Public participation in policymaking: exploring and understanding impact

Spotlight on Scottish Government

One of the aims of the stakeholder engagement part of this study was to provide an opportunity to reflect on what's happening in Scotland and within a Scottish Government setting specifically. Within each interview, stakeholders were invited to share reflections on what they perceived to be working well in terms of public participation within Scottish Government as well as detail any important steps or actions which could be taken to improve the impact and quality of public participation taking place within the institution. Their responses were detailed and insightful, providing helpful intel on how the design, convening and delivering of participation processes might evolve in Scottish policymaking. Reflections have been grouped thematically and will now be discussed in turn:

• Lots of activity, lots of potential
• Putting on the participatory handbrake?
• Creating communities of practice, expertise and knowledge
• The curious case of the Scottish Climate Assembly

Lots of activity, lots of potential

Key insight 10: There is a lot of participatory activity happening across Scottish Government, some of which is considered to have impact across a variety of areas, including on policy. There is a lot of potential to evolve, improve and innovate current participatory practice.

In every interview, stakeholders were asked to talk about an example of public participation which they considered to be particularly impactful. Whilst some people highlighted well-known international examples, notably the Citizens Assemblies and referenda on reproductive rights and equal marriage in Ireland (Farrell et al., 2019), the Ostbelgien Model of a permanent Citizens Council in a German-speaking municipality of Belgium (Macq & Jacquet, 2023), and Participatory Budgeting in different municipalities in Brazil (Cabannes, 2004), many chose to talk about examples from a Scottish context. These varied across different policy areas and settings and included:

• small-scale processes where conceptual impacts, such as building trust between citizens and decision-makers or increasing the awareness and knowledge of community members and policymakers, were thought to have been achieved via honest and transparent conversations and well-designed processes.
• examples where great care had been taken over the design of public participation processes to ensure their accessibility for typically excluded groups to participate and contribute.
• processes which were considered to have reached a large volume of people and / or tapped into an issue of public concern. In these cases, public participation was thought to have had instrumental and capacity building impacts where the policy outcomes were influenced by citizen input as a result of greater understanding of the spectrum of citizen perspectives on the issue.
• multi-level and in-depth public participation processes where citizen participation was embedded within a participatory partnership approach to policymaking within a specific area of government, resulting in 'meaningful' and highly valued experiences for both policymakers and citizens.
• 'high profile' processes which were thought to have had social and systemic impacts on policy and practice within civil society organisations or the ways in which participatory and deliberative processes are convened.

It appears, from the interviewee responses, that there is already a great deal of participatory activity taking place in Scotland, with impacts perceived to be taking place across a variety of domains both connected to and within policymaking processes.

When asked to detail what was working well in terms of public participation in a Scottish Government context, interviewees were able to highlight a number of positives. Many pointed to the size of Scotland, and the fact that its 'small scale' meant there was close proximity between key actors, decision-makers and citizens.

There is this sense of closeness to communities which I think is really great and a real strength that could be built on. Int 2

Being close to people, being responsive to people is something that politicians and you know, key political actors in Scotland, I think believe strongly in. Int 7

For one interviewee, this 'closeness' facilitated developing a shared understanding of issues, whilst for another, it opened up the possibility of innovation:

I think you can, you can get a lot of the people who are involved in this in a room and they'll understand what each other's talking about and have a kind of shared a shared language. Int 6

I think a system the size of Scotland would lend itself beautifully to something like [a permanent citizens assembly]. And it could be a trailblazer, were Scotland to go down that kind of route. Int 5

In addition to this, many interviewees spoke of the sheer volume of participatory activity taking place across Scottish Government, and the fact that there were real champions of public participation, both within and outwith the organisation, who supported and promoted participatory governance:

I think that within the overarching Scottish Government infrastructure you can find really strong positions supporting participation. Int 4

You know you've got this kind of like, there is a community of practice which is in its competence, it is really impressive. Int 7

In short, there was a strong sense across accounts that participatory activity was common and varied across Scottish Government, with consensus that as an institution, there was great potential to evolve, improve and innovate current practice.

Putting on the participatory handbrake?

Key insight 11: Whilst many recognised that Scottish Government has previously pursued a strong participatory agenda, this was thought to be currently stalled by a lack of senior leadership support, and as such limited resource and capacity for public participation.

When talking about the participatory potential of Scottish Government, some interviewees reflected that Scotland had, in the recent past, been considered a place to watch in terms of participatory innovation and practice.

There was a community empowerment agenda, which started around 2010/11 … there was a lot of momentum there I would say up until 2016/17, so a lot of policies, frameworks, investment … there's a lot in there that made people hopeful, people who work in this field. Int 16

However, this 'optimism' about the direction of travel for public participation, in the Scottish Government specifically, was also perceived by these same interviewees as having stalled somewhat:

It had started to become a cultural position in Scottish Government that you did this very open, participative approach to things and that you worked collectively and openly, but it needed longer than it got. It needed longer than it got to bed in. Int 2

Some interviewees described a perceived 'handbrake' on participatory innovation, and this being something which was directly related to an increasing lack of resource and time dedicated to participatory activity:

I do think a lot of a lot of what was in there [IPDD report] would be really great and it's just … it just seemed to stall and got stuck on resources. Int 6

However, for others, lack of resource and time was symptomatic of a more serious problem related to a lack of senior leadership and institutional support, what one interviewee termed 'pushback from the organisation' in general around the efficacy and use of public participation within decision-making:

I think sometimes personal beliefs and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, we definitely know of some people who are who are quite high up, who they are active blockers of public engagement and they think that money should be spent on other things. Int 8

It's like at the moment there's a bit of a lack of … senior champions at both ministerial and civil service level. Int 6

This links back to earlier points about the role of senior leadership and political licence and the ways that this can affect how 'seriously' public participation processes are taken within policy decision-making. Indeed, as one interviewee details, without active support from senior leaders, having a lot of participatory activity does not necessarily equal a lot of influence on the part of citizens:

How do … existing institutions actually take on these processes and make sure they have impact and for it to have an effect … because I think what happens is that we do have an explosion of consultation and participation actually as an industry but maybe with declining actual impact. Int 3

There was a general sense that motivation and 'interest' in further institutionalising and embedding participatory and deliberative processes across decision-making within Scottish Government was waning, 'sort of dropped energy levels', particularly at a senior leadership level.

Creating communities of practice, expertise and knowledge

Key insight 12: Interviewees strongly advocated for a dedicated, resourced participation unit, or network, to provide (or share) advice, guidance, knowledge and expertise across the organisation. This was believed to support consistency in quality and approach as well as facilitate impact in policy settings.

In the Institutionalising Participatory and Deliberative Democracy Working Group's report (Scottish Government, 2022b) there is recognition that participatory governance requires dedicated skillsets and expertise, which do not necessarily exist in every policy department of government. For this reason, one of their recommended Early, Foundational Actions was to establish a Participation Unit within Scottish Government in order to develop 'foundational processes, trusted governance and guidance [and establish] benchmarks and evaluation' (Scottish Government, 2022b, p.15). The need for central support for participatory activity was strongly reinforced by interviewees who advocated for the creation of communities of practice, expertise and knowledge within government, including through the setting up of some of sort of participation unit or 'champions network' to 'grow capacity across the organisation':

Definitely having a participation unit which is able to, which is able to help colleagues understand when it's good to commission these sorts of things, when to do it to good quality and to sort of set up evaluations, etc. I think that's really important that that needs to be empowered. It needs to be recognized by, so it can't just hide somewhere. Int 7

There were a number of reasons provided for why this pooling of knowledge and skills would be of benefit. The first was that the quality of public participation would be improved and / or standardised, which would in turn lead to greater impact and better experiences on the part of everyone involved, including citizens and policy representatives. A participation unit or network was thought to provide much needed support to departments and workers who may be tasked with public participation, but perhaps, through no fault of their own, are not in possession of the skillsets, knowledge and resources to do well:

Whereas we find a lot of policy people, [public participation] is just kind of dumped on them. You need to go do this thing and they just try and do the best that they can with the time and the resources and the money that they have and because they don't have central support, they all kind of do their own thing and sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. Int 8

Linked to this, was the recognition that often, in public administration settings, public participation processes are convened and delivered in addition to existing workloads, and that this places undue pressure on staff:

You know people are already doing their full-time jobs in their area, which officially has no relation to the other areas … And so then on top of that, because everyone really cares about and wants [public participation] to be happening better, they are joining up as much as possible and trying to do this work. Int 9

This lack of central support where people can go to access information, advice and guidance when convening public participation processes was described as resulting in a 'wild west' approach, where there was 'so much happening' but little awareness or tracking of the consistency or quality of public participation across the organisation:

The first thing that goes out the window will be the quality of participation, because it, there's no, we don't report on it. There's very little scrutiny around it and what we end up with is lots of anecdotal evidence around people having had quite poor experiences. And that's just really not good enough. Int 14

In addition, interviewees spoke of missing vital opportunities to build institutional participatory capacity through working in siloed or disconnected ways when it comes to public participation. Having a space or mechanism through which knowledge and expertise could be shared was thought to be crucial in terms of understanding where and when participation is already taking place as well as how to capture and build on any relevant learning:

You lose a lot of knowledge from [working in one-off events]. Int 2

I think one of the challenges that you've had is you ran one assembly then everybody dissipated then you run another, and it starts all over again and you know if. You run a third, it will be a completely new group of people, and I think that there's the capacity for actual sort of policy learning around this I think is a problem in Scotland. Int 7

Sometimes I find it a wee bit bitty … there could be more that work and make sure everything functions across each other better. So that kind of holistic like, how are we going to communicate with each other? If you're doing that, then we can do this, but this can inform that, because what happens is you find that there could be like a research piece of work going on at the same time as something else, but they're actually very interconnected. Int 1

This approach has been taken by Scottish Government in relation to other forms of engagement, most notably through the recent set up of an engagement unit through which the organisation can standardise and implement guidance on interactions and relationships with stakeholders from businesses across Scotland, in support of the New Deal for Business^[9]. This unit provides support for departments and workers who are engaging with businesses and aims to ensure consistency and quality in approach. This means a blueprint exists for how a participation unit, or network, might be set up and resourced to address similar issues with citizen engagement. Indeed, interviewees cautioned that not having a focus on consistency and quality reduced the likelihood of impact within policy settings and undermined the potential benefits and perceptions of public participation generally:

I feel like citizen participation has become ... a real trend. Yeah, and there's so many projects already, but if they are of low quality, this could harm the image of citizen participation. Int 10

The curious case of the Scottish Climate Assembly

Key insight 13: Many interviewees viewed the previous Scottish Climate Assembly as disappointing thanks to a perceived lack of impact at a policy level. However, others considered it impactful in other ways. There is a need to conduct an in-depth impact assessment of the Scottish Climate Assembly, as already committed to by Scottish Government (2023).

As mentioned, in every interview, stakeholders were asked to talk about examples of public participation which they felt had been particularly impactful. Interviewees were also asked to detail, if possible, any processes which they considered not to have achieved their intended impact on policy or beyond. There was one particular process which was spoken about often in response to these questions: the Scottish Climate Assembly (Andrews et al., 2022). Ten out of the sixteen interviewees referenced this example in their answers. Many people spoke about this process as an example of public participation which had failed to achieve its intended impact, although this was not consistent: some people spoke about the Scottish Climate Assembly as an example of an impactful process and indeed one person spoke about this example as both a disappointing and impactful process all at once.

This makes it an interesting example to consider in the context of impact and public participation. The Knowledge Network On Climate Assemblies (KNOCA) have already produced a briefing which considers the case of the Scottish Climate Assembly (Langkjaer & Smith, 2023) and reflects some of the issues identified by stakeholders. These challenges are discussed below along with the rationale provided by some interviewees as to why this process can also be considered to have achieved impact in some ways.

The biggest issue identified by stakeholders was the perceived lack of policy impact which the assembly had. This was often described as either non-existent or unknown:

I think objectively you could say, well, that hasn't had any direct impact. I can't see. I can't see any in like in a formal sense. Int 3

It wouldn't surprise me if there weren't somebody in Scotland, right this second saying remember when we had that Climate Assembly? Whatever happened with that, you know? Int 2

This lack of discernible / obvious policy impact was thought to be in spite of a very well- organised and well-designed assembly. Descriptions of disappointing impact often came alongside assertions that the process was robust and well executed:

[It is] an example, I think of it going slightly wrong, even though the process was amazing and it did, it brought people together from all you know, from across Scotland, from all walks of life and, you know, deliberative, the strong ideas they're able to listen to, it was informed decision-making. You know, they had politicians from different areas, these kinds of things. Int 1

Extremely well resourced, it had the best expertise, like they threw the kitchen sink at it in terms of that stuff … They really did so. So what? What? What's happened? Int 3

The focus of the KNOCA Briefing on the Scottish Climate Assembly specifically considers the 'follow-up' to the process and the ways in which it failed to realise significant impacts on climate policymaking as a result of the citizen recommendations (Langkjaer & Smith, 2023). Follow-up was a consistent theme in stakeholder narratives also. Interviewees highlighted that the process was well-designed and resourced up until six months after the assembly ended, after which it 'died', with no team tasked with continuing the complicated policy work of embedding the recommendations:

The follow-through wasn't there not because people didn't want it to be there but and go this goes back to the culture point. It wasn't structured into the way in which the government operated. This thing was like the minister says we should do the Citizen Assembly, but even the most enthusiastic team doing a citizens' assembly, and it was a pretty enthusiastic team, can't control what happens in future budgets in terms of continuing that work. Int 2

I actually think the Scottish Climate Assembly … was one of the best organized assemblies for thinking about impact for six months and you know so, so you know, I've never seen anything like it, but it then it just died or it's the ramifications of it within this with the sort of policy development side of it died because there was nobody, there were no longer any champions. Int 7

One interviewee also highlighted the uphill task the assembly faced to achieve impact on climate policymaking given that the process took place out of sync from the existing policy cycle and without the support of the most relevant government department:

You know the Environment Directorate didn't necessarily want that assembly, they just really didn't and you in fact, as the assembly was starting, the director was publishing [their] climate plan. You know, it was, it was done. It was just put out there. Int 16

For this interviewee, this demonstrated the fact that the assembly was 'not treated as a civic institution that deserved to be heard properly and to be fitting into policy deliberations'. All of this appears to culminate in what many interviewees described as a disappointing process which, whilst well-designed and delivered, was not properly 'embedded' (Bussu, Bua, et al., 2022) within the policymaking system in which it was taking place.

Despite consensus that the assembly did not achieve obvious instrumental impact on climate policy decision-making, there were some interviewees who still considered this process to have been impactful in other ways. Although these reflections were less common, they varied across a number of areas. One interviewee considered the process to have been 'successful' and attributed the continuation of the Just Transition Commission^[10], as in some way thanks to the recommendations of the Climate Assembly:

I wonder if what came out of the assemblies was a strong part of what led to there being a longer-term body set up to scrutinise and advise, you know, although I don't think it was just due to the Climate Assembly. Int 11

Another interviewee highlighted the 'high profile' nature of the assembly as increasing the likelihood that wider civil society organisations were influenced by the outputs as well as providing evidence of public support for progressive policy action on climate change:

The recommendations are in the public domain for various you know environmental organizations to reflect on … I think provided a bit of a basis for you know kind of public mandate for somewhat ambitious action you know given that this was a group of randomly selected members of the public that you know had been given the opportunity to deliberate on the various issues and in most cases you know kind of suggested quite ambitious climate action. And so, you know, hopefully exercises like that can give government ministers and so on that the confidence that the public does support, you know, ambitious action in this area. Int 13

Another interviewee considered the process to have been impactful in a systemic way in that it demonstrated how children and young people can be involved in deliberative exercises, and even influenced practice in other institutions:

But I think it's shifted some people's perceptions and children's capacity to be involved in these kind of processes … I think it definitely shifted some people's perceptions around children's capacity to be involved and it was the first country in the world to do that. So, it's, I think, shifted people's perceptions of what's possible in Scotland. But then actually spurred work in Ireland and an international level, and spurred guidance on involving children in climate assemblies more generally. Int 15

Whilst these perspectives were in the minority, the potential impacts they detail are important. They also demonstrate the multifaceted nature of impact and the need for dedicated resource and energy to be directed towards understanding the longer-term legacy of processes such as climate assemblies. As one interviewee details, understanding the impact of this particular assembly is not simple or straightforward:

It's kind of got into civil society. It's been talked about … and people are coming back to it, it's kind of like shifted some people's perceptions but it didn't have the immediate policy impact and so was that is that an impactful process or not? You know it, it wasn't impactful in the way that it was talked about … These things can have a life after their own. So, you know, you could look at that one and say, you know, this was really bad process because … we didn't see a long-term kind of like strategy for impact. But at the same time, it's still alive. So, I don't know, is that a failure or not? Int 7

In their response to the IPDD Working Group's report, Scottish Government made a commitment to 'undertake an impact assessment of Scotland's two previous Citizens' Assemblies, considering the impact recommendations have had and what lessons can be learned from this' (Scottish Government, 2023, p.8). Given the stakeholder reflections shared in this study, this appears to be a necessary step, and one that would greatly support a better understanding of how, and when, public participation impacts policy decision-making (or not) in a Scottish Government setting:

Institutions don't get built in one or two iterations but on the other hand, the Scottish Government first needs to show how the first two assemblies have helped to improve people's lives through policy. Int 16

Key insights: spotlight on Scottish Government

Key insight 10: There is a lot of participatory activity happening across Scottish Government, some of which is considered to have impact across a variety of areas, including on policy. There is a lot of potential to evolve, improve and innovate current participatory practice.

Key insight 11: Whilst many recognised that Scottish Government has previously pursued a strong participatory agenda, this was thought to be currently stalled by a lack of senior leadership support, and as such limited resource and capacity for public participation.

Key insight 12: Interviewees strongly advocated for a dedicated, resourced participation unit, or network, to provide (or share) advice, guidance, knowledge and expertise across the organisation. This was believed to support consistency in quality and approach as well as facilitate impact in policy settings.

Key insight 13: Many interviewees viewed the previous Scottish Climate Assembly as disappointing thanks to a perceived lack of impact at a policy level. However, others considered it impactful in other ways. There is a need to conduct an in-depth impact assessment of the Scottish Climate Assembly, as already committed to by Scottish Government (2023).