ideas coming from the students’ assemblies are leading the implementation of Innovation Hubs, a concrete project funded through Cohesion Policy and that will have direct impact on the territories of Appennino Emiliano (Emilia-Romagna Region, 2023[14]).

In GZM, the research walks and deliberative panel handed evidence and recommendations that are being implemented to ensure future train stations are accessible to all residents, in particular to those with disabilities (GZM Metropolis, 2024[15]).

In Banská Bystrica, some projects coming from the ideathon are being funded with Cohesion Policy funds, and other are being translated into commitments to be included in municipal policies like Banská Bystrica’s 2030 City Development Programme (Municipality of Banská Bystrica, 2024[16]).

In Lazio, several projects included in the Integrated Territorial Strategies benefitted from the insights of civic monitoring reports while entering the last stages of planning before the beginning of the implementation phase.

Leveraging public communication to reinforce processes’ accountability within and outside of government

Effective public communication (see Box ‎3.4), both internally within government and externally with the public, can expand the reach and impact of participatory practices beyond participants, contributing to building a participatory culture in society (OECD, 2022[7]). Public communication constitutes a strategic asset before, during and after a citizen participation process. Before, it provides the public with relevant and accessible information on the policy issue at stake and the modalities and channels of participation. It also contributes to the understanding and the legitimacy of the process within the administration. Throughout the implementation of the participatory process, public communication gives visibility to the effort of participants and builds bridges between participants and the broader society. Once the process is over, public communication is key to ensure accountability and to “close the loop”, both within and outside of government. The OECD supported all pilots in building a communication strategy combining different supports including dedicated websites to communicate throughout the process in Cantabria and Banská Bystrica, in-person events to communicate after the process in Catalonia and GZM and print media articles to communicate during before and after the process as done in Râmnicu Vâlcea.

Box ‎3.4. Using different media supports to increase the reach and impact of participation in Romania

In 2024, the Municipality of Râmnicu Vâlcea in Romania organised a representative deliberative process (a citizens’ jury) on how to increase the attractiveness of public transport and other sustainable forms of mobility in the city to contribute to the next Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan and Integrated Urban Development Strategy funded though Cohesion Policy. With the support of OECD and DG REGIO, Romanian public authorities, and partner CSOs (Vâlcea Community Foundation and Happy Cities Association) communicated throughout the process using different supports and tools:

Before the process, the Municipality published press articles and official statements on their website and social media accounts, announcing the process and inviting residents to participate.

During the process, public authorities, and partner CSOs used traditional media (written press and TV) to explain the civic lottery and communicate about the invitation sent to randomly selected citizens. In addition to traditional media, the Municipality innovated in its communication approach to increase the reach beyond the usual suspects. For example, the civic lottery was live streamed on YouTube to increase transparency and awareness, public billboards in bus stations were used to share information about the process, and the mayor used his TikTok account to communicate about the process and incite citizens to respond to the invitation sent by the Municipality.

After the process: In 2024, the Municipality hosted a public event to close the Citizen Jury in the presence of the jurors, local and national authorities, the OECD, and DG REGIO. Members of the Jury received a diploma for their participation and their commitment to the process, and some participants highlighted the positive benefits of the opportunity to participate, shape their city, and be taken seriously. One member stated, “I never thought I would be here, in the City Council Room one day. I feel very honoured to be part of this process.” The recommendations of the Jury were made available online and shared by the local media.

Source: https://primariavl.ro/acasa/actualitate/9567-primaria-%C8%99i-societatea-civila-vor-organiza-primul-juriu-al-ceta%C8%9Benilor-din-Râmnicu-valcea-cei-20-de-jura%C8%9Bi-vor-fi-ale%C8%99i-printr-o-loterie-civica-la-care-vor-participa-2000-de-locuitori-ai-municipiului; https://evenimentvalcean.ro/primaria-Râmnicului-parteneriat-pentru-politica-de-coeziune/; https://curierulderamnic.ro/2024/06/29/un-proiect-de-succes-in-Râmnicu-valcea-primul-juriu-al-cetatenilor-din-romania/; https://www.facebook.com/primariavl/posts/762693429287793; https://www.tiktok.com/@mircia.gutau/video/7350763950549634336; https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1023911085788496; https://curierulderamnic.ro/2024/06/29/un-proiect-de-succes-in-Râmnicu-valcea-primul-juriu-al-cetatenilor-din-romania/.

Partnering with civil society to enhance government’s capabilities in designing and implementing meaningful participation

The Partnership principle is core to Cohesion Policy and implies close cooperation between public authorities, economic and social partners and bodies representing civil society at national, regional, and local levels throughout the whole programme cycle consisting of preparation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation (European Comission, 2024[17]).

The OECD and DG REGIO pilots followed the Partnership Principle by paring one public authority and one civil society organisation as main implementors of each pilot.

A positive lesson from the pilots is the value of building alliances with civil society organisations (CSOs) throughout the design, implementation, and follow-up of participatory processes. CSOs can play multiple roles: they may act as initiators of participation, serve as implementing partners or practitioners for public authorities, contribute expertise on specific policy issues, or act as watchdogs to strengthen accountability.

In all pilots, CSOs acted as implementing partners with equal voice in the design of the process. In Râmnicu Vâlcea, a city resolution was adopted to act as Memorandum of Understanding between the Municipality and the Vâlcea Community Foundation to remove the administrative barriers for a CSOs to be on equal footing with a public authority.

In some pilots, public authorities delegated responsibilities to CSOs to deliver a specific aspect of the process. In Banská Bystrica, Râmnicu Vâlcea, and Emilia Romagna, the respective CSOs acted as facilitators of the processes.

In some pilots, CSOs supported public authorities in their efforts to reach out to target groups or people that do not usually interact with the government. In GZM, FADO played a pivotal role in involving people with disabilities and residents. In Cantabria, the Torrelavega Chamber of Commerce helped the regional government reach out unemployed people. In Emilia Romagna, Bangherang played a key role in connecting the Regional Government with students from the mountain areas.

In some pilots, CSOs acted as participation experts providing public authorities with a methodology or with previous expertise designing and implementing participatory processes. In Lazio, Monithon offered an award-winning civic monitoring methodology and trained both participants and public authorities involved on how to use blueprints and tools for the civic monitoring reports (European Commission, 2017[18]). In Brussels, MetroLab supported the Regional Government with research and expertise in their efforts to mainstream participation in ERDF projects.

In some pilots CSOs also joined the processes as experts on the policy topic at hand. In Normandy, Relais Culture Europe contributed as expert in cultural policies and citizens’ engagement in cultural projects, in GZM FADO advised the Metropolitan Government on public transport accessibility, and in Banská Bystrica, CSOs joined the ideathon to propose ideas.

In all pilots, CSOs also played a watchdog role, ensuring the accountability of processes after they ended. This diversity of roles not only enriches participatory processes but also reflects the partnership principle at the core of Cohesion Policy, which should be further reinforced to ensure effective governance that involves all groups in society.

Achieving policy impact: participation can increase policy effectiveness

Policy efficiency refers to the ability to transform input into output with optimal use of resources (Mergoni and De Witte, 2022[19]). Policy effectiveness analyses the performance of a policy in respect to its goals or expected results. This becomes even more relevant as governments across the OECD are increasingly constrained by limited fiscal space, making it essential to ensure that resources are managed and allocated efficiently and effectively (OECD, 2025[20]).

The instrumental benefits of participatory processes refer to the positive impact of involving citizens and stakeholders on policy efficiency and effectiveness. (OECD, 2024[6]) (OECD, 2005[21]). Concretely, these benefits relate to (1) the accuracy and pertinence of policies and services and (2) the public acceptability and legitimacy of policy decisions:

1. Accuracy and pertinence: participation can increase policy effectiveness by unveiling blind spots and practical realities that may escape institutional perspectives, thereby improving the accuracy of identified problems and the proposed solutions. Through structured citizen participation processes, policymakers can tap into citizens’ lived experience and expertise, namely of those who will be affected by the policy or service at hand and of those who are often underheard or underrepresented. This is particularly relevant in local development policies, which aim to make territories more attractive, economically dynamic, and better equipped with quality services for residents. Designing and delivering policies and services whose accuracy and pertinence benefit from citizens’ insights can lead to effectiveness and efficiency gains.

2. Acceptability and legitimacy: involving the public throughout the policymaking process (from agenda setting to evaluation) can reduce potential social tensions as it allows public authorities to raise awareness about the proposed solutions, and creates a space for dialogue and improvement, increasing social acceptability and legitimacy of policies and services.

The OECD – DG REGIO pilots provided evidence that when properly designed and implemented, citizen participation can improve both the process and the result of policymaking.

Increasing accuracy and pertinence by tapping into citizens’ lived experiences

According to the OECD Trust Survey, only 41% of citizens believe their government uses the best available evidence when taking a decision (OECD, 2024[4]). An important function of citizen participation is to build the evidence-base needed to develop policy options. Citizens act as valuable “experts by experience” and may even be direct “stakeholders” in the specific policy outcome. Gathering insights from people who have lived through the policy being addressed can be equally valuable (OECD, 2024[6]). When designing policies and services with informed evidence, in particular coming from the expected users or target populations, policymakers increase the ability of a policy to respond to given goals or expected results. Participation can then increase policy effectiveness by helping policymakers build pertinent policies.

Research walks in GZM provided on-the-ground evidence to build accessible train stations by tapping into the needs of residents and collecting the perspective of people with disabilities.

In Cantabria, public authorities gathered workers and unemployed people to share their lived experience as inputs to improve the region’s upskilling and reskilling opportunities.

In Normandy, cultural associations and organisations are supporting a group of randomly selected citizens to inform the region’s cultural policy.

In Râmnicu Vâlcea, the Municipality received informed recommendations on mobility from a representative sample of the city’s residents, which ultimately will be users of public transportation services.

Involving citizens to design future-looking and long-term policies and services

Efficient and effective policies should be sustainable, both in terms of resources as well as its pertinence over time. Involving the public and in particular those groups of citizens that will be directly affected by the policy or service in question is key for public authorities to deliver pertinent solutions. Moreover, governments are increasingly facing long-term challenges which require future-looking solutions, in particular to respond to demographic, environmental and digital transitions (OECD, 2025[20]). The OECD (2025[20]) recognises citizen participation as a pillar to address the environmental transition as it increases the public’s voice in the policymaking process, and ensures complexities and trade-offs are identified and resolved.

Recommendations from the Citizen Jury in Râmnicu Vâlcea seek to improve mobility services in the city for the years to come. Participants insisted on the need to plan a more sustainable and long-term vision for the city, highlighting the need for bike lanes or multi-modality. This process provided the city with a future-looking blueprint for its mobility services.

Emilia Romagna’s involvement of young people in shaping the Innovation Hubs is a way to design spaces for future generations and to ensure those spaces will be used by its expected public.

Civic monitoring of Cohesion Policy instruments in Lazio shows a path for public authorities to involve the public in ensuring policies and services are relevant over time and to measure if government action is producing the expected benefits and results.

In Normandy, the experience of the Citizen Forum shed lights on what is missing to make cultural institutions and the regional heritage accessible and enjoyable by all citizens.

Increasing public awareness of government action and building social acceptability.

Involving the public can shed light on how government works and support understanding on decisions taken by public authorities. Strengthening public understanding and knowledge around the evidence underlying policy decisions – and clarifying their impact on citizens’ lives – could improve public perceptions and significantly increase institutional trustworthiness (OECD, 2025[20]).

Across all pilots, information about Cohesion Policy and its benefits for their territories was given to all participants and shared with the wider public through public communications campaigns. In most cases, participants were initially not aware of Cohesion Policy, nor the impact EU funds have directly in their communities. By participating directly in decisions about how Cohesion Policy funds should be allocated in their specific context, participants learned about the instruments and mechanisms of Cohesion Policy and the tangible impact of these funds on their daily lives. These processes also created a spillover effect, encouraging authorities to communicate complex policy issues in clearer, more accessible language and formats. In Catalonia, the Parlem de Pressupostos initiative had two objectives: (1) to improve the budget preparation process by involving a wider public, and (2) to enhance citizens' and stakeholders’ knowledge and understanding of fiscal and budget policy. Concretely, participants were trained on the budgetary process focusing on understanding debt reduction paths, measures to create fiscal space, political priorities of expenditures and the use of Cohesion Funds.

In GZM, the participatory process helped public authorities avoid social conflict around the future train stations. By involving residents of the neighbouring areas, the research walks helped map possible oppositions or challenges to the stations, which were then considered by the deliberative panel in the recommendations made to the Metropolitan authorities. Involving the public in early stages of infrastructure projects can help reduce resistance and avoid delays, which can help reduce both social and economic costs (OECD, 2021[22]).

Building democratic skills and increasing public trust

Meaningful citizen participation beyond elections, whether through participatory, deliberative, or direct mechanisms, can yield positive impact beyond participants and the process itself. Building on the intrinsic benefits of citizen participation (OECD, 2024[6]) (OECD, 2005[21]), three dimensions can help understand the societal and democratic value of participatory processes.

1. Democratic skills: Regular and meaningful opportunities for citizens to take part in policymaking strengthen democratic literacy and the ability to engage in public life. Over time, this contributes to increased civic culture, awareness, and a deeper understanding of policy issues, ultimately improving the quality of public debate and decision-making.

2. Social cohesion and agency: Citizen participation fosters interpersonal trust and a sense of belonging, helping communities work together to address shared challenges. In doing so, participation nurtures a shared sense of purpose and reinforces citizens’ belief in their own capacity to act individually and collectively for the public good.

3. Trust in democracy and in public institutions: Providing citizens with meaningful and impactful opportunities to shape decision-making enhances institutional credibility and reinforces the legitimacy of democratic governance. When people see their input taken seriously, it strengthens confidence in institutions and political processes. People who feel they have a say in what the government does are, on average, more than three times as likely to say that they trust the government than those who do not. This highlights the significance of political agency and participation in fostering trust, suggesting a need for policies that promote political involvement and engagement (OECD, 2024[4]).

Building trust and changes in attitude and behaviours

Meaningful participation can strengthen citizens’ sense of political voice and agency, which the OECD Trust Survey links directly to higher levels of trust in public institutions (OECD, 2024[4]). People who feel heard are significantly more likely to trust government decisions, creating a “triple dividend” of policy effectiveness, civic empowerment, and democratic trust. Deliberative processes can reduce polarisation, improve the social acceptability of public decisions, and build stronger networks of solidarity and shared understanding.

The use of civic lottery (random selection) in Râmnicu Vâlcea, Normandy and GZM enabled, for the first time, direct interaction between citizens that do not usually participate and decision-makers in a structured setting. This created a positive feedback loop to improve the interaction between citizens and their administration. In Râmnicu Vâlcea, interviews with public authorities and participants highlighted enhanced mutual trust. One member stated, “I never thought I would be here, in the City Council Room one day. I feel very honoured to be part of this process.”

In Banská Bystrica, the use the Decidim platform, following up the ideathon and as result of the pilot, for the city’s participatory budget yield on a significant growth in participants from 400 in 2022 to 1,400 voters (Municipality of Banská Bystrica, 2024[16]). This sharp increase shows that opening up meaningful spaces for participation can increase the public willingness to engage.

During the final events, participants of deliberative processes in Cantabria, Râmnicu Vâlcea, and GZM expressed positive views about both the process and the authorities leading it, and in particular they were enthusiasts to remain active in their community and work together to find solutions to shared problems.

As the pilots concluded in 2025, this report cannot yet assess their long-term impact. Nevertheless, the pilots already provide valuable insights into the immediate effects and potential long-term impact of participatory approaches.

Box ‎3.5. Banská Bystrica digital democracy platform

In 2022, the Functional Urban Area (FUA) of Banská Bystrica in the Slovak Republic, which includes the city and 18 surrounding municipalities, aimed to develop a new Integrated Territorial Strategy (ITS), an instrument of European Cohesion Policy. With support from the OECD and DG REGIO, Banská Bystrika’s open government unit and the Dialogue Centre (a civil society organisation) decided to innovate by organising an Ideathon, a participatory process involving citizens, local actors, and stakeholders to generate ideas for the ITS 2021-2027.

For the first time, the city experimented with digital tools for participation, as the process included online surveys on Google Forms and an online voting phase hosted on the Consider.it platform. The Municipality expressed interest in going beyond this experimentation to build a digital infrastructure for participation. The OECD supported Banská Bystrika’s open government unit and the Dialogue Centre in developing internal support from the elected officials and other staff members, allocating some budget to the maintenance and installation costs, and building the skills necessary.

Banská Bystrica decided to build this platform using the open-source software Decidim which allows for different forms of participation from consultations, participatory budgeting, online voting, etc. The city’s digital platform was used in 2023 to run the city’s participatory budgeting, which saw an increase of voters from 400 to 1400 voters compared to its previous edition.

Source: (Gabadou, 2023[23]).

Challenges identified through the OECD-DG REGIO pilots

Throughout the implementation of the pilots, the OECD and DG REGIO organised in-person and online activities, where public authorities and civil society organisations involved in the pilots, shared lessons learned, good practices as well as barriers encountered. Participants were also invited to reflect collectively on the main challenges they faced or are likely to face when moving from experimentation to establishing a systemic culture of participation.

Pilots joined two in-person seminars in Paris (2023) and Bologna (2024) where the OECD ran workshops to map the challenges and barriers observed, which can be summarised as follows:

Political and institutional support for participation is limited at the national level and within the Cohesion Policy ecosystem

Securing political buy-in for citizen participation processes is one of the main challenges generally encountered by public authorities at all levels of government. It is also one of the main elements of success when implementing citizen participation and is key to ensure impact.

Some project teams of pilots expressed difficulties to convince or secure commitment from elected representatives or high-level civil servants in their national context as well as receiving institutional support from the European Commission.

Coordination across levels of government and between Cohesion Policy authorities is limited, especially when it comes to participation.

Effective citizen participation requires clear and well-aligned roles across all levels of government. Yet, coordination between regional Managing Authorities and municipal actors remains a significant challenge within Cohesion Policy. While Managing Authorities typically lead cohesion programming and implementation, participatory expertise, skills, and operational capacity are often concentrated at the municipal level. This mismatch can complicate planning, slow down implementation, and reduce the overall quality of participatory processes.

Participation requires human and financial resources which are often difficult to unlock as part of projects’ implementation.

Every participatory process requires dedicated resources to be successfully implemented and result in useful outputs for decision makers. Resources can refer to human, financial or technical support needed to design and implement a participatory process. The necessary resources vary depending on the method, as an online consultation will not need the same resources than a representative deliberative process.

Securing adequate resources is a shared challenge among all pilots. Covering essential costs related to participation, such as trained facilitators, translation services, and other support functions, often proved difficult at the pilot level. All pilots agreed that a specific budget allocation for participation could be considered by DG REGIO in the next programming cycle. This could incentivise managing authorities and beneficiaries to implement ambitious participatory processes.

Participation is not fully integrated in the Cohesion Policy cycle

Pilots highlighted the difficulty to connect their participatory processes with existing decision-making cycles, including the Cohesion Policy programming cycle. In most cases, key decisions had already been had already been taken, in other cases, the majority of funds were already allocated, or the projects were already defined by national authorities.

This isolation makes it more difficult for public authorities working on participatory practices to secure political commitment from decision makers and thus to ensure impact in terms of tangible results on policies and services. Citizen participation should ideally be embedded into the political or administrative processes of Cohesion Policy to overcome its current isolated status and ensure influence for citizens. Pilots raised the possibility to make participation mandatory in the Cohesion Policy cycle, part of the feasibility studies phase, before a decision is reached.

Pilots addressed this challenge by embedding participation in the administrative procedure like South-Muntenia and Brussels or by adopting local regulations to create a legal background for deliberative processes in Râmnicu Vâlcea and GZM.

Participatory capacities are uneven across countries and inside each public institution

For almost all pilots, this marked their first participatory experience, facing the challenge of capacities and skills to implement a robust participatory process. A strong participation culture should be developed inside and outside government, supported by regulation, toolkits, capacity-building, and digital tools. Pilots suggested to continue and expand DG REGIO learning and capacity building activities or build mentorship programs within the Cohesion Policy community.

Pilots expressed their willingness to continue building the existing networks for mutual learning as these spaces are crucial to demystify participation, breaking the initial barriers and resistances stemming from fear or ignorance, to be able to scale good practices and serve as support groups. The DG REGIO Peer2Peer Community of Practice on Citizen Participation is a positive development in this area.

Citizens might not see the value to participate

Citizens do not always perceive a clear value in participating. Beyond incentives, whether financial or symbolic, such as public recognition or the feeling of contributing to a meaningful collective outcome, participants need to understand the direct benefits their involvement may bring to their lives or communities. Many citizens doubt that their input will lead to tangible change. Data from the OECD Trust Survey shows that slightly fewer than one in three people in OECD countries believe that government would adopt the opinions expressed in a public consultation (OECD, 2024[4]). This perception contributes to participation fatigue and lowers overall engagement.

From the citizen’s perspective, participation can also be genuinely difficult. In many territories, people struggle to identify and distinguish the respective roles of different levels of government, for example, what falls under national, regional, metropolitan, or municipal mandate. When responsibilities are unclear, it becomes harder for citizens to know where their input is most relevant or impactful.

Pilots also noted challenges in motivating citizens beyond the “usual suspects”, partly due to a general mistrust about whether their contribution would influence decisions. When citizens feel that there is limited space for them to shape outcomes, their sense of agency diminishes, and so does their willingness to participate. At the same time, pilots that used civic lotteries reported that this recruitment method successfully brought in participants who had never engaged before, demonstrating the value of sortition mechanisms to increase the involvement of all groups in society.

These challenges resonate with those previously identified by the OECD in the 2022 report “Engaging Citizens in Cohesion Policy”, in particular the need to allocate sufficient resources, to embed participation in the programming cycle, and ensure political buy-in from national and European authorities.

References

[10] CEUTP (2024), Citizens’ forum on Transport - Report, https://forumobywatelskie.transportgzm.pl/index.php/rekomendacje-i-raport/.

[12] City of Ramnicu Valcea (2025), City Council Resolution 25/2025, https://hcl.usr.ro/ramnicu_valcea/2025/h25.

[11] Deliberativa (2023), Respuesta pública al Jurado Ciudadano de Besaya, https://deliberativa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Besaya-Europa-2023-Informe-Final.pdf.

[14] Emilia-Romagna Region (2023), Involvement of young people in territorial development strategies, https://fesr.regione.emilia-romagna.it/comunicazione/attivita-realizzate/partecipazione-di-stakeholder-e-cittadini/progetti-commissione-europea-e-ocse/coinvolgimento-dei-giovani-nelle-strategie-di-sviluppo-territoriale.

[17] European Comission (2024), Forging A Sustainable Future Together: Cohesion for A Competitive and Inclusive Europe: Report of the High-Level Group on the Future of Cohesion Policy, https://doi.org/10.2776/974536.

[8] European Commission (2023), Recommendation on the participation of citizens and civil society organisations in public policy-making, https://commission.europa.eu/document/fcb629fe-ca20-4019-b1f6-392c286fdedf_en.

[18] European Commission (2017), Quality of Public Administration - A Toolbox for Practitioners, https://www.monithon.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Quality-of-Public-Administration-A-Toolbox-for-Practitioners.pdf.

[23] Gabadou, E. (2023), Banská Bystriça: from ideathon to digital democracy, https://medium.com/participo/bansk%C3%A1-bystri%C3%A7a-from-ideathon-to-digital-democracy-5f8eddf55b50.

[9] Government of Cantabria (2023), Final Report of the Besaya Citizen Jury, https://deliberativa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Besaya-Europa-2023-Informe-Final.pdf.

[15] GZM Metropolis (2024), How to open the railroad to residents?, https://www.cupt.gov.pl/aktualnosc/rozne/raport-jak-otworzyc-kolej-na-mieszkancow-klucz-do-lepszego-transportu-publicznego-w-gornoslasko-zaglebiowskiej-metropolii/?doing_wp_cron=1728913543.4907090663909912109375.

[19] Mergoni, A. and K. De Witte (2022), Policy evaluation and efficiency: a systematic literature review, https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13012.

[16] Municipality of Banská Bystrica (2024), Final report of the Ideathon on the Integrated Territorial Strategy of the Functional Urban Area Banská Bystrica 2022 – 2027, https://www.banskabystrica.sk/samosprava/otvorena-samosprava-ogp-local/participativne-planovanie/integrovana-uzemna-strategia-udrzatelneho-mestskeho-rozvoja-banska-bystrica/planovane-podujatia/.

[20] OECD (2025), Government at a Glance, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/0efd0bcd-en.

[2] OECD (2025), OECD work on Citizen Participation, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/open-government-and-citizen-participation.html.

[1] OECD (2025), Open Government for the Green Transition, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/bfa02935-en.

[6] OECD (2024), Exploring New Frontiers in Citizen Participation in the Policy Cycle, https://doi.org/10.1787/77f5098c-en.

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

[5] OECD (2024), Promoting Deliberative Democracy in the Basque Country in Spain: Lessons from the Tolosa Citizens’ Assembly, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/544f7514-en.

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

[22] OECD (2021), Building resilience: New strategies for strengthening infrastructure resilience and maintenance, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/354aa2aa-en.

[3] OECD (2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en.

[21] OECD (2005), Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264008960-en.

[13] Pérez-Raynaud, O. (2025), Putting citizens at the heart of budget decisions: Catalunya’s lessons on participatory budgeting, https://medium.com/participo/putting-citizens-at-the-heart-of-budget-decisions-catalunyas-lessons-on-participatory-budgeting-4000f3de8e37.