Public participation in policymaking: exploring and understanding impact

Stakeholder conceptualisations of impact

In every interview, people were asked what are the different forms of impact which can arise from public participation processes? Given the pool of interviewees brought a wealth of participatory expertise, their answers were both wide-ranging and varied, largely correlating with the ways that impact is conceptualised in academic literature, albeit with some divergence. There were a number of themes across their accounts, which are detailed in the sections below:

• Wide-ranging, multi-level, and important
• Better policies / outcomes
• Individual impacts on citizens

Wide-ranging, multi-level, and important

There was broad agreement that impact was multifaceted and complex. Indeed, people often framed their answers around different 'spheres' or 'axes' where they believed impact occurred, with many interviewees talking at length about the various and far-reaching ways that public participation processes can influence policymaking institutions and beyond:

We've kind of forgotten for example, the way that participation can just simply reshape the way that actors who have been involved in that participation do their work … go about their lives, and that can be anyone from civil servants and politicians through to the participants, through to stakeholders. Int 7

In keeping with typologies above, interviewees often emphasised the need to think of public participation as more than an 'instrument for policy change' but as one, important, part of a broader social and political system. Interviewees often described the various impacts they identified as interconnected and valuable in their own right. There was also consensus that investigating impact was 'a well-timed conversation' and an area that many of the interviewees themselves were interested in or currently exploring in their own work.

Better policies/outcomes

There was clear support across interviewees for the continued and improved use of participatory and deliberative processes in policy decision-making, underpinned by strong beliefs in their potential, when done well, to produce 'better outcomes' for everyone involved:

It's about actually collaborating and collectively resolving some of these wicked issues, and it's a constant provocation, or should be a provocation. And I think there's a sort of, I use the word genuine, change becomes more possible and not a sort of notion of change, because change happens when you involve people. Int 12

Indeed, whilst many interviewees advocated for thinking beyond direct policy change as the only indicator of impact, producing 'better legislation and better policy' ^[8] featured strongly in their conceptualisations of the impact of public participation generally:

The type of impact that we are motivated to see is … change in people's lives or the experiences of people are different as a result. Int 4

Better informed policymaking … where knowledge and information and expertise from the public is integrated with other types of evidence. Int 15

There were a number of pathways identified through which this improved policymaking might be achieved. The first was via more informed decision-making, which was cognisant of different viewpoints, knowledges and experiences as a result of citizen involvement:

Our sort of assumption is that if you're hearing from the people who are most impacted by a policy or by the effects of a law about what it means to them and how it's impacting them and what they actually need, then you're gonna have a better outcome. Int 6

• 8 It is important to note that the interviews did not explore what exactly constituted 'better' policy; this was not the key focus of the conversations. However, in the discussion in the evaluation workshop understanding what 'better' policies looked like was a key theme, suggesting it is something that warrants further exploration.

We are more able to listen to others and ultimately a more efficient public service. And when I use the word efficient, I mean financially efficient, the sort of wastage that we see by creating solutions to problems we don't understand is horrific and so public participation is a way of addressing wastage. Int 12

In addition to this, citizens were thought to bring a 'creativity' to policy issues, which might not be readily available to politicians or civil servants, and which therefore allowed for collective problem solving and the finding of new or better solutions for tricky issues:

Better, stronger solutions and that are fit for purpose … they're fit for the people that they represent … Better decision-making and collaboration and creativity actually, because it's like you're bringing people together that would not normally get to talk about things or and I think that's connected to the solutions that come out of it because they're problem solving, where budgets are not there or things are not really achievable and they're actually be able to come up with solutions that maybe governments might not be able to. Int 1

Citizens can maybe think more creatively, in a more free way, to find solutions to problems, and therefore this can be an additional source of ideas for the political work. Int 10

Better policies / outcomes were also thought to be achieved indirectly via the impact of public participation processes on the way that decision-making happens within organisations and institutions. Often this was related to the level of institutional support for or embeddedness of participation generally, characterised as 'culture change' by many interviewees. This was thought to occur via the regularity with which participation processes were used within policymaking processes but also via the winning round or convincing of decision-makers that citizen participation was valuable and worthwhile. This was often described as important or key in terms of ensuring an 'open space for a more participatory form of democracy', and one which was most likely to enable citizen influence on policy decision-making, hence making it a crucial component of impact:

The culture axis is probably the most important in terms of actually making the stuff work in terms of what the public would see. Int 2

And I think if we started from that broader sense of actually we're trying to do this very often because we're trying to change the way that people do policymaking, do politics, we'd have a better, we'd have a we'd have a much better understanding of when these things have impact. Int 7

The other one is the impact of formal power holders, which is part of … the impact of institutions, the impact on cultures of governance, cultures of politics, but the impact on power holders and on particular figures like politicians and civil servants, it's crucial to this agenda because they remain the gate keepers. Int 16

It is important to recognise that, without exception, every interviewee acknowledged the persistent challenge of achieving, understanding and evidencing policy impact as a result of public participation. This is explored in detail later sections. Despite this, it remained a core element of impact across accounts, and one which for many interviewees, it was important not to lose sight of.

Individual impacts on citizens

In a slight divergence from the academic literature on impact, interviewees were keen to emphasise the importance of the impact on citizens as a result of participating. This features strongly in the literature which analyses the institutional design of participation processes (see, for example, studies which consider how citizens from different social groups are enabled to participate and feel heard within participation processes, Karpowitz et al., 2009; McCoy & Scully, 2002; Siu, 2017), but is less prominent, although certainly not absent, in the literature which considers impact. For some interviewees, understanding the experiences of the participating citizens was crucial as this was a key way in which you could understand the robustness of the process:

We ask people who take part … one is would you take part again and the other is do you think you were listened to … So the other impact we'd be looking at is does involvement in participation increase people's capacity generally to feel that they can be involved in having impact?

And I think that's really important as well as the sort of policy outcomes.

Int 6

Individual impacts on citizens were described as wide-ranging, including skills and capacity building, increased confidence and further political involvement or activism as a result of their participation:

I don't think we should ignore the fact that it's really important learning experience for those people and also through the, you know, the advocacy that they bring to the communities that they have. Int 2

[Public participation processes] do tend to have positive impacts on individuals, but to do with self-confidence, with level of interest in public issues, with issues of satisfaction and with politics … trust in public institutions … self-confidence but self-efficacy as well. They believe that you have agency that can be exercised and try to and to advance your own political values and perspectives. So all of that, there's, there's a lot in that. Int 16

Just taking part in something can have a really positive impact on the individuals. Int 11

In addition, knowledge development around the political /policy and decision-making system was thought to be of particular benefit, with public participation characterised as providing a reciprocal learning opportunity for citizens and decision-makers. This in turn, was considered to (re)build trust between citizens and policymaking institutions as a result of better and deeper understanding of the lived realities of citizens and the ways that decisions are made within institutions:

[Public participation gives] citizens insights into the decision-making process and therefore an indirect impact should be that, thanks to these insights, people better understand why political decisions are taken and this would indirectly strengthen democracy, democratic institutions and politicians as individuals. Int 10

Relationships and trust between people … if it's like a social issue or something that's a bit contentious and you're bringing these people together, it can actually form, I want to use the word alliances, but that's not the right word. It's just stronger relationships and trust, but within communities, but also with governments themselves, because they're in their room, they're talking to people, so it can have impact on at, yeah, better understanding as well. Int 1

As with other forms of impact, for example direct policy change, interviewees recognised that only focusing on the individual impacts on citizens was not sufficient or adequate in understanding the broader impact of public participation processes. Instead, individual impacts on citizens were described as one component of a range of potential outcomes.

Key insights: conceptualisations of impact

Key insight 1: There is consensus across academic and stakeholder accounts that impact occurs across different spheres and at multiple levels. This includes impacts within public, political / policy and civil society areas of life.

Key insight 2: Influencing policy is a common aspiration for public participation processes, but there is widespread recognition that direct policy change is difficult to achieve and evidence.

Key insight 3: Impacts which can arise from public participation processes are varied and interconnected. Achieving better policy outcomes via more informed policymaking processes and institutional culture change feature strongly in stakeholder conceptualisations of impact.

Key insight 4: Individual impacts on citizens as a result of participation are important, particularly in terms of reciprocal learning between policymakers and citizens as well as (re)building trust. It is important for citizen impact to be considered alongside other forms of impact within social and political systems.