2.1 The three promises of PPM

Deliberative democracy is founded on the participation of citizens and broader societal stakeholders in policy-making processes. Deliberation is understood as debate and discussion aimed at producing reasonable, well-informed opinions in which participants are willing to revise preferences in light of discussion, new information, and claims made by fellow participants (Chambers 2003). Stakeholders in this context are those societal actors or groups affected by policy-making who have a potential interest in shaping the policies (Freeman 2023). Consequently, new forms of PPM have gained prominence in many countries across all political levels, from international to local politics (King & Wilson 2023; OECD 2020). This trend encompasses a diverse and heterogeneous array of instruments. Some tools seek to engage experts and committed institutional stakeholders, such as Delphi studies, stakeholder workshops, or expert world cafés (Curato et al. 2020). Other instruments directly consult citizens, for example through citizen panels, assemblies or juries, or mini publics. Going even further, co-creation approaches provide for the direct involvement of citizens and other stakeholders in democratic decision-making processes (Ansell & Gash 2008). While these instruments vary considerably in their legal mandate, purpose and organization, they share a common feature: all are connected to aspirations to address or mitigate perceived weaknesses in established structures and practices of representative democracy (Dahl 2008; Lafont 2017). Previous research has developed numerous arguments favoring PPM. Building on political governance literature, we differentiate between three main effect dimensions of PPM instruments: effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy of policy-making (Fung 2006; Scherer & Voegtlin 2020).

First, involving a broad range of stakeholders is supposed to improve effectiveness, understood here as the ability to solve societal problems (Andresen & Hey 2005). For example, Goodin and Dryzek (2006) argue that innovative engagement formats often influence the outcome of policy-making processes constructively. Particularly when addressing local challenges, utilizing local assets and local knowledge is considered essential. This directly relates to recent discussions on the impact of different forms of policy-making (Gastil et al. 2012; Willis et al. 2022). Secondly, participatory elements are anticipated to improve the efficiency of policy-making, primarily because fewer obstructions and delays are expected when political decisions are based on a broad societal consensus (O’Faircheallaigh 2010). Especially when facing unprecedented policy challenges, collaborative approaches might yield more timely solutions by drawing on the resources and knowledge of diverse actors (Janssen & Helbig 2018). This leads to the third intended effect of PPM, the increase of legitimacy of policies (Dryzek & Niemeyer 2008; Jäske 2019). In this sense, Jassner (2008: 421) argues: ‘Even if a policy is implemented and achieves its objectives in an efficient and effective fashion, the policy can fail in terms of legitimacy. Failure in policy legitimacy may subsequently compromise the long-term goals and interests of authoritative decision makers by eroding society’s acceptance of their legitimate claims to govern.’ Particularly in the context of societal transformation processes, transparent and inclusive policy-making is often seen as key for ensuring societal approval for major shifts in society’s goals, practices, norms, and governance approaches (Jansen 2003). In the face of long-term structural changes, such as the drastic societal transition occurring in coal regions or rapid digitalization, new governance practices are considered necessary to ensure inclusiveness and create ownership of transition, especially in countries with traditions of centralized governance structures (Loorbach 2016; Motos et al. 2021; Topaloglou & Ioannidis 2022). In this regard, the European Commission highlights that the transition processes governance should be established in a participatory manner to address the problems identified (European Commission 2020). The legitimizing function appears particularly crucial given growing political polarization and conflict surrounding transformative policy projects in different European countries. These conflicts have been manifested in pro-transformation movements, such as the climate camps and extinction rebellion, as well as anti-transformation movements, for example the Gilets jaunes movement or European farmer protests (Monnery & Wolff 2023; Nature Food 2024; Temper et al. 2020). When addressing highly contested topics, PPM carries the promise that political decisions are not imposed by remote bureaucrats but deliberated in transparent and inclusive processes (Hammond 2019; Willis et al. 2022).

2.2 Critique of PPM

Compared to the desirable effects of PPM, less is known about its potential unintended consequences. An unintended consequence can be defined as an effect of purposive social action which is different from the desired effect at the moment of carrying out the act, and the want of which was a reason for carrying it out (Merton 1936). We argue that the main unintended consequences of PPM mirror its three main intended consequences discussed previously, creating a three-dimensional space in which we can put the consequences of PPM in relation to the status quo in a given context (see Figure 1):

Figure 1: Key dimensions of the consequences of PPM for local policy-making (own depiction).

The first point of critique relates to the alleged ineffectiveness of many PPM processes. According to this critique, PPM processes tend to suffer from a lack of factual knowledge required to find appropriate solutions for complex political challenges. Consequently, results tend to be unrealistic, trivial, and ultimately often ignored by politicians (Cherry et al. 2021; Willis et al. 2022). Second, involving additional stakeholders is often considered to increase the complexity of political processes, potentially slowing down decision-making and creating inefficiencies (McVea & Freeman 2005). Particularly when political challenges are pressing and solutions must be found quickly, deliberative processes might delay a prompt policy response. New engagement methods are sometimes criticized for placing too much emphasis on the process itself rather than on achieving real outcomes. This can result in endless meetings and consultations without any concrete progress (Kujala et al. 2022). Since stakeholder engagement formats typically do not replace established democratic processes and structures, they require an additional investment. Financial expenditures for organizers typically include fees for venues, catering, professional moderators, and the like. Beyond these costs, considerable time investments are necessary for setting up and conducting participatory processes. For stakeholders themselves, PPM means requires a considerable effort. Many PPM formats necessitate repeated in-person attendance for extended periods, often during evenings or weekends, while financial incentives offered are typically symbolic than compensatory. The question then arises whether these efforts yield sufficient benefits for both organizers and participants.

A final point of critique suggests that PPM undermines the legitimacy of established democratic processes. According to this argument, PPM formats are vulnerable to influences from well-organized pressure groups with particular interests. Consequently, PPM instruments can be coopted by influential stakeholder groups or obstructed by actors pursuing their own agenda and interests (Davies 2007; Niessen 2019; Rietbergen-Mccracken 2011). While many PPM formats aim to ensure a robust democratic representation, for example through stratified sampling, and professional moderators are trained to make the voices of all participants be heard, there is no guarantee that processes will not be dominated by a few opinionated stakeholders (Young 2002). This risk is particularly pronounced when participatory instruments do not resonate with the local political culture. Policy-makers may engage with stakeholders who align with their interests while ignoring others. Such selective engagement can lead to accusations of bias and clientelism (Griffin et al. 2021).

If engagement processes lack transparency, with limited access to information or decision-making processes, stakeholders may question whether their input genuinely matter or merely used for ‘window-dressing’, effectively to justify predetermined decisions (Langer & König 2023; Nguyen Long et al. 2019; Quick 2021). When stakeholders perceive that policy-makers engage with them merely to fulfill a requirement or to appear socially responsible, without genuinely considering their input, this not only risks demotivating future stakeholder engagement, but can also undermine trust in democratic institutions and processes more generally. Finally, mechanisms in place to hold policy-makers accountable for the promises or commitments made during stakeholder engagement are often absent. If communication processes lack transparency or clarity, stakeholders may become disillusioned (Edwards & Fredriksson 2017).

Despite the extensive literature on the opportunities and challenges of new PPM, limited research has addressed the conditions for successful implementation of PPM in different political and cultural contexts. Empirical research predominantly takes the form of single case studies, while comparative analyses remain scarce (Geißel & Heß, 2018). Moreover, most research provides little guidance for practitioners regarding how to anticipate, assess and mitigate risks involved in PPM. This study aims to address this gap by exploring the introduction of similar participatory elements in local policy-making across highly diverse national and local settings, each addressing different societal challenges and transformation processes, while identifying general conditions that should be created before the introduction of PPM.

4.1 Case study 1 – Western Macedonia

The Region of Western Macedonia (RWM) is located in the northwest of Greece, with a population of approximately 260,000 habitants. For a long time, the local economy has been built around lignite-related activities (JDTP 2020). In accordance with the EU strategy towards energy transition, in year 2019, the Greek government committed to achieving climate neutrality by 2050 and announced its National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP), which includes a lignite phase-out by 2028. Obviously, reducing lignite mining and power generation has strong social and economic impacts for Western Macedonia. Zero-lignite production in 2028 is expected to bring decline of the regional GDP by 26% with an annual loss of revenue of €1.2 billion and a loss of 21,000 direct and indirect jobs (World Bank 2020).

4.2 Case study 2 – Sabadell

Sabadell is the 25th most populous city in Spain, and the 5th most populous city in the region of Catalonia, with a total population of 215,760 (2022). Due to its strategic geographic position in the industrial area of Vallès and its proximity to Barcelona, the city has a rich history as a vivid industrial hub. However, Sabadell is getting rapidly older. Today, 31% of citizens are in the age group of 65 years and older. Therefore, the municipality has identified Active Ageing as a key societal challenge (Ajuntament de Sabadell 2021).

4.3 Case study 3 – Thalwil

Thalwil is a prosperous suburb of Zürich, Switzerland’s commercial and financial center, with 18.400 inhabitants. Small enterprises in the service sector dominate Thalwil’s economy. In the context of Switzerland’s energy transition to net zero by 2050 and the Canton of Zürich’s even more ambitious goal of net zero by 2040, Thalwil is pushed to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear fuels imports which currently account for roughly 70% of the energy mix (Bundesamt für Energie 2022). Because in the Swiss federalist system, the municipality is responsible for many policies, including spatial planning, mobility planning, building regulations, energy planning, and waste management (the principle of subsidiarity), achieving net zero by 2040 creates significant challenges for local policy-making.

4.4 Case study 4 – Sofia

Sofia is the capital of Bulgaria and the country’s largest political, financial, and cultural center, with approximately 1.3 million inhabitants. Similar to many other major cities, Sofia is confronted with significant economic and social challenges in urban development. Municipal policies in recent years have focused on new urban transitions towards sustainability, particularly building on digital innovations in administration and entrepreneurship (European Commission 2019).

Legitimacy: Context-Dependent Success

Across all case studies, stakeholders generally welcomed participatory formats, viewing them as legitimate complements to established democratic processes. In settings undergoing transformative changes like Western Macedonia’s energy transition, the legitimizing function of PPM appeared particularly strong, supporting theoretical arguments regarding the importance of transparent and inclusive approaches during major transitions (Jansen 2003; Loorbach 2016). However, legitimacy challenges varied significantly by context. Issues of power imbalances, limited transparency, and mistrust of political intentions emerged across multiple cases, echoing critiques about PPM’s vulnerability to manipulation (Langer & König 2023; Quick 2021). A recurrent theme was the difficulty of ensuring inclusivity, as marginalized communities often faced barriers to participation, potentially leading to power asymmetries in participatory democracy (Gaventa & Cornwall 2008). An interesting finding not fully anticipated in the literature was the potential for PPM to actually decrease legitimacy when creating perceived inequalities in access to participation, as evidenced by negative reactions from excluded citizens in Thalwil. This suggests that poorly implemented participatory mechanisms risk undermining the very legitimacy they aim to enhance.

Effectiveness: Knowledge Integration versus Implementation Gaps

The effectiveness of PPM showed mixed results across our cases. While stakeholders often acknowledged the value of integrating diverse knowledge sources into decision-making, supporting arguments by Goodin and Dryzek (2006), perceived effectiveness varied significantly with what we may term stakeholder ‘readiness’ – their familiarity with and capacity for deliberation. The cases revealed clear patterns regarding stakeholder engagement: academics and civil society representatives consistently participated, while business representatives and certain citizen groups proved harder to engage. Implementation gaps emerged as a significant risk to effectiveness across contexts. Stakeholders frequently expressed concern about whether their input would ultimately influence policy decisions, echoing theoretical critiques about PPM potentially being ignored by decision-makers (Cherry et al. 2021; Willis et al. 2022).

Efficiency: Resource Demands and Process Management

Efficiency concerns were prominent across all cases. Stakeholders consistently noted the substantial time and resource requirements of participatory processes, supporting theoretical critiques about PPM potentially delaying decision-making and creating inefficiencies (McVea & Freeman 2005). Format design significantly affected efficiency perceptions, with overly complex or lengthy processes proving particularly problematic in contexts like Sabadell, where elderly participants struggled with extended engagement formats. Maintaining stakeholder engagement throughout multi-stage processes emerged as another efficiency challenge. This suggests that the resources required for effective PPM extend beyond initial investments to include ongoing efforts to sustain participation, potentially creating additional inefficiencies not fully captured in existing literature.

Cross-Cutting Contextual Conditions

Our analysis reveals that the success of PPM across all three dimensions – legitimacy, effectiveness, and efficiency – are fundamentally mediated by several key contextual factors that operate across the different case studies.

1. Political situation: The established participatory tradition in Switzerland contrasted sharply with emerging participation in Bulgaria and Greece or the weakly developed participatory culture in Spain, creating different baseline conditions for PPM implementation. These variations align with Healey’s (2006) argument that participatory governance must be understood within specific institutional contexts and historical trajectories. In contexts with strong traditions of direct democracy like Switzerland, PPM must demonstrate clear additionality to existing processes, while in contexts with emerging participatory cultures, basic capacity-building becomes a priority. As Ansell and Gash (2008) note, the starting conditions for collaborative governance significantly impact its trajectory and success. Further, also issue salience plays a role. For example, in Western Macedonia, where energy transition directly threatened livelihoods, stakeholder motivation to participate was high despite other barriers. In contrast, the more diffuse challenge of active aging in Sabadell generated less immediate engagement. This aligns with observations by Fung (2006) that problem complexity and salience significantly impact participation dynamics.

2. Trust and social capital: Limited trust among stakeholders and toward government intentions undermined PPM effectiveness and legitimacy in multiple contexts, particularly in Western Macedonia and Sofia. This supports Putnam’s (2000) argument that social capital – networks of trust and reciprocity – forms a critical foundation for effective civic engagement. In contexts where historical experiences have eroded trust between citizens and authorities, or among different stakeholder groups, PPM faces significant barriers regardless of methodological design.

3. Institutional commitment: The level of institutional backing influenced perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of participatory processes across our cases, confirming previous research (Font et al. 2016; Geißel and Heß 2018). In particular, promises and commitments made during stakeholder engagement should be followed through to maintain legitimacy. If an organization fails to act on the feedback and suggestions provided by stakeholders, it can damage the perceived legitimacy of the engagement process (Glynn et al. 2018).

4. Deliberative capacities: Stakeholder ability to engage effectively emerged as a key factor across all cases. In accordance with earlier research (e.g., Manes-Rossi et al. 2023), previous experiences with PPM were supportive during the implementation phase. This links to Dryzek’s (2009) concept of ‘deliberative capacity’ – the extent to which political systems possess structures that enable authentic, inclusive, and consequential deliberation. Our findings reveal significant variations in deliberative capacity both between contexts and among different stakeholder groups within the same context, even when formal access was provided, potentially causing ‘internal exclusions’ (Young 2002).

These contextual factors interact with each other and with the specific design choices of PPM instruments, making PPM doubtlessly a complex and also risky business. To improve the fit of new engagement forms within the specific local context, approaches that consider regional needs and realities appear essential (Rico Motos et al. 2021). To better anticipate and mitigate potential unintended consequences of PPM, we subsequently propose a set of guiding questions to be addressed prior to the introduction of participatory elements.