Public participation in policymaking: exploring and understanding impact

Impact in practice

This section explores how the various forms of impact detailed in academic and stakeholder accounts above occur in practice. It first considers some of the challenges and facilitators which either support or block public participation processes from having impact in real world policy scenarios.

Then, it details interviewee reflections on public participation and impact in the context of Scotland and the Scottish Government, making reference to the case of the Scottish Climate Assembly, which took place in 2020-21. As above, each section includes a series of 'key insights' on how impact occurs in practice.

Challenges and facilitators

As established in the previous section of this report, the potential impacts which can arise from public participation processes are multiple and varied. However, this does not mean that achieving every possible impact is guaranteed. Indeed, across the academic literature there are detailed accounts of some of the challenges associated with convening 'meaningful' processes (Bussu, Golan, et al., 2022) as well as some of the conditions necessary to overcome these difficulties (Fung, 2015; Langkjaer & Smith, 2023). This section considers the range of challenges and facilitators to impact as detailed by expert stakeholders. There were two main themes across their reflections, each will be explored in turn and in reference to contemporary academic literature:

• Locating public participation processes within the policymaking system
• Senior leadership and political licence

Locating public participation processes within the policymaking system

In every interview, stakeholders were asked what are some of the key challenges to achieving impact? A common theme across interviewees was the need to properly locate public participation processes within the policymaking system as a whole. For some stakeholders there was a need to challenge what they described as persistent 'simplistic' narratives of how policymaking and participation both occur and interact:

If we're talking about impact we're usually talking about change coming as a result of participation and to perhaps expand our thinking away from the idea that a heroic intervention leads directly to change and that change probably comes through a coalition or a constellation of factors and influences and countervailing factors and countervailing influences. Int 4

This included moving away from the idea that citizen participation, and subsequent outputs from participation processes, produce a 'conveyor belt' of recommendations which are then automatically translated into policy outcomes. Indeed, viewing participation in these terms, for interviewees, meant that processes would always be considered 'disappointing' as this type of direct influence was unlikely to happen as a result of one process alone:

There's one dynamic of impact for certain types of participation, those sorts of the recommendation, strategic early-stage participation, where if your measure of impact is everything or it's failure, then you're setting yourself up, you're setting yourself up for guaranteed failure. Int 2

I think one of the problems that we look at is those very direct things. What was this set up for and did it achieve it? And usually, the thing it is set up for is almost impossible because you know it's there's too many things in play. Int 7

In, you know, a democratic government system it is very rare to have any single instance of that system that can have absolute influence. Int 16

Instead, interviewees advocated for viewing public participation processes as one, important, part of a 'more complex system' which consists of multiple points of influence. These sentiments are strongly reflected in literature considering policy analysis and impact in the context of public participation in policymaking. Indeed, policy analysts have long argued for considering policymaking processes as both complex and messy (Cairney & Kippen, 2024), often highlighting that decision-making power is typically fractured and dispersed across multiple sites and centres (Vlahos, 2022), influenced by various trends and innovations in political and policy decision-making, of which participatory governance is one of many (Cairney, 2023; Hill O'Connor et al., 2023; Papadopoulos, 2012).

For Bussu, Bua et al. (2022), this complexity requires a rethink of how we view participation. They advocate for considering the 'embeddedness' of public participation processes within institutions, which means examining how participation connects to and interacts with the broader policymaking system in which it is taking place:

Embedded participation is characterized by a productive interaction with the other actors and institutions within the governance context, and a rootedness of participatory processes and culture in the political or policy system. (emphasis added, Bussu, Bua, et al., 2022, p.141)

Interviewees largely echoed this idea and detailed practical ways that this embeddedness might be achieved in practice. This included via the inclusion of preparatory and follow-up work with relevant policy actors/ departments in the process design, locating participation processes within the current policy cycle and developing robust and detailed feedback loops between decision-makers and citizen participants, as detailed in the sections below.

Preparation and follow-up

There was consensus across interviewees that much of the energy and resource dedicated to convening participation processes focused on process design and, at times, failed to consider how the outputs or recommendations would interact with the policy system (Langkjaer & Smith, 2023).

There's a classic example of a brilliant, a brilliant assembly organized really well with stakeholders, but completely failing to think about how this is gonna land, believing that we'll do this well and it will have an effect and just missing the politics completely. Int 7

Preparatory policy work and engagement with key actors was routinely characterised by interviewees as crucial in enabling impact as well as facilitating a meaningful experience for citizens. For many, this involved 'honest' and 'transparent' conversations about what was up for discussion / influence as well as establishing a shared understanding of the purpose of participation within the policymaking process (Bua, 2019; Dean, 2017):

Really good kind of upfront planning to help people think about like what, what is it that we want to get out of this? And that's a really hard question for people to answer because they're like, oh, well, we just wanna hear from more people. And it's like, well.. is that because you think you don't know what's happening or because you think that'll give it credibility… so we do a lot of upfront work… What exactly is it that you think participation will add to this? Int 6

In addition to preparation in advance of the process, it was also important to consider the policy 'aftermath', something interviewees considered to be lacking in the design of many participation processes. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that the participatory practitioners interviewed (who are regularly commissioned by Scottish

Government and other institutions to convene and deliver participatory processes) stated they were often unaware of the longer-term impact or 'fate' of the participatory outputs produced from their work. They highlighted that this would require intensive policy analysis and, as such, additional resource, time and capacity from their organisations, which was 'universally' not written in to their funding agreements.

This reflects a broader phenomenon within participatory practice, where the 'follow-up' to participation processes is under-resourced, often taking place immediately after, without adequate attention to the longer term support and advocacy needed to move forward with any citizen recommendations, which can be diverse and wide-ranging (Langkjaer & Smith, 2023).

Some of these policy recommendations are massive … it involves huge budget, and it involves, some of them involve kind of systems change, which is not achievable unless you have a consistent team that can kind of carry it through. Int 1

Without attention to both this preparatory and follow-up work within policymaking processes, interviewees cautioned that public participation was unlikely to have tangible influence on policy development:

You're gonna get to a point where you … end up with two parallel processes. One that looks like a policymaking process and one that's… doing some engagement with some people, and the two aren't meeting. Int 14

Closely linked to this, was the need to locate processes in relation to the existing policy cycle of the institution. Indeed, 'the relevance and timeliness of the topic' (Russell, 2017, p.4) was considered a crucial factor in impact and this required understanding of the available 'policy windows' (McHugh, 2021) currently in development and potentially open to citizen influence:

A single process will never change anything unless you're actually connecting it into the future. Int 2

Feedback loops

Another important component of both achieving and tracking the impact of public participation in policymaking was the existence of robust and detailed feedback loops between decision-makers and the participating citizens. Interviewees highlighted the risk of having little or minimal response from institutions, as this was considered to reinforce beliefs that citizen participation had been a 'waste of time' or 'tokenistic':

The virtuous circle that you want to establish with participation versus the vicious circle that you get when the feedback loop is not closed and when there is a lack of a sense of and you know what, what difference has it made to, to be part of this. Int 16

Well-designed feedback loops were thought to demonstrate that the outputs of the participation process had been taken 'seriously' by decision-makers and that it was a valued part of the policymaking system which was 'treated with respect'. Again, honesty and transparency from institutions was considered essential and ultimately conducive to establishing a meaningful 'exchange' or 'dialogue' between policymakers and citizens, particularly where there were difficult decisions to be made:

You have to be honest about those trade offs, don't you? And you and it has to be part of what you go back and feedback to say actually we can't all do this. Here are some of the trade-offs that are going to have to happen because whilst we've heard loud and clear from you all, A, B and C, there's also this political commitment to X, Y and Z and as a government we need to look to see how we can align those you know. Int 11

Being clear of what is up for influence, what is available for influence, what is not, the scope. I think sometimes we can be nervous about that because… sometimes folk can worry that it disrespects participants. I think participants are very open, you know, like being treated honestly and openly and like grown-ups and depending on what's up for grabs or not or what's in scope, can make their own decisions about whether this is a good use of their time within those boundaries. Int 4

Interviewees also highlighted that with detailed feedback and rational, citizens were more likely to accept rejection or adaptation of proposals, as long as they felt the process had been fair and robust, and importantly, one where they had been listened to:

I mean, you cannot guarantee that all recommendations are implemented, but if they're not, there's a very detailed and transparent explanation from the parliamentary commissions. Int 10

I think people accept a good process even if they don't get what they want at the end of it. Int 6

Senior leadership and political licence

When asked to consider impact in the context of public participation, the role of senior leadership was considered crucial. Securing 'political buy-in' via the support of political or public administration 'champions' of citizen participation was often described as an integral prerequisite for achieving impact in a policy setting:

Sometimes our work in supporting more participation is about sort of winning the hearts and minds of policymaking, decision-makers, or civil servants before we then do the work. Int 4

To have an impact through the government at all levels … is having, having the key person or people that are driving this through and are able to communicate an agenda of why it's important, what needs to happen. Int 3

The need for buy-in, support, and engagement, from senior leaders within the public administration and / or its political representatives has also been highlighted across literature related to public participation (Bua, 2019; Fung, 2003; Goodin & Dryzek, 2006; Russell, 2017; Smith, 2009). It is, almost universally, considered as a necessary stage in achieving any sort of impact at a policy level.

Interviewees highlighted that often the existence of public participation in any form within the governance of institutions was thanks to the work of individuals or 'activist officials' (Escobar, 2022) who promoted and pursued a participatory governance agenda. The work of these participatory champions was thought to facilitate not only the convening of participation processes, but also the likelihood that their outputs would be taken seriously:

There are definitely individuals … who believe in the value more than others. And there's leadership that agrees in the value more than others, and that will affect the amount of, they might have resources allowed or freed up to do these things, but also how much I think people actually listen to the feedback … how much weight they give to the public element compared to the expert element in other research. Int 8

There was also recognition from some interviewees that relying on 'a token person' to drive forward public participation was not sufficient for ensuring processes had impact within policymaking spaces. Instead, interviewees advocated for the need for systemic, reliable support from senior leaders, rather than ad hoc or opportunistic input whenever it was considered politically 'expedient':

How much has this stuff built in, not just to a single, not just as a comms line in the budget, but as something that happens all the time. In the same way that, like finance, is something that happens all the time. Int 2

Sometimes it will require, you know, political representatives to be very engaged at particular points in time and engaged over time. And I think that's the problem. They get very excited at the start. They may be like their photograph taken when the assembly does its recommendations, but then when we get into the long haul of getting it through the bureaucracy, you know, people seem to disappear at that point, they're not so interested in that bit. Int 7

Indeed, without broad support of senior leadership, termed 'political licence' by one interviewee, then embedding public participation processes within the functioning of government was considered very difficult, if not impossible. Instead, public participation in this context was seen as a 'nice to do' rather than an essential component of good decision-making.

It is important to note, that some interviewees cautioned that acquiring 'political licence' did not equal complete dominance of the participatory process and its outputs on the part of decision-makers. Instead, providing 'political licence' was about 'having the courage' to allow the process to play out and a 'willingness to be influenced' by the concerns and perspectives of citizens:

I think that the that one of the issues we need to get better at as policymakers, decision-makers, those with power, is being able to hear a spectrum of opinions and views and experiences, because actually that's what a policy needs to address. Int 11

Disproportionate institutional control of participation processes is something Bussu Golan, et al., term 'tight coupling', where the parameters and discursive possibilities are predetermined by policy representatives and the scope for citizen influence therefore greatly diminished (2022). This, in both interview and academic accounts, resulted in participation processes which operated as: 'tool[s] for government rather than necessarily as a means of seriously allowing citizens to deliberate and inform and guide government' Int 5 (emphasis added).

There are a number of consequences which have been highlighted across the literature where participation processes are either not adequately supported by senior leaders or suffer from 'tight coupling'. This includes citizen recommendations:

• Being ignored in favour of other competing institutional imperatives
• Cherry-picked to fit existing agendas
• Abolished when considered too challenging (Bussu, Bua, et al., 2022, p.136)

The phenomenon of 'cherry picking' in particular has been highlighted in studies examining the policy 'fate' of citizen recommendations (Challies et al., 2021; Font et al., 2018), which found that those which most closely aligned with the existing priorities and plans of institutions were most likely to be implemented, whilst those which challenged the status quo were less likely to be taken up or considered within the policy process.

This idea was reflected by interviewees who shared concerns that public participation processes can become 'set in stone' and manipulated or moulded to suit the needs of the institution rather than reflecting a genuine exchange between its representatives and participating citizens:

What tends to happen, is that processes are put in place by an institution and then if the institution kind of likes the results, they will share it, those that they agree with and they will just simply ignore the rest. So, it's not treated as an equal part of a deliberative system where different parts are contributing different elements with checks and balances that goes into decision-making. Int 16

There was consensus across accounts that convening participation processes which do not make adequate space for citizen influence runs the risk of undermining the value of public participation and, as such, undermining the relationship between citizens and institutions:

Frustration, cynicism, or apathy can be the results of a poorly designed public engagement process in which participants' hopes for learning, working, or accomplishing some goal are disappointed by a process which is futile, in which the relevant decisions have been made elsewhere by someone else, or in which the choices and stakes are trivial. (Fung, 2015, p. 513)

In short, support from senior political and public administration leaders was routinely positioned as central to the success and efficacy of public participation. These 'power holders' were considered key to ensuring that public participation processes are resourced, supported within the policymaking process and ultimately viewed as an important, and respected, component of decision-making within government.

Key insights: challenges and facilitators

Key insight 5: It is necessary to challenge ‘simplistic’ narratives about how participation and policymaking occur and interact. It is important to view public participation processes as part of a broader, complex, policymaking system.

Key insight 6: Ensuring that there is appropriate preparatory and follow-up policy work built-in to and resourced within the design of participation processes is likely to ensure that any outputs are taken seriously and reduce claims of tokenism. This involves locating the process within the existing policy cycle.

Key insight 7: Robust and detailed feedback loops are a crucial component of understanding and achieving impact in policymaking. This can enable meaningful ‘exchange’ between decision-makers and citizens.

Key insight 8: Senior leadership support from political representatives and within the public administration is crucial for achieving impact. Without this ‘political licence’, impact at a policy level is considered very unlikely.

Key insight 9: It is important that public participation processes are not too ‘tightly coupled’ or controlled by decision-makers. This can result in the outputs of the participation processes being ignored, cherry-picked to fit existing agendas or abandoned, all of which undermines the value of citizen participation.