Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions - CATCHING THE DELIBERATIVE WAVE - OECD
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Innovative Citizen Participation and
New Democratic Institutions
CATCHING THE DELIBERATIVE WAVE
HIGHLIGHTS
2020
HIGHLIGHTS
Catching the Deliberative Wavee
OECD WORK ON OPEN GOVERNMENT
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS HIGHLIGHTS?
The OECD has been at the forefront of evidence-based analysis of open government reforms in This highlights document covers the main findings and proposals from the Innovative Citizen
member and non-member countries. The OECD Open Government Project provides countries Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave report.
with a sequence of analysis and actionable support. This includes:
Public authorities from all levels of government increasingly turn to Citizens' Assemblies, Juries,
• Open Government Reviews Panels and other representative deliberative processes to tackle complex policy problems
• Capacity building seminars for public officials and civil society ranging from climate change to infrastructure investment decisions. They convene groups
• Regional networks to exchange common challenges and good practices of people representing a wide cross-section of society for at least one full day – and often
much longer – to learn, deliberate, and develop collective recommendations that consider the
complexities and compromises required for solving multifaceted public issues. This "deliberative
THE OECD RECOMMENDATION ON OPEN GOVERNMENT wave" has been building since the 1980s, gaining momentum since around 2010.
Based on the analysis of close to 300 representative deliberative practices, the report explores
The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government was adopted in 2017 trends in such processes, identifies different models, and analyses the trade-offs among
and represents the first international legal instrument in this area. In it, open government is different design choices as well as the benefits and limits of public deliberation. It includes
defined as “a culture of governance that promotes the principles of transparency, integrity, Good Practice Principles for Deliberative Processes for Public Decision Making, based on
accountability and stakeholder participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth”. comparative empirical evidence gathered by the OECD and in collaboration with leading
Moreover, the Recommendation provides a comprehensive overview of the main tenets of practitioners from government, civil society, and academics. Finally, the report explores the
the open government strategies and initiatives by setting 10 provisions to guide Adherents to reasons and routes for embedding deliberative activities into public institutions to give citizens
improve their implementation.
a more permanent and meaningful role in shaping the policies affecting their lives.
OECD WORK ON INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION TABLE OF CONTENTS
This area of work supports countries in the implementation of Provision 9 of the OECD
Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017), which focuses on exploring 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................2
innovative ways to effectively engage with stakeholders to source ideas, co-create solutions,
and seize opportunities provided by digital government tools. It focuses on new research in 2. Good practice principles for deliberative processes for
the area of innovative citizen participation practices to analyse the new forms of deliberative, public decision making......................................................................................................................................8
collaborative, and participatory decision making that are evolving across the globe.
3. Different models of representative deliberative
As part of this work, the OECD has been engaging with the Innovative Citizen Participation processes................................................................................................................................................................12
Network, a network of practitioners, designers, academics, researchers, civil servants, and
4. Overview of key trends...................................................................................................................................18
curators to frame the topic and scope of research, to gather feedback and inputs to the
research in an ongoing manner, and to strengthen the ties between these important groups of 5. What is a successful representative deliberative
actors. process?..................................................................................................................................................................24
Participo is a digital digest co-ordinated by the OECD Innovative Citizen Participation team. 6. Reimagining democratic institutions: why and how to
It is a space of exchange between public servants, practitioners, researchers, academics, and embed public deliberation............................................................................................................................34
designers about the future of democracy more broadly.
7. Proposals for action.........................................................................................................................................40
Check it out at medium.com/participo
Join the conversation on Twitter! #delibWave
Consult the complete report:
1
OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS INTRODUCTION
HIGHLIGHTS
1 T
he increasing complexity of policy of principles is rooted in ancient Athenian
INTRODUCTION
making and the failure to find solutions democracy and were applied throughout
to some of the most pressing policy history until two to three centuries ago. It
problems have prompted politicians, is their modern application, to complement
policy makers, civil society organisations, and representative democratic institutions, that
citizens to reflect on how collective public make such processes innovative today.
decisions should be taken in the twenty-
first century. There is a need for new ways As the use of representative deliberative
to find common ground and take action. processes proliferates, this report provides
This is particularly true for issues that evidence to guide policy makers on good
KEY TERMS are values-based, require trade-offs, and practices and options for institutionalising
demand long-term solutions. The OECD has citizen deliberation. It is the first empirical
collected evidence and data that support comparative study that analyses how
the idea that citizen participation in public deliberative processes are being used for public
THREE CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION decision making can deliver better policies,
strengthen democracy and build trust. This
decision making around the world. Drawing
on data collected from 289 case studies (282
IN STUDY report focuses on representative deliberative
processes in particular, as part of a wider effort
from OECD countries) from 1986 to October
2019, and in collaboration with an international
by democratic institutions to become more advisory group, the OECD has identified twelve
participatory and open to informed citizen distinct models of deliberative processes,
input and collective intelligence. evaluated what a ‘successful’ process entails,
WHY REPRESENTATIVENESS AND developed good practice principles, and
Assembling ordinary citizens from all parts explored three routes to institutionalising
DELIBERATION? of society to deliberate on complex political citizen deliberation. This research and proposals
questions and develop collective proposals has for action fit within the organisation’s work on
become increasingly attractive in this context. innovative citizen participation, which seeks
Over the past few decades, the ‘deliberative to guide countries on the implementation
WHEN TO USE REPRESENTATIVE wave’ has been building. Public authorities
at all levels of government have been using
of provisions 8 and 9 of the 2017 OECD
Recommendation on Open Government.
DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES Citizens’ Assemblies, Juries, Panels, and other
representative deliberative processes. In Growing efforts to embed public deliberation
these processes, randomly selected citizens, into public decision making could be seen
making up a microcosm of a community, spend as the start of a period of transformation
significant time learning and collaborating to adapt the architecture of representative
through facilitated deliberation to develop democracy. Democratic institutions across
informed collective recommendations for public the world are beginning to transform in ways
authorities. that give citizens a more direct role in setting
agendas and shaping the public decisions that
In many ways, combining the principles of affect them. Based on extensive data and
deliberation (careful and open discussion analysis, this OECD report contributes to the
to weigh evidence about an issue), emerging international evidence base about
representativeness (achieved through random these trends and helps public authorities
sampling from which a representative selection implement good practices and consider routes
is made), and impact (with a link to public to institutionalising citizen deliberation.
decision making) is not new. This combination
2 3
OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS INTRODUCTION
HIGHLIGHTS
KEY TERMS TABLE 1. KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DELIBERATIVE AND PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
Number of participants Type of participation Participant selection method
In this report, representative which emphasises the need to find Relatively small (but Deliberation, which Typically, a civic lottery,
Deliberative
deliberative processes are often common ground. representative) groups of requires that participants which combines random
democracy
referred to in shorthand as deliberative people, as it is difficult to are well-informed about selection with stratification,
processes, and the term is used Random selection is used as a have deep deliberation a topic and consider to assemble a public body
interchangeably with deliberative shorthand to refer to recruitment among large numbers. different perspectives in that is representative of the
mini-public. It refers to a randomly processes that involve random sampling order to arrive at a public public; able to consider
selected group of people who are from which a representative selection is judgement (not opinion) perspectives, and not
about “what can we vulnerable to being stacked
broadly representative of a community made to ensure that the group broadly
strongly agree on?” by representatives of
spending significant time learning matches the demographic profile of the
powerful interest groups.
and collaborating through facilitated community (based on census or other
deliberation to form collective similar data). More participation, in all
Participatory Large numbers of people, Self-selected participation
recommendations for policy makers. ideally everyone affected aspects of politics, from
democracy in order to enable as many
Finally, the report makes frequent by a particular decision. all citizens who choose to people as possible to share
Deliberative institutions refer to references to citizens. The term is meant The aim is to achieve be involved; an embrace the experience.
forms of citizen deliberation that have in the larger sense of ‘an inhabitant breadth. and encouragement of a
been embedded in public decision- of a particular place’, which can be diversity of opportunities
making procedures through legal in reference to a village, town, city, for political engagement.
mechanisms. region, state, or country depending on
the context. When the word citizen is Source: Table is author’s own creation, based on descriptions in Carson and Elstub (2019).
Deliberation refers to public employed, it is not meant in the more
deliberation (as opposed to internal restrictive sense of ‘a legally recognised
deliberation) and to group deliberation national of a state’, and is thus used
(as opposed to individual deliberation), interchangeably with ‘people’. THREE CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN THE STUDY
In analysing the evidence collected on deliberative processes across countries, three core defining
features were revealed as being of key importance, a fact also reflected in the work of a number of
DELIBERATIVE AND PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY scholars in the field. These were thus the three criteria required to be included in this study:
1. Deliberation, which involves weighing carefully different options, access to accurate and relevant
• Deliberative democracy is the wider political theory that claims that political and diverse information, and participants finding common ground to reach a group decision;
decisions should be a result of fair and reasonable discussion among citizens.
Gastil and Levine’s Deliberative Democracy Handbook (2005) argues that 2. Representativeness, achieved through random sampling from which a representative selection
“deliberative democracy strengthens citizen voices in governance by is made to ensure the group broadly matches the demographic profile of the community against
including people of all races, classes, ages and geographies in deliberations census or other similar data, and
that directly affect public decisions”. The theory gained traction in academic
3. Impact, meaning decision makers agree to respond to and act on recommendations.
literature in the 1980s (e.g. Mansbridge, 1980; Habermas, 1981).
• Participatory democracy has a slightly longer history, gaining ground with
the activist movements of the 1960s that demanded greater participation in
government decision making (e.g. civil rights, women’s liberation movements,
see Pateman, 1970). A central tenet to later work on participatory democracy
is that it must increase the capacities of citizens to participate, which
necessitates reform of democratic institutions to make participation more
meaningful (Pateman, 2012).
G1000 Amersfoort, 9 April, 2016.
4 5
OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHT INTRODUCTION
HIGHLIGHTS
WHY REPRESENTATIVENESS AND DELIBERATION?
7
1 2 Help counteract polarisation and disinformation. Empirical research has shown
that “communicative echo chambers that intensify cultural cognition, identity
reaffirmation, and polarisation do not operate in deliberative conditions, even in
Greater legitimacy to make hard groups of like-minded partisans” (Dryzek et al, 2019; see Grönlund et al., 2015). There
Better policy outcomes because choices. These processes help policy is also evidence to suggest that deliberation can be an effective way to overcome
deliberation results in considered makers to better understand policy ethnic, religious, or ideological divisions between groups that have historically found
public judgements rather than public priorities, the values and reasons behind their identity in rejecting that of the other (Ugarizza et al., 2014).
opinions. These processes create them, to identify where consensus is and
the spaces for learning, deliberation is not feasible, and to overcome political
and the development of informed deadlock.
recommendations, which are of
greater use to policy and decision
WHEN AND WHEN NOT TO USE REPRESENTATIVE
DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES
4
makers.
Drawing on the evidence collected and existing scholarship, deliberative processes have been shown to
work well for the following types of problems:
3 Signal civic respect and
Values-driven dilemmas
Complex problems that require trade-offs
empower citizens. Engaging Many public policy questions are values-
Enhance public trust in government and citizens in active deliberation driven. Representative deliberative
democratic institutions by giving citizens can also strengthen their processes are designed in a way that Representative deliberative processes are
an effective role in public decision making. sense of political efficacy encourages active listening, critical designed to provide participants with time to
People are more likely to trust a decision (the belief that one can thinking, and respect between learn, reflect, and deliberate, as well as access
participants. They create an environment to a wide range of evidence and expertise
that has been influenced by ordinary people understand and influence
in which discussing difficult ethical from officials, academics, think tanks, advocacy
than one made solely by government or political affairs) by not
questions that have no evident or ‘right’ groups, businesses and other stakeholders.
behind closed doors. Trust also works two treating them as objects of solutions can happen in a civil way, and These design characteristics enable citizens to
ways. For governments to engender trust legislation and administration can enable participants to find common grapple with the complexity of decision making
among the public, they must in turn trust (see Knobloch et al., 2019). ground. and to consider problems within their legal,
the public to be more directly involved in regulatory and/or budgetary constraints.
decision making.
Long-term issues that go beyond the
6
short-term incentives of electoral cycles
5 Strengthen integrity and prevent corruption
Many public policy issues are difficult decisions to take, as their benefits are often only reaped in the
long term, while the costs are incurred in the short term. Deliberative processes help to justify action
and spending on such issues, as they are designed in a way that removes the motivated interests of
political parties and elections, incentivising participants to act in the interests of the public good.
Make governance more inclusive by ensuring that groups and individuals
by opening the door to a much with money and power cannot have undue
more diverse group of people. influence on a public decision. Key principles However, deliberative processes are not a panacea; they do not address all of the democratic and
With their use of random selection of deliberative good practice are that the governance problems outlined in this introduction. Democratic societies face a wide set of challenges,
and stratified sampling, they bring process is transparent, visible, and provides which require different methods of resolution or participation. For example, deliberative processes are
in typically excluded categories like an opportunity for all stakeholders to present not sufficient to address the problems of political inclusion and collective decision making. The former
youth, the disadvantaged, women, or to the participants. Participants’ identities are is better satisfied through political equality in the form of universal suffrage, and voting is useful for
other minorities into public policy and often protected until after the process is over broader participation in decision making (though often suffers from voters having low information).
Nor are deliberative processes well-suited for urgent decisions, problems in the late stages of decision
decision making. to protect them from being targeted by interest
making where possible solutions are limited, for issues that involve national security, or for resolving
groups.
binary questions. Democratic governance requires the use of different mechanisms for different
purposes to take advantage of their strengths and weaknesses.
6 7
OECD
OECD :: INNOVATIVE
INNOVATIVE CITIZEN
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
PARTICIPATION AND
AND NEW
NEW DEMOCRATIC
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS -- HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTS GOOD PRACTICE PRINCIPLES FOR DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES FOR PUBLIC DECISION MAKING
HIGHLIGHTS
2 GOOD PRACTICE T
he OECD has drawn the common principles and good practices, identified in the evidence
gathered for this report, together into a set of Good Practice Principles for Deliberative
Processes for Public Decision Making. These principles could provide policy makers with
PRINCIPLES
useful guidance as to the establishment of deliberative processes and the implementation of
provisions 8 and 9 of the Recommendation on Open Government.
In addition to the comparative empirical evidence gathered by the OECD and from which they
FOR DELIBERATIVE were drawn, the principles also benefitted from collaboration with international practitioners from
government, civil society, and academics: Yago Bermejo Abati; Damian Carmichael; Nicole Curato;
Linn Davis; Yves Dejaeghere; Marcin Gerwin; Angela Jain; Dimitri Lemaire; Miriam Levin; Peter
PROCESSES MacLeod; Malcolm Oswald; Anna Renkamp; Min Reuchamps; and Iain Walker.
FOR PUBLIC 2
DECISION MAKING 1 ACCOUNTABILITY
There should be influence on public
PURPOSE
decisions. The commissioning public
authority should publicly commit to
The objective should be responding to or acting on participants’
outlined as a clear task and recommendations in a timely manner.
is linked to a defined public
problem. It is phrased neutrally It should monitor the implementation of
as a question in plain language. all accepted recommendations with regular
public progress reports.
3
TRANSPARENCY
The deliberative process should be announced publicly
before it begins. The process design and all materials
– including agendas, briefing documents, evidence
submissions, audio and video recordings of those presenting
evidence, the participants’ report, their recommendations
(the wording of which participants should have a final say
over), and the random selection methodology – should be
available to the public in a timely manner.
The funding source should be disclosed. The commissioning
public authority’s response to the recommendations and the
evaluation after the process should be publicised and have a
public communication strategy.
88 9
OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS GOOD PRACTICE PRNICIPLES FOR DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES FOR PUBLIC DECISION MAKING
HIGHLIGHTS
4 8
INCLUSIVENESS TIME
Inclusion should be achieved by considering Deliberation requires adequate time for participants to learn, weigh the evidence,
how to involve under-represented groups. and develop informed recommendations, due to the complexity of most policy
Participation should also be encouraged and problems. To achieve informed citizen recommendations, participants should meet
supported through remuneration, expenses, for at least four full days in person, unless a shorter time frame can be justified.
and/or providing or paying for childcare and It is recommended to allow time for individual learning and reflection in between
eldercare. meetings.
5
10
REPRESENTATIVENESS
The participants should be a microcosm of the general public. This is achieved through
9 PRIVACY
random sampling from which a representative selection is made, based on stratification
by demographics (to ensure the group broadly matches the demographic profile of
INTEGRITY There should be respect for
the community against census or other similar data), and sometimes by attitudinal participants’ privacy to protect them
criteria (depending on the context). Everyone should have an equal opportunity to The process should be run by an arm's from undesired media attention and
be selected as participants. In some instances, it may be desirable to over-sample length co-ordinating team different harassment, as well as to preserve
certain demographics during the random sampling stage of recruitment to help achieve from the commissioning public participants’ independence,
representativeness. authority. The final call regarding ensuring they are not bribed or
process decisions should be with the lobbied by interest groups or
arm's length co-ordinators rather activists. Small group discussions
than the commissioning authorities. should be private. The identity
7
Depending on the context, there of participants may be publicised
should be oversight by an advisory or when the process has ended,
monitoring board with representatives at the participants’ consent. All
6
of different viewpoints. personal data of participants should
be treated in compliance with
international good practices, such as
GROUP DELIBERATION
the European Union’s General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR).
INFORMATION
Participants should be able to find
common ground to underpin their
Participants should have access to a collective recommendations to the EVALUATION
wide range of accurate, relevant, and public authority.
accessible evidence and expertise. There should be an anonymous evaluation by the participants to
11
This entails careful and active assess the process based on objective criteria (e.g. on quantity and
They should have the opportunity to listening, weighing and considering diversity of information provided, amount of time devoted to learning,
hear from and question speakers that multiple perspectives, every independence of facilitation). An internal evaluation by the co-ordination
present to them, including experts participant having an opportunity team should be conducted against the good practice principles in
and advocates chosen by the citizens to speak, a mix of formats that this report to assess what has been achieved and how to improve
themselves. alternate between small group and future practice. An independent evaluation is recommended for some
plenary discussions and activities, deliberative processes, particularly those that last a significant time. The
and skilled facilitation. deliberative process should also be evaluated on final outcomes and
impact of implemented recommendations.
10 11
OECD :: INNOVATIVE
OECD INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
PARTICIPATION AND NEW
NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS DIFFERENT MODELS OF REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES
OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND
AND NEW DEMOCRATIC
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS -- HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTS
3 DIFFERENT MODELS
O
ver the years, due to the combined The models can be characterised by four types
efforts of policy makers, academics
of purpose:
and civil society, numerous models
OF REPRESENTATIVE of representative deliberative
processes have been developed, tested, and
implemented across the world. Drawing on
1. Informed citizen recommendations on
policy questions: These processes require
DELIBERATIVE the new empirical research collected and more time (on average a minimum of four
broader theoretical research on deliberative days, and often longer) to allow citizens
models, the OECD has identified 12 models of adequate time and resources to develop
PROCESSES
representative deliberative processes grouped considered and detailed collective
by four types of purpose. recommendations. They are particularly
useful for complex policy problems that
These models refer to categories of different involve many trade-offs, or where there is
types of representative deliberative processes entrenched political deadlock on an issue.
based on their distinct properties and
characteristics. The models are: Citizens' 2. Citizen opinion on policy questions:
Assembly; Citizens' Jury/Panel; Consensus These processes require less time
EXAMPLE: CITIZENS' JURY/PANEL Conference; Planning Cell; G1000; Citizens' than those in the first category,
Council; Citizens' Dialogue; Deliberative though still respect the principles of
Poll/Survey; World Wide Views; Citizens' representativeness and deliberation,
Initiative Review; the Ostbelgien Model; to provide decision makers with more
and the City Observatory. considered citizen opinions on a policy
CHOOSING A MODEL OF Overall, the choice of deliberative models
issue. Due to the time constraints, their
results are less detailed than those of the
DELIBERATIVE ENGAGEMENT has so far depended on the familiarity with
the model and experience using it, leading
processes designed for informed citizen
recommendations.
to preferences in different countries for
specific models. However, their widespread 3. Informed citizen evaluation of ballot
use signals their universality and potential measures: This process allows for a
applicability in different national and local representative group of citizens to
contexts. identify the pro and con arguments
for both sides of a ballot issue to be
The deliberative models presented here are distributed to voters ahead of the vote.
not necessarily exhaustive. Each model shares
the essential phases of quality representative 4. Permanent representative deliberative
deliberative processes: learning, deliberation, bodies: These new institutional
and the development of collective arrangements allow for representative
recommendations. This highlights document citizen deliberation to inform public
provides an overview of the different models; decision making on an ongoing basis.
full details are available in the accompanying
report.
G1000 Amersfoort, 9 April, 2016.
12 13
OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS DIFFERENT MODELS OF REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES
HIGHLIGHTS
EXAMPLE: CITIZENS' JURY/PANEL
FIGURE 1. MODELS OF REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES
To illustrate the workings of a representative Processes that have taken place
Average Average Average Number of Use by Result Policy questions
number of length of length from times used to countries addressed to date
deliberative process, the Citizens’ Jury/Panel over consecutive days
model is described here, given it is the most
participants meetings first to last date
per panel meeting process
popular model. All other models are detailed in
(panels) the full report. The Citizens' Jury was developed in the United
States by Ned Crosby and the Jefferson Center
Informed citizen recommendations on policy questions Used at all levels of government, Citizens’ in 1971. The initial design and method follow
Juries and Panels have been initiated to address a rigid model and cause some confusion as
Detailed, Electoral reforms,
Citizens' Assembly 90 18.8 days 47 weeks 6 (6) CAN, IRL collective institutional setup, a broad range of policy questions, the most many processes labelled as Citizens' Juries in
recommendations constitutional questions common ones being infrastructure, health, urban other countries do not follow the same strict
planning, environment, and public services. Most design criteria of the initial model. Distinctive
Citizens' Jury/Panel 34 4.1 days 5 weeks 115 (168)
Broad range of topics. Most of them have been ad hoc, but there is also one characteristics of these Citizens' Juries are that
AUT, AUS, common: infrastructure,
a) consecutive day 30 3.4 days 0 weeks 23 (40) BEL, CAN, health, urban planning, institutionalised model of an ongoing Panel. they are usually smaller than the average –
meetings FRA, POL, Collective environment between 12 to 24 people – and they typically
ESP, GBR, recommendations
b) non-consecutive day 35 4.1 days 7 weeks 90 (126) USA Ongoing processes Citizens’ Juries and Panels follow the same run three to six days consecutively (Jefferson
mandated to provide input learning, deliberation, and decision-making phases Center). While this approach was developed in
meetings on various questions when
public authority is in need as Citizens’ Assemblies, but more concisely. They the United States (US), it has been replicated
c) ongoing 32 11 days 2 years 2 (2) CAN
are, to date, the most adapted of representative in other places, including examples in Australia,
AUS, AUT,
Consensus Conference
Collective New technology, deliberative models, and three main sub- Canada, Denmark, France, Korea, Spain, and the
16 4.0 days 2 weeks 19 (19) DNK, FRA, recommendations environment, health categories have emerged over time: UK.
NOR, GBR
Collective position Most common use for
Planning Cell 24 3.2 days 0 weeks 57 (247) DEU, JAP report/citizens urban planning, but also
report
1. processes that have taken place over
other topics
consecutive days;
Citizen opinion on policy questions
2. processes where meeting days are spread out
Strategic planning: over numerous weeks, and
G1000 346 1.7 days 4 weeks 12 (12) NLD, ESP Votes on proposals developing a future vision 3. ongoing panels over much longer periods of
for the city
time (e.g. two years).
Various topics, most
Collective
Citizens' Council 15 1.7 days 1 week 14 (24) AUT, DEU common: environment,
recommendations
strategic planning
Broad ideas/ Various topics, often several
Citizens' Dialogues 148 2.1 days 4 weeks 38 (112) Globally
recommendations addressed at once FIGURE 2. CITIZENS’ JURY/PANEL MODEL
ARG, ITA,
Survey opinions
0 weeks 14 (15) JAP, USA,
Deliberative Poll/Survey 226 1.6 days and opinion Various topics
KOR, MNG, Face-to-face meetings for 4.1 days over 5 weeks
changes
CHN, BRA (on average)
Environment issues on a
World Wide Views 120 1 day 0 weeks 4 (150) Globally Votes on proposals For ongoing processes: face-to-face meetings for
global scale
11 days over 2 years
Informed citizen evaluation of ballot measures
Collective Learning Consultation Deliberation Decision
Citizens' Initiative Review 22 4.4 days 0 weeks 8 (8) USA statement of key Various topics stage stage stage making stage
Random selection
facts
of 34 citizens on Collective
→
Permanent deliberative bodies
→
average • Introductory • Stakeholder • Discussing • Agreeing on
readings hearings evidence the final set Local/regional/
Mandate to set the • Learning • Hearings of • Assessing of recom-
24 No data Collective agenda and initiate options mendtions Recommen- national government
The Ostbelgien Model 1.5 years 1 (1) BEL sessions the public
yet recommendations • Impartial dations
citizens’ panels
facilitators
Mandate to evaluate
City Observatory Decisions on citizen proposals and
49 8 days 1 year 1 (1) ESP
citizen proposals suggest them for referenda
Various methods of citizen
engagement (surveys, public
Note: All calculations for this table have been made by the authors on the basis of the data from the 289 cases, which together feature 763 separate deliberative consultations, roundtables)
panels, collected for this study, from OECD Member and non-Member countries. The average length from first to last meeting of the Planning Cell is an exception
due to lack of data. In this instance, Nexus Institute, the principal organisation implementing Planning Cells in Germany, was consulted. The overall average length
of meetings of Citizens' Jury/Panel is calculated not including the ongoing processes. Source: Author's own creation based on data in the OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
14 15OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS DIFFERENT MODELS OF REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES
HIGHLIGHTS
Processes where meeting days are Ongoing panels over much longer At the local and regional levels, a G1000 Other important considerations include
or a Citizens’ Council can be reasonable available time and resources, level of
spread out over numerous weeks periods of time (e.g. two years)
options for residents to develop a collective government, and policy area. For example,
vision for a municipality and to address less the Consensus Conference model is helpful
In contrast, similar processes called Reference Finally, the third sub-category of Citizens’ Juries/ complex community problems, as they are to assess technological advancements, as the
Panels in Canada, pioneered by MASS LBP, evolved Panels refers to an ongoing representative
more open-ended and flexible formats. On format allows citizens to question scientists
from the experience of the Citizens' Assemblies deliberative body for a longer period and on
the other hand, if decision makers desire and policy makers extensively to get to the core
in British Columbia and Ontario in the late 2000s. multiple issues related to one policy area. As
of early 2020, it has been used only in Canada specific, informed recommendations for a of an issue. Figure 3 provides further indications
During this same period (and without awareness
of one another at the time), the newDemocracy and run by MASS LBP, with many of the same pressing policy problem, then they need to on the properties of each model based on their
Foundation in Australia was separately developing characteristics of a Reference Panel in terms of clearly define the task for participants. use to date.
a similar deliberative model to MASS LBP's, calling average number of participants (around 30),
its processes Citizens' Juries. selection through a civic lottery, an in-depth
learning phase, deliberation moderated by
The Canadian and Australian Reference Panels skilled facilitators, and ultimately the provision
and Citizens' Juries tend to involve larger of informed inputs to policy makers. FIGURE 3. PROPERTIES OF REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE MODELS
groups of participants (usually around 36 to
45) and the meetings are spread out over An example is the Toronto Planning Review
numerous weekends, based on the view that Panel (TPRP) 2015-2017 and 2017-2019. The
this is crucial for the learning process and for remit of the TPRP is to provide informed inputs Complexity Depth of Flexibility Resources Length of the Level of So far used as
quality deliberation. They also began the trend on a regular basis on planning issues to the of the policy recommen- given to necessary process government for permanent or
of a new and rigorous two-stage method for City’s Chief Planner and Planning Division. At the question dations participants which used so far ad hoc
random selection, called a "civic lottery", which time of writing in early 2020, a similar panel is
National/Federal
Regional/State
participant-led
operating on transportation issues in the Greater
Rigid format
is now widely used.
International
Permanent
Detailed ,
Toronto and Hamilton Area, commissioned
extensive
High-cost
Complex
Low-cost
Ad hoc
Flexible,
Simple
by Metrolinx, the regional public transport
Broad
Local
Short
Long
In the UK, there was a peak in the use of
Citizens' Juries (similar to the Jefferson Center's authority.
approach), in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Since Informed citizen recommendations on policy questions
the late 2010s, the term Citizens' Assembly
has been used to describe many of the most Citizens' Assembly ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
recent processes that are in fact more similar to ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Citizens' Jury/Panel
Citizens' Juries and Reference Panels.
Consensus Conference ✔ ✔
In Poland, Citizens' Panels ("panel obywatelski") Planning Cell ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
are closely aligned to the practices in Canada
and Australia, although they tend to be slightly Citizen opinion on policy questions
larger (around 60 participants).
G1000
✔ ✔
Citizens' Council ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
CHOOSING A MODEL OF DELIBERATIVE ENGAGEMENT Citizens' Dialogues ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Deliberative Poll/Survey ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
The most appropriate deliberative model Citizens’ Juries/Panels are focused processes World Wide Views ✔ ✔
depends primarily on the policy problem. to advise on a specific policy issue, typically at
Informed citizen evaluation of ballot measures
The more complex the question is and the sub-national level although they have also been
wider its implications, the more detailed used nationally/federally. As shorter, usually Citizens' Initiative Review ✔ ✔ ✔
recommendations are required and hence the four-to-six day processes gathering 35-50
Permanent deliberative bodies
more elaborate deliberative process is applicable. randomly selected citizens, they are long enough
For example, Citizens’ Assemblies are well-suited for citizens to develop detailed, informed The Ostbelgien Model ongoing ✔ ✔
to address constitutional questions and issues recommendations to address specific policy City Observatory ongoing ✔ ✔
of national or greater importance, as this model issues, but require less time and less resources
allows for extensive learning about the policy than Citizens’ Assemblies. They can thus be used Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
issue and in-depth careful deliberation. more often and yield quicker results.
16 17OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS
OECD :: INNOVATIVE
OECD INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
PARTICIPATION AND NEW
NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS
OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND
AND NEW DEMOCRATIC
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS -- HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTS OVERVIEW OF KEY TRENDS
HIGHLIGHTS
4 OVERVIEW OF KEY REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES ARE LARGELY
TAKING PLACE IN OECD COUNTRIES
TRENDS
T
he cases that the OECD has collected in this report are from
REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES the countries in Figure 4. This figure is not a ranking, nor is
it representative of all the cases in a country. It is a graphic
ARE LARGELY TAKING PLACE IN OECD representation of the number of cases that the OECD has
COUNTRIES collected. The countries with the largest number of cases are also
those in which a number of the deliberative models were initiated:
the Planning Cell originates in Germany, the Citizens’ Assembly in
Canada, and the Consensus Conference in Denmark.
THE DELIBERATIVE WAVE HAS BEEN
BUILDING OVER TIME
FIGURE 4. NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES PER COUNTRY, 1986-2019
REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE
PROCESSES HAVE BEEN USED AT ALL Norway
Italy
1
1
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT Estonia
Ireland
1
2
Poland 4
Belgium 4
Korea 5
THE CITIZENS' JURY/PANEL IS THE MOST EU/Global
Spain
8
9
OFTEN USED MODEL France
Netherlands
12
13
Japan 13
UK 15
REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE
OECD 15
Austria 16
PROCESSES HAVE BEEN
United States 17
Denmark 25
COMMISSIONED FOR A WIDE Canada
Australia
40
48
RANGE OF POLICY ISSUES Germany 48
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Note: n=282. Data for OECD countries is based on 18 OECD countries that were members in 2019 plus the European Union
Source: OECD Database of Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
18
18 19OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS OVERVIEW OF KEY TRENDS
HIGHLIGHTS
THE DELIBERATIVE WAVE HAS BEEN BUILDING OVER TIME FIGURE 6. REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES HAVE BEEN USED MOST OFTEN LOCALLY,
THOUGH EXAMPLES EXIST AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
Since 2010, there has been a notable trend Conferences in Denmark. Since 2011, the Representative deliberative processes at all levels of government, 1986-2019
for public authorities to increasingly use number of deliberative processes has been International 3%
representative deliberative processes for steadily increasing. Between 2011 and 2019,
public decision making. A first wave of interest there have been 177 deliberative processes in
took place between 1996 and 2000 and was total with an average of 25 processes per year
National/Federal
characterised by high number of Planning Cells in the period of 2016-2019 15%
in Germany, as well as a peak in Consensus (Figure 5).
Local
52%
Regional/State
30%
FIGURE 5. THE DELIBERATIVE WAVE HAS BEEN BUILDING OVER TIME
Number of representative deliberative processes per year, 1986 – October 2019
30 Note: n=282; Data for OECD countries is based on 18 OECD countries that were members in 2019 plus the European Union.
28 Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
26
25 24
THE CITIZENS' JURY/PANEL IS THE MOST OFTEN USED
MODEL OF DELIBERATIVE PROCESS
20
20 19
18
15
15
14
The Citizens’ Jury/Citizens’ Panel is the most such as the Citizens’ Assembly (six times) and
13 13
widely used model of representative deliberative international processes that require extensive
process to date (used 115 times, 42% of all co-ordination efforts such as World Wide Views
10 9
8 cases). Other shorter processes such as the (four times) have been employed less frequently.
6 6 6 6 6 Planning Cell (57 times), Citizens’ Dialogues (38 New, innovative, institutionalised deliberative
5 5 5 5 5
5 4 4 times), Consensus Conferences (19 times), and processes that have only started emerging
3
2 2 Citizens’ Councils (14 times) have also been used recently – such as the Ostbelgien model and
1 1 1 1 1
0 0 quite extensively. Longer, more complex models Madrid City Observatory – took place only once.
0
Note: n=282; Data for OECD countries is based on 18 OECD countries that were members in 2019 plus the European Union. Processes that
FIGURE 7. THE CITIZENS’ JURY/PANEL HAS BEEN USED MOST OFTEN BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
spanned over multiple years are noted by the year of their completion (except for permanent ongoing processes). FOR PUBLIC DECISION MAKING
Source: OECD Database of Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
Total number of times each deliberative model has been used for public decision making, 1986-2019
125
115
100
REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES HAVE BEEN
USED AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT 75
57
50
Representative deliberative processes have been federal level (Figure 6). Three per cent have 38
carried out at all levels of government, and have been international processes initiated by
25
been most popular on the local level (52% of international organisations or supranational 19
14
12
cases). Thirty per cent have been commissioned bodies, spanning either across multiple 8 7 6
4
1 1
by regional or state public authorities and countries globally or across various EU member 0
15% have been carried out on a national or states.
20 Note: n=282; Data for OECD countries is based on 18 OECD countries that were members in 2019 plus the European Union.
Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS OVERVIEW OF KEY TRENDS
HIGHLIGHTS
FIGURE 8. REGIONAL TRENDS OF DIFFERENT DELIBERATIVE MODELS
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVE COMMISSIONED
REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES
FOR A WIDE RANGE OF POLICY ISSUES
The range of policy issues addressed using representative deliberative processes
has been wide and increasing (Figure 10). The issues that are embarked upon most
often are those that have a direct impact on citizens’ everyday lives and those
to which citizens can easily contribute their personal opinions and experiences:
urban planning and health. Local and regional/state level representative
deliberative processes are commonly concerned with urban and strategic planning,
infrastructure, and health questions. National and international ones are most
often about environment and technology policy issues.
FIGURE 10. REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES HAVE BEEN USED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
Note: The colour indicates the dominant deliberative model; the number indicates the total of representative deliberative processes in a MOST OFTEN FOR ADDRESSING ISSUES THAT HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON A COMMUNITY’S LIFE,
country. The map excludes international processes that took place in more than one country.*
Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
SUCH AS PLANNING, HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Number of times a policy issue has been addressed through a representative deliberative process
Urban planning 43
Health 32
FIGURE 9. REGIONAL TRENDS OF DIFFERENT DELIBERATIVE MODELS: EUROPE Environment 29
Strategic planning 26
Infrastructure 26
Other 24
Public services 16
Technology 12
Various 12
Energy 9
Public spending 9
Transportation 9
Institutional set-up 8
Citizen engagement 6
Electoral reform 5
Gender equality 3
Legislative reform 3
Taxation 2
Family 2
Culture 2
Administration 2
Justice 1
Constitutional question 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Note: n=282; Other policy issues include: agriculture; constitutional questions; consumer protection; cooperative housing; culture;
firework use; gambling regulations; gender equality; justice; legislative reform; migration; noise pollution; safety; science and research;
socioeconomic development; sustainable development; taxation; water management; youth.
Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
Note: The colour indicates the dominant deliberative model; the number indicates the total of representative deliberative processes in a country.
The map excludes international processes that took place in more than one country.*
Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
*This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sov¬ereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of
international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
22 23OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS
OECD :: INNOVATIVE
OECD INNOVATIVE CITIZEN
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
PARTICIPATION AND
AND NEW
NEW DEMOCRATIC
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS
HIGHLIGHTS
OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS -- HIGHLIGHTS WHAT IS A 'SUCCESSFUL' REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS?
HIGHLIGHTS
5 WHAT IS A 'SUCCESSFUL'
H
ow a representative deliberative 1. Design integrity: the procedural criteria
process is designed and run, and which ensure that a process is perceived
the impact that it has on policy and as fair by the public and in line with
REPRESENTATIVE
the wider public are all questions principles of good practice;
that arise when determining whether it
has been a success. Drawing on the new 2. Sound deliberation: the elements that
DELIBERATIVE
empirical comparative research collected by enable quality deliberation that results
the OECD and wider theoretical research in participants’ arriving at sound public
on deliberation, this chapter seeks to assess judgement;
PROCESS?
the different approaches and designs of
deliberative processes. 3. Influential recommendations and
actions: the evidence of impact on public
Nabatachi et al. (2012) have outlined decision making, and
evaluation principles for the practice and
impact of deliberative civic engagement, 4. Impact on the wider public: the
covering four aspects. The OECD draws secondary and long-term effects on
RANDOM SELECTION inspiration from this framework for efficacy and public attitudes.
analysis, adapted to the specific focus on
representative deliberative processes and
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION the type of data collection that was feasible
for this report (see Figure 11):
COMMITMENT BY DECISION MAKERS
FIGURE 11. FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS FOR REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES
DURATION
1
The procedural criteria • Scope of the remit
which ensure that a process • Random selection methods
DESIGN INTEGRITY
INFORMATION AND LEARNING is perceived as fair by the • Duration
public and in line with • Commitment by decision makers
principles of good practice
FACILITATION
2
• Information and learning
The elements that enable • Facilitation
SOUND DELIBERATION quality deliberation that • Decision making within the
results in public judgement representative deliberative process
PARTICIPANT RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEIR
IMPLEMENTATION • Process outputs
3
INFLUENTIAL The evidence of impact on • Response to citizens'
RECOMMENDTIONS public decision making recommendations
MONITORING AND EVALUATION AND ACTIONS • Implementation of
recommendations
• Monitoring and evaluation
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION FOR PUBLIC
4
• Public communication as a tool for
LEARNING IMPACT ON THE The secondary and long- public learning
WIDER PUBLIC term effects on public • Combining participatory methods
learning and attitudes with representative deliberative
COMBINING PARTICIPATORY METHODS processes
WITH REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE Source: Adapted by OECD from Nabatachi, Tina, John Gastil, Matt Leighninger, and G. Michael Weiksner (2012). Democracy in
PROCESSES
Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, DOI:10.1093/
acprof:oso/9780199899265.003.0010.
24
24
24 25OECD : INNOVATIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND NEW DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS - HIGHLIGHTS WHAT IS A 'SUCCESSFUL' REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS?
HIGHLIGHTS
RANDOM SELECTION OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION
Random selection attempts to overcome the commonly used random selection processes Ensuring that all citizens have equal In the 172 cases for which there is data,
shortcomings and distortions of “open” and include single-stage random selection (22%) opportunities to participate is key to achieving participants are compensated in one way or
“closed” calls for participation. It ensures that and a mix of random and targeted selection of inclusiveness and representativeness. The another 57% of the time (Figure). In 44% of
nearly every person has an equal chance of hard-to-reach groups (4%). difficulty of this varies depending on deliberative processes there is remuneration
being invited to participate and that the final the time commitment required and the in the form of payment. In a small number of
group is a microcosm of society. It can also When stratifying the final sample of citizens, salience and interest of the policy issue. cases, transport costs are compensated (7%)
insulate the process from an overwhelming all deliberative processes select participants People have other commitments, different or expenses are covered (6%). There is no
influence of vested interests. While it is not a according to demographic selection criteria levels of financial stability, and low trust of remuneration in 43% of deliberative processes.
statistically perfect method, it delivers a more that matches the general makeup of the wider government institutions. Different barriers The majority of these latter instances are at the
mixed and diverse sample than any other population (such as that available in a census), to participation include costs of participation local level, where arguably costs to participate
recruitment process. and usually includes at least four criteria: (e.g. transportation, accommodation, potential are lower. The rationale for non-remuneration
gender; age; geography, and socioeconomic wages lost), and lack of clear communication is that participation in a deliberative process
The most popular random participant selection factors (a variable that captures disparity about the process, its importance, the level activates a civic responsibility to volunteer in a
method for representative deliberative in income and education levels). While of commitment required of participants, and democracy. In many cases, it is equally driven
processes to date has been two-stage selection demographic stratification is enough to ensure expected outcomes. Nevertheless, there are by budgetary constraints. As the data collected
(59%), commonly called a “civic lottery” (Figure diversity and representativeness, in some several ways to lower barriers to participation in this study does not contain details regarding
12). This method has mostly been used in circumstances it may not be enough to ensure and achieve higher response rates. the response rates of different demographics,
Germany, Australia, Canada, and the United credibility, requiring discursive or attitudinal it is not possible to draw concrete conclusions
States (US), although there are also a handful representation as well. Often participants are remunerated based on regarding the impact of remuneration on the
of examples from other countries. Other less the rate of the national wage average or at the decision to participate. Other studies suggest
rate that people are reimbursed for jury duty. that payment does encourage demographics
However, the potential impact of receiving that generally do not participate otherwise,
remuneration for participation on some notably young people and those with lower
participants’ social security benefits should be a incomes (newDemocracy Foundation and UN
FIGURE 12. TWO-STAGE RANDOM SELECTION IS THE MOST COMMON RANDOM PARTICIPANT consideration. Democracy Fund, 2019: 150).
SELECTION METHOD FOR REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES
Random participant selection methods used for representative deliberative processes for public
decision making, 1986-2019
FIGURE 13. PARTICIPANTS IN REPRESENTATIVE DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES RECEIVE SOME FORM OF
REMUNERATION OF EXPENSES COVERAGE IN SLIGHTLY MORE THAN HALF OF CASES
Single-stage Remuneration of participants of representative deliberative processes for public decision making,
random 1986-2019
Expenses
selection Transport
covered
22% 6% compensation
7%
Two-stage random
Random selection
selection
59% (stages unclear) Remunerated
15% 44%
Non-
A mix of random and remunerated
43%
targeted selection
4%
Three-stage random
selection
0% Note: n=172; Data for OECD countries is based on 15 OECD countries that were members in 2019 (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,
Note: n=282; Data for OECD countries is based on 18 OECD countries that were members in 2019 plus the European Union/Global. Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Korea, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom and United StatesSA) plus the European
Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020). Union/Global, from 1986-2019.
Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2020).
26 27You can also read
