25
Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions CATCHING THE DELIBERATIVE WAVE HIGHLIGHTS 2020
Innovative Citizen Participation and
New Democratic Institutions
CATCHING THE DELIBERATIVE WAVE
HIGHLIGHTS
2020
OEC
D W
OR
K O
N O
PEN
GO
VER
NM
EN
T
CD
has
been
at
the f
ore
fro
nt
of
evid
en
ce-b
ase
d a
naly
sis
of
op
en
govern
men
t re
form
s in
m
em
ber
an
d n
on
-mem
ber
cou
ntr
ies.
Th
e O
EC
D O
pen
Govern
men
t P
roje
ct p
rovid
es
cou
ntr
ies
e o
f an
aly
sis
an
d a
ctio
nab
le s
up
po
rt. Th
is in
clu
des:
ern
men
t R
evie
ws
aci
ty b
uild
ing s
em
inars
fo
r p
ub
lic o
ffic
ials
an
d c
ivil
soci
ety
two
rks
to e
xch
an
ge c
om
mo
n c
halle
nges
an
d g
oo
d p
ract
ices
THE O
EC
D R
EC
OM
MEN
DA
TIO
N O
N O
PEN
GO
VER
NM
EN
T
om
men
dati
on
of
the C
ou
nci
l o
n O
pen
Govern
men
t w
as
ad
op
ted
in
20
17
en
ts t
he f
irst
in
tern
ati
on
al le
gal in
stru
men
t in
th
is a
rea. In
it,
op
en
govern
men
t is
a c
ult
ure
of
govern
an
ce t
hat
pro
mote
s th
e p
rin
cip
les
of
tran
spare
ncy
, in
tegri
ty,
ou
nta
bili
ty a
nd
sta
keh
old
er
part
icip
ati
on
in
su
pp
ort
of
dem
ocr
acy
an
d in
clu
sive g
row
th”.
eco
mm
en
dati
on
pro
vid
es
a c
om
pre
hen
sive o
verv
iew
of
the m
ain
ten
ets
of
ern
men
t st
rate
gie
s an
d in
itia
tives
by s
ett
ing 1
0 p
rovis
ion
s to
gu
ide A
dh
ere
nts
to
e t
heir
im
ple
men
tati
on
.
OEC
D W
OR
K O
N IN
NO
VA
TIV
E C
ITIZ
EN
PA
RTI
CIP
ATI
ON
ork
su
pp
ort
s co
un
trie
s in
th
e im
ple
men
tati
on
of
Pro
vis
ion
9 o
f th
e O
EC
D
om
me
nd
ati
on
of
the
Co
un
cil
on
Op
en
Go
ve
rnm
en
t (2
01
7) ,
wh
ich
fo
cuse
s o
n e
xp
lori
ng
s to
eff
ect
ively
en
gage w
ith
sta
keh
old
ers
to
so
urc
e id
eas,
co
-cre
ate
so
luti
on
s,
tun
itie
s p
rovid
ed
by d
igit
al govern
men
t to
ols
. It
fo
cuse
s o
n n
ew
rese
arc
h in
vati
ve c
itiz
en
part
icip
ati
on
pra
ctic
es
to a
naly
se t
he n
ew
fo
rms
of
delib
era
tive,
, an
d p
art
icip
ato
ry d
eci
sio
n m
akin
g t
hat
are
evo
lvin
g a
cro
ss t
he g
lob
e.
ork
, th
e O
EC
D h
as
been
engagin
g w
ith
th
e In
novati
ve C
itiz
en
Part
icip
ati
on
o
rk o
f p
ract
itio
ners
, d
esi
gn
ers
, aca
dem
ics,
rese
arc
hers
, ci
vil
serv
an
ts, an
d
am
e t
he t
op
ic a
nd
sco
pe o
f re
searc
h, to
gath
er
feed
back
an
d in
pu
ts t
o t
he
go
ing m
an
ner, a
nd
to
str
en
gth
en
th
e t
ies
betw
een
th
ese
im
po
rtan
t gro
up
s of
ital d
igest
co
-ord
inate
d b
y t
he O
EC
D In
novati
ve C
itiz
en
Part
icip
ati
on
team
. xch
an
ge b
etw
een
pu
blic
serv
an
ts, p
ract
itio
ners
, re
searc
hers
, aca
dem
ics,
an
d
s ab
ou
t th
e f
utu
re o
f d
em
ocr
acy
mo
re b
road
ly.
WH
AT
IS T
HE P
UR
PO
SE O
F T
HIS
HIG
HLI
GH
TS?
Th
is h
igh
ligh
ts d
ocu
men
t co
vers
th
e m
ain
fin
din
gs
an
d p
rop
osa
ls f
rom
th
e I
nn
oP
art
icip
ati
on
an
d N
ew
De
mo
cra
tic
Inst
itu
tio
ns:
Ca
tch
ing
th
e D
eli
be
rati
ve W
ave
Pu
blic
au
tho
riti
es
fro
m a
ll le
vels
of
govern
men
t in
creasi
ngly
tu
rn t
o C
itiz
en
s' A
sPan
els
an
d o
ther
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
to t
ack
le c
om
ple
x p
olic
y p
rra
ngin
g f
rom
clim
ate
ch
an
ge t
o in
frast
ruct
ure
invest
men
t d
eci
sio
ns.
Th
ey c
onv
of
peo
ple
rep
rese
nti
ng a
wid
e c
ross
-sect
ion
of
soci
ety
fo
r at
least
on
e f
ull
day –
an
d o
mu
ch lo
nger
– t
o learn
, d
elib
era
te, an
d d
evelo
p c
olle
ctiv
e r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s th
at
cco
mp
lexit
ies
an
d c
om
pro
mis
es
req
uir
ed
fo
r so
lvin
g m
ult
iface
ted
pu
blic
iss
ues.
w
ave"
has
been
bu
ildin
g s
ince
th
e 1
98
0s,
gain
ing m
om
en
tum
sin
ce a
rou
nd
20
10
Base
d o
n t
he a
naly
sis
of
close
to
30
0 r
ep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
ract
ices,
th
e r
tren
ds
in s
uch
pro
cess
es,
id
en
tifi
es
dif
fere
nt
mo
dels
, an
d a
naly
ses
the t
rad
e-o
dif
fere
nt
desi
gn
ch
oic
es
as
well
as
the b
en
efi
ts a
nd
lim
its
of
pu
blic
delib
era
tio
n. It
in
clu
de
Go
od
Pra
ctic
e P
rin
cip
les
for
Delib
era
tive P
roce
sses
for
Pu
blic
Deci
sio
n M
akin
gco
mp
ara
tive e
mp
iric
al evid
en
ce g
ath
ere
d b
y t
he O
EC
D a
nd
in
co
llab
ora
tio
n w
ith
lead
inp
ract
itio
ners
fro
m g
overn
men
t, c
ivil
soci
ety
, an
d a
cad
em
ics.
Fin
ally
, th
e r
ep
ort
ere
aso
ns
an
d r
ou
tes
for
em
bed
din
g d
elib
era
tive a
ctiv
itie
s in
to p
ub
lic in
stit
uti
on
s t
a m
ore
perm
an
en
t an
d m
ean
ingfu
l ro
le in
sh
ap
ing t
he p
olic
ies
aff
ect
ing t
heir
liv
Catching the Deliberative Wavee
me
diu
m.c
om
/pa
rtic
ipo
sati
on
on
Tw
itte
r! #
de
lib
Wa
ve
1. I
ntr
od
ucti
on
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
2. G
oo
d p
racti
ce p
rin
cip
les f
or
de
lib
era
tiv
e p
roce
sse
s f
or
pu
bli
c d
ecis
ion
ma
kin
g...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..
3. D
iffe
ren
t m
od
els
of
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
eli
be
rati
ve
p
roce
sse
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.
4. O
ve
rvie
w o
f k
ey
tre
nd
s...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
..
5. W
ha
t is
a s
ucc
ess
ful
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
eli
be
rati
ve
p
roce
ss?...
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
...
6. R
eim
ag
inin
g d
em
ocra
tic i
nst
itu
tio
ns:
wh
y a
nd
ho
w t
oe
mb
ed
pu
bli
c d
eli
be
rati
on
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
....
7. P
rop
osa
ls f
or
acti
on
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
.....
TAB
LE O
F C
ON
TEN
TS
Co
nsu
lt t
he c
om
ple
te r
ep
ort
:
of
pri
nci
ple
s is
ro
ote
d in
an
cien
t A
dem
ocr
acy
an
d w
ere
ap
plie
d t
hr
his
tory
un
til tw
o t
o t
hre
e c
en
turi
e
is t
heir
mo
dern
ap
plic
ati
on
, to
c
rep
rese
nta
tive d
em
ocr
ati
c in
stit
uti
on
s
make
su
ch p
roce
sses
inn
ovati
ve t
As
the u
se o
f re
pre
sen
tati
ve d
elib
er
pro
cess
es
pro
lifera
tes,
th
is r
ep
or
evid
en
ce t
o g
uid
e p
olic
y m
ake
r
pra
ctic
es
an
d o
pti
on
s fo
r in
stit
uti
on
alis
in
citi
zen
delib
era
tio
n. It
is
the f
irs
com
para
tive s
tud
y t
hat
an
aly
se
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
are
bein
g
deci
sio
n m
akin
g a
rou
nd
th
e w
orl
d. D
r
on
data
co
llect
ed
fro
m 2
89
case
s
fro
m O
EC
D c
ou
ntr
ies)
fro
m 1
98
6
20
19
, an
d in
co
llab
ora
tio
n w
ith
an
in
t
ad
vis
ory
gro
up
, th
e O
EC
D h
as
iden
tifi
ed
tw
dis
tin
ct m
od
els
of
delib
era
tive p
r
evalu
ate
d w
hat
a ‘s
ucc
ess
ful’ p
r
develo
ped
go
od
pra
ctic
e p
rin
cip
le
exp
lore
d t
hre
e r
ou
tes
to in
stit
uti
on
alis
in
citi
zen
delib
era
tio
n. Th
is r
ese
arc
h a
nd
pr
for
act
ion
fit
wit
hin
th
e o
rgan
isati
on
inn
ovati
ve c
itiz
en
part
icip
ati
on
, w
hic
h s
to g
uid
e c
ou
ntr
ies
on
th
e im
ple
men
tati
on
of
pro
vis
ion
s 8
an
d 9
of
the 2
01
7
Reco
mm
en
dati
on
on
Op
en
Gov
Gro
win
g e
ffo
rts
to e
mb
ed
pu
blic
delib
er
into
pu
blic
deci
sio
n m
akin
g c
ou
ld b
e s
as
the s
tart
of
a p
eri
od
of
tran
sf
to a
dap
t th
e a
rch
itect
ure
of
rep
r
dem
ocr
acy
. D
em
ocr
ati
c in
stit
uti
on
s acr
the w
orl
d a
re b
egin
nin
g t
o t
ran
sf
that
giv
e c
itiz
en
s a m
ore
dir
ect
r
agen
das
an
d s
hap
ing t
he p
ub
lic d
eci
sio
ns
that
aff
ect
th
em
. B
ase
d o
n e
xte
nsi
v
an
aly
sis,
th
is O
EC
D r
ep
ort
co
ntr
ibu
t
em
erg
ing in
tern
ati
on
al evid
en
ce b
these
tre
nd
s an
d h
elp
s p
ub
lic a
uth
ori
tie
imp
lem
en
t go
od
pra
ctic
es
an
d c
to in
stit
uti
on
alis
ing c
itiz
en
delib
er
INTR
OD
UC
TIO
N1
KEY
TER
MS
THR
EE C
RIT
ER
IA F
OR
IN
CLU
SIO
N
IN S
TUD
Y
WH
Y R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VEN
ESS A
ND
DELI
BER
ATI
ON
?
WH
EN
TO
USE R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE
DELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES
Th
e in
creasi
ng c
om
ple
xit
y o
f p
olic
y
makin
g a
nd
th
e f
ailu
re t
o f
ind
so
luti
on
s
to s
om
e o
f th
e m
ost
pre
ssin
g p
olic
y
pro
ble
ms
have p
rom
pte
d p
olit
icia
ns,
po
licy m
ake
rs, ci
vil
soci
ety
org
an
isati
on
s, a
nd
citi
zen
s to
refl
ect
on
how
co
llect
ive p
ub
lic
deci
sio
ns
sho
uld
be t
ake
n in
th
e t
wen
ty-
firs
t ce
ntu
ry. Th
ere
is
a n
eed
fo
r n
ew
ways
to f
ind
co
mm
on
gro
un
d a
nd
take
act
ion
.
Th
is is
part
icu
larl
y t
rue f
or
issu
es
that
are
valu
es-
base
d, re
qu
ire t
rad
e-o
ffs,
an
d
dem
an
d lo
ng-t
erm
so
luti
on
s. T
he O
EC
D h
as
colle
cted
evid
en
ce a
nd
data
th
at
sup
po
rt
the id
ea t
hat
citi
zen
part
icip
ati
on
in
pu
blic
deci
sio
n m
akin
g c
an
deliv
er
bett
er
po
licie
s,
stre
ngth
en
dem
ocr
acy
an
d b
uild
tru
st. Th
is
rep
ort
fo
cuse
s o
n r
ep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive
pro
cess
es
in p
art
icu
lar, a
s p
art
of
a w
ider
eff
ort
by d
em
ocr
ati
c in
stit
uti
on
s to
beco
me m
ore
part
icip
ato
ry a
nd
op
en
to
in
form
ed
cit
izen
inp
ut
an
d c
olle
ctiv
e in
telli
gen
ce.
Ass
em
blin
g o
rdin
ary
cit
izen
s fr
om
all
part
s
of
soci
ety
to
delib
era
te o
n c
om
ple
x p
olit
ical
qu
est
ion
s an
d d
evelo
p c
olle
ctiv
e p
rop
osa
ls h
as
beco
me in
creasi
ngly
att
ract
ive in
th
is c
on
text.
Over
the p
ast
few
deca
des,
th
e ‘d
elib
era
tive
wave’ h
as
been
bu
ildin
g. P
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ties
at
all
levels
of
govern
men
t h
ave b
een
usi
ng
Cit
izen
s’ A
ssem
blie
s, J
uri
es,
Pan
els
, an
d o
ther
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses.
In
these
pro
cess
es,
ran
do
mly
sele
cted
cit
izen
s,
makin
g u
p a
mic
roco
sm o
f a c
om
mu
nit
y, s
pen
d
sign
ific
an
t ti
me learn
ing a
nd
co
llab
ora
tin
g
thro
ugh
faci
litate
d d
elib
era
tio
n t
o d
evelo
p
info
rmed
co
llect
ive r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s fo
r p
ub
lic
au
tho
riti
es.
In m
any w
ays,
co
mb
inin
g t
he p
rin
cip
les
of
delib
era
tio
n (
care
ful an
d o
pen
dis
cuss
ion
to w
eig
h e
vid
en
ce a
bo
ut
an
iss
ue)
,
rep
rese
nta
tiven
ess
(ach
ieved
th
rou
gh
ran
do
m
sam
plin
g f
rom
wh
ich
a r
ep
rese
nta
tive s
ele
ctio
n
is m
ad
e), an
d im
pact
(w
ith
a lin
k t
o p
ub
lic
deci
sio
n m
akin
g)
is n
ot
new
. Th
is c
om
bin
ati
on
TAB
LE 1
. K
EY
DIF
FER
EN
CES B
ETW
EEN
DELI
BER
ATI
VE A
ND
PA
RTI
CIP
ATO
RY
DEM
OC
RA
CY
KEY
TER
MS
In a
naly
sin
g t
he e
vid
en
ce c
olle
cted
on
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
acr
oss
co
un
trie
s, t
hre
e c
ore
de
featu
res
were
reveale
d a
s b
ein
g o
f ke
y im
po
rtan
ce, a f
act
als
o r
efl
ect
ed
in
th
e w
ork
of
a n
um
ber
osc
ho
lars
in
th
e f
ield
. Th
ese
were
th
us
the t
hre
e c
rite
ria r
eq
uir
ed
to
be in
clu
ded
in
th
is s
tud
y:
THR
EE C
RIT
ER
IA F
OR
IN
CLU
SIO
N IN
TH
E S
TUD
Y
1.
De
lib
era
tio
n, w
hic
h invo
lves
weig
hin
g c
are
fully
dif
fere
nt
op
tio
ns,
acc
ess
to
acc
ura
tan
d d
ivers
e in
form
ati
on
, an
d p
art
icip
an
ts f
ind
ing c
om
mo
n g
rou
nd
to
reach
a g
rou
p d
eci
sio
n;
2.
Re
pre
sen
tati
ve
ne
ss, ach
ieved
th
rou
gh
ran
do
m s
am
plin
g f
rom
wh
ich
a r
ep
rese
nta
tiv
is m
ad
e t
o e
nsu
re t
he g
rou
p b
road
ly m
atc
hes
the d
em
ogra
ph
ic p
rofi
le o
f th
e c
om
mu
nit
y a
cen
sus
or
oth
er
sim
ilar
data
, an
d
3.
Imp
act,
mean
ing d
eci
sio
n m
ake
rs a
gre
e t
o r
esp
on
d t
o a
nd
act
on
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s
Nu
mb
er
of
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
Typ
e o
f p
art
icip
atio
nP
art
icip
an
t se
lec
tio
n m
eth
od
De
libe
rativ
e
de
mo
cra
cy
Pa
rtic
ipa
tory
de
mo
cra
cy
Re
lativ
ely
sm
all
(bu
t
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e)
gro
up
s o
f
peop
le, a
s it i
s diffi
cult
to
ha
ve
de
ep
de
lib
era
tio
n
am
on
g la
rge
nu
mb
ers
.
Larg
e n
um
be
rs o
f p
eo
ple
,
ide
ally
ev
ery
on
e a
ffe
cte
d
by a
pa
rtic
ula
r d
ec
isio
n.
The
aim
is t
o a
ch
iev
e
bre
ad
th.
De
lib
era
tio
n,
wh
ich
req
uire
s th
at
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
are
we
ll-in
form
ed
ab
ou
t
a t
op
ic a
nd
co
nsi
de
r
diffe
ren
t p
ers
pe
ctiv
es
in
ord
er
to a
rriv
e a
t a
pu
blic
jud
ge
me
nt
(no
t o
pin
ion
)
ab
ou
t “w
ha
t c
an
we
stro
ng
ly a
gre
e o
n?
”
Mo
re p
art
icip
atio
n,
in a
ll
asp
ec
ts o
f p
olit
ics,
fro
m
all
citiz
en
s w
ho
ch
oo
se t
o
be
inv
olv
ed
; a
n e
mb
rac
e
an
d e
nc
ou
rag
em
en
t o
f a
div
ers
ity o
f o
pp
ort
un
itie
s
for
po
litic
al e
ng
ag
em
en
t.
Typ
ica
lly,
a c
ivic
lott
ery
,
wh
ich
co
mb
ine
s ra
nd
om
sele
ctio
n w
ith st
ratifi
catio
n,
to a
sse
mb
le a
pu
blic
bo
dy
tha
t is
re
pre
sen
tativ
e o
f th
e
pu
blic
; a
ble
to
co
nsi
de
r
pe
rsp
ec
tiv
es,
an
d n
ot
vu
lne
rab
le t
o b
ein
g s
tac
ke
d
by r
ep
rese
nta
tiv
es
of
po
we
rfu
l in
tere
st g
rou
ps.
Se
lf-s
ele
cte
d p
art
icip
atio
n
in o
rde
r to
en
ab
le a
s m
an
y
pe
op
le a
s p
oss
ible
to
sh
are
the
exp
erie
nc
e.
Sou
rce
: Ta
ble
is a
uth
or’
s o
wn
cre
atio
n,
ba
sed
on
de
scrip
tio
ns
in C
ars
on
an
d E
lstu
b (
20
19
).
ep
rese
nta
tiv
e
oce
sse
s a
re o
ften
o
in
sh
ort
han
d a
s d
elib
era
tive
, an
d t
he t
erm
is
use
d
eab
ly w
ith
delib
era
tive
fers
to
a r
an
do
mly
f
peo
ple
wh
o a
re
en
tati
ve o
f a c
om
mu
nit
y
nif
ican
t ti
me learn
ing
g t
hro
ugh
faci
litate
d
orm
co
llect
ive
om
men
dati
on
s fo
r p
olic
y m
ake
rs.
e i
nst
itu
tio
ns r
efe
r to
en
delib
era
tio
n t
hat
have
been
em
bed
ded
in
pu
blic
deci
sio
n-
ed
ure
s th
rou
gh
legal
fers
to
pu
blic
as
op
po
sed
to
in
tern
al
) an
d t
o g
rou
p d
elib
era
tio
n
o in
div
idu
al d
elib
era
tio
n),
wh
ich
em
ph
asi
ses
the n
eed
to
fin
d
com
mo
n g
rou
nd
.
Ra
nd
om
se
lecti
on
is
use
d a
s a
sho
rth
an
d t
o r
efe
r to
recr
uit
men
t p
roce
sses
that
invo
lve r
an
do
m s
am
plin
g
fro
m w
hic
h a
rep
rese
nta
tive s
ele
ctio
n is
mad
e t
o e
nsu
re t
hat
the g
rou
p b
road
ly
matc
hes
the d
em
ogra
ph
ic p
rofi
le o
f th
e
com
mu
nit
y (
base
d o
n c
en
sus
or
oth
er
sim
ilar
data
).
Fin
ally
, th
e r
ep
ort
make
s fr
eq
uen
t re
fere
nce
s to
cit
ize
ns. Th
e t
erm
is
mean
t in
th
e larg
er
sen
se o
f ‘a
n in
hab
itan
t of
a p
art
icu
lar
pla
ce’,
wh
ich
can
be
in r
efe
ren
ce t
o a
vill
age, to
wn
, ci
ty,
regio
n, st
ate
, o
r co
un
try d
ep
en
din
g o
n
the c
on
text.
Wh
en
th
e w
ord
cit
izen
is
em
plo
yed
, it
is
not
mean
t in
th
e m
ore
re
stri
ctiv
e s
en
se o
f ‘a
legally
reco
gn
ised
n
ati
on
al of
a s
tate
’, an
d is
thu
s u
sed
in
terc
han
geab
ly w
ith
‘p
eo
ple
’.
DELI
BER
ATI
VE A
ND
PA
RTI
CIP
ATO
RY
DEM
OC
RA
CY
De
lib
era
tiv
e d
em
oc
rac
y is
the
wid
er
po
litic
al t
he
ory
th
at
cla
ims
tha
t p
olit
ica
l
de
cis
ion
s sh
ou
ld b
e a
re
sult o
f fa
ir a
nd
re
aso
na
ble
dis
cu
ssio
n a
mo
ng
citiz
en
s.
Ga
stil
an
d L
ev
ine
’s D
elib
era
tiv
e D
em
oc
rac
y H
an
db
oo
k (
20
05
) a
rgu
es
tha
t
“d
elib
era
tiv
e d
em
oc
rac
y s
tre
ng
the
ns
citiz
en
vo
ice
s in
go
ve
rna
nc
e b
y
inc
lud
ing
pe
op
le o
f a
ll ra
ce
s, c
lass
es,
ag
es
an
d g
eo
gra
ph
ies
in d
elib
era
tio
ns
tha
t d
ire
ctly a
ffe
ct
pu
blic
de
cis
ion
s”.
The
th
eo
ry g
ain
ed
tra
ctio
n in
ac
ad
em
ic
lite
ratu
re in
th
e 1
98
0s
(e.g
. M
an
sbrid
ge
, 1
98
0;
Ha
be
rma
s, 1
98
1).
Pa
rtic
ipa
tory
de
mo
cra
cy
ha
s a
slig
htly lo
ng
er
his
tory
, g
ain
ing
gro
un
d w
ith
the
ac
tiv
ist
mo
ve
me
nts
of
the
19
60
s th
at
de
ma
nd
ed
gre
ate
r p
art
icip
atio
n in
go
ve
rnm
en
t d
ec
isio
n m
akin
g (
e.g
. c
ivil
rig
hts
, w
om
en
’s li
be
ratio
n m
ov
em
en
ts,
see
Pa
tem
an
, 1
97
0).
A c
en
tra
l te
ne
t to
late
r w
ork
on
pa
rtic
ipa
tory
de
mo
cra
cy
is t
ha
t it m
ust
inc
rea
se t
he
ca
pa
citie
s o
f c
itiz
en
s to
pa
rtic
ipa
te,
wh
ich
ne
ce
ssita
tes
refo
rm o
f d
em
oc
ratic
inst
itu
tio
ns
to m
ake
pa
rtic
ipa
tio
n m
ore
me
an
ing
ful (
Pa
tem
an
, 2
01
2).
G1000
Help
co
un
tera
ct p
ola
risa
tio
n a
nd
dis
info
rmati
on
. Em
pir
ical re
searc
h h
as
sho
that
“co
mm
un
icati
ve e
cho
ch
am
bers
th
at
inte
nsi
fy c
ult
ura
l co
gn
itio
n, id
en
tity
reaff
irm
ati
on
, an
d p
ola
risa
tio
n d
o n
ot
op
era
te in
delib
era
tive c
on
dit
ion
s, e
gro
up
s of
like-m
ind
ed
part
isan
s” (
Dry
zek e
t al,
20
19
; se
e G
rön
lun
d e
t al.,
is a
lso
evid
en
ce t
o s
uggest
th
at
delib
era
tio
n c
an
be a
n e
ffect
ive w
ay t
o o
eth
nic
, re
ligio
us,
or
ideo
logic
al d
ivis
ion
s b
etw
een
gro
up
s th
at
have h
isto
rica
lly f
their
id
en
tity
in
reje
ctin
g t
hat
of
the o
ther
(Ugari
zza e
t al.,
20
14
).
WH
EN
AN
D W
HEN
NO
T TO
USE R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE
DELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES
Many p
ub
lic p
olic
y iss
ues
are
dif
ficu
lt d
eci
sio
ns
to t
ake
, as
their
ben
efi
ts a
re o
ften
on
ly r
lon
g t
erm
, w
hile
th
e c
ost
s are
in
curr
ed
in
th
e s
ho
rt t
erm
. D
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
help
to
ju
san
d s
pen
din
g o
n s
uch
iss
ues,
as
they a
re d
esi
gn
ed
in
a w
ay t
hat
rem
oves
the m
oti
vate
d in
tp
olit
ical p
art
ies
an
d e
lect
ion
s, in
cen
tivis
ing p
art
icip
an
ts t
o a
ct in
th
e in
tere
sts
of
the p
ub
lic
Dra
win
g o
n t
he e
vid
en
ce c
olle
cted
an
d e
xis
tin
g s
cho
lars
hip
, d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
have b
een
sh
ow
ork
well
for
the f
ollo
win
g t
yp
es
of
pro
ble
ms:
Many p
ub
lic p
olic
y q
uest
ion
s are
valu
es-
dri
ven
. R
ep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive
pro
cess
es
are
desi
gn
ed
in
a w
ay t
hat
en
cou
rages
act
ive lis
ten
ing, cr
itic
al
thin
kin
g, an
d r
esp
ect
betw
een
p
art
icip
an
ts. Th
ey c
reate
an
envir
on
men
t in
wh
ich
dis
cuss
ing d
iffi
cult
eth
ical
qu
est
ion
s th
at
have n
o e
vid
en
t o
r ‘r
igh
t’
solu
tio
ns
can
hap
pen
in
a c
ivil
way,
an
d
can
en
ab
le p
art
icip
an
ts t
o f
ind
co
mm
on
gro
un
d.
Va
lue
s-d
riv
en
dil
em
ma
s
How
ever, d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
are
not
a p
an
ace
a; th
ey d
o n
ot
ad
dre
ss a
ll of
the d
em
ocr
govern
an
ce p
rob
lem
s o
utl
ined
in
th
is in
tro
du
ctio
n. D
em
ocr
ati
c so
cieti
es
face
a w
ide s
et
ow
hic
h r
eq
uir
e d
iffe
ren
t m
eth
od
s of
reso
luti
on
or
part
icip
ati
on
. Fo
r exam
ple
, d
elib
era
tiv
not
suff
icie
nt
to a
dd
ress
th
e p
rob
lem
s of
po
litic
al in
clu
sio
n a
nd
co
llect
ive d
eci
sio
n m
akin
is b
ett
er
sati
sfie
d t
hro
ugh
po
litic
al eq
ualit
y in
th
e f
orm
of
un
ivers
al su
ffra
ge, an
d v
oti
nb
road
er
part
icip
ati
on
in
deci
sio
n m
akin
g (
tho
ugh
oft
en
su
ffers
fro
m v
ote
rs h
avin
g low
in
fN
or
are
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
well-
suit
ed
fo
r u
rgen
t d
eci
sio
ns,
pro
ble
ms
in t
he late
sta
Rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tiv
desi
gn
ed
to
pro
vid
e p
art
icip
learn
, re
flect
, an
d d
elib
era
teto
a w
ide r
an
ge o
f evid
en
cfr
om
off
icia
ls, aca
dem
ics,
th
ink t
an
kgro
up
s, b
usi
ness
es
an
d o
Th
ese
desi
gn
ch
ara
cteri
stic
s en
ab
le c
itiz
gra
pp
le w
ith
th
e c
om
ple
xit
y o
an
d t
o c
on
sid
er
pro
ble
ms
wit
hin
th
eir
le
regu
lato
ry a
nd
/or
bu
dg
Co
mp
lex
pro
ble
ms t
ha
t re
qu
ir
Lo
ng
-te
rm i
ssu
es t
ha
t g
o b
ey
on
d t
he
sh
ort
-te
rm i
nce
nti
ve
s o
f e
lecto
ral
cy
cle
s
12
Gre
ate
r le
git
imacy
to
make h
ard
cho
ices.
Th
ese
pro
cess
es
help
po
licy
make
rs t
o b
ett
er
un
ders
tan
d p
olic
y
pri
ori
ties,
th
e v
alu
es
an
d r
easo
ns
beh
ind
them
, to
id
en
tify
wh
ere
co
nse
nsu
s is
an
d
is n
ot
feasi
ble
, an
d t
o o
verc
om
e p
olit
ical
dead
lock
.
3 nh
an
ce p
ub
lic
tru
st in
go
vern
men
t an
d
dem
ocr
ati
c in
stit
uti
on
s b
y g
ivin
g c
itiz
en
s
ffect
ive r
ole
in
pu
blic
deci
sio
n m
akin
g.
eo
ple
are
mo
re lik
ely
to
tru
st a
deci
sio
n
that
has
been
in
flu
en
ced
by o
rdin
ary
peo
ple
than
on
e m
ad
e s
ole
ly b
y g
overn
men
t o
r
beh
ind
clo
sed
do
ors
. Tr
ust
als
o w
ork
s tw
o
. Fo
r govern
men
ts t
o e
ngen
der
tru
st
am
on
g t
he p
ub
lic, th
ey m
ust
in
tu
rn t
rust
the p
ub
lic t
o b
e m
ore
dir
ect
ly invo
lved
in
deci
sio
n m
akin
g.
4 Sig
nal ci
vic
resp
ect
an
d
em
po
wer
citi
zen
s. E
ngagin
g
citi
zen
s in
act
ive d
elib
era
tio
n
can
als
o s
tren
gth
en
th
eir
sen
se o
f p
olit
ical eff
icacy
(th
e b
elie
f th
at
on
e c
an
un
ders
tan
d a
nd
in
flu
en
ce
po
litic
al aff
air
s) b
y n
ot
treati
ng t
hem
as
ob
ject
s of
legis
lati
on
an
d a
dm
inis
trati
on
(see K
no
blo
ch e
t al.,
20
19
).
5 ern
an
ce m
ore
in
clu
siv
e
th
e d
oo
r to
a m
uch
e g
rou
p o
f p
eo
ple
.
e o
f ra
nd
om
sele
ctio
n
ati
fied
sam
plin
g, th
ey b
rin
g
xcl
ud
ed
cate
go
ries
like
ou
th, th
e d
isad
van
taged
, w
om
en
, o
r
ther
min
ori
ties
into
pu
blic
po
licy a
nd
6Str
en
gth
en
in
teg
rity
an
d p
rev
en
t co
rru
pti
on
by
en
suri
ng
th
at
gro
up
s an
d in
div
idu
als
wit
h m
on
ey
an
d p
ow
er
can
no
t h
av
e u
nd
ue
infl
uen
ce o
n a
pu
blic
deci
sio
n. K
ey p
rin
cip
les
of
delib
era
tive g
oo
d p
ract
ice a
re t
hat
the
pro
cess
is
tran
spare
nt,
vis
ible
, an
d p
rovid
es
an
op
po
rtu
nit
y f
or
all
stake
ho
lders
to
pre
sen
t
to t
he p
art
icip
an
ts. Part
icip
an
ts’ id
en
titi
es
are
oft
en
pro
tect
ed
un
til aft
er
the p
roce
ss is
over
er
po
licy
ou
tco
mes
beca
use
ati
on
resu
lts
in c
on
sid
ere
d
em
en
ts r
ath
er
than
pu
blic
Th
ese
pro
cess
es
create
or
learn
ing, d
elib
era
tio
n
elo
pm
en
t of
info
rmed
om
men
dati
on
s, w
hic
h a
re o
f
o p
olic
y a
nd
deci
sio
n
7W
HY
REP
RESEN
TATI
VEN
ESS A
ND
DELI
BER
ATI
ON
?
GO
OD
PR
AC
TIC
E
PR
INC
IPLE
S
FO
R D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE
PR
OC
ESSES
FO
R P
UB
LIC
D
EC
ISIO
N M
AK
ING
2T
he O
EC
D h
as
dra
wn
th
e c
om
mo
n p
rin
cip
les
an
d g
oo
d p
ract
ices,
id
en
tifi
ed
in
th
e e
gath
ere
d f
or
this
rep
ort
, to
geth
er
into
a s
et
of
Go
od
Pra
ctic
e P
rin
cip
les
for
Delib
er
Pro
cess
es
for
Pu
blic
Deci
sio
n M
akin
g. T
hese
pri
nci
ple
s co
uld
pro
vid
e p
olic
y m
ak
use
ful gu
idan
ce a
s to
th
e e
stab
lish
men
t of
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
an
d t
he im
ple
men
tati
on
op
rovis
ion
s 8
an
d 9
of
the R
eco
mm
en
dati
on
on
Op
en
Govern
men
t.
PU
RP
OS
E
Th
e o
bje
ctiv
e s
ho
uld
be
ou
tlin
ed
as
a c
lear
task
an
d
is lin
ked
to
a d
efi
ned
pu
blic
pro
ble
m. It
is
ph
rase
d n
eu
trally
as
a q
uest
ion
in
pla
in langu
age.1
Th
ere
sh
ou
ld b
e in
flu
en
ce o
n p
ub
lic
deci
sio
ns.
Th
e c
om
mis
sio
nin
g p
ub
lic
au
tho
rity
sh
ou
ld p
ub
licly
co
mm
it t
resp
on
din
g t
o o
r act
ing o
n p
art
icip
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s in
a t
imely
man
ner
It s
ho
uld
mo
nit
or
the im
ple
men
tati
on
o
all
acc
ep
ted
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s w
ith
r
pu
blic
pro
gre
ss r
ep
ort
s.
AC
CO
UN
TAB
ILIT
Y
3Th
e d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss s
ho
uld
be a
nn
ou
nce
d p
ub
licly
befo
re it
begin
s. T
he p
roce
ss d
esi
gn
an
d a
ll m
ate
rials
– in
clu
din
g a
gen
das,
bri
efi
ng d
ocu
men
ts, evid
en
ce
sub
mis
sio
ns,
au
dio
an
d v
ideo
reco
rdin
gs
of
tho
se p
rese
nti
ng
evid
en
ce, th
e p
art
icip
an
ts’ re
po
rt, th
eir
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s
(th
e w
ord
ing o
f w
hic
h p
art
icip
an
ts s
ho
uld
have a
fin
al sa
y
over)
, an
d t
he r
an
do
m s
ele
ctio
n m
eth
od
olo
gy –
sh
ou
ld b
e
availa
ble
to
th
e p
ub
lic in
a t
imely
man
ner.
Th
e f
un
din
g s
ou
rce s
ho
uld
be d
iscl
ose
d. Th
e c
om
mis
sio
nin
g
pu
blic
au
tho
rity
’s r
esp
on
se t
o t
he r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s an
d t
he
evalu
ati
on
aft
er
the p
roce
ss s
ho
uld
be p
ub
licis
ed
an
d h
ave a
TRA
NS
PA
RE
NC
Y
In a
dd
itio
n t
o t
he c
om
para
tive e
mp
iric
al evid
en
ce g
ath
ere
d b
y t
he O
EC
D a
nd
fro
m w
hic
h t
he
were
dra
wn
, th
e p
rin
cip
les
als
o b
en
efi
tted
fro
m c
olla
bo
rati
on
wit
h in
tern
ati
on
al p
ract
itio
ner
govern
men
t, c
ivil
soci
ety
, an
d a
cad
em
ics:
Yago
Berm
ejo
Ab
ati
; D
am
ian
Carm
ich
ael;
Nic
ole
CLi
nn
Davis
; Yves
Deja
egh
ere
; M
arc
in G
erw
in; A
ngela
Jain
; D
imit
ri L
em
air
e; M
iria
m L
evin
; P
MacL
eo
d; M
alc
olm
Osw
ald
; A
nn
a R
en
kam
p; M
in R
eu
cham
ps;
an
d Iain
Walk
er.
tici
pan
ts s
ho
uld
be a
mic
roco
sm o
f th
e g
en
era
l p
ub
lic. Th
is is
ach
ieved
th
rou
gh
an
do
m s
am
plin
g f
rom
wh
ich
a r
ep
rese
nta
tive s
ele
ctio
n is
mad
e, b
ase
d o
n s
trati
fica
tio
n
gra
ph
ics
(to
en
sure
th
e g
rou
p b
road
ly m
atc
hes
the d
em
ogra
ph
ic p
rofi
le o
f
om
mu
nit
y a
gain
st c
en
sus
or
oth
er
sim
ilar
data
), a
nd
so
meti
mes
by a
ttit
ud
inal
dep
en
din
g o
n t
he c
on
text)
. Every
on
e s
ho
uld
have a
n e
qu
al o
pp
ort
un
ity t
o
ele
cted
as
part
icip
an
ts. In
so
me in
stan
ces,
it
may b
e d
esi
rab
le t
o o
ver-
sam
ple
tain
dem
ogra
ph
ics
du
rin
g t
he r
an
do
m s
am
plin
g s
tage o
f re
cru
itm
en
t to
help
ach
ieve
en
tati
ven
ess
.
Incl
usi
on
sh
ou
ld b
e a
chie
ved
by c
on
sid
eri
ng
olv
e u
nd
er-
rep
rese
nte
d g
rou
ps.
ati
on
sh
ou
ld a
lso
be e
nco
ura
ged
an
d
ed
th
rou
gh
rem
un
era
tio
n, exp
en
ses,
vid
ing o
r p
ayin
g f
or
child
care
an
d
RE
PR
ES
EN
TATI
VE
NE
SS
INC
LU
SIV
EN
ES
S
4
5
an
ts s
ho
uld
have a
ccess
to
a
e o
f acc
ura
te, re
levan
t, a
nd
vid
en
ce a
nd
exp
ert
ise.
y s
ho
uld
have t
he o
pp
ort
un
ity t
o
om
an
d q
uest
ion
sp
eake
rs t
hat
o t
hem
, in
clu
din
g e
xp
ert
s
oca
tes
cho
sen
by t
he c
itiz
en
s
.
Part
icip
an
ts s
ho
uld
be a
ble
to
fin
d
com
mo
n g
rou
nd
to
un
derp
in t
heir
colle
ctiv
e r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s to
th
e
pu
blic
au
tho
rity
.
Th
is e
nta
ils c
are
ful an
d a
ctiv
e
liste
nin
g, w
eig
hin
g a
nd
co
nsi
deri
ng
mu
ltip
le p
ers
pect
ives,
every
part
icip
an
t h
avin
g a
n o
pp
ort
un
ity
to s
peak, a m
ix o
f fo
rmats
th
at
alt
ern
ate
betw
een
sm
all
gro
up
an
d
ple
nary
dis
cuss
ion
s an
d a
ctiv
itie
s,
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
GR
OU
P D
ELIB
ER
ATI
ON
67
TIM
E
INTE
GR
ITY
PR
IVA
CY
EV
ALU
ATI
ON
Delib
era
tio
n r
eq
uir
es
ad
eq
uate
tim
e f
or
part
icip
an
ts t
o learn
, w
eig
h t
he e
vid
en
c
an
d d
evelo
p in
form
ed
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s, d
ue t
o t
he c
om
ple
xit
y o
f m
ost
po
licy
pro
ble
ms.
To
ach
ieve in
form
ed
cit
izen
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s, p
art
icip
an
ts s
ho
uld
mee
for
at
least
fo
ur
full
days
in p
ers
on
, u
nle
ss a
sh
ort
er
tim
e f
ram
e c
an
be ju
stif
ied
.
It is
reco
mm
en
ded
to
allo
w t
ime f
or
ind
ivid
ual le
arn
ing a
nd
refl
ect
ion
in
be
meeti
ngs.
Th
e p
roce
ss s
ho
uld
be r
un
by a
n a
rm's
len
gth
co
-ord
inati
ng t
eam
dif
fere
nt
fro
m t
he c
om
mis
sio
nin
g p
ub
lic
au
tho
rity
. Th
e f
inal ca
ll re
gard
ing
pro
cess
deci
sio
ns
sho
uld
be w
ith
th
e
arm
's len
gth
co
-ord
inato
rs r
ath
er
than
th
e c
om
mis
sio
nin
g a
uth
ori
ties.
Dep
en
din
g o
n t
he c
on
text,
th
ere
sho
uld
be o
vers
igh
t b
y a
n a
dvis
ory
or
mo
nit
ori
ng b
oard
wit
h r
ep
rese
nta
tives
of
dif
fere
nt
vie
wp
oin
ts.
Th
ere
sh
ou
ld b
e r
esp
ect
f
part
icip
an
ts’ p
rivacy
to
pr
fro
m u
nd
esi
red
med
ia a
tt
hara
ssm
en
t, a
s w
ell
as
to p
r
part
icip
an
ts’ in
dep
en
den
c
en
suri
ng t
hey a
re n
ot
bri
bed
or
lob
bie
d b
y in
tere
st g
rou
p
act
ivis
ts. Sm
all
gro
up
dis
sho
uld
be p
rivate
. Th
e id
en
tity
of
part
icip
an
ts m
ay b
e p
ub
licis
wh
en
th
e p
roce
ss h
as
en
ded
,
at
the p
art
icip
an
ts’ co
ns
pers
on
al d
ata
of
part
icip
be t
reate
d in
co
mp
lian
ce w
ith
inte
rnati
on
al go
od
pra
ctic
the E
uro
pean
Un
ion’s
Gen
er
Pro
tect
ion
Regu
lati
on
(G
DP
R)
Th
ere
sh
ou
ld b
e a
n a
no
nym
ou
s evalu
ati
on
by t
he p
art
icip
an
ts t
o
ass
ess
th
e p
roce
ss b
ase
d o
n o
bje
ctiv
e c
rite
ria (
e.g
. o
n q
uan
tity
an
d
div
ers
ity o
f in
form
ati
on
pro
vid
ed
, am
ou
nt
of
tim
e d
evote
d t
o learn
ing,
ind
ep
en
den
ce o
f fa
cilit
ati
on). A
n in
tern
al evalu
ati
on
by t
he c
o-o
rdin
ati
on
team
sh
ou
ld b
e c
on
du
cted
again
st t
he g
oo
d p
ract
ice p
rin
cip
les
in
this
rep
ort
to
ass
ess
wh
at
has
been
ach
ieved
an
d h
ow
to
im
pro
ve
futu
re p
ract
ice. A
n in
dep
en
den
t evalu
ati
on
is
reco
mm
en
ded
fo
r so
me
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses,
part
icu
larl
y t
hose
th
at
last
a s
ign
ific
an
t ti
me. Th
e
9
Th
e m
od
els
can
be c
hara
cteri
s
of
pu
rpo
se:
1.
Info
rme
d c
itiz
en
re
com
me
nd
ati
on
s o
n
po
licy
qu
est
ion
s: Th
ese
mo
re t
ime (
on
avera
ge a
min
imu
m o
days,
an
d o
ften
lo
nger)
t
ad
eq
uate
tim
e a
nd
reso
ur
con
sid
ere
d a
nd
deta
iled
c
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s. T
hey a
r
use
ful fo
r co
mp
lex p
olic
y p
r
invo
lve m
any t
rad
e-o
ffs
en
tren
ched
po
litic
al d
ead
lock
on
an
is
2.
Cit
ize
n o
pin
ion
on
po
licy
qu
e
Th
ese
pro
cess
es
req
uir
e le
than
th
ose
in
th
e f
irst
cat
tho
ugh
sti
ll re
spect
th
e p
rin
cip
le
rep
rese
nta
tiven
ess
an
d d
elib
er
to p
rovid
e d
eci
sio
n m
ake
r
con
sid
ere
d c
itiz
en
op
inio
ns
on
a p
olic
y
issu
e. D
ue t
o t
he t
ime c
on
s
resu
lts
are
less
deta
iled
th
an
th
o
pro
cess
es
desi
gn
ed
fo
r in
f
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s.
3.
Info
rme
d c
itiz
en
ev
alu
ati
on
o
me
asu
res: Th
is p
roce
ss a
llo
rep
rese
nta
tive g
rou
p o
f ci
tiz
iden
tify
th
e p
ro a
nd
co
n a
r
for
both
sid
es
of
a b
allo
t is
dis
trib
ute
d t
o v
ote
rs a
head
o
4.
Pe
rma
ne
nt
rep
rese
nta
tiv
bo
die
s: Th
ese
new
in
stit
uti
on
al
arr
an
gem
en
ts a
llow
fo
r r
citi
zen
delib
era
tio
n t
o in
f
deci
sio
n m
akin
g o
n a
n o
n
DIF
FER
EN
T M
OD
ELS
O
F R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE
DELI
BER
ATI
VE
PR
OC
ESSES
3
EX
AM
PLE
: C
ITIZ
EN
S' J
UR
Y/P
AN
EL
CH
OO
SIN
G A
MO
DEL
OF
DELI
BER
ATI
VE E
NG
AG
EM
EN
T
Over
the y
ears
, d
ue t
o t
he c
om
bin
ed
eff
ort
s of
po
licy m
ake
rs, aca
dem
ics
an
d c
ivil
soci
ety
, n
um
ero
us
mo
dels
of
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive
pro
cess
es
have b
een
develo
ped
, te
sted
, an
d
imp
lem
en
ted
acr
oss
th
e w
orl
d. D
raw
ing o
n
the n
ew
em
pir
ical re
searc
h c
olle
cted
an
d
bro
ad
er
theo
reti
cal re
searc
h o
n d
elib
era
tive
mo
dels
, th
e O
EC
D h
as
iden
tifi
ed
12
mo
dels
of
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
gro
up
ed
b
y f
ou
r ty
pes
of
pu
rpo
se.
Th
ese
mo
dels
refe
r to
cate
go
ries
of
dif
fere
nt
typ
es
of
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
base
d o
n t
heir
dis
tin
ct p
rop
ert
ies
an
d
chara
cteri
stic
s. T
he m
od
els
are
: C
itiz
en
s'
Ass
em
bly
; C
itiz
en
s' J
ury
/Pa
ne
l; C
on
sen
su
s
Co
nfe
ren
ce; P
lan
nin
g C
ell
; G
10
00
; C
itiz
en
s'
Co
un
cil
; C
itiz
en
s' D
ialo
gu
e; D
eli
be
rati
ve
Po
ll/S
urv
ey
; W
orl
d W
ide
Vie
ws; C
itiz
en
s'
Init
iati
ve
Re
vie
w; th
e O
stb
elg
ien
Mo
de
l;
an
d t
he C
ity
Ob
serv
ato
ry.
Overa
ll, t
he c
ho
ice o
f d
elib
era
tive m
od
els
has
so f
ar
dep
en
ded
on
th
e f
am
iliari
ty w
ith
the m
od
el an
d e
xp
eri
en
ce u
sin
g it,
lead
ing
to p
refe
ren
ces
in d
iffe
ren
t co
un
trie
s fo
r
speci
fic
mo
dels
. H
ow
ever, t
heir
wid
esp
read
use
sig
nals
th
eir
un
ivers
alit
y a
nd
pote
nti
al
ap
plic
ab
ility
in
dif
fere
nt
nati
on
al an
d lo
cal
con
texts
.
Th
e d
elib
era
tive m
od
els
pre
sen
ted
here
are
not
nece
ssari
ly e
xh
au
stiv
e. Each
mo
del sh
are
s
the e
ssen
tial p
hase
s of
qu
alit
y r
ep
rese
nta
tive
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses:
learn
ing, d
elib
era
tio
n,
an
d t
he d
evelo
pm
en
t of
colle
ctiv
e
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s. T
his
hig
hlig
hts
do
cum
en
t
pro
vid
es
an
overv
iew
of
the d
iffe
ren
t m
od
els
;
full
deta
ils a
re a
vaila
ble
in
th
e a
cco
mp
anyin
g
rep
ort
.
G1000
To illu
stra
te t
he w
ork
ings
of
a r
ep
rese
nta
tive
delib
era
tive p
roce
ss, th
e C
itiz
en
s’ J
ury
/Pan
el
mo
del is
desc
rib
ed
here
, giv
en
it
is t
he m
ost
po
pu
lar
mo
del.
All
oth
er
mo
dels
are
deta
iled
in
the f
ull
rep
ort
.
Use
d a
t all
levels
of
govern
men
t, C
itiz
en
s’
Juri
es
an
d P
an
els
have b
een
in
itia
ted
to
ad
dre
ss
a b
road
ran
ge o
f p
olic
y q
uest
ion
s, t
he m
ost
com
mo
n o
nes
bein
g in
frast
ruct
ure
, h
ealt
h, u
rban
pla
nn
ing, envir
on
men
t, a
nd
pu
blic
serv
ices.
Mo
st
of
them
have b
een
ad
ho
c, b
ut
there
is
als
o o
ne
inst
itu
tio
nalis
ed
mo
del of
an
on
go
ing P
an
el.
Cit
izen
s’ J
uri
es
an
d P
an
els
fo
llow
th
e s
am
e
learn
ing, d
elib
era
tio
n, an
d d
eci
sio
n-m
akin
g p
hase
s
as
Cit
izen
s’ A
ssem
blie
s, b
ut
mo
re c
on
cise
ly. Th
ey
are
, to
date
, th
e m
ost
ad
ap
ted
of
rep
rese
nta
tive
delib
era
tive m
od
els
, an
d t
hre
e m
ain
su
b-
cate
go
ries
have e
merg
ed
over
tim
e:
1.
pro
cess
es
that
have t
ake
n p
lace
over
con
secu
tive d
ays;
2.
pro
cess
es
wh
ere
meeti
ng d
ays
are
sp
read
ou
t
over
nu
mero
us
weeks,
an
d
3.
on
go
ing p
an
els
over
mu
ch lo
nger
peri
od
s of
tim
e (
e.g
. tw
o y
ears
).
FIG
UR
E 2
. C
ITIZ
EN
S’
JU
RY
/PA
NEL
MO
DEL
EX
AM
PLE
: C
ITIZ
EN
S' J
UR
Y/P
AN
EL
Pro
ce
sse
s th
at
ha
ve
ta
ke
n p
lac
e
ov
er
co
nse
cu
tiv
e d
ays
FIG
UR
E 1
. M
OD
ELS
OF R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES
Th
e C
itiz
en
s' J
ury
was
develo
ped
in
th
e U
nit
Sta
tes
by N
ed
Cro
sby a
nd
th
e J
e
in 1
97
1. Th
e in
itia
l d
esi
gn
an
d m
e
a r
igid
mo
del an
d c
au
se s
om
e c
many p
roce
sses
lab
elle
d a
s C
itiz
oth
er
cou
ntr
ies
do
not
follo
w t
he s
am
e s
desi
gn
cri
teri
a o
f th
e in
itia
l m
od
el.
Dis
chara
cteri
stic
s of
these
Cit
izen
s
they a
re u
sually
sm
alle
r th
an
th
e a
betw
een
12
to
24
peo
ple
– a
nd
th
e
run
th
ree t
o s
ix d
ays
con
secu
tiv
Cen
ter)
. W
hile
th
is a
pp
roach
was
de
the U
nit
ed
Sta
tes
(US), it
has
been
r
in o
ther
pla
ces,
in
clu
din
g e
xam
ple
Can
ad
a, D
en
mark
, Fr
an
ce, K
ore
a, Sp
UK
.
pane
ls, c
olle
cted
for t
his s
tudy
, fro
m O
ECD
Mem
ber a
nd n
on-M
embe
r cou
ntrie
s. Th
e av
erag
e le
ngth
from
first
to la
st m
eetin
g of
the
Plan
ning
Cel
l is a
n ex
cept
ion
Ave
rag
e
nu
mb
er
of
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
pe
r p
an
el
Ave
rag
e
len
gth
of
me
etin
gs
Ave
rag
e
len
gth
fro
m
first
to la
st
me
etin
g
Nu
mb
er
of
tim
es
use
d t
o
da
te
pro
ce
ss
(pa
ne
ls)
Use
by
co
un
trie
s
Re
sult
Po
licy q
ue
stio
ns
ad
dre
sse
d t
o d
ate
Info
rme
d c
itiz
en
re
co
mm
en
da
tio
ns
on
po
lic
y q
ue
stio
ns
Citiz
en
op
inio
n o
n p
olic
y q
ue
stio
ns
Info
rme
d c
itiz
en
ev
alu
atio
n o
f b
allo
t m
ea
sure
s
Pe
rma
ne
nt
de
lib
era
tiv
e b
od
ies
Va
rio
us
top
ics
Ele
cto
ral r
efo
rms,
inst
itu
tio
na
l se
tup
,
co
nst
itu
tio
na
l qu
est
ion
s
Bro
ad
ra
ng
e o
f to
pic
s. M
ost
co
mm
on
: in
fra
stru
ctu
re,
he
alth
, u
rba
n p
lan
nin
g,
en
viro
nm
en
t
On
go
ing
pro
ce
sse
s
ma
nd
ate
d t
o p
rovid
e in
pu
t
on
va
rio
us
qu
est
ion
s w
he
n
pu
blic
au
tho
rity
is in
ne
ed
Ne
w t
ec
hn
olo
gy,
en
viro
nm
en
t, h
ea
lth
Mo
st c
om
mo
n u
se f
or
urb
an
pla
nn
ing
, b
ut
als
o
oth
er
top
ics
Str
ate
gic
pla
nn
ing
:
de
ve
lop
ing
a f
utu
re v
isio
n
for
the
city
Va
rio
us
top
ics,
mo
st
co
mm
on
: e
nviro
nm
en
t,
stra
teg
ic p
lan
nin
g
Va
rio
us
top
ics,
oft
en
se
ve
ral
ad
dre
sse
d a
t o
nc
e
Va
rio
us
top
ics
En
viro
nm
en
t is
sue
s o
n a
glo
ba
l sc
ale
Ma
nd
ate
to
se
t th
e
ag
en
da
an
d in
itia
te
citiz
en
s’ p
an
els
Ma
nd
ate
to
eva
lua
te
citiz
en
pro
po
sals
an
d
sug
ge
st t
he
m f
or
refe
ren
da
De
taile
d,
co
llec
tiv
e
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
Co
llec
tiv
e
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
Co
llec
tiv
e
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
Co
llec
tiv
e p
osi
tio
n
rep
ort
/citiz
en
s
rep
ort
Vo
tes
on
pro
po
sals
Co
llec
tiv
e
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
Bro
ad
ide
as/
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
Su
rve
y o
pin
ion
s
an
d o
pin
ion
ch
an
ge
s
Vo
tes
on
pro
po
sals
Co
llec
tiv
e
sta
tem
en
t o
f ke
y
fac
ts
Co
llec
tiv
e
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
De
cis
ion
s o
n
citiz
en
pro
po
sals
CA
N,
IRL
AU
T, A
US,
BEL,
CA
N,
FR
A, P
OL,
ESP
, G
BR
,
USA
CA
N
AU
S, A
UT,
DN
K, FR
A,
NO
R, G
BR
DEU
, JA
P
NLD
, ESP
AU
T, D
EU
Glo
ba
lly
AR
G,
ITA
,
JA
P,
USA
,
KO
R, M
NG
,
CH
N,
BR
A
Glo
ba
lly
USA
BEL
ESP
6 (
6)
11
5 (
16
8)
23
(4
0)
90
(1
26
)
2 (
2)
19
(1
9)
57
(2
47
)
12
(1
2)
14
(2
4)
38
(1
12
)
14
(1
5)
4 (
15
0)
8 (
8)
1 (
1)
1 (
1)
47
we
eks
5 w
ee
ks
0 w
ee
ks
7 w
ee
ks
2 y
ea
rs
2 w
ee
ks
0 w
ee
ks
4 w
ee
ks
1 w
ee
k
4 w
ee
ks
0 w
ee
ks
0 w
ee
ks
0 w
ee
ks
1.5
ye
ars
1 y
ea
r
90
34
30
35
32
16
24
18.8
da
ys
4.1
da
ys
3.4
da
ys
4.1
da
ys
11 d
ays
4.0
da
ys
3.2
da
ys
346
15
148
226
120
1.7
da
ys
1.7
da
ys
2.1
da
ys
1.6
da
ys
1 d
ay
4.4
da
ys
No
da
ta
ye
t
8 d
ays
22
24
49
Ra
nd
om
se
lec
tio
n
of
34
citiz
en
s o
n
av
era
ge
Fa
ce
-to
-fa
ce
me
etin
gs
for
4.1
da
ys
ov
er
5 w
ee
ks
(on
av
era
ge
)
Fo
r o
ng
oin
g p
roc
ess
es:
fa
ce
-to
-fa
ce
me
etin
gs
for
11
da
ys
ov
er
2 y
ea
rs
Lea
rnin
g
sta
ge
Co
nsu
lta
tio
n
sta
ge
De
lib
era
tio
n
sta
ge
De
cis
ion
ma
kin
g s
tag
e
Va
rio
us
me
tho
ds
of
citiz
en
• I
ntr
od
uc
tory
rea
din
gs
• L
ea
rnin
g
sess
ion
s
• S
tak
eh
old
er
he
arin
gs
• H
ea
rin
gs
of
the
pu
blic
• D
isc
uss
ing
evid
en
ce
• A
sse
ssin
g
op
tio
ns
• I
mp
art
ial
fac
ilita
tors
• A
gre
ein
g o
n
the
final
set
o
f re
co
m-
me
nd
tio
ns
Co
lle
ctive
Re
co
mm
en
da
tio
ns
→→
an
ad
ian
an
d A
ust
ralia
n R
efe
ren
ce P
an
els
' Ju
ries
ten
d t
o invo
lve larg
er
tici
pan
ts (
usu
ally
aro
un
d 3
6 t
o
tin
gs
are
sp
read
ou
t over
en
ds,
base
d o
n t
he v
iew
th
at
or
the learn
ing p
roce
ss a
nd
fo
r ati
on
. Th
ey a
lso
began
th
e t
ren
d
oro
us
two
-sta
ge m
eth
od
fo
r ele
ctio
n, ca
lled
a "
civic
lott
ery
", w
hic
h
ed
.
e w
as
a p
eak in
th
e u
se o
f si
mila
r to
th
e J
eff
ers
on
Cen
ter's
, in
th
e late
19
90
s/earl
y 2
00
0s.
Sin
ce
, th
e t
erm
Cit
izen
s' A
ssem
bly
o
desc
rib
e m
any o
f th
e m
ost
s
that
are
in
fact
mo
re s
imila
r to
s
an
d R
efe
ren
ce P
an
els
.
en
s' P
an
els
("p
an
el o
byw
ate
lski"
) n
ed
to
th
e p
ract
ices
in C
an
ad
a
alia
, alt
ho
ugh
th
ey t
en
d t
o b
e s
ligh
tly
60
part
icip
an
ts).
On
go
ing
pa
ne
ls o
ve
r m
uc
h lo
ng
er
pe
rio
ds
of
tim
e (
e.g
. tw
o y
ea
rs)
CH
OO
SIN
G A
MO
DEL
OF D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE E
NG
AG
EM
EN
T
FIG
UR
E 3
. P
RO
PER
TIES O
F R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE M
OD
ELS
Fin
ally
, th
e t
hir
d s
ub
-cate
go
ry o
f C
itiz
en
s’ J
uri
es/
Pan
els
refe
rs t
o a
n o
ngo
ing r
ep
rese
nta
tive
delib
era
tive b
od
y f
or
a lo
nger
peri
od
an
d o
n
mu
ltip
le iss
ues
rela
ted
to
on
e p
olic
y a
rea. A
s of
earl
y 2
02
0, it
has
been
use
d o
nly
in
Can
ad
a
an
d r
un
by M
ASS L
BP,
wit
h m
any o
f th
e s
am
e
chara
cteri
stic
s of
a R
efe
ren
ce P
an
el in
term
s of
avera
ge n
um
ber
of
part
icip
an
ts (
aro
un
d 3
0),
sele
ctio
n t
hro
ugh
a c
ivic
lott
ery
, an
in
-dep
th
learn
ing p
hase
, d
elib
era
tio
n m
od
era
ted
by
skill
ed
faci
litato
rs, an
d u
ltim
ate
ly t
he p
rovis
ion
of
info
rmed
in
pu
ts t
o p
olic
y m
ake
rs.
An
exam
ple
is
the T
oro
nto
Pla
nn
ing R
evie
w
Pan
el (T
PR
P)
20
15
-20
17
an
d 2
01
7-2
01
9. Th
e
rem
it o
f th
e T
PR
P is
to p
rovid
e in
form
ed
in
pu
ts
on
a r
egu
lar
basi
s o
n p
lan
nin
g iss
ues
to t
he
Cit
y’s
Ch
ief
Pla
nn
er
an
d P
lan
nin
g D
ivis
ion
. A
t th
e
tim
e o
f w
riti
ng in
earl
y 2
02
0, a s
imila
r p
an
el is
o
pera
tin
g o
n t
ran
spo
rtati
on
iss
ues
in t
he G
reate
r To
ron
to a
nd
Ham
ilto
n A
rea, co
mm
issi
on
ed
b
y M
etr
olin
x, th
e r
egio
nal p
ub
lic t
ran
spo
rt
au
tho
rity
.
op
riate
delib
era
tive m
od
el
dep
en
ds
pri
mari
ly o
n t
he p
olic
y p
rob
lem
.
om
ple
x t
he q
uest
ion
is
an
d t
he
wid
er
its
imp
licati
on
s, t
he m
ore
deta
iled
om
men
dati
on
s are
req
uir
ed
an
d h
en
ce t
he
delib
era
tive p
roce
ss is
ap
plic
ab
le.
, C
itiz
en
s’ A
ssem
blie
s are
well-
suit
ed
titu
tio
nal q
uest
ion
s an
d iss
ues
eate
r im
po
rtan
ce, as
this
mo
del
en
sive learn
ing a
bo
ut
the p
olic
y
th c
are
ful d
elib
era
tio
n.
So
urc
e: O
EC
D D
atab
ase
of
Rep
rese
nta
tive
Del
iber
ativ
e P
roce
sses
and
Inst
ituti
ons
(20
20
).
Citiz
en
s' In
itia
tive
Re
vie
w
Info
rme
d c
itiz
en
re
co
mm
en
da
tio
ns
on
po
lic
y q
ue
stio
ns
Citiz
en
op
inio
n o
n p
olic
y q
ue
stio
ns
Info
rme
d c
itiz
en
eva
lua
tio
n o
f b
allo
t m
ea
sure
s
Pe
rma
ne
nt
de
lib
era
tive
bo
die
s
Citiz
en
s' A
sse
mb
ly
Citiz
en
s' J
ury
/Pa
ne
l
Co
nse
nsu
s C
on
fere
nc
e
Pla
nn
ing
Ce
ll
G1000
Citiz
en
s' C
ou
nc
il
Citiz
en
s' D
ialo
gu
es
De
libe
rative
Po
ll/Su
rve
y
Wo
rld
Wid
e V
iew
s
The
Ost
be
lgie
n M
od
el
City O
bse
rva
tory
Co
mp
lexity
of
the
po
licy
qu
est
ion
De
pth
of
rec
om
me
n-
da
tio
ns
Fle
xib
ility
giv
en
to
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
Re
sou
rce
s
ne
ce
ssa
ry
Len
gth
of
the
pro
ce
ssg
ov
ern
me
nt
for
wh
ich
use
d s
o f
ar
Simple
Complex
Broad
Detailed , extensive
Rigid format
Flexible,
participant-led
Low-cost
High-cost
Short
Long
Local
on
go
ing
on
go
ing
✔ ✔✔
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✔
✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔✔
✔ ✔✔
✔ ✔ ✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔ ✔
✔
Pro
ce
sse
s w
he
re m
ee
tin
g d
ays
are
sp
rea
d o
ut
ov
er
nu
me
rou
s w
ee
ks
t, s
imila
r p
roce
sses
calle
d R
efe
ren
ce
an
ad
a, p
ion
eere
d b
y M
ASS L
BP,
evo
lved
xp
eri
en
ce o
f th
e C
itiz
en
s' A
ssem
blie
s o
lum
bia
an
d O
nta
rio
in
th
e late
20
00
s.
th
is s
am
e p
eri
od
(an
d w
ith
ou
t aw
are
ness
th
er
at
the t
ime)
, th
e n
ew
Dem
ocr
acy
u
stra
lia w
as
sep
ara
tely
develo
pin
g
ati
ve m
od
el to
MA
SS L
BP
's, ca
llin
g
s C
itiz
en
s' J
uri
es.
Cit
izen
s’ J
uri
es/
Pan
els
are
fo
cuse
d p
roce
sses
to a
dvis
e o
n a
sp
eci
fic
po
licy iss
ue, ty
pic
ally
at
sub
-nati
on
al le
vel alt
ho
ugh
th
ey h
ave a
lso
been
use
d n
ati
on
ally
/fed
era
lly. A
s sh
ort
er, u
sually
fou
r-to
-six
day p
roce
sses
gath
eri
ng 3
5-5
0
ran
do
mly
sele
cted
cit
izen
s, t
hey a
re lo
ng e
no
ugh
for
citi
zen
s to
develo
p d
eta
iled
, in
form
ed
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s to
ad
dre
ss s
peci
fic
po
licy
issu
es,
bu
t re
qu
ire less
tim
e a
nd
less
reso
urc
es
than
Cit
izen
s’ A
ssem
blie
s. T
hey c
an
th
us
be u
sed
mo
re o
ften
an
d y
ield
qu
icke
r re
sult
s.
At
the lo
cal an
d r
egio
nal le
vels
, a G
10
00
or
a C
itiz
en
s’ C
ou
nci
l ca
n b
e r
easo
nab
le
op
tio
ns
for
resi
den
ts t
o d
evelo
p a
co
llect
ive
vis
ion
fo
r a m
un
icip
alit
y a
nd
to
ad
dre
ss less
com
ple
x c
om
mu
nit
y p
rob
lem
s, a
s th
ey a
re
mo
re o
pen
-en
ded
an
d f
lexib
le f
orm
ats
. O
n
the o
ther
han
d, if
deci
sio
n m
ake
rs d
esi
re
speci
fic,
in
form
ed
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s fo
r a
pre
ssin
g p
olic
y p
rob
lem
, th
en
th
ey n
eed
to
clearl
y d
efi
ne t
he t
ask
fo
r p
art
icip
an
ts.
Oth
er
imp
ort
an
t co
nsi
dera
tio
ns
incl
ud
e
availa
ble
tim
e a
nd
reso
urc
es,
le
govern
men
t, a
nd
po
licy a
rea. F
the C
on
sen
sus
Co
nfe
ren
ce m
od
el is
help
to a
ssess
tech
no
logic
al ad
van
c
form
at
allo
ws
citi
zen
s to
qu
est
ion
s
an
d p
olic
y m
ake
rs e
xte
nsi
vely
t
of
an
iss
ue. Fig
ure
3 p
rovid
es
fur
on
th
e p
rop
ert
ies
of
each
mo
del b
use
to
date
.
OV
ER
VIE
W O
F K
EY
TR
EN
DS
4
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES
AR
E L
AR
GELY
TA
KIN
G P
LAC
E IN
OEC
D
CO
UN
TRIE
S
THE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE W
AV
E H
AS B
EEN
B
UIL
DIN
G O
VER
TIM
E
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE
PR
OC
ESSES H
AV
E B
EEN
USED
AT
ALL
LEV
ELS
OF G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T
THE C
ITIZ
EN
S' J
UR
Y/P
AN
EL
IS T
HE M
OST
OFTE
N U
SED
MO
DEL
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE
PR
OC
ESSES H
AV
E B
EEN
C
OM
MIS
SIO
NED
FO
R A
WID
E
RA
NG
E O
F P
OLI
CY
ISSU
ES
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES A
RE L
AR
GELY
TAK
ING
PLA
CE IN
OEC
D C
OU
NTR
IES
Th
e c
ase
s th
at
the O
EC
D h
as
colle
cted
in
th
is r
ep
ort
are
fro
m
the c
ou
ntr
ies
in F
igu
re 4
. Th
is f
igu
re is
not
a r
an
kin
g, n
or
is
it r
ep
rese
nta
tive o
f all
the c
ase
s in
a c
ou
ntr
y. It
is a
gra
ph
ic
rep
rese
nta
tio
n o
f th
e n
um
ber
of
case
s th
at
the O
EC
D h
as
colle
cted
. Th
e c
ou
ntr
ies
wit
h t
he larg
est
nu
mb
er
of
case
s are
als
o
tho
se in
wh
ich
a n
um
ber
of
the d
elib
era
tive m
od
els
were
in
itia
ted
:
the P
lan
nin
g C
ell
ori
gin
ate
s in
Germ
any,
th
e C
itiz
en
s’ A
ssem
bly
in
Can
ad
a, an
d t
he C
on
sen
sus
Co
nfe
ren
ce in
Den
mark
.
FIG
UR
E 4
. N
UM
BER
OF R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES P
ER
CO
UN
TRY
, 1
98
6-2
01
9
No
te: n
=2
82
. Dat
a fo
r O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
is b
ased
on 1
8 O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
that
wer
e m
emb
ers
in 2
01
9 p
lus
the
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n
So
urc
e: O
EC
D D
atab
ase
of
Del
iber
ativ
e P
roce
sses
and
Inst
ituti
ons
(20
20
).
40
25
17
16
15
15
13
13
12
9
8
5
44
2
111
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Germ
any
Au
stra
lia
Canad
a
Den
mark
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Au
stri
a
OE
CD
UK
Jap
an
Neth
erl
and
s
Fra
nce
Sp
ain
EU
/Glo
bal
Ko
rea
Belg
ium
Pola
nd
Irela
nd
Est
on
ia
Italy
No
rway
e d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
have b
een
carr
ied
ou
t at
all
levels
of
govern
men
t, a
nd
have
t p
op
ula
r o
n t
he lo
cal le
vel (5
2%
of
ty p
er
cen
t h
ave b
een
co
mm
issi
on
ed
FIG
UR
E 6
. R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES H
AV
E B
EEN
USED
MO
ST
OFTE
N L
OC
ALL
Y,
THO
UG
H E
XA
MP
LES E
XIS
T A
T A
LL L
EV
ELS
OF G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T
Re
pre
sen
tativ
e d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roc
ess
es
at
all
lev
els
of
go
ve
rnm
en
t, 1
98
6-2
01
9
THE C
ITIZ
EN
S' J
UR
Y/P
AN
EL
IS T
HE M
OST
OFTE
N U
SED
MO
DEL
OF D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESS
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES H
AV
E B
EEN
USED
AT
ALL
LEV
ELS
OF G
OV
ER
NM
EN
T
Th
e C
itiz
en
s’ J
ury
/Cit
izen
s’ P
an
el is
th
e m
ost
wid
ely
use
d m
od
el of
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive
pro
cess
to
date
(u
sed
11
5 t
imes,
42
% o
f all
case
s). O
ther
sho
rter
pro
cess
es
such
as
the
Pla
nn
ing C
ell
(57
tim
es)
, C
itiz
en
s’ D
ialo
gu
es
(38
tim
es)
, C
on
sen
sus
Co
nfe
ren
ces
(19
tim
es)
, an
d
Cit
izen
s’ C
ou
nci
ls (
14
tim
es)
have a
lso
been
use
d
qu
ite e
xte
nsi
vely
. Lo
nger, m
ore
co
mp
lex m
od
els
FIG
UR
E 7
. TH
E C
ITIZ
EN
S’
JU
RY
/PA
NEL
HA
S B
EEN
USED
MO
ST
OFTE
N B
Y P
UB
LIC
AU
THO
RIT
IES
FO
R P
UB
LIC
DEC
ISIO
N M
AK
ING
Tota
l nu
mb
er
of
tim
es
ea
ch
de
libe
rativ
e m
od
el h
as
be
en
use
d f
or
pu
blic
de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g,
19
86
-20
19
THE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE W
AV
E H
AS B
EEN
BU
ILD
ING
OV
ER
TIM
E
e h
as
been
a n
ota
ble
tre
nd
or
pu
blic
au
tho
riti
es
to in
creasi
ngly
use
e d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
for
pu
blic
deci
sio
n m
akin
g. A
fir
st w
ave o
f in
tere
st
een
19
96
an
d 2
00
0 a
nd
was
y h
igh
nu
mb
er
of
Pla
nn
ing C
ells
ell
as
a p
eak in
Co
nse
nsu
s
FIG
UR
E 5
. TH
E D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE W
AV
E H
AS B
EEN
BU
ILD
ING
OV
ER
TIM
E
Nu
mb
er
of
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roc
ess
es
pe
r ye
ar,
19
86
– O
cto
be
r 2
01
9
Co
nfe
ren
ces
in D
en
mark
. Sin
ce 2
01
1, th
e
nu
mb
er
of
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
has
been
stead
ily in
creasi
ng. B
etw
een
20
11
an
d 2
01
9,
there
have b
een
17
7 d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
in
tota
l w
ith
an
avera
ge o
f 2
5 p
roce
sses
per
year
in t
he p
eri
od
of
20
16
-20
19
(Fig
ure
5).
CD
co
untr
ies
is b
ased
on 1
8 O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
that
wer
e m
emb
ers
in 2
01
9 p
lus
the
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n. P
roce
sses
that
ears
are
note
d b
y t
he
yea
r of
thei
r co
mp
leti
on (
exce
pt
for
per
man
ent
on
go
ing p
roce
sses
).
f D
elib
erat
ive
Pro
cess
es a
nd
Inst
ituti
ons
(20
20
).
fed
era
l le
vel (F
igu
re 6
). T
hre
e p
er
cen
t h
ave
been
in
tern
ati
on
al p
roce
sses
init
iate
d b
y
inte
rnati
on
al o
rgan
isati
on
s o
r su
pra
nati
on
al
bo
die
s, s
pan
nin
g e
ith
er
acr
oss
mu
ltip
le
No
te: n
=2
82
; Dat
a fo
r O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
is b
ased
on 1
8 O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
that
wer
e m
emb
ers
in 2
01
9 p
lus
the
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n.
So
urc
e: O
EC
D D
atab
ase
of
Rep
rese
nta
tive
Del
iber
ativ
e P
roce
sses
and
Inst
ituti
ons
(20
20
).
such
as
the C
itiz
en
s’ A
ssem
bly
(si
x t
ime
inte
rnati
on
al p
roce
sses
that
req
uir
co-o
rdin
ati
on
eff
ort
s su
ch a
s W
orl
d W
ide V
ie
(fo
ur
tim
es)
have b
een
em
plo
yed
le
New
, in
novati
ve, in
stit
uti
on
alis
ed
delib
er
pro
cess
es
that
have o
nly
sta
rted
em
er
rece
ntl
y –
su
ch a
s th
e O
stb
elg
ien
mo
del an
d
Mad
rid
Cit
y O
bse
rvato
ry –
to
ok p
lac
1
2
1
55
9
4
13
6
4
6
3
55
66
6
8
5
15
14
13
18
19
26
28
20
24
11
5
57
38
19
14
12
87
64
25
50
75
10
0
12
5
Lo
cal
52
%R
eg
ion
al/
Sta
te
30
%
Nati
on
al/
Fed
era
l
15
%
Inte
rnati
on
al
3%
Th
e r
an
ge o
f p
olic
y iss
ues
ad
dre
ssed
usi
ng r
ep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
has
been
wid
e a
nd
in
creasi
ng (
Fig
ure
10
). T
he iss
ues
that
are
em
bark
ed
up
on
most
oft
en
are
th
ose
th
at
have a
dir
ect
im
pact
on
cit
izen
s’ e
very
day liv
es
an
d t
ho
se
to w
hic
h c
itiz
en
s ca
n e
asi
ly c
on
trib
ute
th
eir
pers
on
al o
pin
ion
s an
d e
xp
eri
en
ces:
urb
an
pla
nn
ing a
nd
healt
h. Lo
cal an
d r
egio
nal/
state
level re
pre
sen
tati
ve
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
are
co
mm
on
ly c
on
cern
ed
wit
h u
rban
an
d s
trate
gic
pla
nn
ing,
infr
ast
ruct
ure
, an
d h
ealt
h q
uest
ion
s. N
ati
on
al an
d in
tern
ati
on
al o
nes
are
mo
st
oft
en
ab
ou
t envir
on
men
t an
d t
ech
no
logy p
olic
y iss
ues.
PU
BLI
C A
UTH
OR
ITIE
S H
AV
E C
OM
MIS
SIO
NED
R
EP
RESEN
TATIV
E D
ELI
BER
ATIV
E P
RO
CESSES
FO
R A
WID
E R
AN
GE O
F P
OLI
CY
ISSU
ES
FIG
UR
E 8
. R
EG
ION
AL
TREN
DS O
F D
IFFER
EN
T D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE M
OD
ELS
olo
ur
ind
icat
es t
he
do
min
ant
del
iber
ativ
e m
od
el; t
he
num
ber
ind
icat
es t
he
tota
l of
rep
rese
nta
tive
del
iber
ativ
e p
roce
sses
in a
. The
map
exc
lud
es inte
rnat
ional
pro
cess
es t
hat
to
ok
pla
ce in m
ore
than
one
countr
y.*
atab
ase
of
Rep
rese
nta
tive
Del
iber
ativ
e P
roce
sses
and
Inst
ituti
ons
(20
20
).
FIG
UR
E 9
. R
EG
ION
AL
TREN
DS O
F D
IFFER
EN
T D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE M
OD
ELS
: EU
RO
PE
s th
e d
om
inan
t d
elib
erat
ive
mo
del
; the
num
ber
ind
icat
es t
he
tota
l of
rep
rese
nta
tive
del
iber
ativ
e p
roce
sses
in a
co
untr
y.
FIG
UR
E 1
0.
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES H
AV
E B
EEN
USED
BY
PU
BLI
C A
UTH
OR
ITIE
S
MO
ST
OFTE
N F
OR
AD
DR
ESSIN
G ISSU
ES T
HA
T H
AV
E A
DIR
EC
T IM
PA
CT
ON
A C
OM
MU
NIT
Y’S
LIF
E,
SU
CH
AS P
LAN
NIN
G,
HEA
LTH
AN
D T
HE E
NV
IRO
NM
EN
T
Nu
mb
er
of
tim
es
a p
olic
y is
sue
ha
s b
ee
n a
dd
ress
ed
th
rou
gh
a r
ep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roc
ess
No
te: n
=2
82
; Oth
er p
olic
y iss
ues
incl
ud
e: a
gri
cult
ure
; co
nst
ituti
onal
ques
tio
ns;
co
nsu
mer
pro
tect
ion; c
oo
per
ativ
e ho
usi
ng; c
ult
ur
fire
wo
rk u
se; g
amb
ling r
egula
tio
ns;
gen
der
eq
ual
ity; j
ust
ice;
leg
isla
tive
refo
rm; m
igra
tio
n; n
ois
e p
ollu
tio
n; s
afet
y; s
cien
ce a
nd
r
soci
oec
ono
mic
dev
elo
pm
ent;
sust
ainab
le d
evel
op
men
t; t
axat
ion; w
ater
man
agem
ent;
yo
uth
.
So
urc
e: O
EC
D D
atab
ase
of
Rep
rese
nta
tive
Del
iber
ativ
e P
roce
sses
and
Inst
ituti
ons
(20
20
).
11
2222
33
5
6
8
999
12
12
16
24
26
26
29
32
Co
nst
itu
tio
na
l q
uest
ion
Just
ice
Ad
min
istr
ati
on
Cu
ltu
reFa
mily
Tax
ati
on
Leg
isla
tiv
e r
efo
rmG
en
de
r eq
uali
tyE
lect
ora
l re
form
Cit
izen
en
ga
gem
en
tIn
stit
uti
on
al
set-
up
Tra
nsp
ort
ati
on
Pu
blic s
pen
din
g
En
erg
yV
ari
ou
sT
ech
no
logy
Pu
blic s
erv
ices
Oth
er
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
Str
ate
gic
pla
nn
ing
En
vir
on
me
nt
Healt
hU
rban
pla
nn
ing
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
WH
AT
IS A
'SU
CC
ESSFU
L'
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE
DELI
BER
ATI
VE
PR
OC
ESS?
5
RA
ND
OM
SELE
CTI
ON
OV
ER
CO
MIN
G B
AR
RIE
RS T
O P
AR
TIC
IPA
TIO
N
DU
RA
TIO
N
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
AN
D L
EA
RN
ING
FA
CIL
ITA
TIO
N
PA
RTI
CIP
AN
T R
EC
OM
MEN
DA
TIO
NS A
ND
TH
EIR
IMP
LEM
EN
TATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D E
VA
LUA
TIO
N
PU
BLI
C C
OM
MU
NIC
ATI
ON
FO
R P
UB
LIC
LEA
RN
ING
CO
MB
ININ
G P
AR
TIC
IPA
TOR
Y M
ETH
OD
S
WIT
H R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE
1.
Desi
gn
in
teg
rity
: th
e p
roc
wh
ich
en
sure
th
at
a p
roc
as
fair
by t
he p
ub
lic a
nd
in
lin
e w
ith
p
rin
cip
les
of
go
od
pra
ctic
2.
So
un
d d
elib
era
tio
n: th
e e
lem
en
ts t
hat
en
ab
le q
ualit
y d
elib
era
tio
n t
hat
rin
part
icip
an
ts’ arr
ivin
g a
t s
jud
gem
en
t;
3.
Infl
uen
tial re
com
men
dati
on
s an
d
act
ion
s: t
he e
vid
en
ce o
f im
pd
eci
sio
n m
akin
g, an
d
4.
Imp
act
on
th
e w
ider
pu
blic
seco
nd
ary
an
d lo
ng-t
erm
eeff
icacy
an
d p
ub
lic a
ttit
ud
e
How
a r
ep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive
pro
cess
is
desi
gn
ed
an
d r
un
, an
d
the im
pact
th
at
it h
as
on
po
licy a
nd
th
e w
ider
pu
blic
are
all
qu
est
ion
s th
at
ari
se w
hen
dete
rmin
ing w
heth
er
it
has
been
a s
ucc
ess
. D
raw
ing o
n t
he n
ew
em
pir
ical co
mp
ara
tive r
ese
arc
h c
olle
cted
by
the O
EC
D a
nd
wid
er
theo
reti
cal re
searc
h
on
delib
era
tio
n, th
is c
hap
ter
seeks
to a
ssess
th
e d
iffe
ren
t ap
pro
ach
es
an
d d
esi
gn
s of
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses.
Nab
ata
chi et
al.
(20
12
) h
ave o
utl
ined
evalu
ati
on
pri
nci
ple
s fo
r th
e p
ract
ice a
nd
im
pact
of
delib
era
tive c
ivic
en
gagem
en
t,
coveri
ng f
ou
r asp
ect
s. T
he O
EC
D d
raw
s in
spir
ati
on
fro
m t
his
fra
mew
ork
fo
r an
aly
sis,
ad
ap
ted
to
th
e s
peci
fic
focu
s o
n
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
an
d
the t
yp
e o
f d
ata
co
llect
ion
th
at
was
feasi
ble
fo
r th
is r
ep
ort
(se
e F
igu
re 1
1):
CO
MM
ITM
EN
T B
Y D
EC
ISIO
N M
AK
ER
SFIG
UR
E 1
1.
FR
AM
EW
OR
K O
F A
NA
LYSIS
FO
R R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES
DESIG
N I
NTE
GR
ITY
SO
UN
D D
ELI
BER
ATI
ON
INFLU
EN
TIA
L
REC
OM
MEN
DTI
ON
S
AN
D A
CTI
ON
S
IMP
AC
T O
N T
HE
WID
ER
PU
BLI
C
1 2 3 4
The
pro
ce
du
ral c
rite
ria
wh
ich
en
sure
th
at
a p
roc
ess
is p
erc
eiv
ed
as
fair b
y t
he
pu
blic
an
d in
lin
e w
ith
prin
cip
les
of
go
od
pra
ctic
e
The
ele
me
nts
th
at
en
ab
le
qu
alit
y d
elib
era
tio
n t
ha
t
resu
lts
in p
ub
lic ju
dg
em
en
t
The
ev
ide
nc
e o
f im
pa
ct
on
pu
blic
de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g
The
se
co
nd
ary
an
d lo
ng
-
term
eff
ec
ts o
n p
ub
lic
lea
rnin
g a
nd
att
itu
de
s
• S
co
pe
of
the
re
mit
• R
an
do
m s
ele
ctio
n m
eth
od
s
• D
ura
tio
n
• C
om
mitm
en
t b
y d
ec
isio
n m
ake
rs
• I
nfo
rma
tio
n a
nd
lea
rnin
g
• F
ac
ilita
tio
n
• D
ec
isio
n m
rep
rese
nta
tive
de
libe
rative
pro
ce
ss
• P
roc
ess
ou
tpu
ts
• R
esp
on
se t
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
• I
mp
lem
en
t
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
• M
on
ito
ring
an
d e
va
lua
tio
n
• P
ub
lic c
om
pu
blic
lea
rnin
g
• C
om
bin
ing
with
re
pre
s
pro
ce
sse
s
RA
ND
OM
SELE
CTI
ON
com
mo
nly
use
d r
an
do
m s
ele
ctio
n p
roce
sses
incl
ud
e s
ingle
-sta
ge r
an
do
m s
ele
ctio
n (
22
%)
an
d a
mix
of
ran
do
m a
nd
targ
ete
d s
ele
ctio
n o
f h
ard
-to
-reach
gro
up
s (4
%).
Wh
en
str
ati
fyin
g t
he f
inal sa
mp
le o
f ci
tize
ns,
all
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
sele
ct p
art
icip
an
ts
acc
ord
ing t
o d
em
ogra
ph
ic s
ele
ctio
n c
rite
ria
that
matc
hes
the g
en
era
l m
ake
up
of
the w
ider
po
pu
lati
on
(su
ch a
s th
at
availa
ble
in
a c
en
sus)
, an
d u
sually
in
clu
des
at
least
fo
ur
crit
eri
a:
gen
der;
age; geogra
phy,
an
d s
oci
oeco
no
mic
fa
cto
rs (
a v
ari
ab
le t
hat
cap
ture
s d
isp
ari
ty
in in
com
e a
nd
ed
uca
tio
n levels
). W
hile
d
em
ogra
ph
ic s
trati
fica
tio
n is
en
ou
gh
to
en
sure
d
ivers
ity a
nd
rep
rese
nta
tiven
ess
, in
so
me
circ
um
stan
ces
it m
ay n
ot
be e
no
ugh
to
en
sure
cr
ed
ibili
ty, re
qu
irin
g d
iscu
rsiv
e o
r att
itu
din
al
rep
rese
nta
tio
n a
s w
ell.
In t
he 1
72
case
s fo
r w
hic
h t
her
part
icip
an
ts a
re c
om
pen
sate
d in
on
e w
an
oth
er
57
% o
f th
e t
ime (
Fig
ur
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
there
is
rin
th
e f
orm
of
paym
en
t. In
a s
mall
nu
mb
er
oca
ses,
tra
nsp
ort
co
sts
are
co
mp
en
sat
or
exp
en
ses
are
covere
d (
6%
). T
her
rem
un
era
tio
n in
43
% o
f d
elib
er
Th
e m
ajo
rity
of
these
latt
er
ins
loca
l le
vel,
wh
ere
arg
uab
ly c
ost
s t
are
low
er. T
he r
ati
on
ale
fo
r n
on
-ris
th
at
part
icip
ati
on
in
a d
elib
er
act
ivate
s a c
ivic
resp
on
sib
ility
td
em
ocr
acy
. In
many c
ase
s, it
is e
qu
ally
dri
vb
y b
ud
geta
ry c
on
stra
ints
. A
s th
e d
ata
cin
th
is s
tud
y d
oes
not
con
tain
de
the r
esp
on
se r
ate
s of
dif
fere
nt
dem
oit
is
not
poss
ible
to
dra
w c
on
crre
gard
ing t
he im
pact
of
rem
un
er
deci
sio
n t
o p
art
icip
ate
. O
ther
sth
at
paym
en
t d
oes
en
cou
rage d
em
oth
at
gen
era
lly d
o n
ot
part
icip
at
nota
bly
yo
un
g p
eo
ple
an
d t
ho
inco
mes
(new
Dem
ocr
acy
Fo
un
dati
on
an
d U
N
Dem
ocr
acy
Fu
nd
, 2
01
9: 1
50
).
OV
ER
CO
MIN
G B
AR
RIE
RS T
O P
AR
TIC
IPA
TIO
N
ele
ctio
n a
ttem
pts
to
overc
om
e t
he
s an
d d
isto
rtio
ns
of
“op
en”
an
d
or
part
icip
ati
on
. It
en
sure
s th
at
son
has
an
eq
ual ch
an
ce o
f o
part
icip
ate
an
d t
hat
the f
inal
oco
sm o
f so
ciety
. It
can
als
o
ess
fro
m a
n o
verw
helm
ing
ed
in
tere
sts.
Wh
ile it
is n
ot
a
ect
meth
od
, it
deliv
ers
a m
ore
se
sam
ple
th
an
any o
ther
ess
.
t p
op
ula
r ra
nd
om
part
icip
an
t se
lect
ion
ese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive
e h
as
been
tw
o-s
tage s
ele
ctio
n
om
mo
nly
calle
d a
“ci
vic
lott
ery
” (F
igu
re
tho
d h
as
mo
stly
been
use
d in
alia
, C
an
ad
a, an
d t
he U
nit
ed
, alt
ho
ugh
th
ere
are
als
o a
han
dfu
l o
m o
ther
cou
ntr
ies.
Oth
er
less
En
suri
ng t
hat
all
citi
zen
s h
ave e
qu
al
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
to p
art
icip
ate
is
key t
o a
chie
vin
g
incl
usi
ven
ess
an
d r
ep
rese
nta
tiven
ess
. Th
e
dif
ficu
lty o
f th
is v
ari
es
dep
en
din
g o
n
the t
ime c
om
mit
men
t re
qu
ired
an
d t
he
salie
nce
an
d in
tere
st o
f th
e p
olic
y iss
ue.
Peo
ple
have o
ther
com
mit
men
ts, d
iffe
ren
t le
vels
of
fin
an
cial st
ab
ility
, an
d low
tru
st o
f govern
men
t in
stit
uti
on
s. D
iffe
ren
t b
arr
iers
to
part
icip
ati
on
in
clu
de c
ost
s of
part
icip
ati
on
(e
.g. tr
an
spo
rtati
on
, acc
om
mo
dati
on
, p
ote
nti
al
wages
lost
), a
nd
lack
of
clear
com
mu
nic
ati
on
ab
ou
t th
e p
roce
ss, it
s im
po
rtan
ce, th
e level
of
com
mit
men
t re
qu
ired
of
part
icip
an
ts, an
d
exp
ect
ed
ou
tco
mes.
Nevert
hele
ss, th
ere
are
se
vera
l w
ays
to low
er
barr
iers
to
part
icip
ati
on
an
d a
chie
ve h
igh
er
resp
on
se r
ate
s.
Oft
en
part
icip
an
ts a
re r
em
un
era
ted
base
d o
n
the r
ate
of
the n
ati
on
al w
age a
vera
ge o
r at
the
rate
th
at
peo
ple
are
reim
bu
rsed
fo
r ju
ry d
uty
. H
ow
ever, t
he p
ote
nti
al im
pact
of
rece
ivin
g
rem
un
era
tio
n f
or
part
icip
ati
on
on
so
me
part
icip
an
ts’ so
cial se
curi
ty b
en
efi
ts s
ho
uld
be a
co
nsi
dera
tio
n.
FIG
UR
E 1
2.
TWO
-STA
GE R
AN
DO
M S
ELE
CTI
ON
IS T
HE M
OST
CO
MM
ON
RA
ND
OM
PA
RTI
CIP
AN
T
SELE
CTI
ON
METH
OD
FO
R R
EP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES
ata
for
OEC
D c
ountr
ies
is b
ased
on 1
8 O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
that
wer
e m
emb
ers
in 2
01
9 p
lus
the
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n/G
lob
al.
FIG
UR
E 1
3.
PA
RTI
CIP
AN
TS IN
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES R
EC
EIV
E S
OM
E F
OR
M O
F
REM
UN
ER
ATI
ON
OF E
XP
EN
SES C
OV
ER
AG
E IN
SLI
GH
TLY
MO
RE T
HA
N H
ALF
OF C
ASES
No
te: n
=1
72
; Dat
a fo
r O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
is b
ased
on 1
5 O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
that
wer
e m
emb
ers
in 2
01
9 (
Aust
ralia
, Aust
ria,
Bel
giu
m, C
anad
a,
Den
mar
k, E
sto
nia
, Fra
nce
, Ger
man
y, Ire
land
, Ko
rea,
Net
her
land
s, P
ola
nd
, Sp
ain, U
nit
ed K
ingd
om
and
Unit
ed S
tate
sSA
) p
lus
the
Euro
pea
n
Ra
nd
om
pa
rtic
ipa
nt
sele
ctio
n m
eth
od
s u
sed
fo
r re
pre
sen
tativ
e d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roc
ess
es
for
pu
blic
de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g,
19
86
-20
19
Re
mu
ne
ratio
n o
f p
art
icip
an
ts o
f re
pre
sen
tativ
e d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roc
ess
es
for
pu
blic
de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g,
19
86
-20
19
Tw
o-s
tag
e r
an
do
m
sele
ctio
n
59
%
Sin
gle
-sta
ge
ran
do
m
sele
ctio
n
22
%
Ran
do
m s
ele
ctio
n
(sta
ges
un
clear)
15
%
A m
ix o
f ra
nd
om
an
d
targ
ete
d s
ele
ctio
n
4%
Th
ree-s
tag
e r
an
do
m
sele
ctio
n
0%
Ex
pe
nse
s
cov
ere
d
6%
Tra
nsp
ort
com
pe
nsa
tio
n
7%
No
n-
rem
un
era
ted
43
%
Re
mu
ne
rate
d
44
%
Th
ere
are
tw
o k
ey a
spect
s of
info
rmati
on
sou
rces:
1)
div
ers
ity o
f in
form
ati
on
an
d 2
)
imp
ort
an
ce o
f giv
ing c
itiz
en
s co
ntr
ol.
Th
e
ind
ep
en
den
t te
am
resp
on
sib
le f
or
desi
gn
ing
an
d o
rgan
isin
g t
he d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss
cho
ose
s th
e e
xp
ert
s an
d in
form
ati
on
al
mate
rial.
Havin
g a
wid
e b
read
th e
nsu
res
that
part
icip
an
ts e
nco
un
ter
an
d c
on
sid
er
dif
fere
nt
po
ints
of
vie
w. Th
e t
yp
e o
f in
form
ati
on
pro
vid
ed
als
o m
att
ers
in
term
s of
pu
blic
perc
ep
tio
ns
of
fair
ness
(i.e
. th
is c
an
not
be
govern
men
t b
roch
ure
s h
igh
ligh
tin
g t
heir
succ
ess
es
or
arg
uin
g f
or
cert
ain
so
luti
on
s).
DU
RA
TIO
Nm
ost
co
mm
on
mo
del of
the C
itiz
en
s’ J
ury
/Pan
el la
sts
for
fou
r d
ays
over
five w
eeks
on
avera
ge.
Allo
win
g e
no
ugh
tim
e f
or
the in
-pers
on
d
elib
era
tio
n is
cru
cial to
ach
ievin
g t
he
overa
rch
ing g
oals
of:
deta
iled
an
d c
on
sid
ere
d
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s; b
uild
ing t
rust
betw
een
p
art
icip
an
ts, an
d in
still
ing p
ub
lic c
on
fid
en
ce
in t
he p
roce
ss a
nd
its
ou
tpu
ts. A
co
mm
on
fi
nd
ing is
that
rush
ing t
he t
ime lead
s to
a
rush
ed
deci
sio
n, w
hic
h u
nd
erm
ines
these
go
als
(n
ew
Dem
ocr
acy
Fo
un
dati
on
an
d U
N
Dem
ocr
acy
Fu
nd
, 2
01
9: 1
10
).
Takin
g in
to a
cco
un
t th
e t
ime r
eq
uir
ed
to
re
cru
it p
art
icip
an
ts, p
rep
are
th
e p
roce
ss, an
d
run
th
e m
eeti
ngs,
mo
st d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
ten
d t
o t
ake
aro
un
d s
ix t
o s
even
mo
nth
s fr
om
b
egin
nin
g t
o e
nd
.
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
AN
D L
EA
RN
ING
Learn
ing is
on
e o
f th
e k
ey e
lem
en
ts o
f a d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss. D
elib
era
tio
n r
eq
uir
es
acc
ur
info
rmati
on
, w
hic
h r
efl
ect
s a d
ivers
ity o
f p
ers
pect
ives.
Fo
r p
art
icip
an
ts t
o b
e a
ble
to
ha
dis
cuss
ion
s over
a s
peci
fic
po
licy iss
ue a
nd
reach
in
form
ed
deci
sio
ns
on
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s
stage is
ess
en
tial to
any d
elib
era
tive p
art
icip
ati
on
mo
del.
It is
als
o w
hy t
ime is
a c
ruci
al c
succ
ess
ful p
roce
ss, as
dis
cuss
ed
in
th
e p
revio
us
sect
ion
.
Th
e learn
ing s
tage t
en
ds
to in
clu
de: in
vit
ing iss
ue e
xp
ert
s to
pre
sen
t an
d a
nsw
er
qu
est
ion
s t
meeti
ngs
(79
%), p
rovid
ing
intr
od
uct
ory
read
ing m
ate
rial b
efo
re t
he f
irst
meeti
ng (
48
%)
sess
ion
s, s
uch
as
field
tri
ps
(43
%); t
he r
igh
t fo
r p
art
icip
an
ts t
o r
eq
uest
in
form
ati
on
an
d in
stake
ho
lders
, an
d e
xp
ert
s (3
5%
), a
nd
pro
vid
ing p
art
icip
an
ts w
ith
cle
ar
an
d e
xte
nsi
ve r
ead
in
betw
een
meeti
ngs
(31
%).
CO
MM
ITM
EN
T B
Y D
EC
ISIO
N M
AK
ER
S
po
litic
al an
d/o
r in
stit
uti
on
al co
mm
itm
en
t is
im
po
rtan
t fo
r giv
ing t
he p
roce
ss c
red
ibili
ty
peo
ple
to
invest
th
eir
tim
e b
y p
art
icip
ati
ng. Evid
en
ce s
uggest
s th
at
the c
om
mit
men
t of
pu
blic
deci
sio
n m
ake
rs is
on
e o
f th
e k
ey f
act
ors
fo
r w
hy r
esp
on
se r
ate
s are
hig
h a
nd
dro
po
ut
rate
s are
art
icip
an
ts in
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
for
pu
blic
deci
sio
n m
akin
g.
f th
e f
act
ors
th
at
dis
tin
gu
ish
es
e d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
fro
m
s of
stake
ho
lder
an
d c
itiz
en
ati
on
. D
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
ten
d
e m
uch
lo
nger
am
ou
nts
of
tim
e t
o
op
er
recr
uit
men
t an
d t
o p
rep
are
th
e e
du
cati
on
al m
ate
rials
an
d a
gen
das.
Half
es
for
wh
ich
th
ere
is
data
eeks
or
mo
re o
f p
rep
ara
tio
n
art
icip
an
t m
eeti
ng t
oo
k p
lace
. %
) of
these
case
s in
vo
lved
a
e w
eeks
of
pre
para
tio
n.
Wh
ile t
he m
inim
um
tim
efr
am
e r
eq
uir
ed
to
b
e in
clu
ded
in
th
is r
ep
ort
was
on
e f
ull
day o
f e d
elib
era
tio
n b
etw
een
part
icip
an
ts,
ati
on
was
3.7
fu
ll m
eeti
ng d
ays,
er
the c
ou
rse o
f 6
.6 w
eeks.
Th
e
ati
on
vari
es
gre
atl
y d
ep
en
din
g o
n
f d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss (
Tab
le 1
). T
he
Info
rmati
on
co
mes
fro
m t
hr
sou
rces:
1)
govern
men
t; 2
) s
act
ive v
oic
es,
an
d 3
) so
urc
e
part
icip
an
ts. Th
e in
form
ati
on
pr
usu
ally
begin
s w
ith
an
in
tro
du
ctio
n t
issu
e, th
e c
on
text,
an
d t
he d
ia
pro
ble
m, fo
llow
ed
by m
ore
de
the iss
ue, an
d a
n e
xp
lora
tio
n o
solu
tio
ns
(Gerw
in, 2
01
8: 5
4
of
the d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sse
is d
ata
, p
art
icip
an
ts a
re p
ro
intr
od
uct
ory
kit
ah
ead
of
the f
ir
Beyo
nd
in
dep
en
den
t in
form
ati
on
, it
o
TAB
LE 2
: C
ITIZ
EN
S’
ASSEM
BLI
ES,
CIT
IZEN
S’
INIT
IATI
VE R
EV
IEW
S,
AN
D C
ITIZ
EN
S’
JU
RIE
S/P
AN
ELS
INV
OLV
E T
HE M
OST
FA
CE-T
O-F
AC
E P
AR
TIC
IPA
NT
MEETI
NG
TIM
E
Av
era
ge
du
ratio
n o
f fa
ce
-to
-fa
ce
m
ee
tin
gs
(in
da
ys)
Ave
rage
dur
atio
n be
twee
n fir
st
an
d la
st m
ee
tin
g (
in w
ee
ks)
Citiz
en
s' In
itia
tive
Re
vie
w
del
iber
ativ
e pa
nels,
col
lect
ed fo
r thi
s stu
dy,
from
OEC
D M
embe
r and
non
-Mem
ber c
ount
ries.
The
ave
rage
leng
th fr
om fi
rst t
o la
st m
eetin
g of
ve
rag
e d
ura
tio
n o
f fa
ce
-to
-fa
ce
me
etin
gs
de
pe
nd
ing
on
th
e r
ep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
elib
era
tiv
e m
od
el
18.8
4.1
3.4
4.1
11.0
4.0
3.2
47 5 0 7
104
2 2
Info
rme
d c
itiz
en
re
co
mm
en
da
tio
ns
on
po
lic
y q
ue
stio
ns
Citiz
en
op
inio
n o
n p
olic
y q
ue
stio
ns
Info
rme
d c
itiz
en
eva
lua
tio
n o
f b
allo
t m
ea
sure
s
a)
co
nse
cu
tive
da
ys
b)
no
n-c
on
sec
utive
da
ys
Co
nse
nsu
s C
on
fere
nc
e
De
libe
rative
Po
ll/Su
rve
y
1.7
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.0
4 1 4 0 0
4.4
0
FIG
UR
E 1
4.
HA
VIN
G E
XP
ER
TS A
VA
ILA
BLE
AT
IN-P
ER
SO
N M
EETI
NG
S A
ND
PR
OV
IDIN
G R
EA
DIN
G
MA
TER
IAL
BEFO
RE T
HE 1
ST
MEETI
NG
AR
E T
HE M
OST
CO
MM
ON
LEA
RN
ING
ELE
MEN
T
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f d
iffe
ren
t ty
pe
s o
f le
arn
ing
co
mp
on
en
ts d
urin
g r
ep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roc
ess
es
for
pu
blic
de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g,
19
86
-20
19
No
te: D
ata
is f
rom
15
7 d
elib
erat
ive
pro
cess
es f
or
whic
h t
her
e is
dat
a av
aila
ble
rel
ated
to
the
lear
nin
g c
om
po
nen
t of
the
pro
c
OEC
D c
ountr
ies
(Aust
ralia
, Aust
ria,
Can
ada,
Den
mar
k, E
sto
nia
, Fra
nce
, Ger
man
y, Ire
land
, Jap
an, N
ether
land
s, P
ola
nd
, Ko
rea,
Sp
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n, b
etw
een 1
98
6-2
01
9.
So
urc
e: O
EC
D D
atab
ase
of
Rep
rese
nta
tive
Del
iber
ativ
e P
roce
sses
and
Inst
ituti
ons
(20
20
).
79
%
48
%
43
%
35
%
31
%
0%
10
%2
0%
30
%4
0%
50
%6
0%
70
%8
0%
Ex
pe
rts
av
aila
ble
at
me
eti
ng
s fo
r
pre
sen
tati
on
s an
d/o
r q
ue
stio
ns
Intr
od
ucto
ry r
ea
din
g m
ate
ria
l b
efo
re 1
st
me
eti
ngLe
arn
ing
se
ssio
ns
Part
icip
an
ts c
an
req
ue
st i
nfo
rma
tio
n
Re
ad
ing
ma
teri
al
be
twe
en
mee
tin
gs
that
have a
sta
ke in
or
are
invo
lved
in
th
e p
olic
y
qu
est
ion
at
han
d. A
ll st
ake
ho
lders
sh
ou
ld b
e o
n
an
eq
ual fo
oti
ng a
nd
have s
imila
r co
nd
itio
ns
an
d
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
to p
rese
nt
their
po
int
of
vie
w t
o t
he
part
icip
an
ts, w
hic
h lim
its
the in
flu
en
ce o
f st
ron
g
lob
bie
s an
d a
llow
s gro
up
s w
ith
few
er
reso
urc
es
to h
ave a
vo
ice. So
me e
xam
ple
s of
how
th
is s
tage
is d
esi
gn
ed
in
deta
il ca
n b
e f
ou
nd
in
Gerw
in’s
gu
ide t
o C
itiz
en
s’ A
ssem
blie
s (2
01
8)
an
d t
he
new
Dem
ocr
acy
Fo
un
dati
on
an
d U
N D
em
ocr
acy
Fun
d’s
han
db
oo
k o
n d
elib
era
tive d
em
ocr
acy
(20
19
).
Fin
ally
, at
the v
ery
begin
nin
g o
f th
e p
roce
ss a
nd
at
the e
nd
of
each
learn
ing s
ess
ion
befo
re t
he
delib
era
tio
n p
hase
, p
art
icip
an
ts s
ho
uld
be a
sked
:
“Wh
at
do
yo
u n
eed
to
kn
ow
an
d w
ho
do
yo
u
tru
st t
o in
form
yo
u?”
(new
Dem
ocr
acy
Fo
un
dati
on
an
d U
N D
em
ocr
acy
Fu
nd
, 2
01
9: 1
26
; G
erw
in,
20
18
).
orm
ati
on
, st
ake
ho
lders
are
ed
to
pu
t fo
rth
su
bm
issi
on
s to
om
ple
men
tary
set
of
pers
pect
ives
sue. Th
is c
an
take
th
e f
orm
of
orm
ati
on
sess
ion
s an
d p
ub
lic
sses
on
line, w
here
th
e
o a
vaila
ble
to
th
e w
ider
pu
blic
.
Th
e in
dep
en
den
t co
ord
inato
rs, to
geth
er
wit
h
g p
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ty a
nd
th
e
ou
p if
on
e e
xis
ts, sh
ou
ld id
en
tify
key
oci
al,
an
d c
om
mu
nit
y s
take
ho
lders
eek t
heir
co
ntr
ibu
tio
n. Th
ey
en
t a w
ide r
ange o
f p
ers
pect
ives.
s is
need
ed
to
id
en
tify
th
e f
inal lin
e-u
p
take
ho
lders
wh
o w
ill a
dd
ress
an
ts in
pers
on
an
d t
he in
form
ati
on
ed
as
pri
ori
ty r
ead
ing m
ate
rial.
uab
ly t
he m
ost
ch
alle
ngin
g d
esi
gn
o in
clu
de a
range o
f d
iffe
ren
t
, o
pin
ion
s, a
nd
vo
ices
of
gro
up
s
FA
CIL
ITA
TIO
N
olle
cted
fo
r th
is r
ep
ort
ab
ou
t th
e r
ole
of
faci
litato
rs in
th
e v
ari
ou
s d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses.
, it
is
imp
ort
an
t to
ack
now
led
ge t
hat
the r
ole
of
peo
ple
co
nd
uct
ing t
he m
eeti
ng is
cru
cial
. Th
ey a
re r
esp
on
sib
le f
or
creati
ng a
warm
atm
osp
here
, b
uild
ing t
rust
am
on
g m
em
bers
, t
he c
red
ibili
ty o
f th
e p
roce
ss (
Gerw
in, 2
01
8). T
hey p
lay a
cru
cial ro
le in
su
pp
ort
ing t
he
f th
e d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss t
o f
orm
ula
te t
heir
ow
n r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s, w
hile
main
tain
ing
alit
y a
nd
wit
hh
old
ing t
heir
ow
n ju
dgem
en
ts a
bo
ut
the p
rop
osa
ls. Fo
r th
is r
easo
n, it
is
imp
ort
an
t s
do
not
have a
sta
ke in
th
e o
utc
om
e o
f th
e p
roce
ss –
th
ey s
ho
uld
be in
dep
en
den
t an
d a
t o
m t
he c
om
mis
sio
nin
g p
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ty.
uid
e t
o f
aci
litati
ng d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses,
see C
hap
ter
5 (
p. 1
65
-20
2)
in t
he
ou
nd
ati
on
an
d U
N D
em
ocr
acy
Fu
nd
han
db
oo
k (
20
19
).
PA
RTI
CIP
AN
T R
EC
OM
MEN
DA
TIO
NS A
ND
TH
EIR
IMP
LEM
EN
TATI
ON
to a
ct. In
a r
ep
rese
nta
tive d
em
ocr
no
exp
ect
ati
on
th
at
the a
uth
ori
ty is
ob
li
to a
ccep
t all
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s
resp
on
sib
ility
to
resp
on
d a
nd
t
a r
ati
on
ale
fo
r acc
ep
tin
g o
r re
ject
in
pro
po
sals
.
In t
wo
th
ird
s (6
6%
) of
exam
ple
au
tho
rity
dis
cuss
ed
th
e f
inal re
c
face
-to
-face
wit
h p
art
icip
an
ts (
Fi
fou
r in
ten
(4
2%
) ca
ses,
th
e p
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ty
com
mu
nic
ate
d a
pu
blic
resp
on
s
govern
men
t ch
an
nels
(su
ch a
s a w
med
ia)
an
d t
rad
itio
nal m
ed
ia (
ne
rad
io), b
ut
it d
id n
ot
take
pla
ce in
per
the p
art
icip
an
ts. In
on
e q
uart
er
(
case
s, t
he c
om
mis
sio
nin
g a
uth
ori
ty f
dir
ect
ly w
ith
th
e p
art
icip
an
ts t
ab
ou
t th
e r
esp
on
se t
o t
heir
rec
in a
dd
itio
n t
o t
he p
ub
lic r
esp
on
s
A k
ey d
iffe
ren
ce b
etw
een
rep
rese
nta
tive
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
an
d o
ther
form
s of
citi
zen
part
icip
ati
on
is
that
the o
utc
om
e is
not
many in
div
idu
al vie
ws,
bu
t a c
olle
ctiv
e
an
d c
on
sid
ere
d v
iew
. C
itiz
en
s are
task
ed
wit
h f
ind
ing c
om
mo
n g
rou
nd
on
th
e
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s th
ey p
rovid
e t
o p
ub
lic
deci
sio
n m
ake
rs.
At
the e
nd
of
a d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss, th
e
citi
zen
s’ r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s are
deliv
ere
d t
o t
he
com
mis
sio
nin
g p
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ties.
Part
icip
an
ts
som
eti
mes
acc
ep
t o
r am
en
d t
he p
rop
osa
ls o
f
exp
ert
s fr
om
wh
o t
hey h
ear, p
art
icu
larl
y w
hen
it c
om
es
to m
ore
tech
nic
al p
rop
osa
ls. Th
e g
oo
d
pra
ctic
e p
rin
cip
le is
that
the p
art
icip
an
ts s
ho
uld
have c
on
tro
l of
the r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s.
On
ce t
he f
inal re
com
men
dati
on
s are
deliv
ere
d
to t
he p
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ty, it
is
their
resp
on
sib
ility
FIG
UR
E 1
5.
IN T
WO
-TH
IRD
S O
F C
ASES,
PU
BLI
C A
UTH
OR
ITIE
S D
ISC
USS P
AR
TIC
IPA
NTS
’
REC
OM
MEN
DA
TIO
NS F
AC
E-T
O-F
AC
E W
ITH
TH
EM
Re
spo
nse
of
pu
blic
au
tho
ritie
s to
th
e r
ec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
pro
du
ce
d d
urin
g r
ep
rese
nta
tiv
e
de
libe
rativ
e p
roc
ess
es
for
pu
blic
de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g,
19
86
-20
19
No
te: n
=1
03
; Dat
a fo
r O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
is b
ased
on 1
2 O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
that
wer
e m
emb
ers
in 2
01
9 (
Aust
ralia
, Aust
ria,
Bel
giu
m, C
Est
onia
, Fra
nce
, Ger
man
y, K
ore
a, N
ether
land
s, U
nit
ed K
ingd
om
and
Unit
ed S
tate
s) p
lus
the
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n/G
lob
al, f
rom
19
92
42
%
24
%
0%
10
%2
0%
30
%4
0%
50
%6
0%
Fin
al
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s d
iscu
ssed
face-t
o-f
ace w
ith
pa
rtic
ipan
ts
Pu
blic r
esp
on
se t
o r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s (e
.g. w
ritt
en
, T
V,
go
vern
me
nt
ch
an
nels
)
Dir
ect
foll
ow
-up
wit
h p
art
icip
an
ts i
n a
dd
itio
n t
o p
ub
lic
resp
on
se
G1000 Amersfoort, 9 April, 2016.
om
mo
n m
eth
od
of
evalu
ati
on
of
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss (
67
%)
has
been
an
ey o
f p
art
icip
an
ts. Seven
teen
per
cen
t h
ave h
ad
an
aca
dem
ic a
naly
sis,
an
d o
nly
seven
e h
ad
an
in
dep
en
den
t evalu
ati
on
, u
sually
by a
pri
vate
co
nsu
ltin
g c
om
pany o
r a n
on
-
gan
isati
on
wit
h e
xp
ert
ise in
cit
izen
part
icip
ati
on
.
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D E
VA
LUA
TIO
N
PU
BLI
C C
OM
MU
NIC
ATI
ON
AS A
TO
OL
FO
R P
UB
LIC
LEA
RN
ING
Wit
h e
ffect
ive p
ub
lic c
om
mu
nic
ati
on
, a
delib
era
tive p
roce
ss c
an
be a
mech
an
ism
fo
r
the b
road
er
pu
blic
to
learn
ab
ou
t an
iss
ue a
s
well
as
en
cou
rage it
to p
art
icip
ate
mo
re in
pu
blic
lif
e in
gen
era
l. Em
pir
ical re
searc
h h
as
als
o s
how
n t
hat
stro
ng p
ub
lic c
om
mu
nic
ati
on
ab
ou
t re
pre
sen
tati
ve d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
can
be a
to
ol to
help
co
un
tera
ct d
isin
form
ati
on
an
d p
ola
risa
tio
n r
ela
ted
to
th
e iss
ue b
ein
g
om
mu
nic
ati
on
is
un
ders
too
d a
s any
om
mu
nic
ati
on
act
ivit
y o
r in
itia
tive led
by
titu
tio
ns
for
the p
ub
lic g
oo
d. It
is
om
po
litic
al co
mm
un
icati
on
, w
hic
h
o t
he p
olit
ical d
eb
ate
, ele
ctio
ns,
or
ind
ivid
ual p
olit
ical fi
gu
res
an
d p
art
ies.
Wit
h
e p
ub
lic c
om
mu
nic
ati
on
, a d
elib
era
tive
s ca
n b
e a
mech
an
ism
fo
r th
e b
road
er
o learn
ab
ou
t an
iss
ue a
s w
ell
as
CO
MB
ININ
G P
AR
TIC
IPA
TOR
Y M
ETH
OD
S W
ITH
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESS
Rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
are
not
typ
ically
use
d in
iso
lati
on
, an
d a
re
rath
er
a c
en
tral p
art
of
a w
ider
stra
tegy o
f ci
tize
n p
art
icip
ati
on
aro
un
d a
sp
eci
fic
po
licy iss
ue (
Fig
ure
16
). T
he m
ost
co
mm
on
typ
es
of
stake
ho
lder
part
icip
ati
on
th
at
are
use
d in
co
nju
nct
ion
wit
h d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
are
on
line c
alls
fo
r p
rop
osa
ls/
sub
mis
sio
ns
(use
d in
33
case
s), su
rveys
(29
case
s), p
ub
lic c
on
sult
ati
on
s (1
9 c
ase
s)
an
d r
ou
nd
tab
le d
iscu
ssio
ns
(16
case
s).
Th
e lim
ited
im
pact
data
su
ggest
th
at
wh
en
pre
sen
ted
wit
h in
form
ed
an
d c
on
sid
ere
d
pro
po
sals
, p
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ties
are
lik
ely
to a
ct o
n t
hem
, as
they in
clu
de s
en
sib
le
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s th
at
can
lead
to
mo
re
eff
ect
ive p
ub
lic p
olic
ies.
Mo
re d
ata
is
need
ed
for
this
to
be a
ro
bu
st c
on
clu
sio
n, b
ut
it s
hed
s
som
e p
relim
inary
lig
ht
on
an
iss
ue t
hat
is m
uch
dis
cuss
ed
an
d o
f gre
at
imp
ort
an
ce.
CD
tri
ed
to
co
llect
as
mu
ch d
ata
sib
le a
bo
ut
the im
ple
men
tati
on
of
om
mit
men
ts m
ad
e b
ase
d o
n c
itiz
en
s’
om
men
dati
on
s. T
here
was
data
availa
ble
fo
r
ee q
uart
ers
(7
6%
) of
these
case
s,
the p
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ties
imp
lem
en
ted
over
half
of
om
men
dati
on
s. In
fo
ur
in t
en
(3
6%
) of
, it
im
ple
men
ted
all
of
them
. O
nly
f th
ese
55
case
s w
ere
no
ne o
f th
e
om
men
dati
on
s im
ple
men
ted
.
FIG
UR
E 1
6.
REP
RESEN
TATI
VE D
ELI
BER
ATI
VE P
RO
CESSES A
RE M
OST
FR
EQ
UEN
TLY
CO
MP
LEM
EN
TED
BY
OP
EN
SU
BM
ISSIO
NS,
SU
RV
EY
S A
ND
PU
BLI
C C
ON
SU
LTA
TIO
NS
Fre
qu
en
cy o
f d
iffe
ren
t ty
pe
s o
f st
ake
ho
lde
r p
art
icip
atio
n p
roc
ess
es
use
d in
co
nju
nc
tio
n w
ith
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roc
ess
es
for
pu
blic
de
cis
ion
ma
kin
g,
19
96
-20
19
No
te: D
ata
is f
rom
10
6 d
elib
erat
ive
pro
cess
es in 1
5 O
EC
D c
ountr
ies
(Aust
ralia
, Aust
ria,
Bel
giu
m, C
anad
a, D
enm
ark,
Est
onia
, Fra
nce
, Ger
man
Jap
an, N
ether
land
s, P
ola
nd
, Ko
rea,
Sp
ain, a
nd
Unit
ed K
ingd
om
) p
lus
the
Euro
pea
n U
nio
n, b
etw
een 1
99
6 a
nd
20
19
.
So
urc
e: O
EC
D D
atab
ase
of
Rep
rese
nta
tive
Del
iber
ativ
e P
roce
sses
and
Inst
ituti
ons
(20
20
).
2222
3
4
6
777
8
10
10
16
19
29
05
10
15
20
25
30
G1000 A
me
rsfo
ort
, 9 A
pril
, 2016.
Fre
nc
h C
itiz
en
s' C
on
ve
ntio
n f
or
Clim
ate
.
REIM
AG
ININ
G
DEM
OC
RA
TIC
IN
STI
TUTI
ON
S: W
HY
A
ND
HO
W T
O E
MB
ED
P
UB
LIC
DELI
BER
ATI
ON
6
DEFIN
ING
IN
STI
TUTI
ON
ALI
SA
TIO
N
WH
Y IN
STI
TUTI
ON
ALI
SE?
THR
EE R
OU
TES T
O
INSTI
TUTI
ON
ALI
SIN
G P
UB
LIC
DELI
BER
ATI
ON
Th
is s
ect
ion
dis
cuss
es
the r
eas
tow
ard
s in
stit
uti
on
alis
ing r
ep
rd
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses,
it
pro
vid
eof
the d
iffe
ren
t ro
ute
s th
at
ha
att
em
pte
d s
o f
ar, it
bri
efl
y d
isin
stit
uti
on
al,
an
d b
ud
geta
ry r
to m
ake
in
stit
uti
on
alis
ati
on
po
ack
now
led
ges
the lim
itati
on
so
nly
a p
relim
inary
dis
cuss
ion
oan
d r
ich
er
set
of
qu
est
ion
s ab
ou
t th
e t
wh
ich
will
be e
xp
lore
d f
urt
her
in f
utu
rw
ork
ing a
nd
po
licy p
ap
ers
.
Rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
for
pu
blic
deci
sio
n m
akin
g h
ave p
rolif
era
ted
in
many c
ou
ntr
ies
over
the p
ast
fo
ur
deca
des.
Th
is r
ep
ort
in
clu
des
a d
ata
base
of
28
9 e
xam
ple
s, a
nd
th
ere
are
many o
thers
u
nd
erw
ay.
Du
rin
g t
his
tim
e, th
ere
has
been
a
gre
at
deal of
exp
eri
men
tati
on
wit
h d
iffe
ren
t m
od
els
an
d d
esi
gn
ch
oic
es,
as
well
as
wit
h
vari
ou
s co
nn
ect
ion
s to
rep
rese
nta
tive a
nd
d
irect
dem
ocr
acy
. H
ow
ever, t
wo
nota
ble
co
mm
on
alit
ies
betw
een
mo
st e
xam
ple
s to
d
ate
are
th
eir
on
e-o
ff n
atu
re a
nd
th
at
their
to
pic
s h
ave b
een
deci
ded
an
d d
efi
ned
to
p-
dow
n b
y p
ub
lic d
eci
sio
n m
ake
rs. Th
ere
are
o
nly
14
exam
ple
s of
inst
itu
tio
nalis
ed
pra
ctic
es.
DEFIN
ING
IN
STI
TUTI
ON
ALI
SA
TIO
N
Th
ere
are
tw
o a
spect
s to
th
e m
ean
ing o
f in
stit
uti
on
alis
ati
on
: le
gal an
d c
ult
ura
l. To
geth
er,
they t
ou
ch o
n t
he r
eq
uir
em
en
ts f
or
sust
ain
ed
ch
an
ge.
Inst
itu
tio
nalis
ing d
elib
era
tio
n in
dem
ocr
ati
c p
olit
ics
an
d p
olic
y m
akin
g m
ean
s in
corp
ora
tin
g
delib
era
tive a
ctiv
itie
s in
to t
he r
ule
s of
pu
blic
regu
lato
ry f
ram
ew
ork
to
en
sur
regard
less
of
po
litic
al ch
an
ge.
Inst
itu
tio
nalis
ati
on
als
o h
as
a c
ult
ur
dim
en
sio
n. It
can
refe
r to
regu
lar
an
d r
pro
cess
es
that
are
main
tain
ed
an
d s
an
ctio
ned
b
y s
oci
al n
orm
s (A
berc
rom
bie
19
88
), w
hic
h a
re im
po
rtan
t fo
r en
suri
n
EU
Cit
izen
s' D
ialo
gu
e, Th
e H
agu
e, 1
7 M
ay,
20
19
.
WH
Y IN
STI
TUTI
ON
ALI
SE?
THR
EE R
OU
TES T
O IN
STI
TUTI
ON
ALI
SIN
G P
UB
LIC
DELI
BER
ATI
ON
Th
ere
is
no
‘on
e-s
ize-f
its-
all’
ap
pro
ach
, n
or
a s
ingle
‘b
est
’ d
esi
gn
to
in
stit
uti
on
alis
e. Th
er
to c
on
sid
er
div
ers
e r
oad
map
s to
em
bed
din
g p
ub
lic d
elib
era
tio
n, w
ith
vari
ou
s aim
s.
Th
ree e
xis
tin
g r
ou
tes
to in
stit
uti
on
alis
ati
on
are
exam
ined
: th
e e
stab
lish
men
t of
a p
erm
an
en
t o
r o
nst
ruct
ure
fo
r re
pre
sen
tati
ve c
itiz
en
delib
era
tio
n; th
e e
stab
lish
men
t of
req
uir
em
en
ts f
or
pu
blic
au
tho
riti
eto
org
an
ise r
ep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
un
der
cert
ain
co
nd
itio
ns,
an
d t
he e
stab
lish
men
t o
rule
s allo
win
g c
itiz
en
s to
dem
an
d a
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss o
n a
sp
eci
fic
is
1.
A p
erm
an
en
t o
r o
ng
oin
g d
elib
era
tiv
e s
tru
ctu
re
On
e r
ou
te t
o in
stit
uti
on
alis
ati
on
is
to
create
a p
erm
an
en
t o
r o
ngo
ing d
elib
era
tive
stru
ctu
re t
hat
com
ple
men
ts t
he e
xis
tin
g
inst
itu
tio
ns
of
rep
rese
nta
tive d
eci
sio
n
makin
g. A
s of
earl
y 2
02
0, p
erm
an
en
t o
r o
ngo
ing d
elib
era
tive b
od
ies
have r
ole
s th
at
incl
ud
e a
gen
da-s
ett
ing, overs
igh
t,
pro
vid
ing o
ngo
ing in
form
ed
in
pu
t ab
ou
t a p
art
icu
lar
pu
blic
po
licy iss
ue, an
d s
imila
r re
spo
nsi
bili
ties
to t
ho
se o
f p
arl
iam
en
tary
se
lect
co
mm
itte
es.
Th
ese
in
clu
de:
• Th
e M
etr
olin
x R
egio
nal R
eo
n T
ran
spo
rt in
th
e G
reat
Ham
ilto
n A
rea (
GTH
A)
• Th
e C
ity O
bse
rvato
ry o
f M
ad
rid
• Th
e m
ixed
delib
era
tive c
om
mit
tParl
iam
en
t of
the R
egio
n o
the F
ren
ch-s
peakin
g P
arl
iam
en
t in
Bru
s
• G
ou
lbu
rn V
alle
y W
ate
r A
nn
ual P
Foru
ms
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive
o p
olic
y-m
akin
g c
ycl
es
an
d
pu
blic
deci
sio
n-m
akin
g p
roce
du
res
can
bri
ng
fits
as
on
e-o
ff p
roce
sses,
an
d
es
it p
oss
ible
to:
1Ta
ke
mo
re h
ard
de
cis
ion
s:
Inst
itu
tio
nalis
ing r
ep
rese
nta
tive
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
can
help
com
mu
nit
ies
ad
dre
ss c
halle
ngin
g
pro
ble
ms
that
the g
overn
men
t
is n
ot
ab
le t
o s
olv
e o
n its
ow
n.
Invo
lvin
g c
itiz
en
s m
ake
s it
easi
er
to id
en
tify
co
mm
un
ity
pri
ori
ties
an
d o
verc
om
e
resi
stan
ce o
f in
tere
st g
rou
ps
an
d
intr
a-
an
d in
ter-
part
y d
ivis
ion
s,
en
ab
ling a
ctio
n o
n d
iffi
cult
bu
t n
ece
ssary
po
licy d
eci
sio
ns.
Inst
itu
tio
nalis
ati
on
in
dif
fere
nt
ways
an
d a
t d
iffe
ren
t le
vels
of
govern
men
t th
us
en
ab
les
govern
men
ts t
o t
ake
mo
re h
ard
deci
sio
ns.
2o
nd
uct
be
tte
r d
eli
be
rati
ve
pro
cess
es
e e
asil
y a
nd
le
ss e
xp
en
siv
ely
:
titu
tio
nalis
ati
on
can
make
it
easi
er
to
e-u
sab
le p
roce
sses,
do
cum
en
ts,
act
itio
ner
cap
ab
ility
, etc
. Th
is in
tu
rn
o m
ake
hig
h q
ualit
y d
elib
era
tive
s easi
er
to c
on
du
ct, le
ss e
xp
en
sive,
ect
ive, an
d less
vu
lnera
ble
to
loss
of
t as
new
govern
men
ts t
ake
pow
er. It
s th
em
qu
icke
r to
org
an
ise a
s is
sues
, as
start
-up
tim
e c
an
be r
ed
uce
d.
titu
tio
nalis
ati
on
can
als
o im
pro
ve p
ract
ice
co
llect
ive learn
ing a
nd
makin
g it
xp
eri
men
t, e
valu
ate
, an
d im
pro
ve
er
tim
e.
3e
pu
bli
c t
rust
: P
ub
lic p
art
icip
ati
on
op
po
rtu
nit
ies,
in
clu
din
g d
elib
era
tive
, h
ave p
rolif
era
ted
over
the p
ast
few
deca
des,
bu
t it
is
dif
ficu
lt t
o s
ay
y h
ave h
ad
a p
osi
tive im
pact
on
overa
ll le
vels
of
tru
st in
govern
men
t,
po
litic
ian
s an
d p
olic
y m
ake
rs. Th
is is
likely
part
ly lin
ked
to
th
e o
ne-o
ff, ad
ho
c n
atu
re
art
icip
ati
on
exerc
ises,
an
d t
heir
lim
itati
on
to
sp
eci
fic
an
d p
roje
ct-r
ela
ted
uab
ly, in
stit
uti
on
alis
ing d
elib
era
tio
n (
an
d c
on
du
ctin
g m
any m
ore
cit
izen
ati
on
s) c
an
help
to
in
crease
pu
blic
tru
st in
govern
men
t, a
s it
op
en
s m
ore
tun
itie
s fo
r m
ore
peo
ple
to
get
clo
ser
to t
he h
eart
of
govern
an
ce a
nd
to
garn
er
ath
y f
or
the c
om
ple
xit
y o
f p
ub
lic d
eci
sio
n m
akin
g. In
stit
uti
on
alis
ati
on
can
o f
un
dam
en
tally
ch
an
ge t
he r
ela
tio
nsh
ip b
etw
een
pu
blic
au
tho
riti
es
an
d
4E
nri
ch
de
mo
cra
cy
by
ex
pa
nd
ing
me
an
ing
ful
cit
ize
n p
art
icip
ati
on
:
Dem
ocr
acy
is
bein
g g
overn
ed
, b
ut
als
o
govern
ing. Th
rou
gh
in
stit
uti
on
alis
ati
on
,
mo
re p
eo
ple
can
get
clo
ser
to b
ein
g
part
of
the g
overn
ing p
roce
ss. In
do
ing
so, th
ey b
rin
g a
wid
er
div
ers
ity o
f
pers
pect
ives
into
dem
ocr
ati
c d
eci
sio
n
makin
g. G
overn
men
ts g
o t
o g
reat
len
gth
s to
en
sure
po
litic
al eq
ualit
y
wh
en
it
com
es
to v
oti
ng in
ele
ctio
ns.
Exte
nd
ing t
he s
am
e logic
to
th
e p
eri
od
in b
etw
een
ele
ctio
ns
cou
ld m
ean
, fo
r
exam
ple
, h
avin
g a
go
al fo
r every
on
e t
o
rece
ive a
n invit
ati
on
to
part
icip
ate
in
a d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss a
t so
me p
oin
t in
their
liv
es.
Str
en
gth
en
th
e c
ivic
ca
pa
cit
y o
Inst
itu
tio
nalis
ati
on
exte
nd
s an
d e
mb
ed
s th
e
pri
vile
ge o
f re
pre
sen
tati
on
am
on
ran
ge o
f p
eo
ple
. Th
e a
ct o
f re
pre
oth
ers
is
itse
lf a
skill
an
d f
orm
o
fitn
ess
th
at
dese
rves
to b
e e
xte
nd
ed
an
d
cult
ivate
d b
y m
ore
peo
ple
. It
mean
s th
at
a larg
er
pro
po
rtio
n o
f so
ciety
has
the
op
po
rtu
nit
y t
o s
erv
e t
heir
co
mm
un
itie
exp
eri
en
ce t
he c
om
ple
xit
y o
f p
ub
lic d
eci
sio
n
makin
g, an
d t
o s
trength
en
th
eir
s
agen
cy a
nd
eff
icacy
.
An
oth
er
ro
ute
to
in
stit
uti
on
alis
ati
on
has
been
to e
stab
lish
req
uir
em
en
ts f
or
a p
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ty
to o
rgan
ise a
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive
pro
cess
un
der
cert
ain
co
nd
itio
ns.
Exam
ple
s
incl
ud
e:
•
Th
e C
itiz
en
s’ I
nit
iati
ve
Re
vie
w, w
here
a r
an
do
mly
sele
cted
gro
up
of
citi
zen
s
pre
pare
s a c
olle
ctiv
e s
tate
men
t ab
ou
t
sign
ific
an
t in
form
ati
on
th
ey b
elie
ve
vote
rs s
ho
uld
kn
ow
ab
ou
t th
e p
ros
an
d
con
s of
a p
rop
ose
d b
allo
t m
easu
re. Th
is
state
men
t is
cir
cula
ted
to
all
ho
use
ho
lds
in t
heir
vote
rs’ p
am
ph
let.
•
Th
e 2
01
7 M
on
go
lia
n D
eli
be
rati
ve
Po
llin
g L
aw
, w
hic
h s
ets
ou
t th
at
Delib
era
tive P
olls
have t
o b
e o
rgan
ised
for
any c
on
stit
uti
on
al am
en
dm
en
ts,
pro
ject
s to
be f
un
ded
by lo
cal
develo
pm
en
t fu
nd
s, o
r u
rban
pla
nn
ing
pro
ject
s.
THE O
STB
ELG
IEN
MO
DEL
ran
do
mly
sele
cted
cit
izen
s fo
rm t
he C
itiz
en
s’ C
ou
nci
l. Th
ey h
ave a
man
date
to
w
cit
izen
s fo
r o
ne a
nd
a h
alf
years
. Th
e f
irst
24
mem
bers
are
co
mp
rise
d o
f th
ree
s: s
ix a
re r
an
do
mly
sele
cted
am
on
g t
he p
art
icip
an
ts o
f a p
revio
us
Cit
izen
s’ P
an
el th
at
e in
th
e r
egio
n; si
x a
re p
olit
icia
ns
– o
ne f
rom
each
po
litic
al p
art
y, a
nd
tw
elv
e a
re r
an
do
mly
en
s fr
om
th
e p
op
ula
tio
n o
f O
stb
elg
ien
. Every
six
mo
nth
s, o
ne t
hir
d o
f th
e c
oh
ort
is
o b
e r
ep
lace
d w
ith
ran
do
mly
sele
cted
cit
izen
s. T
he p
olit
icia
ns
will
be t
he f
irst
to
be
ed
ou
t an
d w
ill a
lso
be r
ep
lace
d b
y c
itiz
en
s se
lect
ed
th
rou
gh
a c
ivic
lott
ery
. Th
is is
to a
llow
fo
r , b
ut
als
o t
o e
nsu
re t
hat
the C
itiz
en
s’ C
ou
nci
l d
oes
not
beco
me a
bo
dy o
f p
eo
ple
o
me p
rofe
ssio
nalis
ed
an
d p
rey t
o s
om
e o
f th
e s
am
e p
rob
lem
s as
ele
cted
po
litic
ian
s.
ou
nci
l h
as
the p
ow
er
to s
et
its
ow
n a
gen
da a
nd
in
itia
te u
p t
o t
hre
e a
d h
oc
Cit
izen
s’
st p
ress
ing p
olic
y iss
ues
of
their
ch
oic
e. C
itiz
en
pro
po
sals
th
at
have
the s
up
po
rt
cit
izen
s, a
s w
ell
as
pro
po
sals
of
parl
iam
en
tary
gro
up
s o
r th
e g
overn
men
t ca
n a
lso
o
r th
e c
on
sid
era
tio
n b
y t
he C
itiz
en
s’ C
ou
nci
l (P
arl
iam
en
t of
the G
erm
an
-sp
eakin
g
f B
elg
ium
, 2
01
9). E
ach
Cit
izen
s' P
an
el w
ill b
e c
om
pri
sed
of
25
to
50
ran
do
mly
sele
cted
, w
ho
will
meet
for
a m
inim
um
of
thre
e t
imes
over
thre
e m
on
ths.
Th
e C
itiz
en
s’ C
ou
nci
l s
the n
um
ber
of
part
icip
an
ts a
nd
th
e len
gth
of
the C
itiz
en
s’ P
an
el.
e w
ith
th
e legis
lati
on
, th
e r
egio
nal p
arl
iam
en
t is
req
uir
ed
to
deb
ate
an
d r
esp
on
d t
o
om
men
dati
on
s d
evelo
ped
by t
he C
itiz
en
s’ P
an
els
. Th
e im
ple
men
tati
on
of
agre
ed
up
on
o
mm
en
dati
on
s is
fu
rth
er
mo
nit
ore
d b
y t
he C
itiz
en
s’ C
ou
nci
l. T
he
Ost
be
lgie
n m
od
el
is t
he
on
ly
e t
his
ne
w i
nst
itu
tio
n e
xte
nd
s t
he
pri
vil
eg
e o
f g
ivin
g c
itiz
en
s a
ge
nu
ine
vo
ice
t
he
po
licy
ag
en
da
an
d p
rov
idin
g c
itiz
en
s w
ith
th
e f
ram
ew
ork
an
d t
oo
ls t
o a
cti
ve
ly
f th
eir
ch
oic
e.
2. R
eq
uire
me
nts
fo
r a
pu
blic
au
tho
rity
to
org
an
ise
a r
ep
rese
nta
tiv
e
de
libe
rativ
e p
roc
ess
un
de
r c
ert
ain
co
nd
itio
ns
3. R
ule
s th
at
allo
w c
itiz
en
s to
de
ma
nd
a p
ub
lic b
od
y t
o o
rga
nis
e a
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roc
ess
•
Th
e D
an
ish
Bo
ard
of
Te
ch
no
lo
an
d S
cie
nce
wis
e i
n t
he
UK
vari
ati
on
s of
pro
gra
mm
e
citi
zen
s in
po
licy d
iscu
ssio
ns
ab
ou
t
com
ple
x s
cien
ce a
nd
tech
no
lo
•
Th
e 2
01
1 F
ren
ch
la
w o
n b
ioe
wh
ich
in
stit
uti
on
alis
es
the o
bli
of
the N
ati
on
al C
on
sult
ati
v
Co
mm
itte
e (
CC
NE)
an
d t
he P
to o
rgan
ise p
ub
lic d
eb
ate
rep
rese
nta
tive c
itiz
en
delib
er
for
any c
han
ges
of
the la
bio
eth
ics.
•
Mu
nic
ipa
l la
ws i
n t
wo
J
cit
ies –
Yo
sh
ika
wa
an
d I
w
inst
itu
tio
nalis
e C
itiz
en
Delib
er
Meeti
ngs
as
a f
orm
al m
e
delib
era
tio
n t
o in
form
pu
blic
deci
sio
n
makin
g.
Th
e t
hir
d r
ou
te t
o in
stit
uti
on
alis
ing p
ub
lic
delib
era
tio
n invo
lves
legis
lati
on
or
regu
lati
on
th
at
stip
ula
tes
that
citi
zen
s are
ab
le t
o d
em
an
d
a p
ub
lic b
od
y t
o o
rgan
ise a
rep
rese
nta
tive
delib
era
tive p
roce
ss o
n a
sp
eci
fic
issu
e if
the
nu
mb
er
of
sign
atu
res
in s
up
po
rt o
f th
e d
em
an
d
meets
a s
peci
fied
th
resh
old
. Exam
ple
s in
clu
de:
•
Mu
nic
ipa
l re
gu
lati
on
s i
n t
he
Po
lish
cit
ies
of
Gd
ań
sk
, K
rak
ów
, Lu
bli
n,
an
d P
ozn
ań
allo
w c
itiz
en
s to
in
itia
te p
art
icip
ati
on
p
roce
sses,
in
clu
din
g d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses,
b
y c
olle
ctin
g s
ign
atu
res
sup
po
rtin
g t
heir
init
iati
ve. Th
e t
hre
sho
ld v
ari
ein
Lu
blin
to
1,0
00
in
Gd
ań
sk. A
sth
resh
old
exis
ts in
so
me o
f ci
tie
en
ou
gh
sig
natu
res
mean
th
at
the r
can
not
be d
en
ied
: 2
,00
0 in
P5
,00
0 in
Gd
ań
sk.
•
Th
e 2
01
3 a
me
nd
me
nts
to
th
e L
an
d
con
stit
uti
on
of
the
Au
stri
an
sV
ora
rlb
erg
to
allo
w c
itiz
en
s t
Cit
izen
s’ C
ou
nci
l w
ith
1,0
00
FIG
UR
E 1
7.
OSTB
ELG
IEN
MO
DEL
Ra
nd
om
se
lec
tio
n
of
34
citiz
en
s o
n
av
era
ge
Re
gio
na
l p
arl
iam
en
t→
Citiz
en
s' C
ou
nc
il
•
Ag
en
da
-se
ttin
g
•
Initia
tin
g C
itiz
en
s'
Pa
ne
ls
•
Mo
nito
rin
g
Imp
lem
en
tatio
n
Citiz
en
s' P
an
el
Citiz
en
s' P
an
el
Citiz
en
s' P
an
el
→ →→
→
→ →
Co
lle
ctiv
e
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
Fa
ce
-to
-fa
ce
me
etin
gs
ov
er
1.5
ye
ar
pe
rio
d
Min
. 2
pa
rlia
me
nta
ry
de
ba
tes
ab
ou
t
rec
om
me
nd
atio
ns
PR
OP
OSA
LS
FO
R
AC
TIO
N
7B
ase
d o
n t
he e
xte
nsi
ve in
tern
ati
on
al d
ata
co
llect
ed
fo
r th
is r
ep
ort
, n
um
ero
us
go
od
pr
for
imp
rovin
g h
ow
rep
rese
nta
tive d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
are
in
itia
ted
, d
esi
gn
ed
, ru
n,
com
mu
nic
ate
d, m
on
ito
red
, evalu
ate
d, an
d in
stit
uti
on
alis
ed
can
be id
en
tifi
ed
:
1P
ub
lic
au
tho
riti
es
sho
uld
fo
llo
w t
he
Go
od
Pra
ctic
e P
rin
cip
les
for
Delib
era
tiv
e
Pro
cess
es
for
Pu
blic
Deci
sio
n M
akin
g.
All
go
od
pra
ctic
e p
rin
cip
les
are
req
uir
ed
to a
chie
ve g
oo
d r
ep
rese
nta
tive
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
that
resu
lt in
use
ful
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s fo
r th
e c
om
mis
sio
nin
g
pu
blic
au
tho
riti
es
an
d a
mean
ingfu
l
op
po
rtu
nit
y f
or
citi
zen
s to
part
icip
ate
in
shap
ing p
ub
lic d
eci
sio
ns.
Th
e c
om
bin
ati
on
need
s to
be d
esi
gn
ed
in
a s
eq
uen
ced
way w
here
it
is c
lear
ho
this
bro
ad
er
part
icip
ati
on
feed
s in
to t
he d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss; an
d t
hey a
ll f
into
bett
er
deci
sio
n m
akin
g.
Oft
en
th
is m
ean
s th
at
stake
ho
lder
part
icip
ati
on
take
s p
lace
at
the b
egin
nin
its
ou
tpu
ts b
eco
me p
art
of
the e
vid
en
ce b
ase
fo
r th
e r
ep
rese
nta
tive g
rou
p o
part
icip
an
ts in
th
e d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss.
For
inst
an
ce, th
ere
is
usu
ally
an
op
en
call
for
sub
mis
sio
ns
of
evid
en
ce f
rom
stake
ho
lders
, w
hic
h c
an
in
clu
de b
usi
ness
es,
aca
dem
ics,
ad
vo
cacy
gro
up
s, t
r
un
ion
s, a
nd
oth
er
act
ors
. So
meti
mes
there
are
pu
blic
meeti
ngs
or
rou
nd
tab
le
betw
een
sess
ion
s of
the d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss, w
here
th
e p
art
icip
an
ts t
hem
s
lead
th
e d
iscu
ssio
ns
wit
h t
he p
ub
lic.
Su
ch m
eth
od
s exte
nd
part
icip
ati
on
to
th
e b
road
er
pu
blic
an
d a
llow
co
mm
un
ity
2
Rep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
elib
er
pro
cess
es
for
pu
blic
deci
sio
n
makin
g s
ho
uld
be u
s
wit
h o
ther
part
icip
ati
on
meth
od
s as
part
of
a b
r
pu
blic
part
icip
ati
on
s
Delib
era
tive p
roce
sse
a c
om
po
nen
t of
bro
ad
er
stake
ho
lder
part
icip
ati
on
,
such
as
pu
blic
su
rvey
con
sult
ati
on
s, t
ow
n h
all
an
d r
ou
nd
tab
le d
iscu
s
Info
rmati
on
ab
ou
t th
e r
ep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roce
ss s
ho
uld
be
tran
spare
nt
an
d m
ad
e a
vailab
le t
o t
he p
ub
lic.
It s
ho
uld
be e
asy
fo
r ci
tize
ns
an
d t
he m
ed
ia t
o f
ind
in
form
ati
on
regard
ing t
he
pu
rpo
se, d
esi
gn
, m
eth
od
olo
gy,
an
d d
eta
ils a
bo
ut
how
peo
ple
were
recr
uit
ed
,
wh
ich
exp
ert
s p
art
icip
an
ts h
eard
fro
m, h
ow
th
e e
xp
ert
s w
ere
ch
ose
n, an
d h
ow
the c
itiz
en
s’ r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s w
ere
develo
ped
. Th
is h
as
an
im
pact
on
peo
ple
’s
con
fid
en
ce in
an
d t
heir
perc
ep
tio
ns
of
the legit
imacy
of
the p
roce
ss.
3
er
pu
blic
com
mu
nic
ati
on
sh
ou
ld b
e lev
era
ged
to
in
crease
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
for
pu
blic
learn
ing
, to
in
form
th
e p
ub
lic
ab
ou
t th
e
ess
, ev
iden
ce p
rese
nte
d, o
utc
om
es,
an
d im
ple
men
tati
on
, an
d t
o
ou
rag
e g
reate
r ci
tizen
part
icip
ati
on
.
ub
lic a
uth
ori
ties
sho
uld
en
sure
se t
he ‘fe
ed
back
lo
op
’ to
main
tain
th
e r
ela
tio
nsh
ip w
ith
en
s in
betw
een
on
e-o
ff
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses.
On
ce t
he
en
s’ f
inal re
com
men
dati
on
s
e d
eliv
ere
d t
o t
he p
ub
lic
au
tho
rity
, it
is
the a
uth
ori
ty’s
spo
nsi
bili
ty t
o r
esp
on
d a
nd
xp
lain
th
e r
ati
on
ale
fo
r
tin
g o
r re
ject
ing a
ny
op
osa
ls.
Up
dati
ng t
he p
art
icip
an
ts a
nd
the w
ider
pu
blic
ab
ou
t h
ow
the r
eco
mm
en
dati
on
s fr
om
th
e
delib
era
tive p
roce
ss a
re b
ein
g
imp
lem
en
ted
help
s to
fo
ster
a
rela
tio
nsh
ip b
etw
een
cit
izen
s
an
d p
ub
lic in
stit
uti
on
s, w
ith
th
e
pote
nti
al to
im
pact
po
siti
vely
on
tru
st in
both
dir
ect
ion
s.
Dem
on
stra
tin
g t
o c
itiz
en
s th
at
wh
en
th
ey p
art
icip
ate
, th
eir
pro
po
sals
are
take
n s
eri
ou
sly a
nd
it is
wo
rth
th
eir
tim
e c
an
als
o
help
to
en
cou
rage g
reate
r ci
tize
n
part
icip
ati
on
in
oth
er
form
s an
d
on
oth
er
po
licy iss
ues.
4
Th
e a
pp
rop
riate
leg
al an
d/o
r re
gu
lato
ry c
han
ges
sho
uld
be e
nact
ed
to
su
pp
ort
the in
stit
uti
on
alisa
tio
n o
f re
pre
sen
tati
ve d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roce
sses
for
pu
blic
deci
sio
n m
akin
g.
Bey
on
d leg
al ch
an
ges
to e
stab
lish
ru
les
or
req
uir
em
en
ts f
or
pu
blic
delib
era
tio
n, th
ere
are
ad
dit
ion
al le
gal su
pp
ort
iss
ues
that
need
to
be a
dd
ress
ed
to
make o
rgan
isin
g d
elib
era
tiv
e p
roce
sses
easi
er, less
cost
ly, an
d t
o r
esu
lt in
bett
er
ou
tco
mes.
Legis
lati
on
an
d r
egu
lati
on
sh
ou
ld b
e a
dap
ted
so
th
at
the m
ost
com
ple
te d
ata
base
s th
at
exis
t ca
n b
e u
sed
fo
r th
e r
an
do
m s
ele
ctio
n
pro
ced
ure
to
en
sure
th
at
the larg
est
nu
mb
er
of
peo
ple
poss
ible
have
a f
air
ch
an
ce o
f b
ein
g s
ele
cted
to
part
icip
ate
at
the o
uts
et.
Th
ese
sho
uld
be c
on
sid
ere
d in
lig
ht
of
overa
rch
ing p
ers
on
al d
ata
pro
tect
ion
rule
s, s
uch
as
the E
uro
pean
Un
ion’s
Gen
era
l D
ata
Pro
tect
ion
Regu
lati
on
(G
DP
R).
A n
ex
t st
ep
wo
uld
be f
or
em
plo
y
pro
vid
e p
aid
leav
e t
o p
art
icip
ate
in
a
delib
era
tiv
e p
roce
ss, as
is t
he c
as
crim
inal ju
ries.
If c
itiz
en
s’ t
ime a
nd
in
pu
ts in
to p
olic
y
makin
g a
re v
alu
ed
, th
en
it
is im
po
r
to c
om
pen
sate
th
eir
tim
e a
nd
en
sur
6
Govern
men
ts s
ho
uld
co
nsi
der
dra
ftin
g
pie
ces
of
legis
lati
on
or
regu
lati
on
s th
at
intr
od
uce
a r
eq
uir
em
en
t fo
r a d
elib
era
tive
pro
cess
un
der
cert
ain
co
nd
itio
ns,
an
d t
o
allo
w c
itiz
en
s to
in
itia
te a
delib
era
tive
pro
cess
if
they g
ath
er
en
ou
gh
sig
natu
res.
For
acc
ou
nta
bili
ty, th
ere
sh
ou
ld b
e a
pro
vis
ion
th
at
state
s th
at
ab
ove a
cert
ain
thre
sho
ld, p
ub
lic d
eci
sio
n m
ake
rs a
re n
ot
ab
le t
o ign
ore
th
e p
eti
tio
n.
Th
e level(s)
of
govern
men
t at
wh
ich
th
e
legis
lati
ve a
nd
/or
regu
lato
ry c
han
ges
ar
req
uir
ed
is
an
asp
ect
to
co
nsi
der. C
han
may b
e r
eq
uir
ed
at
mu
ltip
le levels
.
Wh
ere
legal o
r re
gu
lato
ry c
han
ges
are
pu
t
in p
lace
, th
ey s
ho
uld
be e
xp
licit
ly lin
k
to c
lear
stan
dard
s an
d p
rin
cip
als
to
av
dilu
tin
g t
he q
ualit
y o
f d
elib
era
tio
n.
REFER
EN
CES
Cars
on, Ly
n a
nd
Ste
phen E
lstu
b (
20
19
). “
Co
mp
ari
ng p
art
icip
ato
ry a
nd
delib
era
tive d
em
ocr
acy
”, new
Dem
ocr
acy
Rese
arc
h a
nd
Develo
pm
ent
Note
, new
Dem
ocr
acy
Fo
und
ati
on, acc
ess
ed
11
No
20
19
. htt
ps:
//w
ww
.new
dem
ocr
acy
.co
m.a
u/w
p-c
onte
nt/
up
load
s/2
01
9/0
4/R
D-N
ote
-Co
mp
ari
nPart
icip
ato
ry-a
nd
-Delib
era
tive-D
em
ocr
acy
.pd
f
Chw
alis
z, C
laud
ia (
20
17
). T
he
Pe
op
le’s
Ve
rdic
t: A
dd
ing
In
form
ed
Cit
ize
n V
oic
es
to P
ub
lic
De
cisi
on
-mYo
rk: R
om
an &
Lit
tlefi
eld
.
Dry
zek, Jo
hn S
., A
nd
ré B
äch
tiger, S
imo
ne C
ham
bers
, Jo
shua C
ohen, Ja
mes
N. D
ruck
man, A
nd
rea F
Jam
es
S. Fis
hkin
, D
avid
M. Fa
rrell,
Arc
ho
n F
un
g, A
my G
utm
ann, H
élè
ne L
and
em
ore
, Ja
ne M
ansb
rid
Mari
en, M
ichael A
. N
eb
lo, Sim
on N
iem
eyer, M
aija
Setä
lä, R
une S
loth
uus,
Jane S
uit
er, D
ennis
Tho
mp
and
Mark
E. W
arr
en (
20
19
). “
The C
risi
s of
Dem
ocr
acy
and
the S
cience
of
Delib
era
tio
n”,
Sci
enc
11
44
-11
46
. D
OI:
10
. 11
26
/sci
ence
.aaw
26
94
.
Gast
il, J
ohn a
nd
Pete
r Le
vin
e (
20
05
). T
he
De
lib
era
tive
De
mo
cra
cy H
an
db
oo
k. San F
ranci
sco: Jo
ss
Gerw
in, M
arc
in (
20
18
). C
itiz
en
s’ A
sse
mb
lie
s: G
uid
e t
o D
em
ocr
acy
Th
at
Wo
rks.
Kra
kow
: O
pen P
lan F
acc
ess
ed
on 1
1 M
ay 2
02
0. htt
p://c
itiz
ensa
ssem
blie
s.o
rg
Grö
nlu
nd
, K
imm
o, K
ais
a H
ern
e a
nd
Maija
Setä
lä (
20
15
). “
Do
es
Encl
ave D
elib
era
tio
n P
ola
rize
Op
inio
ns
Po
liti
cal
Be
ha
vio
ur
37
: 9
95
-10
20
.
Hab
erm
as,
Jurg
en (
19
81
). T
he
ori
e d
es
kom
mu
nka
tive
n H
an
de
lns.
Fra
nkfu
rt: Suhrk
am
p V
erl
ag.
Kno
blo
ch, K
ath
eri
ne R
., M
ichael L. B
art
hel,
and
Jo
hn G
ast
il (2
01
9). “
Em
anati
ng E
ffect
s: T
he Im
pact
oO
rego
n C
itiz
ens’
Init
iati
ve R
evie
w o
n V
ote
rs’ Po
litic
al Eff
icacy
”, P
oli
tica
l S
tud
ies
20
19
: 1
-20
.
Mansb
rid
ge, Ja
ne J
. (1
98
0). B
eyo
nd
Ad
vers
ary
De
mo
cra
cy, N
ew
Yo
rk: B
asi
c B
oo
ks.
MA
SS L
BP
(2
01
7). “
How
to
Run a
Civ
ic L
ott
ery
: D
esi
gnin
g F
air
Sele
ctio
n M
ech
anis
ms
for
Delib
er
Pub
lic P
roce
sses”
. To
ronto
: M
ASS L
BP,
acc
ess
ed
on 3
Marc
h 2
02
0. htt
ps:
//st
ati
c1.s
quare
space
.st
ati
c/5
5af0
53
3e4
b0
4fd
6b
ca6
5b
c8/t
/5aafb
4b
66
d2
a7
31
2c1
82
b6
9d
/15
21
46
45
06
23
3/L
ott
ov1
.1.2
.pd
f
Nab
ata
chi,
Tin
a, Jo
hn G
ast
il, M
att
Leig
hnin
ger, a
nd
G. M
ichael W
eik
sner
(20
12
). D
em
ocr
acy
in
Mo
Eva
lua
tin
g t
he
Pra
ctic
e a
nd
Im
pa
ct o
f D
eli
be
rati
ve C
ivic
En
ga
ge
me
nt,
Oxfo
rd: O
xfo
rd U
niv
ers
ity P
DO
I:10
.10
93
/acp
rof:
oso
/97
80
19
98
99
26
5.0
03
.00
10
.
new
Dem
ocr
acy
Fo
und
ati
on a
nd
Unit
ed
Nati
ons
Dem
ocr
acy
Fund
(2
01
9). E
na
bli
ng
Na
tio
na
l In
iti
De
mo
cra
cy B
eyo
nd
Ele
ctio
ns,
Syd
ney: new
Dem
ocr
acy
Fo
und
ati
on, acc
ess
ed
on 3
0 O
cto
ber
20
19
ww
w.n
ew
dem
ocr
acy
.co
m.a
u/w
p-c
onte
nt/
up
load
s/2
01
8/1
0/N
ew
-Dem
ocr
acy
-Hand
bo
ok-
FIN
AL
red
uce
d.p
df
Pate
man, C
aro
le (
20
12
). “
Part
icip
ato
ry D
em
ocr
acy
Revis
ited
”, P
ers
pe
ctiv
es
on
Po
liti
cs 1
0(1
): 7
-19
ww
w.c
am
bri
dge.o
rg/c
ore
/jo
urn
als
/pers
pect
ives-
on-p
olit
ics/
art
icle
/part
icip
ato
ry-d
em
ocr
acy
-rA
6D
45
9B
B6
54
AD
3A
A9
15
2FD
DC
68
2A
C3
64
Pate
man, C
aro
le (
19
70
). P
art
icip
ati
on
an
d D
em
ocr
ati
c T
he
ory
, C
am
bri
dge: C
am
bri
dge U
niv
ers
ity P
Ugari
zza, J.
E.,
Did
ier
Calu
aw
ert
s (2
01
4). D
em
ocr
ati
c D
eli
be
rati
on
in
De
ep
ly D
ivid
ed
So
cie
tie
s: F
rom
C
Co
mm
on
Gro
un
d. Lo
nd
on: Palg
rave M
acm
illan.
FU
RTH
ER
RESO
UR
CES
Th
rou
gh
ou
t th
is r
ep
ort
, th
ere
are
refe
ren
ces
to v
ari
ou
s u
sefu
l re
sou
rces
for
sta
nd
ard
s o
f go
od
pra
ctic
e f
or
ati
ve p
roce
sses
for
pu
blic
deci
sio
n
th
at
are
ad
ap
ted
to
th
e c
on
text.
Th
is is
imp
ort
an
t to
avo
id c
orr
up
tio
n
or
man
ipu
lati
on
of
the p
roce
du
res.
an
off
ice o
r agen
cy w
ith
th
e
pri
ori
ty o
f m
ain
tain
ing t
he in
tegri
ty o
f
oce
ss c
an
en
han
ce its
legit
imacy
an
d t
rust
wo
rth
iness
. D
ocu
men
ted
go
od
es
an
d p
rofe
ssio
nal st
aff
allo
w
oce
ss t
o r
em
ain
im
part
ial an
d
ind
ep
en
den
t of
part
isan
po
litic
s;
dv
isin
g d
ecis
ion
ma
ke
rs w
ho
on
sid
eri
ng t
he u
ses
of
citi
zen
ati
on
in
th
eir
wo
rk;
g k
no
wle
dg
e in
th
e g
overn
men
t
an
d p
ub
lic in
stit
uti
on
s m
ore
bro
ad
ly
ain
ing
civ
il s
erv
an
ts t
o b
e s
mart
om
mis
sio
ners
an
d n
eu
tral h
ost
s. T
here
o b
e a
cle
ar
delin
eati
on
of
fun
ctio
ns:
th
ose
wh
o in
itia
te t
he p
roce
ss;
e w
ho
org
an
ise a
nd
ru
n it,
an
d t
hose
wh
o s
up
erv
ise it;
Ind
ep
en
de
nt
mo
nit
ori
ng
an
d
alu
ati
on
of
on
go
ing
de
lib
era
tiv
e
ses a
nd
th
eir
im
pa
ct
to e
nsu
re
olle
ctiv
e learn
ing e
nsu
es
(fo
r
am
ple
, ab
ou
t w
hic
h p
roce
sses
do
con
texts
). It
is a
lso
im
po
rtan
t fo
r b
ein
g
ab
le t
o m
easu
re t
he im
pact
: of
the
reco
mm
en
dati
on
s o
n p
olic
y c
han
ges;
on
the p
ub
lic’s
tru
st in
th
eir
fello
w c
itiz
en
s
an
d in
govern
men
t; o
f p
art
icip
ati
on
on
th
e a
ttit
ud
es
an
d b
eh
avio
ur
of
the
part
icip
an
ts t
hem
selv
es.
Mo
nit
ori
ng a
nd
evalu
ati
on
help
to
bu
ild c
red
ibili
ty a
nd
citi
zen
tru
st in
a d
elib
era
tive p
roce
ss
an
d t
he c
om
mis
sio
nin
g a
uth
ori
ty. It
is
reco
mm
en
ded
th
at
the e
valu
ati
on
sh
ou
ld
be c
arr
ied
ou
t b
y a
neu
tral act
or
wit
h
exp
ert
ise in
delib
era
tive d
em
ocr
acy
to
inst
il co
nfi
den
ce in
th
e f
ind
ings;
•
Ma
na
gin
g a
bu
dg
et
ded
icate
d t
o
fun
din
g d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses;
•
Inv
est
ing
in
th
e s
kil
ls a
nd
ca
pa
bil
itie
s
of
civ
il s
ocie
ty o
rga
nis
ati
on
s t
hat
cou
ld b
e c
ap
ab
le o
f o
rgan
isin
g, ru
nn
ing,
an
d f
aci
litati
ng a
delib
era
tive p
roce
ss,
sin
ce in
stit
uti
on
alis
ati
on
im
plie
s a g
reate
r
need
fo
r m
ore
op
era
tors
, an
d
•
Re
gu
larl
y r
ep
ort
ing
fin
din
gs f
rom
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e d
eli
be
rati
ve
pro
cess
es
to g
ov
ern
me
nt
an
d p
arl
iam
en
ts
to e
nsu
re t
he c
um
ula
tive b
en
efi
t of
delib
era
tive p
roce
sses
are
rela
ted
to
th
e
parl
iam
en
tary
or
govern
men
t cy
cles.
titu
tio
nalisa
tio
n t
o b
e p
oss
ible
, p
ub
lic
au
tho
riti
es
sho
uld
in
vest
to
en
sure
su
ffic
ien
t
aci
ty in
th
e c
ivil s
erv
ice a
nd
civ
il s
oci
ety
to
co
mm
issi
on
an
d d
eliv
er
rep
rese
nta
tiv
e
e p
roce
sses,
as
well a
s su
ffic
ien
t fu
nd
ing
.
ern
men
ts c
ou
ld e
ith
er
est
ab
lish
an
off
ice p
erm
an
en
tly in
ch
arg
e o
f d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
en
tre o
f Exce
llen
ce o
n D
elib
era
tive D
em
ocr
acy
”) o
r an
off
ice w
ith
a b
road
er
rem
it
o f
ocu
s o
n d
elib
era
tive p
roce
sses
(su
ch a
s th
e O
pen
Govern
men
t off
ice o
r a “
Cen
tre
e o
n D
elib
era
tive a
nd
Part
icip
ato
ry D
em
ocr
acy
”).
e c
ou
ld b
e f
un
ded
by g
overn
men
t, b
ut
at
arm
’s len
gth
to
sta
y u
nb
iase
d a
nd
xam
ple
s of
sim
ilar
inst
itu
tio
ns
that
exis
t are
th
e F
ren
ch N
ati
on
al C
om
mis
sio
n f
or
e o
r th
e U
K W
hat
Wo
rks
Cen
tres.
Pro
fess
ion
al st
aff
ing m
igh
t b
e b
y c
ivil
serv
ice
, u
niv
ers
ally
resp
ect
ed
an
d im
part
ial ci
vil
soci
ety
org
an
isati
on
s (C
SO
s) o
r u
niv
ers
itie
s
ern
men
t co
ntr
act
. Th
e r
em
its
of
such
an
off
ice c
ou
ld b
e:
8
Alessandro Bellantoni
Claudia Chwalisz
Ieva Cesnulaityte
For further information:
oe.cd/innovative-citizen-participation
medium.com/participo
oe.cd/gov
@OECDgov
#OECDOG
#delibWave
