Deliberative processes add to the body of evidence presented to decision makers to understand what the public needs. Deliberation tackles the gap between public opinion (captured in polling) and public judgement (a considered view that people come to after engaging with trade-offs). Public opinion can be reactive and contradictory, which means that it is hard for elected representatives to know what the public really wants. Public judgement, explored and consolidated through processes like Citizen's Assemblies or residents panels, sees people confront difficult trade-offs, identify common ground and come up with new ways forward. When deliberative processes are well run, decision makers report a sense that their ability to act and make a difference is greater than before.
The Melbourne People’s Panel informed their 10 year financial plan. It brought together 42 randomly selected citizens to make recommendations using participatory budgeting. Some recommendations gave support for existing political priorities, others provided a push to initiatives that had already been subject to political debate and some gave direction on issues that were unclear or undecided. It led to better policy with the majority of recommendations being taken up. An independent study demonstrated its success, including the importance of an existing culture of engagement that gave decision makers confidence in deliberative methods (newDemocracy Foundation).
We have seen this lead to more socially informed decisions, making them more robust and credible with less chance of negative social impacts. In Climate Assembly UK, 108 people from different walks of life explored trade offs needed to respond to climate change. One discussion resulted in 80% support for carbon tax on those that fly more often, or further, with the money earned being ring-fenced and transparently spent. This sort of public judgement can increase the boundaries of what is thought to be acceptable for decision makers.
Early deliberation is more cost effective in the long term, especially when investing in major infrastructure. It increases the chances of getting a decision right the first time. Final decisions are easier to implement if they are based on the best possible knowledge from a range of sources. Conflict can be extremely expensive: DEFRA and the Environment Agency estimate that around 5% of all permit applications took in excess of 500 hours work to process and 1% took over 1,000 hours. Litigation especially can be very costly, and any reduction here can mean substantial savings.
Universal Credit was designed to have a five-week wait before the first payment to ‘mirror the world of work’, failing to account for the variety of work based payment models and the reality that a 5 week wait, without income or savings, leads to extreme hardship including going without food. This caused real hardship and reduced effectiveness of the policy, and could be avoided through involving the people said policy is designed to help in the design. The Minimum Income Guarantee Lived Experience Panel centred the needs and experiences of people to ensure that important elements are not overlooked, priorities are met and everyday challenges are recognised and overcome through design and deliberation.
This highlights the potential for these processes, if designed using equitable engagement principles, to shift the balance of power of decisions to include those who are most affected, giving them a crucial say and driving more equitable outcomes. Deliberative processes, with their use of random selection and stratified sampling, can bring in typically excluded marginalised communities into public policy and decision making (OECD). In its most recent impact report, Sciencewise shows that public dialogue has ensured that the public voice is heard in policy, priorities and plans and starts to address the power asymmetry in decision making. It also ensures that decisions are sensitive to diverse perspectives and needs, supporting inclusive and open policy making.
Public engagement in decision making can also improve governance through closer links with citizens and residents, more opportunities for active citizenship and the chance for processes like long term panels to increase accountability for decisions made.