This chapter provides actionable strategies for embedding citizen participation throughout the policy cycle. It advocates designing targeted, inclusive participatory practices, lowering barriers to engagement, and building skills for participation among both civil servants and citizens. Furthermore, it stresses the importance of ensuring participation has real impact, with clear accountability mechanisms for the time, attention and contribution of citizens which are a valuable asset for policy making.
Exploring New Frontiers in Citizen Participation in the Policy Cycle
Abstract
The past years have made it clear that democracy cannot be taken for granted. Instead, it requires continuous defending, strengthening, and renewing. One way to reinforce democracy are democratic encounters. These refer to those moments and situations in our everyday life that concretise democratic values in different fields of society… Democratic encounters therefore initiate and maintain circles of trust, that radiate everywhere in people’s lives.
- The Handbook of Democratic Encounters, Finland (Alhanen and Henttonen, 2023[1]).
Adopt a targeted approach to ensure the appropriate design of citizen participation processes. This means ensuring that the modes of participation proposed are proportional and aligned with the scope, scale and potential impact of the policy issue on citizens’ lives and the role expected of citizens. Fundamental policy issues warrant additional investments of time and effort to ensure that all citizens can exercise their rights to participate.
Boost inclusion by lowering barriers to citizen participation in policymaking. This requires concerted efforts to identify and remove obstacles that prevent citizens, particularly those with the least voice and sense of agency, from playing an active role – whether via the ballot box, standing for election, contributing to public consultations and deliberations or taking positive actions for themselves and others.
Raise capacity to design and deliver meaningful citizen participation processes. This means protecting and nurturing civic space and civil society; boosting civil servants’ professional skills to design and conduct effective citizen participation, while also investing in the portfolio of ‘participation skills’ of young people and adults through both curricular and extra-curricular activities.
Demonstrate to citizens that their participation has impact and ensure accountability for their input. At the broadest level, this will mean putting citizens at the heart of policymaking and enhancing representative democracy through direct, participatory and deliberative democratic practices which ensure citizens’ participation is meaningful. At a more practical level it will mean introducing quality standards, developing performance metrics and measuring progress over time.
This section:
Underscores the importance of adopting a targeted approach to the design of participatory practices.
Identifies approaches to lowering barriers to citizen participation.
Explores ways to build capacity for citizen participation among both civil servants and citizens.
Identifies avenues to ensure that citizen participation delivers impact and guarantees accountability.
So what can democratic countries do to find the right balance between traditional representative mechanisms and citizen-centered participatory and deliberative processes? How can they strengthen their capacity to design and deliver meaningful citizen participation? And how can they embed and institutionalise inclusive citizen participation?
Countries need clear legal frameworks and guidelines for citizen participation in policymaking; sufficient time and funds; appropriate and integrated use of digital tools; public communications that makes government action intelligible; active outreach to engage with people from marginalised communities as well as measures to ensure accountability for public input received. Evidence and data on the benefits of citizen participation is essential, both in terms of its instrumental value in improving policy effectiveness, acceptability and legitimacy, as well as its intrinsic value in building citizens’ skills, sense of self-agency and trust in democratic public institutions.
Many countries have accumulated extensive experience in citizen participation, none can afford to rest on their laurels. This section explores how to tackle the systemic challenges identified above along four lines of action, namely: adopting a strategic approach to the design of participatory practices, lowering barriers, raising capacity and ensuring accountability. It includes examples of concrete measures to illustrate how some jurisdictions are already taking steps to address the challenges of shared understanding, co-ordination, alignment and accountability in the hope that their experience may be a source of inspiration for others.
The first line of action is to adopt a targeted approach to the choice of participatory practices based on the nature of the policy issue, the role expected of citizens and considerations of time. As the 2022 OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation underscore: “public institutions need to clarify their objectives, decide whom to engage at which stage of decision making, and then adapt the design and expectations of the participatory process in accordance with citizens’ needs” (OECD, 2022[2]).
3.4.1. Clarifying the role of citizen participation in policymaking on ‘everyday’ or ‘fundamental’ issues
Not all policies are created equal. Some public policies are by their very nature time-bound, limited in scope and will have an impact on only a small portion of the population (e.g. import licenses for exotic animals) while others affect almost everyone and have long-term impacts (e.g. climate change)
It may be helpful to distinguish between “everyday” and “fundamental” policy issues when thinking about the degree of inclusivity and level of effort required of citizen participation processes for each typology – as well as the specific status of the citizens who participate in each case:
Everyday policymaking involves issues in long-established policy fields that affect well-defined target groups. Here, the main function of citizen participation is to build the evidence-base needed to develop effective policy options. Citizens act as valuable “experts by experience” and may even be direct “stakeholders” in the specific policy outcome. Designing citizen participation processes for everyday policymaking can legitimately focus on maximising their efficiency, pertinence and timeliness, while still ensuring equity of access and inclusion (e.g. by raising public awareness of the issues at stake and the opportunity to contribute). Citizen participation in everyday policymaking creates value in two ways: a) directly, by informing and improving the quality of the evidence base on which decisions are made; and b) indirectly, as widespread and regular practice contributes to boosting the capacity of civil servants and citizens as well as the resilience of the overall citizen participation ecosystem.
Fundamental policymaking is about complex, value-based, or irreversible policy issues that affect all citizens and have long-term consequences. In such cases, all citizens must be able to exercise their fundamental rights to meaningful engagement, should they so choose, via multiple avenues offered by participatory, deliberative and representative democracy. The design principles underpinning citizen participation in fundamental policy decisions should prioritise inclusion, empowerment, transparency and rights of appeal – rather than efficiency alone. Using a variety of ways, all citizens should be ‘reached’ by the policy debate, if only through the dissemination of the debate by the media. One example of a fundamental policy issue relates to the very ‘rules of the game’ that underpin democratic governance (e.g. lowering the voting age, redrawing electoral districts or constitutional reform). Here, there are strong grounds for adopting highly inclusive deliberative or participatory processes from the outset so that all citizens have the opportunity to fully explore the implications of proposed changes to the ‘democratic rule book’. This may be followed by debate in the legislature and, in some cases, final confirmation by all citizens via referenda or other instances of direct democracy. Many other fundamental policy issues could be considered in the same manner, including those that address the essential features of our societies, for example assisted dying at the end of life or the overall direction to address the climate crisis. Of course, there are large cultural variations across countries that will determine what policy issues would be considered as essential. When tackling fundamental policy issues, everyone involved – citizens and decision makers alike – must recognise that it will take time and that the airing of diverse, strongly held positions is to be expected and respected. There may well be a need for several iterations, extended timeframes, and multiple avenues for participation. Only by maximising transparency, inclusion and ensuring that there is ‘no wrong door’ for citizens seeking to participate will the legitimacy of the process – and therefore its outcome – be assured.
Indeed, it can be argued that the broader and deeper the impact of the proposed changes on the quality of democracy, fundamental human rights and collective well-being, the greater the justification for concerted efforts to make citizen participation inclusive and meaningful. Public policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, where decisions taken today will have global and long-term consequences for future generations, fall into this category of fundamental policy decisions. An example of this approach is provided by France where a National Commission on Public Debate has over two decades of experience in ensuring public voice is considered early in the decision-making process for projects with significant environmental impacts. Significant investments in providing information, opportunities for deliberation, voice and clear options for choice will be needed – as well as sufficient time to ensure citizens have had the chance to fully understand the implications (and potential degree of reversibility) of proposed changes.
3.4.2. Considering time as a key factor in the policy lifecycle:
Timing is everything in life. While the simple image of a sequential five-stage policy cycle offered by the model outlined above is helpful for analysis, it is also far removed from reality. Understanding how the factor of ‘time’ plays out in the public policy lifecycle is essential when designing meaningful citizen participation:
First, in terms of the timing and sequencing within the policy cycle which will often be iterative with important implications for the impact of citizen participation – “too little, too late” being a common criticism. Choosing the right moment(s) for citizen participation is key.
Second, in terms of response times, as citizens often have conflicting expectations of governments – they are simultaneously expected to communicate at the speed required by social media and take rapid action while also garnering broad-based, informed public support which is always time consuming.
Third, in terms of time horizons, as different policy areas have structurally different lead-in times by which today’s policy choices can be expected to deliver visible/tangible outcomes (e.g. adjusting fuel taxes overnight vs. curriculum reforms in education policy). Investing in raising public awareness and managing citizens’ expectations about the timescale of policy change is essential.
Finally, with regard to the directionality of time, in other words the degree of reversibility of the policy choices made which may, or may not, be easily reversed once adopted (e.g. exiting international trade agreements).
Explicitly recognising these tensions and trade-offs regarding the all-important factor of time is often overlooked, but nonetheless essential, when designing and evaluating inclusive and meaningful citizen participation across the policy cycle (OECD, 2022[2]). This is particularly important when engaging citizens in policymaking on issues that will have intergenerational impacts, such as climate change (see Section 4 below).
The second line of action is to boost inclusion by lowering barriers to citizen participation in policymaking. This entails raising awareness of the value of citizen participation; designing inclusive participatory processes; managing citizen participation processes within and across levels of government; as well as more emphasis on “active listening”, respectful dialogue and relationship-building over the long term.
3.5.1. Raising awareness of the value of citizen participation:
Citizen participation processes consume precious resources that are equally scarce for the public sector and for citizens themselves, namely: time, funds, attention, energy, reputation, behavioural adjustments and commitment. So, the first step is to make a compelling and convincing case for citizens that their time investment is worthwhile (OECD, 2024[3]).
For elected officials, civil servants and other public sector employees this will mean, at the very least, reaffirming the importance of compliance with legal requirements for citizen participation – but also defining and communicating the values, quality standards, and performance expectations underpinning such processes. Accepting risk and fostering an open culture of “no-blame” retrospectives when things go wrong – while celebrating success when they go well – will foster innovation and organisational learning while recognising that participatory policymaking in a democracy is rarely straightforward and will always be ‘work in progress’.
For citizens, participatory processes that offer a chance to contribute to the policy cycle can be framed as an obligation (e.g. mandatory voting), a civic duty, an opportunity to shape policy outcomes in which they have a personal stake (e.g. as a direct beneficiary or stakeholder) or as their contribution to maintaining a core asset on which future democratic resilience rests (i.e. as a ‘citizen’). Motivation and a sense of self-agency play a large role in citizens’ choices to participate or not – and raising awareness may help those who are currently ‘able but unwilling’.
It is important to recognise the crucial role played by organised civil society in achieving inclusive citizen participation. Civil society organisations (CSOs) with specialised knowledge and experience of working directly with communities that are particularly affected by discrimination and exclusion often act as intermediaries for underrepresented groups – acting as a conduit for the voices of people who might hesitate to engage directly with government processes (OECD, 2022[4]).
Collecting evidence on how, when and under what circumstances citizen participation can improve policy design and outcomes is not only needed for continuous improvement, as discussed below. It is also an essential ingredient when making evidence-based and salient arguments for public sector employees’ and citizens’ investments in participatory processes.
Only a subset of citizens will take part in any given participatory processes during policymaking, and participants will form their opinions based on direct experience. But what about non-participants? Does providing information about citizen participation processes affect trust among those who do not participate?
A recent study (Ardanaz, Otálvaro-Ramírez and Scartascini, 2023[5]) has assessed the effect of an informational campaign about a participatory budgeting initiative in Buenos Aires, Argentina. As the authors report: “Results show that providing detailed information about citizen involvement and the outputs marginally shapes voters’ assessments of government performance and political trust. In particular, it increases voters’ perceptions about the benevolence and honesty of the government”. Interestingly, the authors found that the effects were larger for those people with prior negative views about the quality of local government. People’s reported levels of interpersonal trust and their beliefs about the community’s capacity to solve collective-action problems were also identified as important factors.
3.5.2. Designing inclusive citizen participation
Making the case for citizen participation is not enough. People may be ‘willing but unable’ given the many intrinsic and extrinsic barriers they face. Inequalities in income, wealth, education and health outcomes are on the rise in many OECD countries fueled by successive waves of financial crises and the COVID-19 pandemic (OECD, 2021[6]). Real household disposable income has been eroded by inflation: on average across the 22 OECD countries for which data is available, inflation outpaced year-on-year changes in nominal household disposable income per capita by 2 percentage points between 2021‑Q4 and 2022‑Q4 (OECD, 2024[7]).
These factors have contributed to a widespread sense of precarity and unease about the future among many citizens. This is reflected in the latest OECD Trust Survey (OECD, 2024[8]) in which an average of 71% of respondents indicate that they are somewhat or very concerned about their household’s finances and economic well-being over the next one to two years.
Based on the OECD Well-being Framework, since 2011 the OECD has regularly collected data on 11 dimensions relating to material conditions (income and wealth, work and job quality, housing); quality-of-life factors (health, knowledge and skills, environmental quality, subjective well-being, safety) as well as community relationships (work-life balance, social connections, civic engagement) (OECD, 2020[9]). It looks at three types of inequality:
horizontal inequalities: gaps between population groups (e.g. between men and women, old and young people, etc.)
vertical inequalities: gaps between those at the top and those at the bottom of the scale in each dimension (e.g. the income of the richest 20% of individuals compared to that of the poorest 20%, referred to as); and
deprivations (i.e. the share of the population falling below a given threshold, such as a minimum level of skills or health).
These dimensions of inequality are useful to bear in mind when critically assessing the level of inclusion of citizen participation processes currently on offer – from participation rates in national elections to attendance of village hall discussions. Do all groups in society have an equal chance to exercise their voice and choice? Are certain groups only called upon to provide input on single-issue policies of direct relevance to their life conditions – or also as part of diverse groups of citizens invited to deliberate and shape policy options that will have widespread impact? Who are the people that never participate, and why?
Policy makers need to understand how different groups in society (e.g. women and men, unemployed and impoverished citizens, young and old, recent migrants, people living with disabilities, urban and rural communities) bear the costs and share in the benefits of public policy. Research has shown that low-income households and workers bear a disproportionate share of the burden of regulatory interventions (Thomas, 2019[10]). The importance of assessing the distributional impacts of proposed regulations is widely acknowledged amongst OECD members, such as in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) guidelines of Australia, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and in the European Commission’s Better Regulation Toolbox (European Commission, 2023[11]). Some countries such as Germany, France, Flanders (Belgium) and Austria use “youth checks” as part of impact assessment during policymaking as does the EU Youth Test, piloted by the European Economic and Social Council (EESC) (OECD, 2020[12]).
Not only are people who belong to disadvantaged groups in society more likely to feel a greater impact from new rules, they are also the ones who have less voice upstream – so are doubly penalised. The quantitative analysis provided by experts are essential sources of evidence for policy makers – but while necessary, they are not sufficient. To fully grasp the implications of different policy options, and to improve the evidence base on which policy options can be formulated, it is important to go beyond the ‘averages’ provided by data analysis. Gathering insights from people who have lived through the policy challenge being addressed can be equally valuable. This approach has been adopted in several jurisdictions including by Scotland’s Poverty and Inequality Commission who established their “Experts by Experience Panel” in March 2024 (Poverty and Inequality Commission, n.d.[13]). People’s participation is valuable not just upstream (e.g. as part of policy formulation) but at each stage of the policy process – and in particular, when crafting policy implementation options. These are likely to be more effective if they are informed by a better understanding of citizens’ perceptions, preferences and behaviours. This is a key area in which behavioural science offers important insights and practical suggestions for crafting policy responses (OECD, 2022[14]).
In Canada, people with disabilities stressed the importance of “nothing about us, without us” in the development of federal accessibility legislation. Accordingly, to ensure that people with a range of needs could participate, consultations took place in person‑ and online, with real-time captioning, sign language interpreters, intervenor services for participants with vision or hearing impairments, as well as information provision in plain language, Braille, large print, audio, sign language, and e-text. Participants were also invited to share ideas by email, phone, teletypewriter, or by sending audio or video recordings (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2017[15])
In Finland, the government is a partner in the SILE project (Silent Agents Affected by Legislation) which focuses on improving engagement with silent agents affected by legislation. The project concentrates on vulnerable societal groups, such as children, prisoners, residents facing instability, and individuals dealing with challenges like debt and mental health issues, acknowledging that these groups are often overlooked by policy makers.
Source: (OECD, 2025[16])
In Portugal, the City of Braga has established a “Human Power Hub” (https://humanpowerhub.pt) to foster innovative solutions to social problems by linking CSOs and other stakeholders. The Hub undertakes targeted outreach towards underrepresented groups by organising workshops, focus groups, and community meetings designed to engage minorities, low-income residents, and individuals with disabilities.
Providing information and engagement opportunities in multiple languages and ensuring that all digital and physical participation platforms are accessible to people with disabilities is key to lowering barriers to citizen participation.
Source: see Part II of this report.
Ireland was the first country to adopt a National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision Making (2015-2020) which was primarily aimed at children under the age of 18. The Strategy emphasised the importance of ‘Participation with Purpose’, which goes beyond simply involving young people in decision-making to ensuring that children’s views are listened to, taken seriously and given due weight with the intention of leading to a concrete outcome or change.
A government review of the Strategy, published in 2023, found that significant progress had been made in promoting children and young people’s participation but identified several challenges. These included the need to ensure that children and young people’s views are taken into account at the national policymaking level, and greater efforts to remove barriers to participation for marginalised and vulnerable groups. The review recommended the development of a new national strategy on children and young people’s participation and stronger mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating progress.
In the words of Anna-Kaisa Ikonen, Finland’s Minister of Local and Regional Government: “It is very difficult to trust something or someone that you cannot understand. If you cannot understand, it is difficult to have a voice” (See Chapter 8). So, making policy-making more accessible to all will require, at a minimum, efforts to provide information, invest in outreach and deliver targeted support to participants.
Information: several countries have introduced “plain language” requirements and guidance on accessible writing – for example the UK Government Guidance on Accessible Formats (UK Government, 2021[18]); France’s Charter on Accessibility of State Communications (Government of France, 2021[19]); and the United States Plain Writing Act of 2010 and guidelines (Government of the United States of America, 2011[20]). They share a common purpose, namely, to make it easier for people search for, find, read and understand information provided by public institutions which is often laden with technical jargon and acronyms. For example, France has established five obligatory tools: “Easy to Read” versions of documents; subtitles for videos; accessible PDF formats; alternative texts and sign language (OECD, 2021[21]).
Outreach: engaging hard-to-reach groups in public policy requires concerted efforts by all four branches and at each stage of the policy cycle. Given that elections are the prime avenue for citizen participation in representative democracies, groups in society with historically low levels of participation in elections should benefit from targeted measures to promote voter registration, voting, or standing for election. For example, the Australian Electoral Commission actively works to increase voter participation of First Nations Peoples through initiatives such as electoral information sessions, partnerships with government and non-government agencies, and targeted resources, including online explanatory videos (Australian Electoral Commission, n.d.[22]).
Support: as outlined above, participation is not cost-free for citizens. Some individuals will need additional support or specific measures to be able to participate effectively and on an equal footing – for example citizens who face additional burdens due to disabilities, illness, language barriers, rurality, digital divides, caring responsibilities or the fear of retribution or violence (see Box 3.5). Support may take various forms, including economic compensation (e.g. to cover childcare or transport costs), flexible scheduling to accommodate working hours, providing information in multiple languages or working with respected community leaders to encourage participation by vulnerable or hard to reach groups.
Budgeting is a unique “nexus” that brings together the various dimensions of public policy analysis and determines where the taxpayer’s money goes. So it is important that this nexus be open to a broad range of inputs and viewpoints. OECD countries have made efforts in recent years to help citizens understand and engage with the budget process, for example regarding the implications of the public budget for gender, well-being and intergenerational equity.
Budgetary decisions often focus on short-term political goals at the expense of long-term needs. Measures that might sustainably address future spending pressures related to ageing populations and the green transition can often get sidelined with long-term and far-reaching intergenerational consequences.
Independent fiscal institutions (IFIs) are independent public institutions with a mandate to critically assess, and in some cases provide non-partisan advice on, fiscal policy and performance. IFIs now exist in almost all OECD Member countries and have played an important role in fostering improved transparency in budgeting. Having achieved this, it is time to consider the next step in their evolution - adopting a stronger voice in advocating for fiscal sustainability alongside decisive action. This should see IFIs becoming more vocal institutions, and a trusted and valued source of clear non-partisan information and analysis for citizens, civil society and media. In this way they can play an important role in fostering transparency and citizens’ understanding of the trade-offs and time horizons involved in public budgeting, as well as the consequences of inaction, thereby empowering public understanding and generating political will for action.
3.5.3. Promoting integrated approaches to citizen participation at the national level
Aware of the very real risk of ‘consultation fatigue’ among citizens, some national governments are taking steps to improve co-ordination across national level ministries and agencies – far fewer have successfully done so across branches of government (i.e. with legislatures, judiciary or independent institutions).
As a first step, many countries have made efforts to provide better information to citizens about upcoming opportunities for citizen participation via online ‘one stop shops’ or providing a single, integrated digital platform for policy consultations. A notable example of citizen participation in policymaking within a multilevel governance framework is the European Commission’s “Have Your Say” online portal which provides a single online space for all the online consultation, participatory and deliberative initiatives it undertakes. It links to a user-friendly “Citizens’ Engagement Platform” which incorporates advanced translation technology allowing citizens from across the EU to create content and interact in 24 official EU languages as well as digital text-mining tools to analyse all contributions received (European Commission, 2024[25]).
Austria has expanded public consultation requirements beyond initiatives developed by the executive. Since 2021, stakeholders can comment on legislative initiatives introduced directly in parliament under the ‘parliamentary consultation procedure’. This allows stakeholders and citizens to submit comments on all legislative proposals regardless of their origin, as long as the parliamentary legislative process is ongoing. All responses are accessible to the public on the Parliament’s website (in case of responses from individuals, only with their consent).
In France the National Commission for Public Debate is an independent authority responsible for guaranteeing the right of everyone living in France to have information on, and participate in, projects or policies that have an impact on the environment. This public “right to debate” is enshrined in article 7 of the Environmental Charter and is recognised as key to improving decision-making on projects or policies and to soliciting people’s values, expectations or questions. The CNDP is a neutral authority that does not comment on the appropriateness of the projects or policies concerned and can be mobilised by the government, parliamentarians, communities, associations and citizens through the right of initiative.
3.5.4. Providing channels for citizen participation in multilevel governance
The challenge here is to ensure co-ordination across levels of government to make best use of the limited time, attention, and energy that chronically “time poor” citizens will choose to invest in participation in the policymaking cycle. This is particularly important given that multiple levels of government – from the local, national and international – are often each the locus of decision-making for different aspects of complex processes (e.g. infrastructure development) and each offer opportunities to convene citizens, civil society organisations (CSOs) and other stakeholders at different stages in the process (Addison, 2024[27]).
Yet ongoing OECD work on multi-level governance, regional governance, urban and rural policy has identified a series of common problems that prevent citizens and local stakeholders from participating effectively, including: the lack of public information, weak mutual trust, insufficient training on civic engagement for public employees, limited funding for participatory processes and a poor understanding of the importance of civic engagement (OECD, 2021[28]).
Multi-level dialogue fora are a mechanism frequently used for co-ordinating regional development and investment priorities. They bring together a combination of national and subnational public, private and third-sector actors in a regular, formalised manner (OECD, 2022[29]). For example, Sweden has established a national multi-level, multi-stakeholder “Forum for Sustainable Growth and Regional Attractiveness” which facilitates and maintains a continuous dialogue among central government, central government agencies, regional governments, municipalities, third-sector actors and the private sector.
In Italy the Emilia-Romagna Region has, since 2021, run an open participatory process called “Youz” to involve young people in shaping regional development policies in line with EU programming, using a tour bus and an interactive online platform. Seeking to move beyond ‘voice’ to ‘action’, in 2023, the region earmarked 1.3 million euros to support 67 youth-led projects which were selected following a competitive process.
In Poland, since 2018 cities with county rights have an obligation to implement participatory budgets (PBs) and this practice has extended to about 200 municipalities, counties and voivodeships that have chosen to implement PBs voluntarily. A related initiative to encourage engagement in non-metropolitan areas was also established by national law in 2009, called the Village Fund. The fund, established at the national level, is used in almost 90% of rural municipalities and is the strongest instrument for public participation in the country in terms of the number of community members that can be involved and the size of the funds (OECD, 2021[28]).
Some citizen participation initiatives focus on transborder policy issues such as mobility, transport, infrastructure and watershed management (see Box 3.8). Others seek to expand avenues for citizens’ voice in existing international rule-making arenas. Intergovernmental Organisations (IOs) play a major role in fostering policy debate, and many are exploring ways to engage with individual citizens, as part of a broader trend of increasing inclusiveness of IO rulemaking (Bozzini and Pascual Dapena, 2025[30]). This is still very challenging due to a lack of mandate and specific processes on one hand, and lack of citizens awareness about IO processes on the other (OECD, 2021[31]). In some cases, global civil society organisations are taking the lead, for example in 2021, the Global Citizens’ Assembly convened 100 people selected to represent the global population to deliberate and deliver their recommendations to the COP26 in Glasgow, United Kingdom (Curato, 2023[32]).
Launched in 2020, “Youth for the Rhine” is a now network of over 150 young professionals and students, dedicated to improving management and governance of the Rhine River. In the past, the Rhine has faced issues of poor water quality as well as the increasing occurrence and severity of flooding events.
This initiative aims to empower and engage young people in shaping the policy and practice in the Rhine Basin regarding water management and climate change. The network seeks to gauge youth perceptions around water quality in the Rhine through the development of surveys, water quality measurements and education tools as well as bottom-up online consultations on specific projects (e.g. youth perspectives of nature-based solutions for flood prevention) as well as events, webinars, questionnaires, and surveys to reach out end users in the basin and beyond. Youth for the Rhine collaborates with UNESCO's Groundwater Youth Network and the Global Youth Movement for Water, partnering with Rhine-based universities and institutes to improve water governance. The research, data, and experience will continue to build a deep understanding and replicable model for youth engagement in transboundary water management and governance.
Source: (OECD, 2024[33]) (OECD, 2015[34])
3.5.5. Building relationships and active listening
Public institutions in a democracy are only as strong as the commitment to democracy to be found amongst its citizens. Indeed, an exclusive focus on public institutions and the machinery of policymaking risks overshadowing the importance of a nurturing a vibrant civil society and citizens’ commitment to “everyday” democracy (OECD, 2022[4]).
In increasingly fractured societies, there are ever fewer spaces where citizens from different walks of life, ages and backgrounds can come together to talk, exchange and explore their differences and similarities (Yates, 2021[35]). While largely invisible, the ‘strength of loose connections’ and the value of ‘bridging social capital’ can prove to be a valuable asset for democracies when facing headwinds (Putnam, 2000[36]). Public institutions that recognise the importance of building and maintaining ongoing relationships with citizens and communities – beyond one-off encounters held as part of a specific, time-bound policy process – will find they have accumulated resources of trust that will make all the difference in times of need.
In Finland, the need to provide spaces for civic dialogue during the conditions of social distancing and isolation imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic has since grown into a broad-based series of ‘dialogue circles’. Led by civil society organisations and actively supported by national government, this initiative has flourished, and offers inclusive spaces for citizens to talk and an opportunity for civil servants to take a back seat and focus on ‘active listening’ (see Box 3.9).
The Finnish National Dialogues are a social dialogue initiative aimed at increasing communication and exchanges between public institutions and civil society. Everyone is encouraged to participate, and summaries of the dialogues are published online.
The initiative originally emerged as a mechanism to consult citizens during the COVID-19 lockdowns (Lockdown Dialogues). One of the original ideas behind these lockdown dialogues was to enhance trust in public institutions in times of crisis. During the pandemic, relevant non-governmental organisations (NGOs) reached out to vulnerable communities to inform them about the ongoing dialogues and to ensure that a representative group of citizens participated in the open discussions.
Since 2022, over 800 National Dialogues have been organised by over 200 different civil society partners across Finland. Anybody can organise these dialogues and anybody can participate - the youngest participants were five years old.
The goal is to give people a stronger voice, strengthen mutual understanding across social divides while offering civil servants a “listening opportunity” to learn more about how citizens see major societal challenges.
Source: (OECD, 2023[37])
The third line of action focuses on raising capacity for meaningful citizen participation among all relevant actors. Access to information, a free media characterised by plurality of information sources and a protected civic space are among the preconditions for effective citizen participation. Raising capacity requires aligning ‘front’ and ‘back office’ processes within public institutions; boosting civil servants’ professional skills to design and conduct effective citizen participation; while also investing in the ‘participation skills’ of youth and adult.
3.6.1. Ensuring openness, information integrity and a protected civic space:
The words of James Madison, fourth President of the United States and “Father of the Constitution”, ring true almost two centuries later:
"[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." (Madison, 1822[38])
Democracy as a system of governance, and meaningful citizen participation therein, is predicated on guarantees for citizens core freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. Civil society organisations play an essential role, not only as aggregators of citizens’ ‘voice’ but in providing tailored and practical support to enable individual citizens to participate actively in the policy cycle (OECD, 2022[4]) (See Box 3.10). Strong legal provisions for access to information and their effective application in practice through responsive, timely and low-threshold channels to lodge requests are the bedrock upon which citizen participation is built. Measures to protect digital identity, data privacy and accessibility of online information resources are also critical for citizen participation in policymaking (OECD, 2023[39]). Furthermore, citizens need pluralistic, high-quality information in the public sphere which is contingent on having independent, pluralistic media sources and high standards among professional journalists (OECD, 2024[40]).
Meaningful citizen participation cannot flourish unless certain preconditions are in place. The OECD’s longstanding work on information integrity, civic space and lobbying provide important insights into the conditions under which citizens can exercise their rights of access to information, participation and public scrutiny in practice:
1. Defending information integrity: informed citizen participation in democratic governance depends upon information ecosystems that are conducive to the availability of accurate, evidence-based, and plural information sources and that enable individuals to be exposed to a variety of ideas, make informed choices, and better exercise their rights. The OECD 2024 “Facts not Fakes” report (OECD, 2024[40]) identifies three complementary policy aims: (i) enhancing transparency, accountability, and plurality of information sources, (ii) strengthening societal resilience to disinformation, and (iii) upgrading governance measures and institutional architecture.
2. Promoting and protecting civic space: Civic space is a cornerstone of functioning democracies. The OECD 2022 report on “The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space” (OECD, 2022[4]) defines ‘civic space’ as the set of legal, policy, institutional and practical conditions non-governmental actors need to access information, express themselves, associate, organise and participate in public life. Civic space is anchored in international and national legal frameworks and benefits the whole of society. Protected civic space facilitates participation in public affairs and allows citizens and civil society organisations (CSOs) to engage with governments, participate throughout policy- and decision-making cycles and provide oversight of government activities. Effective citizen participation is rooted in human rights and civic freedoms, such as freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association and privacy. Maintaining a protected civic space, both online and offline, requires a) protection of civic freedoms; b) robust and enforceable access to information laws as the cornerstone of public accountability; c) media freedoms; and d) an enabling environment for civil society organisations. When citizens decide to engage in the policy cycle, they may choose to participate as individual citizens or with others through civil society organisations (CSOs).
3. Ensuring a level playing field: The OECD’s 2017 Recommendation of the Council on Open Government sets out 10 provisions to ensure citizens’ rights to information, consultation and engagement. The OECD’s Principles for Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying (updated in 2024) recognises the need to establish additional guardrails for powerful, well-endowed actors pursuing legitimate private goals in the policy arena. Furthermore, the OECD’s 2022 Guiding Principles for Citizen Participation Processes includes a focus on “Integrity” which underscores that: “Efforts should be made to protect the process from private interests or policy capture by specific interest groups”. Ensuring a level playing field requires additional protections for actors promoting the voice and legitimate interests of disadvantaged groups and of diffuse public goods.
3.6.2. Aligning government functions to support citizen-centered policymaking
The internal processes that undergird government policymaking are usually rooted in legal statutes and historical precedent, rather than intentional design driven by the latest data on user needs, preferences and behaviours. Alignment between the ‘back office’ and the ‘front office’ generally follows the logic of ‘inward-out’ rather than ‘outward-in’ which contributes to a growing disconnect between citizens’ expectations which often outstrip government’s ability to respond.
Some promising practices of ‘reverse engineering’ demonstrate how this approach may be flipped so that citizens’ needs inform not only the design of the user interface but can lead to deeper changes in core administrative systems without sacrificing efficiency or administrative certainty.
Lawmaking, taxing and spending and infrastructure planning are among the core functions of any national government. In the case of rulemaking, fiscal management and infrastructure planning efforts to meet growing demands for greater transparency and citizen participation at the public-facing interface can go further and give rise to reforms of established internal processes (see Box 3.11, Box 3.12, Box 3.13).
Consultation is now a standard feature of rulemaking in OECD countries and the 2012 OECD Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance is over a decade old (OECD, 2012[41]). Most OECD countries have requirements in place to conduct stakeholder engagement in the development of both primary law and subordinate regulations. Engaging stakeholders in rulemaking helps to identify potential issues, incorporate diverse viewpoints, and build a broader consensus for new rules. Yet countries increasingly recognize that it is no longer enough to have provisions for public consultation ‘on the books’, make cursory attempts to hold ‘comment and notice’ periods in order to ‘tick the box’. Examples of efforts to align the ‘back office’ with the ‘front office’ include:
Canada has an ongoing initiative to simplify rules through a recurring omnibus legislative vehicle known as the Annual Regulatory Modernization Bill. In 2023, stakeholders were invited to help identify rules seen as overly restrictive, unnecessary, or as barriers to efficiency.
Estonia is developing an online platform to enable co-creation format on draft rules, providing a shared digital workspace in which experts and other stakeholders can co-work on the same legislative text directly with civil servants across ministries.
Source: (OECD, 2025[16])
The fiscal reports released by governments ensure transparency and accountability for government spending. At their most basic, they act as ledgers, detailing the inflows and outflows of public funds – to which more detailed management and performance information is often added. Traditional fiscal reporting was characterised by limited data availability and significant time-lags for publication.
Recognising the power of digital tools and AI, recent OECD work focuses on the potential for fiscal reporting to: “…become a tool for empowering public understanding of key fiscal issues, fostering scrutiny and dialogue, as well as promoting trusted fiscal information” (OECD, 2025[42]).
Meeting the demand for open data formats, more frequent updates, user-friendly digital tools and customizable data dashboards voiced by citizens, CSOs, journalists, businesses and other users of the ‘front office’ have only been possible thanks to significant efforts in the ‘back office’ to introduce whole-of-government accounting standards, data protocols and digital access. Some examples include (OECD, 2025[42]):
Canada: the Government of Canada Infobase (GC Infobase) is a searchable online database for public finance information. The value added for non-expert users is that this website presents information drawn from across the government in a single place while being accessible and user-friendly Launched in 2013, GC Infobase has evolved significantly over the past decade based on feedback from usability testing. Since the outset it has focused on the use of plain language, dynamic updating, topical reporting requests, clear data definitions and standards.
Czechia: since 2013 the Ministry of Finance has an interactive fiscal reporting website called “Monitor” which is based on consolidated data drawn from the central government, local government, and subnational governments (regions, municipalities). It mirrors the mandatory reporting requirements for all government entities and is predicated on, and provided impetus for, common data standards and integration across all levels of government.
Netherlands: in 2020 the Ministry of Finance created an online ‘one stop shop’ with digital and interactive fiscal reports, which is regularly reviewed based on the data analytics from users. Current plans include the addition of a behavioural insights expert to the team in order to better understand citizens’ information needs to inform any adjustments to the website (front office) and the internal processes underpinning fiscal reporting (back office).
Source: (OECD, 2025[42])
To ensure that citizen participation is meaningful and establishes trust, governments need to navigate a paradox of citizens’ experience with participation process. Namely, citizens are most keen on participating in local decision-making about concrete projects that have a tangible impact on their day-to-day lives. However, participation at this stage often means that the project development is already well-advanced, and the scope for influencing decision-making via citizen input is limited. One way to address this paradox is to frame participation in a way that is meaningful to citizens.
Netherlands: To address community concern to new nuclear development, the Dutch municipality of Borsel organised a diverse, representative sample of residents to consider future energy use and development in the municipality. The exercise involved setting a long-term vision and prescribing conditions that nuclear energy providers were required to follow. The conditions were agreed over 5 meetings and concerned environmental impacts, safety considerations and concerns regarding the general way of life. The conditions were later adopted without any changes by the Borsel municipal authority. 366 Borsel residents signed up for the Borsel Conditions Group, which was represented by 110 residents based on residence, age and gender. In addition to these enrolled residents, each village council has a representative.
New Zealand: To assist regions with unavoidable economic and social change, New Zealand established the Just Transition Partnership (JTP) team, a national government unit dedicated to support regions through a transition to a new economic model. The JTP supports local government by liaising between national and sub-national government to identify pre-existing national-level funding opportunities, provide expertise for collaborative planning processes and make relevant links to other relevant national government processes. Sub-national government remains in the driving seat to define and implement community-led strategies (pathways) to support the green transition.
An example of a JTP team supporting a region transitioning away from oil and gas production and towards offshore wind production is the “Taranaki 2050” Taranaki, New Zealand. The creation of the Taranaki 2050 roadmap involved extensive participation from stakeholders across the region. Namely, over 700 people took part in 23 workshops and 5 community workshops. Over 360 people completed surveys online or at events. All inputs gathered created the Taranaki draft 2050 Roadmap. Additional input involving 40 sessions with over 1000 people, and 70,000 engagements led to the finalised version of the Roadmap.
Source: https://www.borsele.nl/borselse-voorwaarden-groep ; Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand) via (OECD, 2021[28])
3.6.3. Building civil servants’ capacity to conduct meaningful citizen participation:
Civil servants often lack the necessary skills, expertise, incentives and experience to engage citizens in the policy process with confidence. Addressing this gap means investing in guidance, training and coaching so they can build the necessary professional “skills portfolio” to: communicate data and evidence using plain language; craft compelling data visualisations and narratives; interact effectively and sensitively with diverse groups of citizens; plan, commission, deliver and evaluate citizen participation processes; and ensure vertical and horizontal accountability for their results.
Some countries have established central units or agencies responsible for providing leadership, co-ordination, quality control and training in citizen participation processes (e.g. France’s Interministerial Centre for Citizen Participation - CIPC) or have entrusted their Centres of Government (e.g. New Zealand’s Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) (see Box 3.14). Others have issued guidance for civil servants at the national, regional and local levels. Senior leaders in the public service also have a role in fostering a culture of participation where a ‘participation as priority’ mindset is encouraged.
In Australia, in line with its vision for public engagement (“Working together to make better decisions and improve the lives of Victorians”) the Government of Victoria adopted its Public Engagement Framework 2021-2025 which includes a set of principles, a ‘how to guide’ and a framework for evaluation. The materials underscore that a key step in the process is to report back to citizens and ‘close the loop’ on how their inputs will shape decisions.
In France, the Interministerial Centre for Citizen Participation (Centre Interministériel de la Participation Citoyenne - CIPC) provides line ministries and state services with:
resources and methodological tools that enable them to understand the challenges of citizen participation (presentation of the different modes of participation and participatory bodies, methodological kits, frameworks for commitments, recommendations for measures to be implemented according to the objectives of the consultation and the degrees of participation envisaged).
access to service providers specialized in facilitating consultations (in person or online)
meetings, training and peer-learning through a dedicated community of public officials responsible for citizen participation.
An example of how to clarify expectations and strengthen civil servants’ skills for citizen participation comes from New Zealand. The 2023 Policy Skills Framework describes the mix of knowledge, skills, practices, and behaviours required by policy practitioners working in government. Notably, this includes the ability to use inclusive and culturally appropriate engagement practices that consider the needs of people from different cultures, genders, ages and abilities with a particular focus on Māori – by virtue of their status as Treaty partners and as individual citizens. An engagement toolkit provides additional guidance for public officials.
3.6.4. Strengthening ‘participation skills’ for all citizens
Rights to participation in a democracy are grounded in inalienable human rights which all citizens enjoy. They are not contingent upon the level of education, skills or aptitudes individual citizens may possess. Universal suffrage, free and fair elections and the fundamental tenet of ‘one person, one vote’ remain the bedrock of representative democracy.
Yet many citizens fail to exercise their fundamental democratic rights of participation, due in part to a lack of knowledge, skills and self-efficacy (Borhan, 2025[47]). Participation in formal, informal and non-formal education plays a significant role in shaping individuals' political knowledge (ICCS, 2023[48]) as well as their capacity for active participation in democratic processes and fostering a more informed, tolerant and inclusive society (Cerna, 2014[49]). OECD data shows that educational attainment is strongly correlated with voter turnout (OECD, 2020[9]), trust (OECD, 2024[50]), and political engagement (OECD, 2023[51]).
Looking beyond levels of educational attainment, the OECD has pioneered the use of international large-scale surveys to collect direct measures of the skills of young people (e.g. Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA (OECD, 2023[52]); Survey of Social and Emotional Skills, SSES (OECD, 2024[53]) and of adults (Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competences, PIAAC (OECD, 2019[54]). This shift in focus from education to skills recognises that while credentials (or “years-spent-in-school”) are a useful proxy, life-long and life-wide learning beyond formal schooling means that people’s skills can, and do, develop outside formal education in the workplace, in civic life and society.
The ability to participate effectively in the policy cycle depends on citizens being equipped with a wide range of skills – both cognitive skills (e.g. literacy, numeracy, information processing) as well as social and emotional skills (e.g. empathy, responsibility, curiosity, tolerance, creativity). People also need high levels of metacognitive skills to navigate modern digital information landscapes and to identify reliable ‘signals’ in the midst of so much ‘noise’. Metacognitive skills include an awareness of one’s own ability and the level of difficulty of the information challenges we face; a willingness to recognise one’s lack of familiarity with the information we are faced with; and a solid understanding of the scientific process as a way to gather and judge evidence. As the 2023 OECD Skills Outlook concludes: “Equipping people with solid cognitive and metacognitive skills is critical to solving the “trust challenge” of modern information landscapes” (OECD, 2023[55]).
The OECD’s comparative analysis shows that:
Many citizens lack essential literacy and numeracy skills: On average across OECD countries, 45% of all 15-year-olds have not acquired basic proficiency in at least one of the core subjects PISA assesses (reading, mathematics and science). This is a significant handicap and means they will be poorly prepared for adult life in modern knowledge societies as they transition from school to the workplace and civic life. The latest data from the OECD Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC) show that across the OECD countries taking part on average about a quarter of adults have low literacy (26%) and numeracy (25%) skills or struggle with adaptive problem solving (29%) (i.e. adults who score at or below Level 1) (OECD, 2023[55]). Providing inclusive and high-quality education that ensures that learners of all ages are equipped with the foundational cognitive skills they need to understand policy issues, navigate mis- and dis-information in a digital age and play an active role in collective decision making, is itself an investment in the future of democracy.
Skills are unevenly spread in society: OECD data confirms that economic, social and cultural status is a strong predictor of performance in literacy and numeracy skills assessments. The latest PISA results show that about 15% of the variation in mathematics performance on average across OECD countries can be attributed to students’ economic, social and cultural background. Yet some countries demonstrate that high quality and equity in education can go hand in hand. Finland, Japan, and Korea have achieved both high levels of inclusion together with a large share of all 15-year-olds with basic proficiency in mathematics, reading and science. PISA data show that disadvantaged students also report lower levels of all social and emotional skills, on average, compared to their advantaged peers which mirrors patterns seen in cognitive skills (OECD, 2023[52]). Countries need to ensure that all young people, no matter their background, have opportunities to build the social and emotional skills they need to participate effectively in policymaking, such as communication, collaboration and critical thinking. The OECD Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC) reveals that adults with high literacy and numeracy skills are generally more likely to feel that they can understand and influence political affairs, compared to their lower skilled peers. These findings indicate that disparities in skill levels can lead to unequal political participation and decision-making power (OECD, 2024[56]).
Skills for participation can be learned. For example, PISA 2018 data show that in those OECD countries who gave 15-year-old students the opportunity to learn how to detect whether information is biased when in school is strongly associated with their ability to distinguish fact from opinions in the PISA assessment – even after accounting for per capita GDP or reading performance (Suarez-Alvarez, 2021[57]). Many countries include ‘civic education’ in their national curricula while several international organisations have issued guidance for helping young people develop the necessary skills to play an active role in their democracies – as evidenced in the 2022 OECD Recommendation on Creating Better Opportunities for Young People (OECD, 2022[58]). As noted in the 2025 OECD Trends Shaping Education report, “Education can play a key role in empowering learners to raise and address issues they care about and promote active citizenship. In the virtual world, it can help foster a culture of responsible digital citizenship that balances freedom of expression with the need for accurate and respectful discourse and ensure that people can distinguish fact from fiction” (OECD, 2025[59])The Council of Europe has developed a competence framework which is designed: “to equip young people with all of the competences that are needed to take action to defend and promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law, to act as active citizens, to participate effectively in a culture of democracy, and to live peacefully together with others in culturally diverse societies (Council of Europe, 2018[60]). In 2023, a European Commission Recommendation on effective citizen participation recognised that: “Media literacy and digital skills are important to participate in online public policy-making processes, to access and navigate relevant information, engage with authorities and develop the ability to identify and be resilient towards manipulated information, including disinformation. Those skills can be further fostered through education and training, and through non-formal and informal learning and youth work, with a focus on critical thinking.” (European Commission, 2023[61]). Meanwhile, UNESCO is leading efforts to promote global citizenship education as well as education for just and democratic societies, for example by issuing handbooks for primary and secondary teachers (UNESCO, 2019[62]).
Citizen participation builds valuable skills. Taking part in democratic debate and exercising one’s rights to participate contributes to building self-confidence, a sense of agency and a portfolio of transversal skills. This is most evident in the highly immersive and interactive learning environments provided by deliberative and citizen assemblies, where participants’ skills of collaboration, critical thinking and bridging diversity can be further enhanced. These skills are also highly valued by employers and can represent a significant, immediate and legitimate ‘return on investment’ for those citizens who choose to invest their time and energies in such activities. This observation has led some practitioners to explore the idea of granting formal recognition of the skills and competences acquired by individuals during citizen participation processes (e.g. in the form of a skills passport or as micro-credentials).
Recent citizen assemblies in France have drawn attention to the valuable role such experiences play in adult skills formation, particularly of the social and emotional skills that underpin collaboration, communication and collective action. All of which can become valuable assets for participating citizens, as they are skills which are also highly valued by employers.
The citizen assembly on the climate provided the opportunity for participants to obtain an ‘open badge’ certifying their attendance. As part of the citizens assembly on the end of life, experts from the Ministry of Labour provided technical support to identify 30 skills and actions. These were subsequently uploaded onto a government website on which participants could fill in a survey and provide a self-evaluation of the skills they had acquired which then led to the issue of a ‘skills card’. Reflections are now underway on how to develop the system further (e.g. establishment of benchmarks for performance, independent evaluation) (Sanchez, 2024[63]).
As part of the new frontier for citizen participation, renewed efforts are needed to equip all citizens with the necessary portfolio of ‘participation skills’ by encouraging and providing opportunities to develop the essential cognitive skills of literacy and numeracy as well as their media literacy, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication skills. This will require adopting a lifecycle approach to ensuring all citizens can develop their participation skills “portfolio” throughout life, from early childhood to adulthood, and in multiple arenas – from student government in schools to town councils and national citizens’ assemblies.
Fostering societal resilience to mis- and dis-information starts by ensuring that young people are equipped with the digital and media literacy skills needed to navigate online information.
In Canada, MediaSmarts provides information and resources for media professionals, organisations and teachers that can be used both online and in the classroom. The focus is on topical media issues such as body image, gender representations and diversity, as well as digital issues such as online hate, cyber-bullying and online ethics. The “diversity” information section focusses on specific examples of media representations which are relevant in the Canadian context, for example representations of Aboriginal people, portrayals of visible minorities, people with disabilities and LGBT.
In the European Union, a cross-European project called Speak Up! Media for Inclusion was adopted by France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, and the Netherlands. It aims to provide media literacy training to migrant and refugee children, emphasizing radio and filmmaking to help young migrants tell their stories and foster a sense of belonging. Following its success with youth, a new Erasmus+ project in France, Greece, Italy, and Portugal called Team Up! aims to enhance adults' digital and media literacy through toolkits, workshops, and events, focusing on themes such as gender in media, hate speech, and migration.
Source: (OECD, 2024[64])
Electoral processes and the civic act of voting are fundamental to representative democracies and are the subject of “civic education” classes in many countries. Some countries are enabling students to put that knowledge into practice:
The example of Norway illustrates the long-term benefits of investing in students’ skills for participation for the resilience of representative democracy. Norway is the only country in the world where there is a national framework for (and a 70-year tradition of) conducting mock elections in schools – including debates and interaction with party members from youth organisations - held every other year, one week before local or parliamentary elections. This familiarises students with the political system, encourages them to become active democratic citizens, and helps perpetuate the values and behaviours underpinning the democratic system. Indeed, a study has shown that mock elections had a positive effect on students’ willingness to vote in parliamentary elections (Borge, 2016[24]). Such efforts might have systemic and long-term effects on trust. Indeed, 2018 data show that 60% of Norwegians reported the highest level of “ability to participate in politics” (internal political efficacy) among OECD countries. Some 69% of Norwegians consider they have a say in what the government does (external political efficacy), which is the third highest value in OECD countries (OECD, 2022[65]).
A similar initiative is found in Sweden, where the Skolval initiative was first developed by the Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society in 2002. This includes the organisation of mock elections as part the school curriculum to help young people become familiar with the electoral system, raise awareness on policy issues and foster engagement in democratic processes. The initiative also includes other activities, such as political newsrooms, conducting polls and drafting articles. It is offered to junior high schools and upper secondary schools, with a focus on schools providing special education to students with disabilities, and schools in socio-economically marginalised regions. A digital nationwide survey conducted in 2022 showed that 73% of participating students felt that they had gained a better understanding of democratic processes and politics (Lundberg, 2024[66]) (OECD, 2024[67])
In Switzerland the Swiss Federation of Youth Parliaments has developed a user-friendly web platform and application called Easyvote. The platform features videos on the electoral system and the importance of participating in elections, which are promoted on social media. They also provide teaching materials for middle and high school teachers to help them enhance civic literacy among young people and organize debates in schools with young politicians. (OECD, 2024[67])
Participatory budgeting involving children and young people can make budgets more responsive to their needs, particularly when they are involved in designing, selecting and implementing the selected projects. It can foster their sense of ownership, belonging, citizenship and understanding of democracy while offering an opportunity to develop important skills such as self-efficacy, critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity (Gottschalk and Borhan, 2023[17]).
Launched in 2016 as part of the National Strategy for Citizenship Education in Public Schools, the national Schools Participatory Budgeting programme has involved 95% of the public schools in Portugal. Each public school receives an earmarked budget allocation, calculated according to its number of pupils. Students develop project proposals, host debates and campaign for their ideas which all students in the school then vote for. A survey of school principals found that 69% reported improvements in students’ participation in school life.
Participatory budgeting initiatives aimed at engaging young people can and do extend beyond the school walls. In Czechia, the town of Kutná Hora introduced participatory budgeting schemes initially at the school level, and then subsequently at the municipal level. All citizens over the age of 14 were invited to participate in the municipal level participatory budgeting process, in which students also played a role as co-ordinators.
3.6.5. Harnessing the power of digital technology and AI for meaningful citizen participation
OECD countries now have over two decades of experience in applying digital solutions to online citizen participation in policymaking. Yet the dizzying pace of technological innovation over the same period has shown no signs of abating and means that it often feels like governments are running just to stand still. This is an area in which the OECD has a longstanding track record as a pioneer in the comparative analysis of countries applications of technologies to the business of government for example with the publication of The e-Government Imperative in 2003 (OECD, 2003[68]) and Promises and Problems of E-democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement the following year (OECD, 2004[69]).
The 2021 OECD E‑Leaders Handbook on the Governance of Digital Government sets out a framework that includes, among its dimensions, citizen participation and collaboration, pointing to the institutional frameworks and mechanisms that governments can adopt to inform, consult and engage with citizens and civil society stakeholders in public policy design and implementation (OECD, 2021[70]).
Digital tools are now regularly used by public authorities at all levels of government to collect and process citizen inputs, to inform them about participation opportunities and in-person events, to provide learning materials, to perform online voting and to follow-up on the implementation of the results of participatory and deliberative processes. Digital technologies help expand opportunities for citizen participation by supporting existing in-person mechanisms and enabling new forms and channels of interaction between citizens and public institutions.
Almost all OECD countries have deployed digital portals dedicated to informing citizens about participation opportunities or to hosting online consultation and participatory processes (OECD, 2023[39]). For example, the government of Brazil launched the platform Brazil Participativo to involve citizens in the definition of the priorities for the 2024-2027 Multiannual Plan. While as an early adopter Estonia had been using the Osale platform since 2007 to conduct public consultations and to allow citizens to initiate policy discussions, it has been discontinued and is to be replaced by an online platform to enable co-creation of draft rules, providing a shared digital workspace in which experts and other stakeholders can co-work on the same legislative text directly with civil servants across ministries. In the meantime, citizens can propose policy discussions directly on the Government Office website (www.riigikantselei.ee/form/osale-ee-ettepanek).
The OECD’s most recent work focuses on improving civic participation through emerging technologies, as part of a project conducted jointly by the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation and the OECD Open Government Unit in collaboration with public agencies in Netherlands, Portugal and Spain (OECD, 2025[71]).
This purpose-driven project aims to explore the potential benefits and challenges of emerging technologies for innovative civic participation, while nurturing the adoption of civic participation methods to design, monitor, and assess innovative solutions to priority policy challenges identified during the project. As part of the ongoing search for solutions, bridges are being built between the public sector and start-ups, innovators, civil society, government “intrapreneurs”, and academia. They allow public institutions to explore emerging technologies, such as the development and deployment of AI-based solutions as they experiment with new digital solutions.
This ecosystem approach is characterized by attention to the distinct actors “which jointly and individually contribute to the development and diffusion of new technologies and which provides the framework within which governments form and implement policies to influence the innovation process” (Metcalfe, 1995[72]). The adoption of a systemic perspective is thus important to frame both the external and internal factors that shape an ecosystem, including the actors and their interactions, their adaptation to a changing environment, and their envisaged and actual outcomes (Suseno and Standing, 2017[73]).
The application of technology to core government functions has taken myriad forms and sought to improve both efficiency and responsiveness to citizens and other end users. GovTech and CivicTech share an underlying principle namely the development of digital tools and solutions through collaboration with innovators, which can include start-ups, academia, NGOs, and citizens. The OECD has identified a number of factors for successful digital innovation in government including: digital skills and multidisciplinary teams; agile processes, tools, and methodologies; and a culture that encourages experimentation and accepts failure.
While GovTech is government-centric and supports the digital transformation of public sectors (“back-office”) with a focus on efficiency and effectiveness, CivicTech is citizen-centric and focuses on the use of digital technologies to reinforce democracy by enabling the public to be informed, participate in decision and policymaking, and increase governments’ transparency and accountability (“front-office”). Better alignment between these functions is needed to support meaningful citizen participation.
Source: (OECD, 2024[74])
The combination of affordable, powerful digital devices, high speed connectivity and the proliferation of social media channels has contributed to the proliferation and dissemination of mis- and dis-information, as well as the rise in various forms of violence against marginalised groups, including women who face discrimination based on multiple factors (e.g., race, sexual orientation) (Women Political Leaders, 2022[75]), in the digital sphere – with consequences that have spilled over “IRW” (“in real world”). Notably, digital technologies hold great potential for political and social empowerment, contributing to narrowing gaps in political participation of under-represented and vulnerable groups. The emergence of widely accessible digital tools powered by Artificial intelligence (AI), in particular generative AI, promises to power-charge this trend further – notably with the creation and circulation of deep fakes. The risks are real and threaten the ‘epistemic foundations’ of democracy by blurring the lines between facts and fakes (OECD, 2024[40]), further undermining people’s trust in data and science more broadly (Kreps and Kriner, 2023[76]), and threatening freedom of expression.
National governments, the European Union (European Union, 2022[77]) and international institutions such as the OECD (OECD, 2019[78]) and UNESCO (UNESCO, 2022[79]) have all issued guidance on the ethical use of AI. Beyond efforts to regulate the design, deployment and use of these algorithms and their underlying datasets in the economy and in society, the OECD is also examining the application of AI to the work of government (OECD, 2024[80]). The World Bank has highlighted the potential uses of AI for Governments, showing in particular that, used together with human management and decision-making, this technology can address development challenges, including citizen engagement (World Bank, 2020[81]). Guidance on how to oversee the rapid development of AI in society, as well as use AI tools responsibly in their work, is needed for all four branches. Recent examples include guidelines issued for: the executive, legislatures (Fitsilis, Von Lucke and De Vreize, 2024[82]), judiciary (CEPEJ, 2019[83]) (Courts of New Zealand, 2023[84]) (UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 2023[85]) and independent institutions for oversight (INTOSAI Development Initiative, 2020[86]).
AI technologies are likely to reshape significant parts of the relation and the interactions between governments and citizens. Whilst the potential of AI is promising, there are important risks to take into consideration such as language divides, opacity of algorithmic decision-making, and biases. Citizens should therefore be involved in the development and the governance of AI systems and tools. Participatory and deliberative methodologies will be key to including citizens in the conversation.
Notwithstanding the many legitimate concerns and the need to address them, AI offers important efficiency gains through its ability to lower costs and boost capacity of public institutions to offer more opportunities for meaningful citizen participation in the policy cycle. Some of the benefits of AI, such as automation, processing of large amounts of data, and natural language processing, have clear applications in participatory and deliberative processes. Already today, promising practices include the use of AI in deliberative citizens’ assemblies to support preparations and sortition; review, summarise and translate citizen deliberations in real time during citizen assemblies, and produce summary records and transcripts (see Box 3.21 below) (McKinney, 2024[87]). AI has the potential to exponentially increase the scope of participation by enabling mass deliberations online and by supporting small-scale deliberative processes such as Citizen Assemblies. Nevertheless, the use of AI tools should aim at supporting human capacities on both the citizens’ and government sides, and not at replacing humans (Johnson, 2023[88]). The application of AI to the design and implementation of participatory and deliberative processes will boost capacity to reach out to a wider and more diverse public, enhance participation in terms of both quantity and quality, and ultimately enhance its impact.
Public policies regarding new technologies themselves benefit from adopting a systems approach for their design, implementation, management and evaluation, paving the way for open innovation strategies and initiatives – that often include an element of citizen participation. “Open Innovation 2.0 (OI2) is a new paradigm based on principles of integrated collaboration, co-created shared value, cultivated innovation ecosystems, unleashed exponential technologies, and extraordinarily rapid adoption. We believe that innovation can be a discipline practiced by many, rather than an art mastered by few” (Curley and Samelin, 2013[89]).
In 2022, the City of Bogotá in Colombia deployed Chatico, a conversational chatbot providing a clear, simple, and user-friendly interface for active citizen participation in local governance issues, in particular the design of Bogotá’s future development plan. The chatbot is anchored in Colombia’s most used instant messaging application (WhatsApp) to promote broader usage, and gives citizens three ways to engage: 1) "short route", which offers the option to participate by selecting one of the five priority objectives, 2) "intermediate route", where citizens can choose both an objective and a solution, and 3) "long route", which allows citizens to leave specific comments addressed to the mayor. On average, it takes citizens 5 minutes to participate, and so far, Chatico has attracted more than 10,000 interactions and gathered 22,000 proposals.
Citizens assemblies produce large amounts of content during their deliberations. This makes them hard to follow for many citizens participating in these initiatives. Panoramic is a digital platform launched by Make.org that uses AI to make complex subjects accessible to citizens. Content generated during the deliberations can be fed to a generative AI, which citizens can use to ask conversational-style questions and obtain a quick summary of what has been said in the debates.
In France, the national government has developed a mobile application for citizens to share their opinions and vote on issues called “Agora” thereby creating a continuous democratic dialogue beyond the election cycle.
In 2021, the city of Madrid in Spain introduced Clara, an AI-based virtual assistant built using the open-source software Consul and embedded in the city’s existing online participatory platform Decide_Madrid. Clara can answer users’ questions about how the platform works and provide information about ongoing and upcoming participatory processes organised by the city government.
Source: (OECD, 2024[64])
Attempts to chart the future trajectory of AI, while speculative, indicate that ever more advanced capabilities are on the horizon (Metz, 2024[90]). In the not-so-distant future, citizens could be equipped with advanced AI ‘assistants’ who could identify relevant information held by government on issues of interest to them, provide user-friendly summaries of key data and trade-offs and flag upcoming opportunities and options for citizen participation (see Table 3.1 below).
One of the new frontiers for citizen participation will be to ensure that the tools of digital democracy, including AI, are widely available and understood by both citizens and public servants, operating within a strong framework of ethics, data privacy and identity protection. At the same time, it is not just the applications of AI that should be based on these principles. The very process of their design, development, and iteration can leverage integrity, participation and transparency, including the adoption of participatory approaches in the design, development and evaluation of AI systems deployed across industry, academia and the public sector (NESTA, 2021[91]).
The fourth, and most challenging, line of action is to demonstrate that citizens’ participation has impact and to guarantee accountability for their input. At the broadest level, this will mean enhancing representative democracy through direct, participatory, and deliberative democratic practices which ensure citizens’ participation is meaningful. At a more concrete level it will mean compliance with existing national legislation and international treaties; establishing quality standards, performance metrics and reporting requirements; and institutionalising citizen participation.
3.7.1. Compliance with existing legal obligations: international, national and subnational
As part of the evolving trend towards institutionalising citizen participation in the policy cycle, many jurisdictions have introduced legal requirements that set out expectations for delivery and obligations for monitoring, evaluation, and public accountability.
At the international level, the 1998 Aarhus Convention was one of the first international legal instruments obliging signatories to ensure access to information, public participation and access to justice in a specific policy area: the environment (United Nations, 1998[92]). This pioneering convention was originally developed by UNECE for signature by countries in Europe and Central Asia and has since been ratified by all EU Member State and the European Commission. It was followed two decades later by the 2018 Escazú Convention for countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (United Nations, 2018[93]).
Despite over a quarter century of accumulated experience and regular reporting requirements, at its most recent meeting of the parties to the Aarhus Convention in July 2024, the Chair of the Task Force on Public Participation highlighted the continuing: “issues of a systemic nature, namely: (i) Meaningful and early public participation; (ii) The availability of all relevant documents to the public; (iii) Effective notification and time frames for public participation; and (vi) Ensuring that account is taken of comments from the public in the final decisions, and ensuring the appropriate provision of feedback on how the public’s comments have been taken into account in the decisions” (UN-ECE, 2024[94]).
The importance of citizen participation and people’s sense of political efficacy is also recognised in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Efforts to monitor countries’ progress rest on an indicator measuring people’s belief that the government will listen to, and act on, their opinions (SDG indicator 16.7.2) (UNDP, 2022[95]).
The OECD’s longstanding programme of work on open government, access to information and public participation in rule- and policy-making has been pursued at the request of its Member countries while engaging with many non-Members the world over. Several OECD Council Recommendations have been adopted in this field: they represent a political commitment to the principles they contain, entail an expectation that Adherents will do their best to implement them and give rise to regular monitoring reports on implementation by the Secretariat (see Box 3.22).
OECD Council Recommendations cover a wide range of policy fields and many contain references to stakeholder or citizen engagement (see Annex X). Several OECD Council Recommendations include specific provisions for access to information, consultation and participation including, among others:
2012 OECD Council Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance which recommends that Members: “Adhere to principles of open government, including transparency and participation in the regulatory process to ensure that regulation serves the public interest and is informed by the legitimate needs of those interested in and affected by regulation. This includes providing meaningful opportunities (including online) for the public to contribute to the process of preparing draft regulatory proposals and to the quality of the supporting analysis. Governments should ensure that regulations are comprehensible and clear and that parties can easily understand their rights and obligations” (OECD, 2012[41]).
2017 OECD Council Recommendation on Open Government in which “Open Government” is defined as “a culture of governance that promotes the principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth.” This Recommendation also sets our clear expectations and objectives for governments in terms of monitoring performance (“develop and implement monitoring, evaluation and learning mechanisms for open government strategies and initiatives”) and accountability (“actively communicate on open government strategies and initiatives, as well as on their outputs, outcomes and impacts, in order to ensure that they are well-known within and outside government”) (OECD, 2017[96])
2017 OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity which calls on adherents to “Encourage transparency and stakeholders’ engagement at all stages of the political process and policy cycle to promote accountability and the public interest”. In particular by ensuring access to information and open data, stakeholder access to public policy development and implementation, averting capture by narrow interest groups, instilling transparency in lobbying and political party financing, encouraging ‘watchdog’ organisations, citizens groups, labour unions and independent media (Principle 13) (OECD, 2017[97]).
2024 OECD Recommendation on Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying and Influence was originally adopted in 2010 and was the first international standard to address transparency and integrity risks related to lobbying practices. It was updated in 2024 to reflect a changing landscape and further reinforce transparency and integrity in policymaking. Among the new elements introduced is the recommendation that Adherents introduce a tool that details lobbying and influence actors and stakeholders consulted in the decision-making process (OECD, 2024[98]).
The 2023 EC Recommendation on citizen participation (European Commission, 2023[61]), cites the OECD Guidelines for Public Participation (OECD, 2022[2]) and underscores the importance of ensuring accountability (see Box 3.23).
The 2023 EC Recommendation on citizen participation stipulates that: “The framework for participation should be transparent and Member States should ensure scrutiny of the processes itself. In particular, Member States should:
inform those who participated about the outcome of the public policy-making process and the follow-up to the conducted participation exercises;
regularly invite citizens and civil society organisations to participate at different stages of the policy-making processes, including at the stage of reviewing policies;
periodically evaluate their framework for participation with a view to improving and adjusting it, for example to embrace more user-friendly, effective and innovative methods.”
Source: (European Commission, 2023[61])
At the national level many countries have legal instruments establishing citizens’ rights to participation in policymaking (e.g. through constitutions, laws and regulations) which also contain requirements for ‘closing the feedback loop’ and providing citizens with avenues for seeking redress or review.
The persistent gap between legal provisions for citizen participation processes and ensuring that citizen input is actually taken into account when making policy (i.e. de jure vs de facto citizen participation) has led to renewed interest in monitoring, evaluation and measurement of performance.
Scotland recognises the importance of communication and follow up after citizen participation processes have been completed. The Scottish Government has a dedicated website for public consultations which provides access to consultation materials and allows people to access information, participate online, and sign up for a mailing list to receive updates on ongoing and upcoming consultations.
Equally importantly, the site has a page aptly named “We asked, you said, we did” which offers comprehensive and easily navigable information on previous consultations including the topic of the consultation, details on specific contributions, responses given, and the use made of citizens’ input.
3.7.2. Establishing quality standards, performance metrics and public reporting requirements
Successful citizen participation processes that create public value require appropriate levels of investment by public institutions. Yet the investments made by participating citizens (including their time, funds and attention) are too often overlooked or discounted by public institutions. Ensuring that participatory processes deliver value to participants and to policy makers alike means adopting guidelines on citizen participation; defining quality standards; establishing clear metrics and processes for regular data collection; independent monitoring and evaluation; as well as requirements for regular public reporting based on agreed performance metrics across public institutions (OECD, 2021[99]).
Designing meaningful measures of citizen participation requires attention to three aspects:
Uptake: establishing what constitutes a reasonable level of participation will depend on the citizen participation process adopted (e.g. an election or local citizens’ assemblies) and answering questions such as: How many people participated in the process? What proportion were they of the relevant or eligible population? Among those who did participate, how many were doing so for the first time and how many could be characterized as ‘the usual suspects’ whose assiduity means they may crowd out other voices? How fair and balanced was the participation in the discussion?
Inclusion: recognising that many citizens face intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to participation, it is key to include metrics of inequality such as those defined by the OECD Centre on Well-Being, Inclusion, Sustainability and Equal Opportunity (WISE) (OECD, 2020[9]). This would include: gaps between population groups (e.g. between men and women, old and young people, etc.) to measure horizontal inequalities; gaps between those at the top and those at the bottom of a given scale of interest (e.g. the participation rates of the richest 20% of individuals compared to that of the poorest 20%) to capture vertical inequalities; and measures of “deprivation” in terms of the share of the population falling below a given threshold of participation (e.g. eligible voters who are not registered to vote or have never voted) or belonging to traditionally underrepresented groups (e.g. youth, recent immigrants).
Impact: at a bare minimum this metric should provide a measure of accountability for citizen input received by public institutions (e.g. whether a summary of consultation submissions was published afterwards). Better still, post hoc reporting could include an account of how citizen participation led to specific changes in policy design or implementation. Even more ambitiously, the reports could track how changes introduced thanks to citizen participation led to measurable differences in policy outcomes.
The OECD is leading the way in measuring meaningful citizen participation by establishing comparative analytical frameworks, providing guidance on evaluation (for example on deliberative processes (OECD, 2021[99]) and developing robust methodologies for comparative data collection – for example via the Trust Survey (see Section 1 above) and ongoing work to develop a Citizens’ Participation Barometer (see Box 30). OECD work to date has focused on:
Standards – setting out explicit performance and quality standards against which to review, monitor and evaluate citizen participation processes is the first step. For over two decades, the OECD has consistently been at the forefront of setting international standards in this rapidly evolving field of practice. In 2001, the OECD published 10 guiding principles for public participation in policymaking (OECD, 2001[100]), adopted the OECD Council Recommendation on Open Government in 2017 (OECD, 2017[96]) and, most recently, set out evaluation guidelines for representative deliberative processes in 2021 (OECD, 2021[99]).
Metrics – developing valid, reliable and feasible indicators of citizen participation is an ongoing effort. Here too the OECD has contributed to exploring potential approaches and methodologies (such as the 2005 “Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making”) to current work to prototype a Citizen Participation Barometer, focusing on de facto rather than de jure, opportunities for citizens to take part in the policy cycle. The choice of metrics is never neutral and can have unintended consequences once applied in practice. For example, requiring government agencies to conduct online consultations without also providing alternative channels will end up penalizing people who find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide. Relying on the metrics of “volume” rather than “quality” or “impact” of citizen participation processes during the annual performance reviews of civil servants and senior leadership may create incentives to conduct superficial and rapid cycle consultations just to ‘tick the box’. Knowing that all human systems end up treasuring what they measure (and can generate perverse performance incentives which undermine the original policy goals if left unchecked), it is important to choose carefully those measures of citizen participation that are meaningful, add value and have impact on the policy process (Arthur, 2014[101]).
Data collection – collecting high quality comparative data at minimal cost and disruption to participating countries is core to the OECD’s mission and commitment to supporting evidence-based policymaking. The OECD has curated datasets based on regular monitoring surveys (Open Government report) and ongoing work to collate and analyse countries’ experience with citizen assemblies and other deliberative processes (The OECD Deliberative Database includes 733 cases from 34 countries covering the period from 1979 to 2023).
If they are to foster more meaningful and impactful citizen engagement in the future, governments need to do a better job today in assessing the effectiveness of their citizen participation processes and collecting the data needed to make evidence-based improvements. The OECD Citizen Participation Barometer (CPB), currently under development, is designed to fill the existing measurement gap, offering governments a valuable tool to assess their participation efforts. Using administrative data, the Barometer aims to measure meaningful citizen participation through three main approaches.
First, it focuses directly on practices, rather than the governance systems that enable them (e.g. assessing the de facto online availability of certain information categories, not the existence of a (de jure) legal obligation to disclose information);
Second, it evaluates the quality of participation processes, recognising that effective participation is not merely about quantity (e.g. the need for participation to be accessible and accountable);
Thirdly, it encompasses the entire ‘ecosystem’ necessary for meaningful participation (i.e. including access to relevant, high-quality information and the protection and promotion of civic space).
Source: (OECD, Forthcoming[102])
3.7.3. Institutionalising citizen participation
Making citizen participation a core function of a modern democratic state requires more than declarations of intent. It will require a clear legal framework, a common strategy, well-defined regulatory and performance requirements as well as adequate funding and human resource allocations to conduct effective citizen participation in policymaking. Evaluation and oversight by independent institutions is also needed to ensure coherence and quality standards are met throughout the policy cycle and across the branches of government (OECD, 2024[3]).
While all democracies recognize human rights as the bedrock for citizen participation, and electoral laws establish the basis for ‘one person, one vote’, some countries are exploring ways to ensure that citizens can exercise their legal rights to participate freely in the policy cycle through participatory and deliberative processes – akin to those in place in some jurisdictions for citizens selected for jury duty. Legislation or regulations may include provisions to: offer reimbursement for reasonable expenses (e.g. childcare and transport), provide remuneration and oblige employers to authorise leave (unpaid or paid) for citizens who take part in participatory and deliberative processes.
One avenue towards institutionalising citizen participation is to establish specific legal rights for those citizens who choose to invest their time, skills and energies in helping governments improve policymaking. Economic barriers, work and family obligations prevent many citizens from taking part in participatory and deliberative processes and undermines the equitable and effective participation of citizens in public policy.
Recognising this, France has chosen to include in its 2024-2026 Open Government Action Plan exploration of a new legal status for the “citoyen participant” – or “participating citizen” along three axes:
1. offering compensation;
2. introducing a right to “citizens’ leave” which employers must grant; and
3. recognition of the skills acquired during participatory processes.
Governments can institutionalise participatory mechanisms and processes by designating an institutional ‘anchor’ or lead agency (OECD, 2021[104]) with a clear mandate to steer, guide and monitor citizen participation initiatives across the entire public sector. This helps ensure consistency, aligns expectations of performance and creates a common framework for evaluation and assessment. Centralised units can provide technical support, training and promote peer-learning among civil servants responsible for citizen participation within their respective ministries and agencies.
In France, the national citizen participation agenda is co-ordinated by the Inter-Ministerial Direction for Public Transformation (DITP) and overseen by an independent body (the National Commission for Public Debate, the CNDP). In 2019, the DITP created the Centre for Citizen Participation as a centre of expertise to provide public officials and civil society technical support and guidance to implement participatory processes; a platform dedicated to participation; and a physical space to provide public authorities from across the government to organise meetings, public consultations, workshops, and other types of participatory processes involving citizens and non-governmental stakeholders.
OECD (2020[105]), Survey on Open Government
Clarifying the pathways by which citizens’ inputs travel across public institutions in the course of the policy cycle (e.g. from agenda-setting to policy formulation to decision-making to implementation and evaluation or judicial review) is another important avenue for ensuring accountability for citizen participation. This is a new frontier for many countries.
Drawing on the OECD Deliberative Database (Meija, 2023[106]), which currently features a collection of 733 cases from 34 countries (all conducted between 1979 and 2023), the OECD has developed a series of 8 models by which deliberative assemblies may be institutionalised (see Figure 3.1) (OECD, 2021[107]).Key considerations here include: who has the power to call for a deliberative assembly to be set up; whether they are one-off or permanent; and if they are obligatory for certain categories of policy issues.
Source: (OECD, 2021[104])
While this is still a new frontier for many, several jurisdictions are leading the way in ensuring that the results of citizen participation at the agenda-setting stage of the policy cycle (e.g via a citizens’ assembly) are taken into account by national and regional legislatures or municipal councils at the policy formulation stage or decision-making stage. For example, in Belgium the regional legislature has embedded a permanent citizen assembly into its institutional architecture, thereby boosting both participation and accountability (OECD, 2024[64]) (see Box 3.28).
In the German-speaking community of Belgium, the regional parliament approved a mechanism by which 24 citizens serve on the Permanent Citizen Council to select topics for deliberation by broader Citizen Panels 2 or 3 times a year. While the recommendations from the Citizen Panels are non-binding, they must be debated in the parliament and require a written response from the regional government. In this manner, both the regional executive and legislature benefit from a permanent channel for citizen participation while citizens are assured of accountability for their inputs.
Source: (OECD, 2024[64])
In some cases, such as Ireland (see Box 3.29), not only are the results of citizens’ assemblies passed on to the legislature – but the parliament’s policy proposals can then be put to a national referendum thereby closing the accountability loop in a clear and compelling manner. This powerful, and much-cited, example offers a glimpse of what a mature “citizen participation ecosystem” could look like. One where citizen participation during instances of deliberative democracy based on a representative sample of the population (i.e. “citizens-as-participants” exercise their voice in discussing specific policy issues) could feed into the machinery of traditional representative democracy in which all eligible citizens participate to shape the legislature and the executive branch of government (“citizens-as-voters” who vote to select their elected representatives for a fixed term who then form a government; or who elect the head of the executive directly) and then be validated by direct democracy (“citizens-as-voters” who choose to confirm or annul specific policy proposals put forward by their elected representatives).
The Citizens’ Assembly in Ireland gathers 99 randomly selected citizen members to participate in a deliberative assembly and address specific policy issues. Invitation letters are sent to 20,000 randomly selected addresses across Ireland and one person per household can register their interest to participate in the Citizens’ Assembly. From this pool, a random selection is made to ensure that the members will be broadly representative of wider society in terms of demographics (e.g. age, sex, geographical location and socio-economic background). Any member of the public aged 18 years and over who is normally resident in Ireland (whether or not they hold Irish citizenship), is potentially eligible to take part in a Citizens’ Assembly.
Over the years, the members of the Citizens’ Assembly have considered several complex, contentious and significant legal and policy issues: the 8th amendment of the constitution on abortion rights, ageing populations, referendum processes, fixed-term parliaments, climate change, gender equality, biodiversity loss and drugs use.
In the case of the 8th amendment of the constitution, the Citizens’ Assembly delivered its recommendations in 2017 which were submitted to the Oireachtas (Parliament) for further debate. Based on its recommendations, in May 2018 the government called a referendum on the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and to allow the parliament to legislate on abortion, which led to a high turnout and passed with a significant majority of votes. In September 2018, the Supreme Court refused a petition challenging the result of the referendum describing the applicant’s claims as a “frustration of the democratic process”.
Source: (OECD, 2024[64])
Mapping opportunities for citizen participation in the policy cycle across all four branches is a useful first step using the model outlined above (see Table 3.2). Yet this too, is no more than a static portrait of what is in essence a dynamic and evolving system. It also lacks an essential element: the perspective of the citizen as the central actor attempting to navigate multiple opportunities for participation in the policy cycle.
Adopting a systems approach will also help to raise public awareness that citizen participation is a vital function in fostering democratic resilience and that an open and protected civic space is a prerequisite to enabling meaningful participation. Ongoing efforts, investments, political leadership, civil service support and public buy-in will be needed to improve tools, practice, ownership and impact. By paying more attention not only to sporadic measurements taken at a single point in time (e.g. election turnouts, numbers of people consulted, number of citizens’ assemblies conducted), but also to rates of change (and their direction of travel) countries may develop more useful indicators to provide ‘early warnings’ and guide their efforts to strengthen meaningful citizen participation and build greater democratic resilience. The OECD Citizen Participation Barometer, currently under development, is a first step in this direction and promises to stimulate further methodological developments.
3.7.4. Greater efforts are needed to address systemic challenges to citizen participation
While more efforts are needed, the four systemic challenges to citizen participation identified in this section can, and are, being addressed by countries as follows:
Challenge of shared understanding: by better targeting the choice of participatory practices to fit the nature of the policy issue and the role citizens play in the policymaking process
Challenge of co-ordination: by focusing on lowering barriers to citizen participation across public institutions and levels of government
Challenge of alignment between the front and back office: by boosting the capacity of public servants and citizens to conduct and engage in participation in policymaking
Challenge of accountability: by institutionalizing and measuring meaningful citizen participation
Given the nature of the globalised and complex “wicked problems” facing countries today, the time has come to adopt a strategic, whole of government and long-term approach to nurturing a mature “citizen participation ecosystem” suited to each country’s context and the shared challenges of our time. As one of the foremost collective threats to the future of humanity, the next section looks at policymaking on climate change which serves as a test case for multilevel governance and citizen participation on a global scale.
By way of illustration, a citizen who has recently become a parent might discover they have a strong and direct interest in early childhood education offerings in their area.
In the beginning, they might invest time and effort in becoming familiar with the key issues facing the sector and sign up for newsletters and focus groups organized by local and national government (executive branch/agenda-setting).
Upcoming local or national elections offer another opportunity for them to vote for candidates whose electoral platforms best align with their views (legislative branch/agenda-setting).
Despite being sleep-deprived and holding down a full-time job, this citizen found the time to serve on the parent-teacher board at the playschool and answer online surveys from the regional education board (executive branch/policy formulation)
They also took part in a citizens’ assembly organized by the local municipal council and wrote to their Member of Parliament to highlight the importance of high-quality early childhood education and care for all children (legislative branch/policy formulation).
An annual participatory budgeting exercise run by the mayor’s office was the chance for this citizen, working together with other parents, to propose a winning project that saw a portion of the municipal budget go towards building a new playground for young children (executive branch/decision making).
Inspired by this success, the citizen decided to launch a fund-raiser using an online crowd-funding platform to buy more equipment for the playground and then volunteered to help out with gardening and maintenance (executive branch/implementation).
Dismayed by the impact of budget cuts on the support provided for young children with learning disabilities, this citizen filed complaints with the district education inspectorate (executive/evaluation), submitted written evidence to the parliamentary committee on education (legislature/evaluation) and took part in a class action lawsuit (judiciary/evaluation) to ensure that official quality standards of care were applied.
References
[27] Addison, R. (2024), “Towards the green transition: Stimulating investment and accelerating permits for low emissions infrastructure”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, Vol. No. 68, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc97f64e-en.
[1] Alhanen, K. and E. Henttonen (2023), The Handbook of Democratic Encounters, https://kansallisetdialogit.fi/wp-content/uploads/Demokraattisten-kohtaamisten-kasikirja_EN.pdf.
[5] Ardanaz, M., S. Otálvaro-Ramírez and C. Scartascini (2023), “Does information about citizen participation initiatives increase political trust?”, World Development, Vol. 162(C).
[101] Arthur, W. (2014), “All Systems will be Gamed: Exploitive Behavior in Econonic and Social Systems”, Santa Fe Institute Working Paper, Vol. 2014-06-016, https://sites.santafe.edu/~wbarthur/Papers/All%20Systems%20Gamed.pdf.
[22] Australian Electoral Commission (n.d.), Work for the Indigenous Electoral Participation Program, https://www.aec.gov.au/indigenous/iepp.htm.
[47] Borhan, H. (2025), “Civic education as a pathway to inclusive societies: Exploring the role of education in fostering civic and social engagement”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 326, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f128be8-en.
[30] Bozzini, A. and M. Pascual Dapena (2025), “Towards meaningful civil society participation at the international level: Success factors, opportunities and challenges”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 81, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8ed04dc2-en.
[83] CEPEJ (2019), European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their environment, Council of Europe, https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c.
[49] Cerna, L. (2014), “Trust: What it is and Why it Matters for Governance and Education”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 108, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxswcg0t6wl-en.
[60] Council of Europe (2018), Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture, https://rm.coe.int/prems-008318-gbr-2508-reference-framework-of-competences-vol-1-8573-co/16807bc66c.
[84] Courts of New Zealand (2023), Guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence in Courts and Tribunals, https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/going-to-court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/guidelines-for-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-courts-and-tribunals/.
[32] Curato, N. (2023), Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis: An Evaluation Report.
[89] Curley, M. and B. Samelin (2013), Open Innovation 2.0: A New Paradigm, https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/24-oispgopeninnovation20anewparadigm-whitepaper.pdf.
[24] Downes, R. and S. Nicol (2020), “Designing and implementing gender budgeting – a path to action”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, https://doi.org/10.1787/689198fa-en.
[15] Employment and Social Development Canada (2017), Creating new federal accessibility legislation: What we learned from Canadians, Employment and Social Development Canada.
[25] European Commission (2024), Citizens’ Engagement Platform, https://citizens.ec.europa.eu/document/download/efb5cfcc-a4c1-4f18-bc25-8cffd4653ebf_en?filename=CEP%20Factsheet%20Final.pdf.
[11] European Commission (2023), Better Regulation Toolbox, https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox/better-regulation-toolbox_en.
[61] European Commission (2023), Commission Recommendation (EU) 2023/2836 on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organisations, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=OJ%3AL_202302836.
[77] European Union (2022), Digital Services Act Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj/eng.
[82] Fitsilis, F., J. Von Lucke and F. De Vreize (eds.) (2024), Guidelines for AI in Parliaments, Westminster Foundation for Democracy, https://www.wfd.org/ai-guidelines-parliaments.
[17] Gottschalk, F. and H. Borhan (2023), “Child participation in decision making: Implications for education and beyond”, OECD Education Working Papers, Vol. No. 301, https://doi.org/10.1787/a37eba6c-en.
[103] Government of France (2024), Plan d’Action National pour la France 2024-2026, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/files/2024-03/Plan_Action_National_2024_2026_0.pdf.
[19] Government of France (2021), Charter on Accessibility of State Communications, https://www.info.gouv.fr/accessibilite/charte-daccessibilite-de-la-communication-de-letat.
[45] Government of France (2019), Inauguration du Centre de la Participation Citoyenne-, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/files/2021-06/cp_centre_participation_citoyenne.pdf.
[20] Government of the United States of America (2011), Plain Language Guidelines, https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/.
[38] Hunt, G. (ed.) (1822), Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1822), G.P. Putnam’s Sons, https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2008-celebrating-james-madison-and-freedom-information-act#f1.
[48] ICCS (2023), Education for Citizenship in Times of Global Challenge, https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2023-12/ICCS-2022-International-Report.pdf.
[86] INTOSAI Development Initiative (2020), Auditing machine learning algorithms: A White Paper for public auditors, https://www.idi.no/elibrary/relevant-sais/lota/other-resources/1899-sais-of-finland-germany-netherlands-norway-uk-auditing-ml-algorithms-2020/file.
[88] Johnson, A. (2023), Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity, Hachette (UK).
[76] Kreps, S. and D. Kriner (2023), “How AI Threatens Democracy”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 34/Number 4, pp. pp. 122-131, https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2023.a907693.
[66] Lundberg, E. (2024), “Can Participation in Mock Elections Boost Civic Competence among Students?”, Journal of Political Science Education, Vol. 20/2, pp. 274-291, https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2023.2300425.
[87] McKinney, S. (2024), “Integrating Artificial Intelligence Into Citizens’ Assemblies: Benefits, Concerns and Future Pathways”, Journal of Deliberative Democracy, Vol. 20/1, pp. 1–12, https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.1556.
[106] Meija, M. (2023), Trends in Deliberative Democracy: OECD Database Update, https://medium.com/participo/2023-trends-in-deliberative-democracy-oecd-database-update-c8802935f116.
[72] Metcalfe, J. (1995), “Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 19/1, pp. 25-46.
[90] Metz, R. (2024), Open AI Scale Ranks Progress Toward ‘Human-Level’ Problem Solving, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-11/openai-sets-levels-to-track-progress-toward-superintelligent-ai?sref=P6Q0mxvj.
[26] National Commission for Public Debate (n.d.), Website, https://www.debatpublic.fr/ (accessed on 10 August 2024).
[91] NESTA (2021), Participatory AI for humanitarian innovation: a briefing paper, https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/participatory-ai-humanitarian-innovation-briefing-paper/.
[43] New Zealand Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (2023), Policy Skills Framework | Te Anga Pūkenga, https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-07/policy-skills-framework-2023.pdf.
[71] OECD (2025), Emerging tech for civic participation project, https://oecd-opsi.org/work-areas/emerging-tech-for-civic-participation (accessed on 2025).
[42] OECD (2025), “Empowering fiscal reporting with digital and interactive approaches”, OECD Papers on Budgeting, No. 2025/02, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/82070ddb-en.
[16] OECD (2025), OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/56b60e39-en.
[59] OECD (2025), Trends Shaping Education 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ee6587fd-en.
[33] OECD (2024), “A Handbook of What Works: Solutions for the local implementation of the OECD Principles on Water Governance”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 72, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bf54627e-en.
[56] OECD (2024), Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?: Survey of Adult Skills 2023, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b263dc5d-en.
[74] OECD (2024), Enabling Digital Innovation in Government: The OECD GovTech Policy Framework, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a51eb9b2-en.
[40] OECD (2024), Facts not Fakes: Tackling Disinformation, Strengthening Information Integrity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d909ff7a-en.
[80] OECD (2024), “Governing with Artificial Intelligence: Are governments ready?”, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 20, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/26324bc2-en.
[50] 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.
[8] 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.
[67] OECD (2024), OECD Youth Policy Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/74b6f8f3-en.
[3] OECD (2024), Promoting Deliberative Democracy in the Basque Country in Spain: Lessons from the Tolosa Citizens’ Assembly, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/544f7514-en.
[98] OECD (2024), Recommendation of the Council on Transparency and Integrity in Lobbying and Influence, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0379.
[53] OECD (2024), Social and Emotional Skills for Better Lives: Findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/35ca7b7c-en.
[7] OECD (2024), Society at a Glance 2024: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/918d8db3-en.
[64] OECD (2024), The OECD Reinforcing Democracy Initiative: Monitoring Report – Assessing Progress and Charting the Way Forward, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9543bcfb-en.
[37] OECD (2023), Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in Brazil, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fb0e1896-en.
[44] OECD (2023), Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in New Zealand, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/948accf8-en.
[51] OECD (2023), Government at a Glance 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d5c5d31-en.
[23] OECD (2023), “OECD Best Practices for Parliaments in Budgeting”, OECD Journal on Budgeting, https://doi.org/10.1787/33109e15-en.
[55] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and Digital Transition, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27452f29-en.
[39] OECD (2023), Open Government for Stronger Democracies: A Global Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5478db5b-en.
[52] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
[65] OECD (2022), Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions in Norway, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/81b01318-en.
[14] OECD (2022), “Good practice principles for ethical behavioural science in public policy”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 20, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e19a9be9-en.
[2] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[58] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on Creating Better Opportunities for Young People, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0474.
[29] OECD (2022), Regional Governance in OECD Countries: Trends, Typology and Tools, OECD Multi-level Governance Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4d7c6483-en.
[4] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
[28] OECD (2021), Better Governance, Planning and Services in Local Self-Governments in Poland, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/550c3ff5-en.
[31] OECD (2021), Compendium of International Organisations’ Practices: Working Towards More Effective International Instruments, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/846a5fa0-en.
[104] OECD (2021), “Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 12, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4fcf1da5-en.
[107] OECD (2021), “Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 12, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4fcf1da5-en.
[99] OECD (2021), Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/10ccbfcb-en.
[6] OECD (2021), “Inequalities in household wealth and financial insecurity of households”, OECD Policy Insights on Well-being, Inclusion and Equal Opportunity, No. 2, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b60226a0-en.
[21] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.
[70] OECD (2021), The E-Leaders Handbook on the Governance of Digital Government, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac7f2531-en.
[105] OECD (2020), 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government.
[12] OECD (2020), Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice: Fit for All Generations?, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e5cb8a-en.
[9] OECD (2020), How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en.
[78] OECD (2019), 2019 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (updated in 2024), https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449.
[54] OECD (2019), Skills Matter: Additional Results from the Survey of Adult Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1f029d8f-en.
[96] OECD (2017), OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/359/359.en.pdf.
[97] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0435.
[34] OECD (2015), Stakeholder Engagement for Inclusive Water Governance, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264231122-en.
[41] OECD (2012), Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0390.
[69] OECD (2004), Promise and Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264019492-en.
[68] OECD (2003), The e-Government Imperative, OECD e-Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264101197-en.
[100] OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.
[102] OECD (Forthcoming), The OECD Citizen Participation Barometer - Conceptual framework and way forward.
[13] Poverty and Inequality Commission (n.d.), Experts by Experience Panel, https://povertyinequality.scot/about/experts-by-experience-panel/.
[36] Putnam, R. (2000), Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community, Simon & Schuster.
[63] Sanchez, M. (2024), “Agir en collectif, une compétence clé”, démocraties, https://democraties.media/agir-en-collectif-une-competence-cle/.
[57] Suarez-Alvarez, J. (2021), “Are 15-year-olds prepared to deal with fake news and misinformation?””, PISA in Focus No. 113, https://doi.org/10.1787/6ad5395e-en.
[73] Suseno, Y. and C. Standing (2017), “The Systems Perspective of National Innovation Ecosystems”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 35/3, pp. 282-307, https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2494.
[10] Thomas, D. (2019), “Regressive effects of regulation”, Public Choice 180, pp. 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-00634-8.
[85] UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (2023), Artifical Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders, https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/AI-Judicial-Guidance.pdf.
[18] UK Government (2021), Guidance on accessible communication formats, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/accessible-communication-formats#easy-read-and-makaton.
[95] UNDP (2022), Policy Brief 16.7.2: Ensuring Inclusive and Responsive Decision-Making for Sustainable Development, https://www.undp.org/publications/sdg-1672-ensuring-inclusive-and-responsive-decision-making-sustainable-development.
[94] UN-ECE (2024), Note by the Chair of the Task Force on Public Participation in Decision-making on possible future directions for the work, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/AC_WGP-28_Inf.2_Chair%26%23039%3Bs_Note_PPDM.pdf.
[79] UNESCO (2022), Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137.
[62] UNESCO (2019), Empowering students for just societies: A handbook for secondary school teachers, https://doi.org/10.54675/YEDR5130.
[93] United Nations (2018), Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-18&chapter=27&clang=_en.
[92] United Nations (1998), Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-13&chapter=27&clang=_en.
[46] Victorian Government (2021), Public Engagement Framework 2021-2025, https://www.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/Public%20Engagement%20Framework%20-%2018%20November%202021_0.pdf.
[75] Women Political Leaders (2022), Women’s Political Careers 2022, https://www.womenpoliticalleaders.org/studies/.
[81] World Bank (2020), Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/746721616045333426/pdf/Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Public-Sector-Summary-Note.pdf.
[35] Yates, J. (2021), Fractured: Why our societies are coming apart and how we put them back together again, HarperCollins.