Policy impact of local democratic innovations: Lessons from Gdańsk Citizens’ Assemblies

Policy impact of local democratic innovations: Lessons from Gdańsk Citizens’ Assemblies | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Policy impact of local democratic innovations: Lessons from Gdańsk Citizens’ Assemblies Adela Gasiorowska This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7047746/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Democratic innovations based on random selection and deliberation are claimed to have a potential to heal the current political and legal system or even transform it towards a more democratic and participatory direction (Carson, Martin 1999 , Gastil, Richards 2013 , Gastil, Wright 2019 ). Regardless of their role, these innovations should have a certain impact on the policy-making process (Crosby et al. 1986 , Rowe, Frezer 2000, Gutmann, Thompson 2004, Gastil, et al. 2012 ). One of the popular democratic innovations is the citizens' assembly (CA). It is difficult, however, to determine their actual impact on public policies. Since it remains unknown what factors impede or expedite implementation of their recommendations, it is also hard to say which elements of CAs should be improved to increase their impact. Therefore, the paper provides findings on citizens’ assemblies’ (CAs’) policy impact and the reasons for (non)implementation of their recommendations. Besides, it contributes to the studies on methods of assessing mini-publics’ impact. The research is based on the case study of three CAs, organised in Gdansk, Poland, in 2016–2018, and it was conducted with the use of a desk research and formal-legal analysis, and interviews with various actors participating in the CAs. The study shows that the CAs had a positive but not very strong policy impact, and have a potential to remain one of many participatory and advisory tools. democratic innovations citizen participation deliberative democracy citizens’ assembly public policies 1. Introduction 1.1. Potential of deliberative democratic innovations Democratic innovations based on random selection and deliberation tend to be seen as a means to heal representative democracy. In particular, their use is claimed to answer the weaknesses of decision-making, such as corruption, lack of representation or the domination of the law-making process by lobbyists and political parties (Dienel, Renn 1995, Carson, Martin 1999 , Smith 2009 , Wright 2010 , Delannoi et al. 2013 , Gastil, Richards 2013 ). Furthermore, some of the authors argue that these innovations have the potential to transform the current political and legal system towards a more democratic and participatory direction, and to become permanent institutions of law-making processes (Cohen, Fung 2004 , Gastil, Wright 2019 ). Transformation of the contemporary system into a more democratic model through the usage of deliberative innovations is also promoted by some grassroots movements, who campaign for their broader application (Jacquet et al. 2022 ). On the other hand, the recently conducted studies show that social and political support for granting randomly selected deliberative bodies competence to make binding public decisions is limited (Jacquet 2019 , Bedock and Pilet 2021 , Macq and Jacquet 2021 ). Nowadays one of the popular democratic innovations is the citizens’ assembly (CA). The CA is a form of a mini-public - institution consisting of randomly selected citizens who are representative of their population with regard to various demographic characteristics and who deliberate on a given issue (Escobar, Elstub 2017 ). CAs are generally commissioned by public authorities and their aim is to deliver recommendations for public policies (OECD 2020 ). Despite their popularity, most CAs and other mini-publics are not institutionalised yet and the process of implementation of their recommendations is not legally regulated (ibid.). Moreover, the existing institutionalised mini-publics are granted only advisory roles to the electoral institutions of representative democracy. Thus, the legal regulations concerning their competencies do not guarantee them a real impact on the decision-making process. In the last decades institutionalisation of mini-publics in the political and legal system was an object of interest for numerous scholars, who proposed granting them different roles and competencies (Burnheim 1985 , Goodwin 1992 , Bouricious 2013 , Gastil, Richards 2013 , Gastil, Wright 2019 ). Regardless of their variety, most of these concepts assume granting mini-publics some role in a law-making process by replacing or supplementing the elected legislature with randomly selected and deliberative bodies, or by supporting with them the institutions of representative or direct democracy. Only some of these concepts, however, seem to assume the actual transformation of current political and legal systems towards deliberative democracy, based on equal political participation and deliberative decision-making (Fishkin 2009 ). 1.2. Impact on public policies Regardless of whether the deliberative and participatory innovations are used to complement or transform the contemporary political and legal system, they should have a certain impact on the policy-making process. The models of evaluation of participatory processes - even those used only for consultative purposes - among other criteria of evaluation mention their impact on public policies. The impact of these processes can be understood differently. Some of the authors require the recommendations of these processes to have at least a high probability of being implemented by public officials (Crosby et al. 1986 ), while others claim that they should have a genuine influence on public policies and be seen as such, i.a. in order to not be perceived as a tool for legitimation of public decisions (Rowe, Frewer 2000 ). The impact of the produced recommendations is also pointed out as one of the characteristics of a successful deliberation. It is argued that the recommendations of deliberative processes should have an impact on public policies and provide long-term effects (Gastil et. al 2012 ). Some of the authors also claim that recommendations should be binding for some period of time, either by influencing public decisions directly or by affecting the process of decision-making (Gutmann, Thompson 2004). The impact of mini-publics can be also understood as their influence on the general thinking of people who can affect public policies (Guston 1999 ). Therefore, even if some mini-publics have no actual impact on any public decisions, they might influence general thinking about certain public policies or about the style of policy-making (ibid.). However, the policy impact of actually organised mini-publics is still studied to a relatively small extent. The conducted studies (Bua 2017 , Pogrebinschi, Ryan 2017) show that the recommendations of deliberative processes are generally implemented by law-making authorities but at the same time their authors recognise that the impact of these processes can be limited. First, the studies do not analyse other factors, external to the deliberative processes, which can influence the legislation. Second, the actual impact of deliberative innovations can be limited if they are organised within the framework set by existing public authorities’ policies. There are also some recently conducted studies which examine various methods of assessment of mini-publics’ policy impact. First, the analysis of mini-publics’ impact can take into consideration both the political and social context, and various perspectives - instrumental, conceptual, and strategic (Michels, Binnema 2018). Thus, translation of mini-publics’ recommendations into public decisions is only one aspect of their impact (political and instrumental). Also the study conducted by Jacquet and van der Does ( 2021 ) suggests that analysis of congruency between mini-publics’ recommendations and public decisions can be insufficient to fully assess policy impact of mini-publics. First, some of the mini-publics’ outputs are so abstract that it is hard to assess if they are translated into public decisions. Second, the congruence between recommendations and public decisions does not necessarily mean that the public decisions were made to implement the recommendations. Thus, the analysis of policy impact can also investigate if mini-publics’ recommendations are considered by decision-makers, or if they lead to a structural change of a public policy (ibid.). The research aimed to analyse the congruence between mini-public recommendations and public decisions can be also based on various approaches. It can either analyse in a binary way if the public decisions are consistent with recommendations, or use a pluralistic approach, by investigating the extent of correspondence between recommendations and public policies (Vrydagh, Caluwaerts 2020 , Vrydagh 2022 ). The pluralistic congruency approach can be also enriched by investigating the connections between outcomes of mini-publics and initial policy agendas or decision-makers’ preferences, and on this basis distinguish various kinds of their policy impact (ibid.). 1.3. Aims of the paper Despite the popularity and expected potential of CAs and other mini-publics, their actual policy impact is still underexplored, and the methods of assessing this impact are only being developed. Thus, it seems necessary to conduct studies providing information on the CAs’ impact on public policies, investigating the reasons why their recommendations are implemented or not, and contributing to the research on assessing policy impact of mini-publics. Therefore, the main aim of the paper is to investigate the CAs’ impact on public policies. In the research I took into consideration existing methods of assessing mini-publics’ policy impact and possible risks and limitations connected with the use of these methods. Thus, I tried to analyse CAs’ impact from various perspectives, including: examining if their recommendations were implemented (analysis of congruence between recommendations and public decisions), investigating the general impact of CAs and characterising kinds of this impact. Moreover, I tried to investigate reasons standing behind (non)implementation of CA’s recommendations and, on this basis, formulate recommendations concerning improvements of CAs which can lead to better implementation of the recommendations. Thus, in the paper I answer the following research questions: (1) what is the impact of citizens’ assemblies (CAs) on public policies, (2) what are the factors that impede or expedite implementation of their recommendations, and (3) which elements of design or implementation of the CAs could be improved to increase the chances that CAs’ recommendations will be implemented. In order to answer the research questions, I conducted the case study of the first three Polish CAs, which were organised in Gdańsk in the years 2016–2018. The case study was conducted with the use of a desk research and formal-legal analysis, and it was complemented by in-depth interviews and a focus-group interview conducted with various actors participating in the CAs. Therefore, in the paper I will (1) describe the methods used in the study, (2) present the main results of the study, and (3) discuss the results in the broader context of the dilemmas concerning CA’s role in a political and legal system, and its transformative potential. 2. Methods In order to answer the research questions, I conducted an in-depth case study of three CAs which were organised in Gdańsk, Poland, in the years 2016–2017. Within the case study, I used diversified methods, such as desk research analysis, formal-legal analysis, in-depth interview and focus group interview. The subjects of the desk research and formal-legal analysis were: publicly available information on the city’s authorities’ actions within certain public policies, including legal acts adopted in the city of Gdańsk, as well as the documents concerning: the design and implementation of the CAs, the CAs’ recommendations, and the procedure of their implementation (i.a. lists of their recommendations, reports from the CAs, and reports from the implementation of CAs’ recommendations). The aims of the desk research and formal-legal analysis were to identify the elements of the CAs’ design, to analyse their recommendations, and investigate their impact on public policies. The in-depth interviews were conducted with nine participants: three public administration officials working in the area of citizen participation or responsible for the public policies related to the topics of the CAs, two stakeholders who participated in the CAs, and the representative of organisers of the CAs. Additionally, I conducted one focus group interview with three public administration officials working collectively in the field of public policy covered by one of the CAs. The interviews took place online and lasted between 40 to 60 minutes. I prepared a list of questions and topics to cover, but they were asked in various orders and many follow-up questions were added during the interviews. All of the interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. The data collected through interviews was analysed with the use of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ). After transcribing the interviews, I prepared a scheme of initial codes and themes. During the rereading of the transcriptions, I systematically amended the scheme. Afterward, all of the transcripts were coded with the final coding scheme. The findings of the interviews complemented the outcomes of the desk research and formal-legal analysis concerning the CAs’ impact on public policies. Moreover, they were aimed to identify the factors that impede or expedite the implementation of CAs’ recommendations and elements of the CAs which could be improved in order to increase the chances that CAs’ recommendations will be implemented. 3. Results 3.1. Gdańsk CAs - context of the study The CAs analysed within the study were conducted in Gdańsk, a Polish provincial capital with a population of around five hundred thousand citizens. Gdańsk is claimed to be a city which commonly uses various participatory methods in decision-making, including deliberative tools (Glejt-Uziębło, Uziębło 2018 ). In 2016, heavy rains occurred in Gdańsk and the city turned out not to be prepared for them, which resulted in a flood. Thus, the necessity arose to work out mechanisms that would protect the city from future heavy rains. Since the public authorities wanted to make decisions concerning these mechanisms in a participatory way, they decided to conduct a CA. Therefore in 2016, the first CA in Gdańsk was organised to answer the question ‘How to better prepare Gdańsk for future heavy rains?’. In 2017 two other CAs were conducted to answer questions: ‘How to improve the air quality? and ‘How to support the citizens’ activity in Gdańsk?’. The third topic was the broadest one and covered three subtopics: the activity of adult citizens, citizens’ activity in schools, and the equality of women and LGBT + people. All of the Gdańsk CAs were commissioned by the President of Gdańsk, who claimed to implement all of the recommendations adopted by the CAs. In all of the cases, the CAs were outsourced to groups of experts specialising in deliberative democracy or urban planning. The Gdańsk CAs were the first three CAs organised in Poland, and despite the growing popularity of this tool in other Polish cities, since 2017 Gdańsk has not conducted any other CA. 3.2. CAs' impact on public policies As mentioned above, in the research I took into consideration various approaches to assessing mini-publics’ policy impact. In particular, not only did I assess if the CAs’ recommendations were implemented in public policies, but I also investigated their general policy impact. Moreover, I tried to identify various kinds of impact that CAs had on public policies. When investigating the general impact and identifying kinds of impact, I took into consideration the initial policy agendas and policy-makers preferences and I tried to assess to which extent the organised assemblies were the factors which determined the process of making certain public decisions. The opinions presented by various interviewees within a research were generally consistent with one another. With few exceptions, they differed only to a minor extent. Also, the opinions presented by the public officials and stakeholders were similar and no tendency characteristic for any of these groups of interviewees was visible. 3.2.1. Implementation of CAs’ recommendations The analysis of the implementation of CAs’ recommendations was divided into a few steps. First, the list of all recommendations were prepared and it was determined if each of the recommendations was implementable (e.g. if the recommendation was out of city’s competences, it was marked as unimplementable). Second, it was determined if each of the recommendations were: implemented, partly implemented or not implemented. However, in some of the cases neither was there publicly available information on implementation, nor did public officials have any knowledge about implementation. The lists of recommendations of CAs with information on their implementation is available in the appendix to the paper (table A). Next, the data on level of implementation of each CA’s recommendations was aggregated in the table below (B). The implementation rate was calculated as the proportion of the number of implemented recommendations to the number of recommendations which were implementable and for which the data on implementation was available. The partly implemented recommendations were counted with a 50% indicator. B. LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CITY'S PUBLIC POLICIES Number of recommendations: 1st CA 2nd CA 3rd CA in total in total: 16 9 38 63 unimplementable: 6 1 1 8 with no data available about implementation: 2 0 13 15 implemented: 7 7 14 28 partly implemented: 0 1 2 3 not implemented: 1 0 9 10 Implementation rate : 87,50% 93,75% 62,50% 73,75% Table B. Level of implementation of recommendations of each Gdańsk CA in the city's public policies. The results of the study shows that the majority of the recommendations were implemented in the city's public policies (in total 73,75%). The implementation rate, however, differed in various cases - in the third CA, which produced the biggest number of recommendations, the rate was the lowest (62,50%). It also turned out that some of the recommendations were unimplementable, in particular in the first CA (above one third of recommendations). Most of them could not be implemented in the city’s policies since they were outside the competences of the city (they were in the competence of governmental administration and national or regional legislature). Additionally, data concerning a significant number of the recommendations were not available. It was especially problematic in the case of the third CA (above one third of recommendations), where some of the recommendations were so general that it was impossible to assess if they were implemented or not. It can be also noted that, in the case of the third CA, some of the recommendations should have led to a change of the local law, such as city council’s resolutions on participatory budgeting and on statutes of city’s districts. Nevertheless, none of these legal acts were amended according to the results of the CA - some of the recommendations on participatory budgeting were implemented only in practice, and some were not implemented at all, while the reform of the city’s districts is still being developed by the city. Moreover, the analysis of the recommendations showed that some of the recommendations were implemented or planned before the CAs. For example, the obligations included in the CA’s recommendations were included as well in the statutes of the districts or in the city’s strategic programmes which were adopted on the basis of the national law. Additionally, another part of recommendations were implemented as part of the city's policy, which was developed in an independent participatory process. Thus, similarly to the findings of Jacquet’s and van der Does’ study (2021), both findings concerning the generality of some of the recommendations, and factors external to the CAs, influencing the implementation of their recommendations in public policy spoke for conducting a broader analysis of CAs’ policy impact. 3.2.2. General impact As mentioned above, none of the recommendations which were in the competences of the city led to the adoption of any local law by the city council. Most of the analysed recommendations only provided executive bodies with directions for public policies or allowed citizens to choose the solutions within these policies. Second, both public officials and stakeholders frequently argued that the CAs were used as a tool for the legitimation of public policies of the city, and allowed public officials to assert that the citizens accept these policies. In particular, the officials stated that the CAs allowed them to feel that citizens understand the city's policies, and ‘not limit oneself with alleged barriers of social acceptance’. The implementation of the CAs was also claimed to give higher priority to the actions undertaken within the city's policies. It eased public officials to implement and expand policies approved by CAs, and finance and negotiate certain actions, as the following quotes of the interviewed officials suggest: It gave us a green light to broaden the policy, clarify, explain and expand it. For sure the assembly, and the interest in it, opened for us greater possibilities to finance certain things. It is for sure… These tasks also get priority. It [decisions of CA] is one of the concrete things that let us have a better negotiating position for additional activities. (...) So it can be said that from this perspective it is easier to negotiate the next elements. According to the interviewees, the third CA was used not only to receive acceptance for planned actions but also as a tool for the legitimation of already implemented public policies, which can be illustrated with a stakeholder’s quote: The assembly was used in a little bit manipulative way, to receive social legitimacy for implementation of ideas which were already on the banners (...) and even were already implemented, and the aim was to receive for them social legitimacy. At the same time, it was underlined that legitimising various ideas of the city by using CAs can be a positive practice, as long as the city asks citizens in a clear manner to choose one of the solutions which can be implemented within the policy. In this case, a CA can be used by public officials to get social acceptance for the solution chosen by assembly members and to relieve them from the liability of making the choice. Also one of the recommendations, proposed by the city and not accepted by the CA, was claimed ‘not to get the legitimation’. Both the results of desk research and interviews showed that this recommendation was not implemented directly after the CA. It was, however, implemented at a later time, as a result of a different participatory process. Finally, the CAs were seen by many of the interviewers as one of many participatory or deliberative tools used by the city. It was especially underlined that in the case of certain topics different methods should be used instead of CAs (which will be described more broadly in the next subsection). It was also stated that CAs are not a universal tool of decision-making which could replace the current legislative bodies, as the following quote of a public officials suggests: It is the fact that representative democracy is in crisis and plenty of situations - populism or groups of interests influencing decisions of our representatives - take place… maybe corruption, but to a lesser extent, especially in our country. But revelatory golden means, like citizens budget, like citizens’ assembly, they are not a cure. For sure, they are not a golden cure, maybe they are some elements. So a million dollars to whoever finds a way to combine it. 3.2.3. Kinds of impact Lack of impact. Part of the recommendations of analysed CAs did not have any impact on public policies. This resulted mainly from the fact that some of them had been previously implemented or planned by the city. In particular, the interviewees claimed that some of the recommendations were already implemented because public officials were legally obligated to implement them (which was also indicated by the results of the desk research and formal-legal analysis) or because the stakeholders put pressure on the city to do so. Moreover, as mentioned above, there were recommendations which were not implemented at all. Indirect implementation . There were also some recommendations which were claimed to not be implemented directly, but rather followed in a more general way. This way of indirect implementation can be illustrated by the following quote from the interviewed stakeholder: Something that could be heard from the citizens’ assembly, maybe not as an individual recommendation, but from a certain context, was that we needed some facilities for NGOs [...]. It is happening and I think that even if some things are not implemented point by point, the spirit of the recommendations is implemented in the city's policy. Fastening or postponing. The interviewees also frequently pointed out that even if some of the CAs’ recommendations did not change the decisions made by public officials, they influenced the public policies by fastening or postponing the decision-making process and the implementation of these decisions, as the following quote suggests: I think that the citizens' assembly contributed to the fastening of these processes. However, probably these decisions, these directions of change, considering that they comply with certain paradigms, maybe social and ecological trends, would probably take place. But, I think, not so fast. The implementation of public policies was also claimed to be fastened indirectly. It was pointed out that owing to a better understanding of certain issues by other public officials it was possible to execute some of the decisions faster: For sure, it [CA] resulted in a better understanding of this topic among public officials. Because, I think, more and more of us have a sense that it is not a topic prescribed to one or two units, but also others work for these effects. Which was related to an easier, more effective implementation of the policy, which we worked out. These are measurable effects, which make our actions more effective. They are implemented faster, on point, we use returns to scale. Production of new solutions. Part of the interviewees argued also that there were some solutions which were produced by the CAs and which would not have been implemented without them. It was also argued that the CAs made the city reflect on new solutions. Social change. Finally, the interviewees pointed out the broader impact of the CAs, which was their influence on various actors who are users of public policies. In particular, they claimed that the implementation and results of CAs influenced actors actively engaged in processes implementation of public policies (e.g. investors, designers), which eased these processes. It was also stated that the CAs can raise the understanding of public issues among the citizens, i.a. through the assembly members who can act in the society as ambassadors for the outcomes of CAs. According to the interviewees, the implementation of CAs also positively affected the culture of cooperation and helped to introduce controversial issues to a public space, which the following quote, among others, suggests: I was very prepossessed by the culture of discussion and vibrancy of interest in the topics. I think that generally it is a brilliant method of introducing a public space (...) with some of the topics which can be controversial and hard. 3.3. Factors influencing implementation and possible improvements According to the interviewees, only part of the factors influencing the implementation of recommendations concerned this process itself. The rest of them regarded: topics of CAs, CA’s implementation, and the quality of CAs’ recommendations. The possible improvements, aimed to higher a level of implementation of recommendations and brought up by the interviewees, concerned: topics of CAs, CA’s implementation and implementation of their recommendations. Similarly to the findings of the first research question, the opinions of interviewees were mutually consistent and no tendency was visible for any group of interviewees. 3.3.1. Topics of the CAs The extent of the topic . Interviewees frequently underlined that, when the extent of the topic was too broad and there were too many issues to be in-depthly discussed, it negatively influenced the quality of the process and, consequently, the implementation of the CAs’ recommendations. It was also mentioned that when the topic is too broad, the city might not have enough human resources to implement all of the produced recommendations. These findings are consistent with the results of analysis of the implementation of recommendations which showed that implementation rate was the lowest in the third assembly, which had the broadest topic and produced the highest number of recommendations. Urgency of the problem. According to the interviewees, the topic of the assembly concerning urgent problem can be a factor that exceeds the implementation of recommendations. It can be illustrated with the quote of one of the stakeholders: But we see a tendency, that the first CA was very concrete and it responded to a very urgent, current problem (...) it was conducted, was also implemented, because it had to be implemented. The intervention had to take place because it could not go on like this. Human rights and beliefs. Part of the interviewees underlined that the topic of the CA should not concern beliefs, application of human rights, or issues related to only specific social groups. Some of them mentioned that the assembly members can only be asked ‘how’ to apply human rights but not ‘if’. The main justification of this view was that human rights are already binding and the public authorities are legally obliged to apply them. Moreover, one of the stakeholders mentioned the impossibility of accepting the point of view of people denying human rights: [I would have to] have real willingness to accept the point of view of these people. It is, anyway, the reason why I do not want to discuss human rights or accessibility (...). Human rights are actually unnegotiable and one of these rights is accessibility. We can discuss if we can afford solution X or Y, but we can not discuss if these people can - I do not know - go out. Moreover, a part of the interviewers claimed that the CA does not provide enough time for an in-depth discussion about beliefs or that decisions concerning only specific social groups should not be made by the cross-section of the city’s population. Undeveloped policies. The interviewees' opinions about using CAs in public policies that are not already developed by the city were mixed. A part of the interviewees claimed that the CA can be a good tool to look for new solutions or to give public officials an impulse to undertake actions in a given area. However, other interviewees stated that the CA should not be used for creating new ideas, since it cannot produce technical solutions and high-quality recommendations, and because too general questions expose CAs to a bigger risk of manipulation. Possible improvements. Regarding the above-mentioned factors impeding the implementation of the CA’s recommendations, interviewees proposed a few improvements concerning the selection of their topics. First, they frequently suggested narrowing the extent of the topic to a few concrete issues which could be discussed during a few meetings of the CA. Second, a significant part of the interviewees proposed to ask assembly members close-ended questions with a set of proposed answers which would be preliminarily accepted by the city authorities. Alternatively, part of the interviewees claimed that the CAs should only select a direction for a given public policy, while the specific solutions should be worked out by people who have knowledge about the legal, financial and organisational conditions of the policy in question. Finally, both stakeholders and public officials frequently proposed using for some of the topics other participatory-deliberative processes, which would e.g. engage experts and stakeholders to a larger extent, involve only representatives of the social group affected by the certain policy, or would last longer than a CA. At the same time, interviewees remained open to the possibility of organising CAs which would discuss the recommendations worked out through these processes. 3.3.2. Process of the CA Limited participation of the city and experts. A significant part of the interviewees, both the public officials and stakeholders, stated that the limited participation of officials and experts in the CAs negatively influenced the quality of recommendations, which led to a lower level of their implementation. In particular, they claimed that officials had insufficient time to prepare for participation in the CA and to give opinions on the first versions of the recommendations; they were also not provided with appropriate information before issuing those opinions. It was also pointed out that there was no mechanism that would automatically exclude recommendations that are, for example, illegal. Lack of knowledge. According to the interviewees, the second factor that negatively affected the quality of recommendations concerned the deficiencies of the educational part of the CAs. Some of the stakeholders pointed out that during this part of one of the CAs, the solutions were proposed and presented inconsiderately. Moreover, part of the interviewees stated that even after a well-conducted educational part of the CA, the assembly members are not equipped with professional knowledge and are vulnerable to manipulation. Possible improvements. Part of the interviewees suggested extending the educational part of the CAs to better educate the assembly members. It was also proposed that the city's participation in CAs should be increased. In particular, the need to engage public officials in CAs at an early stage was expressed, e.g. by observing the process of deliberation, reporting the illegality or impracticability of recommendations, presenting their opinions to assembly members, and by more actively participating in the educational part of CAs. 3.3.3. Recommendations of the CAs Generality. The most common factor impeding the implementation of recommendations, mentioned by both public officials and stakeholders, was the overly general character of recommendations. In particular, some of the recommendations did not indicate any formal details, such as who is responsible for their implementation, and used imprecise and informal language. As a result, public officials claimed to have problems with determining the meaning of the recommendations, which can be illustrated by this quote: The general character of this recommendation does not allow us to find its real meaning, what assembly members really thought about. It was also mentioned that the general character of the recommendations raises the risk that public authorities will unfairly legitimise their decisions, since when the recommendations are too general, the city can implement them by any sort of action. Out of competence. The second problem frequently mentioned by the interviewees was that some of the recommendations were out of the competence of the local government. Thus, the local authorities were not able to implement these recommendations. Already implemented or planned. Moreover, according to the interviewees, a significant part of the recommendations had already been implemented or planned by the city. It did not negatively affect the process of implementation, but restricted the impact of the CAs on the public policies, since the recommendations were claimed to have been implemented otherwise. Lack of acceptance of stakeholders. Finally, part of the interviewees pointed out that some of the recommendations were not acceptable for stakeholders directly interested in certain policies. Some of these recommendations were evaluated as ineffective or unrealistic, thus there was no will to implement them, either on the side of the city or among the stakeholders. At the same time, interviewees underlined that the city implemented other solutions aimed to achieve the same effect, but more acceptable for the interested actors. 3.3.4. Process of implementation of recommendations Coordination and monitoring. According to the interviewees, the process of implementation was negatively affected by the lack of coordination or monitoring of the process. Interviewees mentioned that implementation of various recommendations was the obligation of different units of the city hall, and there were no units appointed to coordinate or monitor the process of implementation. Moreover, despite one meeting with assembly members after the first CA, the assembly members were not included in the process of implementation. On the other hand, neither assembly members nor stakeholders actively monitored the implementation on their own initiative. Political will. The other factor concerning the process of implementation was the political will of various officials. Interviewees underlined the significance of the president's of the city support for the assembly, as the following quote suggests: Between first and second [CA] it was known that they [recommendations] were implemented. That there was a strong political president’s will. And it was just clear that they have to be implemented, that there is the president's will that they have to be implemented. Some of the interviewees claimed that the city officials generally follow the will of the president, regardless of whether they are personally convinced by the recommendations. On the other hand, the interviewees underlined the significance of the political will of the mid-level officials, who do not always support the policies of high-level officials and can successfully impede their implementation. ‘Belongingness’ of the recommendations. The last factor is related to the previously mentioned, but it rather concerns the attitude to specific recommendations. Both stakeholders and public officials underlined that if some recommendations did not ‘belong’ to certain actors, they were less probable to be implemented, which can be suggested, i.a. by the following quote: These are casually brought up ideas during citizens’ assembly, which are nobody’s. And that is why they will never be implemented. It is also worth mentioning that in the opinion of some of the interviewees, the attitude of the public officials was, i.a. affected by their limited participation in the CAs, which can be illustrated with the following quote of the public official: Thus, later on, there was no will for… there was no identification with things which were developed. And since we did not participate in this process, it was not ours, it was something imposed, and now it occurs that someone has to do it. And since it was strongly emphasised that city hall should stay away from it, it stays away. Possible improvements Considering the lack of coordination and monitoring of the process of implementation, part of the interviewees proposed to implement mechanisms of coordination and monitoring, including a coordinating body composed of heads of units of city hall, responsible for the implementation of recommendations and of representatives of civil society, headed by the vice-president of the city. The far-reaching concept proposed by one of the interviewees suggested also establishing CAs’ control over the public officials responsible for the implementation of their recommendations. 4. Discussion and conclusion The results of the conducted study suggest that the analysed CAs had a positive but not very strong impact on public policies. The majority of the CAs’ recommendations were implemented in the city’s policies. However, none of them led to change of a local law, and some of them were implemented as a result of factors external to the CAs. Generally, the CA was treated by various actors as an institution responsible for choosing the solutions from options proposed by executive authorities or for recommending directions for their policies. Thus, the actual role of the analysed CAs seems to be contrary to the presumption that CAs can replace or influence existing legislative bodies (Gastil, Wright 2019 ). Additionally, some of the CAs’ recommendations were treated as general suggestions for public policies which can be implemented in various ways rather than followed directly. First, it can be indicated by the interviewees’ opinions on the very general character of some of the recommendations and the indirect way of their implementation. Moreover, this attitude can be illustrated by the manner of monitoring the process of implementation. With a few exceptions, the information about implementation was not published by the city, and at the same time stakeholders and assembly members were not actively interested in the process of implementation. The stakeholders admitted that they do not follow the process of implementation, or follow the changes in certain policies while performing their other duties. Thus, there was nobody, either on the site of the city, or the civil society, who would verify if the recommendations - as the outcome of the CAs - are implemented. It is also worth noting that the CAs were claimed to be only one of many deliberative and participatory tools used in a city. It was frequently argued that they are not a universal tool and cannot be used to resolve certain issues, such as those concerning human rights and problems of specific social groups. This view is interesting in terms of assumptions concerning benefits resulting from the design of the CA. First, it is significant that part of the interviewees pointed out that since these issues are non-negotiable for them, they are not able to adopt the perspective of their opponents. This attitude can bring into question the reasonableness of resolving these issues with the use of deliberation, which requires its participants to be ready to consider the arguments of other participants (Cohen 2009 ). Second, some of the interviewees claimed that decisions concerning the rights of specific groups should be made only by the people whose rights are being discussed. Consequently, they suggested using in these cases other forms of citizens’ participation, which involve only representatives of these groups. It is worth noticing that this view is more far-reaching than those expressed in the literature, which propose to increase the representation of decision making by the use of mini-publics which guarantee that decisions are made by a cross-section of a population (Wright 2010 ). The other interesting issue is the participation of public officials in CAs. First, recognition of the officials' participation as one of the factors exceeding the CA’s impact on public policies is in line with previous assumptions that engaging officials in the participatory processes can positively influence the likelihood of implementation of their recommendations (Crosby 1986). Second, the interviewees’ opinions concerning the significance of officials’ participation in CAs and mistakes in the recommendations resulting from their insufficient participation, suggest that various actors are still willing to engage well-qualified public officials in decision-making and do not want to entrust it entirely to lay citizens'. These findings seem to be consistent with previously conducted research regarding the social and political acceptance for the institutionalisation of mini-publics (Jacquet 2019 ). There are also some further connections between these findings, including the opinions concerning the use of the CA as a tool for legitimising public policies. It was frequently suggested by the interviewees that the analysed CAs helped legitimising decisions or activities of public authorities. It was not, however, seen as an unambiguously wrong practice, as long as it was not used in a manipulative way. It also seemed to be acceptable for both public officials and stakeholders that CAs are used by public authorities to receive citizens’ acceptance for certain solutions or to increase the priority of these solutions. Nevertheless, the results of the conducted study seem to militate against the assumption that CAs have a potential to transform the current political and legal system and gain a significant role in the lawmaking process. The analysed cases suggest that CAs rather have a potential to be used as one of the many deliberative and participatory tools aimed to complement the current system, and to remain advisory bodies to elected officials. At the same time, it should be underlined that the prevailing part of the interviewees expressed positive opinions on the analysed CAs and saw the CA as a process beneficial to the city and its citizens. Most of them were also convinced that CAs and similar processes should be further implemented and refined in line with suggested improvements. It is worth mentioning that a significant part of the identified factors impeding the process of implementation resulted not from the weaknesses of the institution of CA, but from the mistakes made during its implementation. Besides, the interviewees frequently underlined that some of those mistakes were made because the analysed CAs were the first assemblies organised in Poland. It seems to be possible to remove such mistakes by implementing the improvement identified in the paper. Until they are removed, however, they can negatively affect the implementation of CAs’ recommendations and the potential of the CA. Besides providing findings concerning the potential of CAs and recommendations for improvements in their design and implementation, the conducted research can contribute to the studies on the policy impact of mini-publics, including the methods of assessing this impact. The approach and methods applied within the study can be used as a basis for further research concerning different cases of CAs or other mini-publics and their impact on public decisions. Moreover, the findings of the research can be a starting point for further studies, aiming to deepen or expand the analysis of identified problems. Declarations Funding statement The research received no specific grant funding. Author Contribution The entire study was designed and conducted and the entire paper was written by Adela Gasiorowska. References Bedock, C., & Pilet, J-B. (2020). Enraged, Engaged, or Both? A Study of the Determinants of Support for Consultative vs . Binding Mini-Publics. Representation. Bedock, C., & Pilet, J-B. (2021). Who Supports Citizens Selected by Lot to be the Main Policymakers? A Study of French Citizens (p. 56). Government and Opposition. Bouricious, T. (2013). Democracy Through Multi-Body Sortition: Athenian Lessons for the Modern Day. Journal of Public Deliberation , 9(1). Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3(2). Bua, A. (2017). Scale and policy impact in participatory-deliberative democracy: Lessons from a multi‐level process. Public Administration , 95(1). Buchstein, H., & Hein, M. (2009). Randomizing Europe: the lottery as a decision-making procedure for policy creation in the EU. Critical Policy Studies 3(1). Burnheim, J. (1985). Is Democracy Possible: The Alternative to Electoral Politics . Polity. Callenbach, E., & Phillips, M. (1985). A Citizen Legislature . Bookpeople. Carson, L., & Martin, B. (1999). Random Selection in Politics . Praeger. Caserta, M., Pluchino, A., Rapisarda, A., & Spagano, S. (2021). Why lot? How sortition could help representative democracy. Physica A 565. Cohen, J. (2009). Reflections on Deliberative Democracy . Oxford University Press. Cohen, J., & Fung, A. (2004). The Radical-Democratic Project. Swiss Journal of Political Science , 10. Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation. Public Administration Review 46(2). Delannoi, G., Dowlen, O., & Stone, P. (2013). The Lottery as a Democratic Institution . Policy Institute. Dienel, P. C., Renn, O. P., & Cells (1995). A Gate to ‘Fractal’ Mediation [in:] Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. Eds. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Springer. Escobar, O., & Elstub, S. (2017). Forms of Mini-publics . Research and Development Note. newDemocracy. Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation . Oxford University Press. Gastil, J., Knobloch, K., & Kelly, M. (2012). Evaluating deliberative public events and projects [in:] Nabatchi, T., Gastil, J., Weiksner, M., Leighninger, M. Eds. Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement. Gastil, J., & Richards, R. C. (2013). Making Direct Democracy Deliberative through Random Assemblies. Politics and Society 41(2). Gastil, J., & Wright, E. O. (2019). Legislature by lot. The transformative designs for deliberative governance . Verso. Glejt-Uziębło, P., & Uziębło, P. (2018). Partycypacja w trójmieście. O prawnej regulacji mechanizmów demokracji semibezpośredniej w Gdańsku, Gdyni i Sopocie . Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Goodwin, B. (1992). Justice by Lottery . Havrester Wheatsheaf. Guston, D. H. (1999). Evaluating the first U.S. Consensus Conference: the impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 24(4). Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2015). Why Deliberative Democracy . Cambridge University Press./. Jacquet, V. (2019). The Role and the Future of Deliberative Mini-publics: A Citizen Perspective. Political Studies ,67(3). Jacquet, V., Niessen, C., & Reuchamps, M. (2022). Sortition, its advocates and its critics: An empirical analysis of citizens’ and MPs’ support for random selection as a democratic reform proposal. International Political Science Review 43(2). Jacquet, V., & van der Does, R. (2021). The Consequences of Deliberative Minipublics: Systematic overview, conceptual gaps, and new directions. Representation, 57(1). Jacquet, V., & van der Does, R. (2021). Deliberation and policy-making: Three ways to think about minipublics’ consequences. Administration & Society, 53(3). Macq, H., & Jacquet, V. (2021). Institutionalising participatory and deliberative procedures: The origins of the first permanent citizens’ assembly . European Journal of Political Research. Michels, A., & Binnema, H. (2019). Assessing the impact of deliberative democratic initiatives at the local level: a framework for analysis. Administration & Society , 51(5). Mueller, D. C., Tollison, R. D., & Willett, T. D. (1972). Representative Democracy via Random Selection. Public Choice 12(1). OECD. (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave . OECD Publishing. O’Leary, K. (2006). Saving Democracy: A Plan for Real Representation in America . Stanford University Press. Pogrebinschi, T., & Ryan, M. (2018). Moving beyond input legitimacy: When do democratic innovations affect policy making? European Journal of Political Research , 57 (1), 135–152. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 25(1). Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation . Cambridge University Press. Vrydagh, J. (2022). Measuring the impact of consultative citizen participation: reviewing the congruency approaches for assessing the uptake of citizen ideas. Policy Sciences , 55(1). Vrydagh, J., & Caluwaerts, D. (2020). How do Mini-publics Affect Public Policy? Disentangling the Influences of a Mini-public on . Public Policy Using the Sequential Impact Matrix Framework. Representation. Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning Real Utopias . Verso. Zakaras, A. (2010). Lot and Democratic Representation: A Modest Proposal. Constellations 17(3). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixTablesimplementationofrecommendations.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7047746","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":485630961,"identity":"9f6163f7-d624-45c6-b3d4-1ce869c729cc","order_by":0,"name":"Adela Gasiorowska","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Warsaw","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adela","middleName":"","lastName":"Gasiorowska","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-04 14:38:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7047746/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7047746/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":98622689,"identity":"6b28ffd0-549f-4cd7-a642-826c6b0d542c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-19 17:00:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":694043,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7047746/v1/0c51c7f8-e6e5-4acd-9bbc-105fa739533a.pdf"},{"id":86849878,"identity":"06001167-a864-4381-9edc-bb58d8fb7af3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-16 09:32:08","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":34080,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixTablesimplementationofrecommendations.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7047746/v1/126c28330df25fe5634b1aef.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Policy impact of local democratic innovations: Lessons from Gdańsk Citizens’ Assemblies","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.1. Potential of deliberative democratic innovations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemocratic innovations based on random selection and deliberation tend to be seen as a means to heal representative democracy. In particular, their use is claimed to answer the weaknesses of decision-making, such as corruption, lack of representation or the domination of the law-making process by lobbyists and political parties (Dienel, Renn 1995, Carson, Martin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, Smith \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e, Wright \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e, Delannoi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, Gastil, Richards \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, some of the authors argue that these innovations have the potential to transform the current political and legal system towards a more democratic and participatory direction, and to become permanent institutions of law-making processes (Cohen, Fung \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e, Gastil, Wright \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Transformation of the contemporary system into a more democratic model through the usage of deliberative innovations is also promoted by some grassroots movements, who campaign for their broader application (Jacquet et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, the recently conducted studies show that social and political support for granting randomly selected deliberative bodies competence to make binding public decisions is limited (Jacquet \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, Bedock and Pilet \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, Macq and Jacquet \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNowadays one of the popular democratic innovations is the citizens\u0026rsquo; assembly (CA). The CA is a form of a mini-public - institution consisting of randomly selected citizens who are representative of their population with regard to various demographic characteristics and who deliberate on a given issue (Escobar, Elstub \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). CAs are generally commissioned by public authorities and their aim is to deliver recommendations for public policies (OECD \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Despite their popularity, most CAs and other mini-publics are not institutionalised yet and the process of implementation of their recommendations is not legally regulated (ibid.). Moreover, the existing institutionalised mini-publics are granted only advisory roles to the electoral institutions of representative democracy. Thus, the legal regulations concerning their competencies do not guarantee them a real impact on the decision-making process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the last decades institutionalisation of mini-publics in the political and legal system was an object of interest for numerous scholars, who proposed granting them different roles and competencies (Burnheim \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e, Goodwin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e, Bouricious \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, Gastil, Richards \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, Gastil, Wright \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Regardless of their variety, most of these concepts assume granting mini-publics some role in a law-making process by replacing or supplementing the elected legislature with randomly selected and deliberative bodies, or by supporting with them the institutions of representative or direct democracy. Only some of these concepts, however, seem to assume the actual transformation of current political and legal systems towards deliberative democracy, based on equal political participation and deliberative decision-making (Fishkin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.2. Impact on public policies\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegardless of whether the deliberative and participatory innovations are used to complement or transform the contemporary political and legal system, they should have a certain impact on the policy-making process. The models of evaluation of participatory processes - even those used only for consultative purposes - among other criteria of evaluation mention their impact on public policies. The impact of these processes can be understood differently. Some of the authors require the recommendations of these processes to have at least a high probability of being implemented by public officials (Crosby et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), while others claim that they should have a genuine influence on public policies and be seen as such, i.a. in order to not be perceived as a tool for legitimation of public decisions (Rowe, Frewer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe impact of the produced recommendations is also pointed out as one of the characteristics of a successful deliberation. It is argued that the recommendations of deliberative processes should have an impact on public policies and provide long-term effects (Gastil et. al \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Some of the authors also claim that recommendations should be binding for some period of time, either by influencing public decisions directly or by affecting the process of decision-making (Gutmann, Thompson 2004). The impact of mini-publics can be also understood as their influence on the general thinking of people who can affect public policies (Guston \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, even if some mini-publics have no actual impact on any public decisions, they might influence general thinking about certain public policies or about the style of policy-making (ibid.).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the policy impact of actually organised mini-publics is still studied to a relatively small extent. The conducted studies (Bua \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, Pogrebinschi, Ryan 2017) show that the recommendations of deliberative processes are generally implemented by law-making authorities but at the same time their authors recognise that the impact of these processes can be limited. First, the studies do not analyse other factors, external to the deliberative processes, which can influence the legislation. Second, the actual impact of deliberative innovations can be limited if they are organised within the framework set by existing public authorities\u0026rsquo; policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are also some recently conducted studies which examine various methods of assessment of mini-publics\u0026rsquo; policy impact. First, the analysis of mini-publics\u0026rsquo; impact can take into consideration both the political and social context, and various perspectives - instrumental, conceptual, and strategic (Michels, Binnema 2018). Thus, translation of mini-publics\u0026rsquo; recommendations into public decisions is only one aspect of their impact (political and instrumental). Also the study conducted by Jacquet and van der Does (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that analysis of congruency between mini-publics\u0026rsquo; recommendations and public decisions can be insufficient to fully assess policy impact of mini-publics. First, some of the mini-publics\u0026rsquo; outputs are so abstract that it is hard to assess if they are translated into public decisions. Second, the congruence between recommendations and public decisions does not necessarily mean that the public decisions were made to implement the recommendations. Thus, the analysis of policy impact can also investigate if mini-publics\u0026rsquo; recommendations are considered by decision-makers, or if they lead to a structural change of a public policy (ibid.).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research aimed to analyse the congruence between mini-public recommendations and public decisions can be also based on various approaches. It can either analyse in a binary way if the public decisions are consistent with recommendations, or use a pluralistic approach, by investigating the extent of correspondence between recommendations and public policies (Vrydagh, Caluwaerts \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, Vrydagh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The pluralistic congruency approach can be also enriched by investigating the connections between outcomes of mini-publics and initial policy agendas or decision-makers\u0026rsquo; preferences, and on this basis distinguish various kinds of their policy impact (ibid.).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e1.3. Aims of the paper\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite the popularity and expected potential of CAs and other mini-publics, their actual policy impact is still underexplored, and the methods of assessing this impact are only being developed. Thus, it seems necessary to conduct studies providing information on the CAs\u0026rsquo; impact on public policies, investigating the reasons why their recommendations are implemented or not, and contributing to the research on assessing policy impact of mini-publics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, the main aim of the paper is to investigate the CAs\u0026rsquo; impact on public policies. In the research I took into consideration existing methods of assessing mini-publics\u0026rsquo; policy impact and possible risks and limitations connected with the use of these methods. Thus, I tried to analyse CAs\u0026rsquo; impact from various perspectives, including: examining if their recommendations were implemented (analysis of congruence between recommendations and public decisions), investigating the general impact of CAs and characterising kinds of this impact. Moreover, I tried to investigate reasons standing behind (non)implementation of CA\u0026rsquo;s recommendations and, on this basis, formulate recommendations concerning improvements of CAs which can lead to better implementation of the recommendations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, in the paper I answer the following research questions: (1) what is the impact of citizens\u0026rsquo; assemblies (CAs) on public policies, (2) what are the factors that impede or expedite implementation of their recommendations, and (3) which elements of design or implementation of the CAs could be improved to increase the chances that CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations will be implemented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn order to answer the research questions, I conducted the case study of the first three Polish CAs, which were organised in Gdańsk in the years 2016\u0026ndash;2018. The case study was conducted with the use of a desk research and formal-legal analysis, and it was complemented by in-depth interviews and a focus-group interview conducted with various actors participating in the CAs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, in the paper I will (1) describe the methods used in the study, (2) present the main results of the study, and (3) discuss the results in the broader context of the dilemmas concerning CA\u0026rsquo;s role in a political and legal system, and its transformative potential.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn order to answer the research questions, I conducted an in-depth case study of three CAs which were organised in Gdańsk, Poland, in the years 2016\u0026ndash;2017. Within the case study, I used diversified methods, such as desk research analysis, formal-legal analysis, in-depth interview and focus group interview.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe subjects of the desk research and formal-legal analysis were: publicly available information on the city\u0026rsquo;s authorities\u0026rsquo; actions within certain public policies, including legal acts adopted in the city of Gdańsk, as well as the documents concerning: the design and implementation of the CAs, the CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations, and the procedure of their implementation (i.a. lists of their recommendations, reports from the CAs, and reports from the implementation of CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations). The aims of the desk research and formal-legal analysis were to identify the elements of the CAs\u0026rsquo; design, to analyse their recommendations, and investigate their impact on public policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe in-depth interviews were conducted with nine participants: three public administration officials working in the area of citizen participation or responsible for the public policies related to the topics of the CAs, two stakeholders who participated in the CAs, and the representative of organisers of the CAs. Additionally, I conducted one focus group interview with three public administration officials working collectively in the field of public policy covered by one of the CAs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interviews took place online and lasted between 40 to 60 minutes. I prepared a list of questions and topics to cover, but they were asked in various orders and many follow-up questions were added during the interviews. All of the interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. The data collected through interviews was analysed with the use of thematic analysis (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). After transcribing the interviews, I prepared a scheme of initial codes and themes. During the rereading of the transcriptions, I systematically amended the scheme. Afterward, all of the transcripts were coded with the final coding scheme.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the interviews complemented the outcomes of the desk research and formal-legal analysis concerning the CAs\u0026rsquo; impact on public policies. Moreover, they were aimed to identify the factors that impede or expedite the implementation of CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations and elements of the CAs which could be improved in order to increase the chances that CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations will be implemented.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1. Gdańsk CAs - context of the study\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe CAs analysed within the study were conducted in Gdańsk, a Polish provincial capital with a population of around five hundred thousand citizens. Gdańsk is claimed to be a city which commonly uses various participatory methods in decision-making, including deliberative tools (Glejt-Uziębło, Uziębło \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2016, heavy rains occurred in Gdańsk and the city turned out not to be prepared for them, which resulted in a flood. Thus, the necessity arose to work out mechanisms that would protect the city from future heavy rains. Since the public authorities wanted to make decisions concerning these mechanisms in a participatory way, they decided to conduct a CA. Therefore in 2016, the first CA in Gdańsk was organised to answer the question \u0026lsquo;How to better prepare Gdańsk for future heavy rains?\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2017 two other CAs were conducted to answer questions: \u0026lsquo;How to improve the air quality? and \u0026lsquo;How to support the citizens\u0026rsquo; activity in Gdańsk?\u0026rsquo;. The third topic was the broadest one and covered three subtopics: the activity of adult citizens, citizens\u0026rsquo; activity in schools, and the equality of women and LGBT\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll of the Gdańsk CAs were commissioned by the President of Gdańsk, who claimed to implement all of the recommendations adopted by the CAs. In all of the cases, the CAs were outsourced to groups of experts specialising in deliberative democracy or urban planning. The Gdańsk CAs were the first three CAs organised in Poland, and despite the growing popularity of this tool in other Polish cities, since 2017 Gdańsk has not conducted any other CA.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2. CAs' impact on public policies\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs mentioned above, in the research I took into consideration various approaches to assessing mini-publics\u0026rsquo; policy impact. In particular, not only did I assess if the CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations were implemented in public policies, but I also investigated their general policy impact. Moreover, I tried to identify various kinds of impact that CAs had on public policies. When investigating the general impact and identifying kinds of impact, I took into consideration the initial policy agendas and policy-makers preferences and I tried to assess to which extent the organised assemblies were the factors which determined the process of making certain public decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe opinions presented by various interviewees within a research were generally consistent with one another. With few exceptions, they differed only to a minor extent. Also, the opinions presented by the public officials and stakeholders were similar and no tendency characteristic for any of these groups of interviewees was visible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.1. Implementation of CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the implementation of CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations was divided into a few steps. First, the list of all recommendations were prepared and it was determined if each of the recommendations was implementable (e.g. if the recommendation was out of city\u0026rsquo;s competences, it was marked as unimplementable). Second, it was determined if each of the recommendations were: implemented, partly implemented or not implemented. However, in some of the cases neither was there publicly available information on implementation, nor did public officials have any knowledge about implementation. The lists of recommendations of CAs with information on their implementation is available in the appendix to the paper (table A).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNext, the data on level of implementation of each CA\u0026rsquo;s recommendations was aggregated in the table below (B). The implementation rate was calculated as the proportion of the number of implemented recommendations to the number of recommendations which were implementable and for which the data on implementation was available. The partly implemented recommendations were counted with a 50% indicator.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB. LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CITY'S PUBLIC POLICIES\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of recommendations:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1st CA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2nd CA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3rd CA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ein total\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ein total:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eunimplementable:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ewith no data available about implementation:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eimplemented:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003epartly implemented:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003enot implemented:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImplementation rate\u003c/b\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e87,50%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e93,75%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e62,50%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e73,75%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable B. Level of implementation of recommendations of each Gdańsk CA in the city's public policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the study shows that the majority of the recommendations were implemented in the city's public policies (in total 73,75%). The implementation rate, however, differed in various cases - in the third CA, which produced the biggest number of recommendations, the rate was the lowest (62,50%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt also turned out that some of the recommendations were unimplementable, in particular in the first CA (above one third of recommendations). Most of them could not be implemented in the city\u0026rsquo;s policies since they were outside the competences of the city (they were in the competence of governmental administration and national or regional legislature). Additionally, data concerning a significant number of the recommendations were not available. It was especially problematic in the case of the third CA (above one third of recommendations), where some of the recommendations were so general that it was impossible to assess if they were implemented or not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt can be also noted that, in the case of the third CA, some of the recommendations should have led to a change of the local law, such as city council\u0026rsquo;s resolutions on participatory budgeting and on statutes of city\u0026rsquo;s districts. Nevertheless, none of these legal acts were amended according to the results of the CA - some of the recommendations on participatory budgeting were implemented only in practice, and some were not implemented at all, while the reform of the city\u0026rsquo;s districts is still being developed by the city.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the analysis of the recommendations showed that some of the recommendations were implemented or planned before the CAs. For example, the obligations included in the CA\u0026rsquo;s recommendations were included as well in the statutes of the districts or in the city\u0026rsquo;s strategic programmes which were adopted on the basis of the national law. Additionally, another part of recommendations were implemented as part of the city's policy, which was developed in an independent participatory process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, similarly to the findings of Jacquet\u0026rsquo;s and van der Does\u0026rsquo; study (2021), both findings concerning the generality of some of the recommendations, and factors external to the CAs, influencing the implementation of their recommendations in public policy spoke for conducting a broader analysis of CAs\u0026rsquo; policy impact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.2. General impact\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs mentioned above, none of the recommendations which were in the competences of the city led to the adoption of any local law by the city council. Most of the analysed recommendations only provided executive bodies with directions for public policies or allowed citizens to choose the solutions within these policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, both public officials and stakeholders frequently argued that the CAs were used as a tool for the legitimation of public policies of the city, and allowed public officials to assert that the citizens accept these policies. In particular, the officials stated that the CAs allowed them to feel that citizens understand the city's policies, and \u0026lsquo;not limit oneself with alleged barriers of social acceptance\u0026rsquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of the CAs was also claimed to give higher priority to the actions undertaken within the city's policies. It eased public officials to implement and expand policies approved by CAs, and finance and negotiate certain actions, as the following quotes of the interviewed officials suggest:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt gave us a green light to broaden the policy, clarify, explain and expand it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor sure the assembly, and the interest in it, opened for us greater possibilities to finance certain things. It is for sure\u0026hellip; These tasks also get priority.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt [decisions of CA] is one of the concrete things that let us have a better negotiating position for additional activities. (...) So it can be said that from this perspective it is easier to negotiate the next elements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the interviewees, the third CA was used not only to receive acceptance for planned actions but also as a tool for the legitimation of already implemented public policies, which can be illustrated with a stakeholder\u0026rsquo;s quote:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe assembly was used in a little bit manipulative way, to receive social legitimacy for implementation of ideas which were already on the banners (...) and even were already implemented, and the aim was to receive for them social legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, it was underlined that legitimising various ideas of the city by using CAs can be a positive practice, as long as the city asks citizens in a clear manner to choose one of the solutions which can be implemented within the policy. In this case, a CA can be used by public officials to get social acceptance for the solution chosen by assembly members and to relieve them from the liability of making the choice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlso one of the recommendations, proposed by the city and not accepted by the CA, was claimed \u0026lsquo;not to get the legitimation\u0026rsquo;. Both the results of desk research and interviews showed that this recommendation was not implemented directly after the CA. It was, however, implemented at a later time, as a result of a different participatory process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the CAs were seen by many of the interviewers as one of many participatory or deliberative tools used by the city. It was especially underlined that in the case of certain topics different methods should be used instead of CAs (which will be described more broadly in the next subsection). It was also stated that CAs are not a universal tool of decision-making which could replace the current legislative bodies, as the following quote of a public officials suggests:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is the fact that representative democracy is in crisis and plenty of situations - populism or groups of interests influencing decisions of our representatives - take place\u0026hellip; maybe corruption, but to a lesser extent, especially in our country. But revelatory golden means, like citizens budget, like citizens\u0026rsquo; assembly, they are not a cure. For sure, they are not a golden cure, maybe they are some elements. So a million dollars to whoever finds a way to combine it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2.3. Kinds of impact\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLack of impact.\u003c/em\u003e Part of the recommendations of analysed CAs did not have any impact on public policies. This resulted mainly from the fact that some of them had been previously implemented or planned by the city. In particular, the interviewees claimed that some of the recommendations were already implemented because public officials were legally obligated to implement them (which was also indicated by the results of the desk research and formal-legal analysis) or because the stakeholders put pressure on the city to do so. Moreover, as mentioned above, there were recommendations which were not implemented at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndirect implementation\u003c/em\u003e. There were also some recommendations which were claimed to not be implemented directly, but rather followed in a more general way. This way of indirect implementation can be illustrated by the following quote from the interviewed stakeholder:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSomething that could be heard from the citizens\u0026rsquo; assembly, maybe not as an individual recommendation, but from a certain context, was that we needed some facilities for NGOs [...]. It is happening and I think that even if some things are not implemented point by point, the spirit of the recommendations is implemented in the city's policy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFastening or postponing.\u003c/em\u003e The interviewees also frequently pointed out that even if some of the CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations did not change the decisions made by public officials, they influenced the public policies by fastening or postponing the decision-making process and the implementation of these decisions, as the following quote suggests:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI think that the citizens' assembly contributed to the fastening of these processes. However, probably these decisions, these directions of change, considering that they comply with certain paradigms, maybe social and ecological trends, would probably take place. But, I think, not so fast.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of public policies was also claimed to be fastened indirectly. It was pointed out that owing to a better understanding of certain issues by other public officials it was possible to execute some of the decisions faster:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor sure, it [CA] resulted in a better understanding of this topic among public officials. Because, I think, more and more of us have a sense that it is not a topic prescribed to one or two units, but also others work for these effects. Which was related to an easier, more effective implementation of the policy, which we worked out. These are measurable effects, which make our actions more effective. They are implemented faster, on point, we use returns to scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProduction of new solutions.\u003c/em\u003e Part of the interviewees argued also that there were some solutions which were produced by the CAs and which would not have been implemented without them. It was also argued that the CAs made the city reflect on new solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSocial change.\u003c/em\u003e Finally, the interviewees pointed out the broader impact of the CAs, which was their influence on various actors who are users of public policies. In particular, they claimed that the implementation and results of CAs influenced actors actively engaged in processes implementation of public policies (e.g. investors, designers), which eased these processes. It was also stated that the CAs can raise the understanding of public issues among the citizens, i.a. through the assembly members who can act in the society as ambassadors for the outcomes of CAs. According to the interviewees, the implementation of CAs also positively affected the culture of cooperation and helped to introduce controversial issues to a public space, which the following quote, among others, suggests:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI was very prepossessed by the culture of discussion and vibrancy of interest in the topics. I think that generally it is a brilliant method of introducing a public space (...) with some of the topics which can be controversial and hard.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3. Factors influencing implementation and possible improvements\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the interviewees, only part of the factors influencing the implementation of recommendations concerned this process itself. The rest of them regarded: topics of CAs, CA\u0026rsquo;s implementation, and the quality of CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations. The possible improvements, aimed to higher a level of implementation of recommendations and brought up by the interviewees, concerned: topics of CAs, CA\u0026rsquo;s implementation and implementation of their recommendations. Similarly to the findings of the first research question, the opinions of interviewees were mutually consistent and no tendency was visible for any group of interviewees.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1. Topics of the CAs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe extent of the topic\u003c/em\u003e. Interviewees frequently underlined that, when the extent of the topic was too broad and there were too many issues to be in-depthly discussed, it negatively influenced the quality of the process and, consequently, the implementation of the CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations. It was also mentioned that when the topic is too broad, the city might not have enough human resources to implement all of the produced recommendations. These findings are consistent with the results of analysis of the implementation of recommendations which showed that implementation rate was the lowest in the third assembly, which had the broadest topic and produced the highest number of recommendations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUrgency of the problem.\u003c/em\u003e According to the interviewees, the topic of the assembly concerning urgent problem can be a factor that exceeds the implementation of recommendations. It can be illustrated with the quote of one of the stakeholders:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut we see a tendency, that the first CA was very concrete and it responded to a very urgent, current problem (...) it was conducted, was also implemented, because it had to be implemented. The intervention had to take place because it could not go on like this.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHuman rights and beliefs.\u003c/em\u003e Part of the interviewees underlined that the topic of the CA should not concern beliefs, application of human rights, or issues related to only specific social groups. Some of them mentioned that the assembly members can only be asked \u0026lsquo;how\u0026rsquo; to apply human rights but not \u0026lsquo;if\u0026rsquo;. The main justification of this view was that human rights are already binding and the public authorities are legally obliged to apply them. Moreover, one of the stakeholders mentioned the impossibility of accepting the point of view of people denying human rights:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[I would have to] have real willingness to accept the point of view of these people. It is, anyway, the reason why I do not want to discuss human rights or accessibility (...). Human rights are actually unnegotiable and one of these rights is accessibility. We can discuss if we can afford solution X or Y, but we can not discuss if these people can - I do not know - go out.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, a part of the interviewers claimed that the CA does not provide enough time for an in-depth discussion about beliefs or that decisions concerning only specific social groups should not be made by the cross-section of the city\u0026rsquo;s population.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUndeveloped policies.\u003c/em\u003e The interviewees' opinions about using CAs in public policies that are not already developed by the city were mixed. A part of the interviewees claimed that the CA can be a good tool to look for new solutions or to give public officials an impulse to undertake actions in a given area. However, other interviewees stated that the CA should not be used for creating new ideas, since it cannot produce technical solutions and high-quality recommendations, and because too general questions expose CAs to a bigger risk of manipulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePossible improvements.\u003c/em\u003e Regarding the above-mentioned factors impeding the implementation of the CA\u0026rsquo;s recommendations, interviewees proposed a few improvements concerning the selection of their topics. First, they frequently suggested narrowing the extent of the topic to a few concrete issues which could be discussed during a few meetings of the CA.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, a significant part of the interviewees proposed to ask assembly members close-ended questions with a set of proposed answers which would be preliminarily accepted by the city authorities. Alternatively, part of the interviewees claimed that the CAs should only select a direction for a given public policy, while the specific solutions should be worked out by people who have knowledge about the legal, financial and organisational conditions of the policy in question.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, both stakeholders and public officials frequently proposed using for some of the topics other participatory-deliberative processes, which would e.g. engage experts and stakeholders to a larger extent, involve only representatives of the social group affected by the certain policy, or would last longer than a CA. At the same time, interviewees remained open to the possibility of organising CAs which would discuss the recommendations worked out through these processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.2. Process of the CA\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimited participation of the city and experts.\u003c/em\u003e A significant part of the interviewees, both the public officials and stakeholders, stated that the limited participation of officials and experts in the CAs negatively influenced the quality of recommendations, which led to a lower level of their implementation. In particular, they claimed that officials had insufficient time to prepare for participation in the CA and to give opinions on the first versions of the recommendations; they were also not provided with appropriate information before issuing those opinions. It was also pointed out that there was no mechanism that would automatically exclude recommendations that are, for example, illegal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLack of knowledge.\u003c/em\u003e According to the interviewees, the second factor that negatively affected the quality of recommendations concerned the deficiencies of the educational part of the CAs. Some of the stakeholders pointed out that during this part of one of the CAs, the solutions were proposed and presented inconsiderately. Moreover, part of the interviewees stated that even after a well-conducted educational part of the CA, the assembly members are not equipped with professional knowledge and are vulnerable to manipulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePossible improvements.\u003c/em\u003e Part of the interviewees suggested extending the educational part of the CAs to better educate the assembly members. It was also proposed that the city's participation in CAs should be increased. In particular, the need to engage public officials in CAs at an early stage was expressed, e.g. by observing the process of deliberation, reporting the illegality or impracticability of recommendations, presenting their opinions to assembly members, and by more actively participating in the educational part of CAs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.3. Recommendations of the CAs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGenerality.\u003c/em\u003e The most common factor impeding the implementation of recommendations, mentioned by both public officials and stakeholders, was the overly general character of recommendations. In particular, some of the recommendations did not indicate any formal details, such as who is responsible for their implementation, and used imprecise and informal language. As a result, public officials claimed to have problems with determining the meaning of the recommendations, which can be illustrated by this quote:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe general character of this recommendation does not allow us to find its real meaning, what assembly members really thought about.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt was also mentioned that the general character of the recommendations raises the risk that public authorities will unfairly legitimise their decisions, since when the recommendations are too general, the city can implement them by any sort of action.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOut of competence.\u003c/em\u003e The second problem frequently mentioned by the interviewees was that some of the recommendations were out of the competence of the local government. Thus, the local authorities were not able to implement these recommendations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlready implemented or planned.\u003c/em\u003e Moreover, according to the interviewees, a significant part of the recommendations had already been implemented or planned by the city. It did not negatively affect the process of implementation, but restricted the impact of the CAs on the public policies, since the recommendations were claimed to have been implemented otherwise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLack of acceptance of stakeholders.\u003c/em\u003e Finally, part of the interviewees pointed out that some of the recommendations were not acceptable for stakeholders directly interested in certain policies. Some of these recommendations were evaluated as ineffective or unrealistic, thus there was no will to implement them, either on the side of the city or among the stakeholders. At the same time, interviewees underlined that the city implemented other solutions aimed to achieve the same effect, but more acceptable for the interested actors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.4. Process of implementation of recommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoordination and monitoring.\u003c/em\u003e According to the interviewees, the process of implementation was negatively affected by the lack of coordination or monitoring of the process. Interviewees mentioned that implementation of various recommendations was the obligation of different units of the city hall, and there were no units appointed to coordinate or monitor the process of implementation. Moreover, despite one meeting with assembly members after the first CA, the assembly members were not included in the process of implementation. On the other hand, neither assembly members nor stakeholders actively monitored the implementation on their own initiative.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePolitical will.\u003c/em\u003e The other factor concerning the process of implementation was the political will of various officials. Interviewees underlined the significance of the president's of the city support for the assembly, as the following quote suggests:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBetween first and second [CA] it was known that they [recommendations] were implemented. That there was a strong political president\u0026rsquo;s will. And it was just clear that they have to be implemented, that there is the president's will that they have to be implemented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome of the interviewees claimed that the city officials generally follow the will of the president, regardless of whether they are personally convinced by the recommendations. On the other hand, the interviewees underlined the significance of the political will of the mid-level officials, who do not always support the policies of high-level officials and can successfully impede their implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lsquo;Belongingness\u0026rsquo; of the recommendations.\u003c/em\u003e The last factor is related to the previously mentioned, but it rather concerns the attitude to specific recommendations. Both stakeholders and public officials underlined that if some recommendations did not \u0026lsquo;belong\u0026rsquo; to certain actors, they were less probable to be implemented, which can be suggested, i.a. by the following quote:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are casually brought up ideas during citizens\u0026rsquo; assembly, which are nobody\u0026rsquo;s. And that is why they will never be implemented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is also worth mentioning that in the opinion of some of the interviewees, the attitude of the public officials was, i.a. affected by their limited participation in the CAs, which can be illustrated with the following quote of the public official:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThus, later on, there was no will for\u0026hellip; there was no identification with things which were developed. And since we did not participate in this process, it was not ours, it was something imposed, and now it occurs that someone has to do it. And since it was strongly emphasised that city hall should stay away from it, it stays away.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePossible improvements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsidering the lack of coordination and monitoring of the process of implementation, part of the interviewees proposed to implement mechanisms of coordination and monitoring, including a coordinating body composed of heads of units of city hall, responsible for the implementation of recommendations and of representatives of civil society, headed by the vice-president of the city. The far-reaching concept proposed by one of the interviewees suggested also establishing CAs\u0026rsquo; control over the public officials responsible for the implementation of their recommendations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion and conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of the conducted study suggest that the analysed CAs had a positive but not very strong impact on public policies. The majority of the CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations were implemented in the city\u0026rsquo;s policies. However, none of them led to change of a local law, and some of them were implemented as a result of factors external to the CAs. Generally, the CA was treated by various actors as an institution responsible for choosing the solutions from options proposed by executive authorities or for recommending directions for their policies. Thus, the actual role of the analysed CAs seems to be contrary to the presumption that CAs can replace or influence existing legislative bodies (Gastil, Wright \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, some of the CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations were treated as general suggestions for public policies which can be implemented in various ways rather than followed directly. First, it can be indicated by the interviewees\u0026rsquo; opinions on the very general character of some of the recommendations and the indirect way of their implementation. Moreover, this attitude can be illustrated by the manner of monitoring the process of implementation. With a few exceptions, the information about implementation was not published by the city, and at the same time stakeholders and assembly members were not actively interested in the process of implementation. The stakeholders admitted that they do not follow the process of implementation, or follow the changes in certain policies while performing their other duties. Thus, there was nobody, either on the site of the city, or the civil society, who would verify if the recommendations - as the outcome of the CAs - are implemented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is also worth noting that the CAs were claimed to be only one of many deliberative and participatory tools used in a city. It was frequently argued that they are not a universal tool and cannot be used to resolve certain issues, such as those concerning human rights and problems of specific social groups. This view is interesting in terms of assumptions concerning benefits resulting from the design of the CA. First, it is significant that part of the interviewees pointed out that since these issues are non-negotiable for them, they are not able to adopt the perspective of their opponents. This attitude can bring into question the reasonableness of resolving these issues with the use of deliberation, which requires its participants to be ready to consider the arguments of other participants (Cohen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, some of the interviewees claimed that decisions concerning the rights of specific groups should be made only by the people whose rights are being discussed. Consequently, they suggested using in these cases other forms of citizens\u0026rsquo; participation, which involve only representatives of these groups. It is worth noticing that this view is more far-reaching than those expressed in the literature, which propose to increase the representation of decision making by the use of mini-publics which guarantee that decisions are made by a cross-section of a population (Wright \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe other interesting issue is the participation of public officials in CAs. First, recognition of the officials' participation as one of the factors exceeding the CA\u0026rsquo;s impact on public policies is in line with previous assumptions that engaging officials in the participatory processes can positively influence the likelihood of implementation of their recommendations (Crosby 1986). Second, the interviewees\u0026rsquo; opinions concerning the significance of officials\u0026rsquo; participation in CAs and mistakes in the recommendations resulting from their insufficient participation, suggest that various actors are still willing to engage well-qualified public officials in decision-making and do not want to entrust it entirely to lay citizens'. These findings seem to be consistent with previously conducted research regarding the social and political acceptance for the institutionalisation of mini-publics (Jacquet \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are also some further connections between these findings, including the opinions concerning the use of the CA as a tool for legitimising public policies. It was frequently suggested by the interviewees that the analysed CAs helped legitimising decisions or activities of public authorities. It was not, however, seen as an unambiguously wrong practice, as long as it was not used in a manipulative way. It also seemed to be acceptable for both public officials and stakeholders that CAs are used by public authorities to receive citizens\u0026rsquo; acceptance for certain solutions or to increase the priority of these solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, the results of the conducted study seem to militate against the assumption that CAs have a potential to transform the current political and legal system and gain a significant role in the lawmaking process. The analysed cases suggest that CAs rather have a potential to be used as one of the many deliberative and participatory tools aimed to complement the current system, and to remain advisory bodies to elected officials.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, it should be underlined that the prevailing part of the interviewees expressed positive opinions on the analysed CAs and saw the CA as a process beneficial to the city and its citizens. Most of them were also convinced that CAs and similar processes should be further implemented and refined in line with suggested improvements. It is worth mentioning that a significant part of the identified factors impeding the process of implementation resulted not from the weaknesses of the institution of CA, but from the mistakes made during its implementation. Besides, the interviewees frequently underlined that some of those mistakes were made because the analysed CAs were the first assemblies organised in Poland. It seems to be possible to remove such mistakes by implementing the improvement identified in the paper. Until they are removed, however, they can negatively affect the implementation of CAs\u0026rsquo; recommendations and the potential of the CA.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBesides providing findings concerning the potential of CAs and recommendations for improvements in their design and implementation, the conducted research can contribute to the studies on the policy impact of mini-publics, including the methods of assessing this impact. The approach and methods applied within the study can be used as a basis for further research concerning different cases of CAs or other mini-publics and their impact on public decisions. Moreover, the findings of the research can be a starting point for further studies, aiming to deepen or expand the analysis of identified problems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eFunding statement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research received no specific grant funding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe entire study was designed and conducted and the entire paper was written by Adela Gasiorowska.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBedock, C., \u0026amp; Pilet, J-B. (2020). \u003cem\u003eEnraged, Engaged, or Both? A Study of the Determinants of Support for Consultative vs\u003c/em\u003e. Binding Mini-Publics. Representation.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBedock, C., \u0026amp; Pilet, J-B. (2021). \u003cem\u003eWho Supports Citizens Selected by Lot to be the Main Policymakers? A Study of French Citizens\u003c/em\u003e (p. 56). Government and Opposition.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBouricious, T. (2013). Democracy Through Multi-Body Sortition: Athenian Lessons for the Modern Day. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Deliberation\u003c/em\u003e, 9(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 3(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBua, A. (2017). Scale and policy impact in participatory-deliberative democracy: Lessons from a multi‐level process. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration\u003c/em\u003e, 95(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBuchstein, H., \u0026amp; Hein, M. (2009). Randomizing Europe: the lottery as a decision-making procedure for policy creation in the EU. \u003cem\u003eCritical Policy Studies\u003c/em\u003e 3(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurnheim, J. (1985). \u003cem\u003eIs Democracy Possible: The Alternative to Electoral Politics\u003c/em\u003e. Polity.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCallenbach, E., \u0026amp; Phillips, M. (1985). \u003cem\u003eA Citizen Legislature\u003c/em\u003e. Bookpeople.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarson, L., \u0026amp; Martin, B. (1999). \u003cem\u003eRandom Selection in Politics\u003c/em\u003e. Praeger.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaserta, M., Pluchino, A., Rapisarda, A., \u0026amp; Spagano, S. (2021). Why lot? How sortition could help representative democracy. \u003cem\u003ePhysica A\u003c/em\u003e 565.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen, J. (2009). \u003cem\u003eReflections on Deliberative Democracy\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCohen, J., \u0026amp; Fung, A. (2004). The Radical-Democratic Project. \u003cem\u003eSwiss Journal of Political Science\u003c/em\u003e, 10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCrosby, N., Kelly, J. M., \u0026amp; Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation. \u003cem\u003ePublic Administration Review\u003c/em\u003e 46(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDelannoi, G., Dowlen, O., \u0026amp; Stone, P. (2013). \u003cem\u003eThe Lottery as a Democratic Institution\u003c/em\u003e. Policy Institute.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDienel, P. C., Renn, O. P., \u0026amp; Cells (1995). A Gate to \u0026lsquo;Fractal\u0026rsquo; Mediation [in:] Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. Eds. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Springer.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEscobar, O., \u0026amp; Elstub, S. (2017). \u003cem\u003eForms of Mini-publics\u003c/em\u003e. Research and Development Note. newDemocracy.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFishkin, J. S. (2009). \u003cem\u003eWhen the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGastil, J., Knobloch, K., \u0026amp; Kelly, M. (2012). Evaluating deliberative public events and projects [in:] Nabatchi, T., Gastil, J., Weiksner, M., Leighninger, M. Eds. Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGastil, J., \u0026amp; Richards, R. C. (2013). Making Direct Democracy Deliberative through Random Assemblies. \u003cem\u003ePolitics and Society\u003c/em\u003e 41(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGastil, J., \u0026amp; Wright, E. O. (2019). \u003cem\u003eLegislature by lot. The transformative designs for deliberative governance\u003c/em\u003e. Verso.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlejt-Uziębło, P., \u0026amp; Uziębło, P. (2018). \u003cem\u003ePartycypacja w tr\u0026oacute;jmieście. O prawnej regulacji mechanizm\u0026oacute;w demokracji semibezpośredniej w Gdańsku, Gdyni i Sopocie\u003c/em\u003e. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoodwin, B. (1992). \u003cem\u003eJustice by Lottery\u003c/em\u003e. Havrester Wheatsheaf.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuston, D. H. (1999). Evaluating the first U.S. Consensus Conference: the impact of the citizens\u0026rsquo; panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, \u0026amp; Human Values 24(4).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGutmann, A., \u0026amp; Thompson, D. F. (2015). \u003cem\u003eWhy Deliberative Democracy\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press./.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJacquet, V. (2019). The Role and the Future of Deliberative Mini-publics: A Citizen Perspective. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Studies\u003c/em\u003e,67(3).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJacquet, V., Niessen, C., \u0026amp; Reuchamps, M. (2022). Sortition, its advocates and its critics: An empirical analysis of citizens\u0026rsquo; and MPs\u0026rsquo; support for random selection as a democratic reform proposal. \u003cem\u003eInternational Political Science Review\u003c/em\u003e 43(2).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJacquet, V., \u0026amp; van der Does, R. (2021). The Consequences of Deliberative Minipublics: Systematic overview, conceptual gaps, and new directions. \u003cem\u003eRepresentation, 57(1).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJacquet, V., \u0026amp; van der Does, R. (2021). Deliberation and policy-making: Three ways to think about minipublics\u0026rsquo; consequences. \u003cem\u003eAdministration \u0026amp; Society, 53(3).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacq, H., \u0026amp; Jacquet, V. (2021). \u003cem\u003eInstitutionalising participatory and deliberative procedures: The origins of the first permanent citizens\u0026rsquo; assembly\u003c/em\u003e. European Journal of Political Research.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichels, A., \u0026amp; Binnema, H. (2019). Assessing the impact of deliberative democratic initiatives at the local level: a framework for analysis. \u003cem\u003eAdministration \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, 51(5).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMueller, D. C., Tollison, R. D., \u0026amp; Willett, T. D. (1972). Representative Democracy via Random Selection. \u003cem\u003ePublic Choice\u003c/em\u003e 12(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. (2020). \u003cem\u003eInnovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave\u003c/em\u003e. OECD Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Leary, K. (2006). \u003cem\u003eSaving Democracy: A Plan for Real Representation in America\u003c/em\u003e. Stanford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePogrebinschi, T., \u0026amp; Ryan, M. (2018). Moving beyond input legitimacy: When do democratic innovations affect policy making? \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Political Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(1), 135\u0026ndash;152.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRowe, G., \u0026amp; Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, \u0026amp; Human Values. 25(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith, G. (2009). \u003cem\u003eDemocratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVrydagh, J. (2022). Measuring the impact of consultative citizen participation: reviewing the congruency approaches for assessing the uptake of citizen ideas. \u003cem\u003ePolicy Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 55(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVrydagh, J., \u0026amp; Caluwaerts, D. (2020). \u003cem\u003eHow do Mini-publics Affect Public Policy? Disentangling the Influences of a Mini-public on\u003c/em\u003e. Public Policy Using the Sequential Impact Matrix Framework. Representation.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWright, E. O. (2010). \u003cem\u003eEnvisioning Real Utopias\u003c/em\u003e. Verso.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZakaras, A. (2010). Lot and Democratic Representation: A Modest Proposal. \u003cem\u003eConstellations\u003c/em\u003e 17(3).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"democratic innovations, citizen participation, deliberative democracy, citizens’ assembly, public policies","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7047746/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7047746/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDemocratic innovations based on random selection and deliberation are claimed to have a potential to heal the current political and legal system or even transform it towards a more democratic and participatory direction (Carson, Martin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e, Gastil, Richards \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, Gastil, Wright \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Regardless of their role, these innovations should have a certain impact on the policy-making process (Crosby et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e, Rowe, Frezer 2000, Gutmann, Thompson 2004, Gastil, et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). One of the popular democratic innovations is the citizens' assembly (CA). It is difficult, however, to determine their actual impact on public policies. Since it remains unknown what factors impede or expedite implementation of their recommendations, it is also hard to say which elements of CAs should be improved to increase their impact. Therefore, the paper provides findings on citizens\u0026rsquo; assemblies\u0026rsquo; (CAs\u0026rsquo;) policy impact and the reasons for (non)implementation of their recommendations. Besides, it contributes to the studies on methods of assessing mini-publics\u0026rsquo; impact. The research is based on the case study of three CAs, organised in Gdansk, Poland, in 2016\u0026ndash;2018, and it was conducted with the use of a desk research and formal-legal analysis, and interviews with various actors participating in the CAs. The study shows that the CAs had a positive but not very strong policy impact, and have a potential to remain one of many participatory and advisory tools.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Policy impact of local democratic innovations: Lessons from Gdańsk Citizens’ Assemblies","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-16 09:24:04","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7047746/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a15d79b2-817a-4a04-b28e-5fc0ebcc679d","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-10T23:23:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-16 09:24:04","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7047746","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7047746","identity":"rs-7047746","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}