Introduction
Democratic innovations (DIs) are seen as cures to various challenges in modern democracies. Their expected benefits include, for example, improving inclusion, fostering public deliberation, increasing government effectiveness, and reviving political trust and civic skills (Fung Reference Fung2003). Despite these promises, the breadth and quality of their adoption differ a great deal around the world. While Switzerland is known for its direct democratic institutions (Veri and Stojanovic, this volume), participatory budgeting (PB) started to flourish in Latin America (Pogrebinschi, this volume). Previous research suggests that there are structural and actor-related reasons for adopting DIs (Pradeau Reference Pradeau and Porto de Oliveira2021). Yet, research on DIs’ adoption in different political contexts often focuses on isolated methods or lacks longitudinal perspective (Falanga, this volume), which hinders assessing their role in the democratic decision-making system.
Finland, a Nordic democracy with a long history of consensus politics and corporatism (Vesa, Kantola and Skorkjaer Binderkrantz Reference Vesa, Kantola and Skorkjaer Binderkrantz2018), has seen a proliferation of DIs, especially during the last 15 years. Considering DIs’ expected benefits (Fung Reference Fung2003), Finland could be assumed to have little demand for them: The country has been characterised by high trust and satisfaction with democratic institutions, low corruption, and free press (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2021a; 2021b). Furthermore, the corporatist policy-making system has stable structures for including different societal interests in decision-making (Alasuutari and Rantala Reference Alasuutari and Rantala2025), whereas new participatory methods have been met with scepticism from policymakers (Koskimaa and Rapeli Reference Koskimaa and Rapeli2020). This prompts the question: How have DIs in Finland come about?
So far, research on DIs in Finland has been piecemeal and getting an overview is difficult. First, much is organised around case studies that have various purposes, designs, and levels of empowerment. Second, most studies focus on one method of participation or deliberation, and hence, comparative work is missing. Third, data of the usage of all DIs are not gathered systematically. Apart from official statistics compiled by the Ministry of Justice concerning direct democratic instruments, comprehensive data on DIs are missing. Our article complements these gaps by providing a first comprehensive outlook regarding the diffusion of DIs in Finland. We argue that a comprehensive view of DIs’ development is needed to understand their implications for democracy in a given political context.
We base our inquiry on existing studies, legal and policy documents, and data collected from the web, but also on our knowledge as Finnish DI researchers and practitioners. We start by outlining our conceptualisation of DIs and reviewing factors associated with their diffusion. We then move on to discuss the political, administrative, and legal developments that accompanied the proliferation of DIs in Finland over the years. To exemplify the roots and spread of participatory and deliberative DIs (Veri Reference Veri2023), we describe in detail the initial steps and development of three sets of innovations: referendums and citizens’ initiatives (CI), PB, and deliberative mini-publics (DMPs). Finally, we discuss the enabling factors of DIs’ diffusion in Finland and outline some possible future developments. By shedding light on the legislative, political, and learning mechanisms leading to the adoption and wider use of DIs, our study contributes to the broader debate on the role of novel participatory instruments in deliberative systems (Mansbridge, Bohman, Chambers et al. Reference Mansbridge, Bohman, Chambers, Christiano, Fung, Parkinson, Thompson, Warren, Parkinson and Mansbridge2012).
Diffusion of DIs
Innovations in the context of democracy could be conceptualised in either broad or narrow terms. In one of the earliest works discussing democratic innovation, Saward (Reference Saward2000) describes democratic innovation as a commitment to improve and renew democracy to explore its core elements from novel perspectives in the face of new circumstances. Broadly understood, democratic innovation is a constant endeavour to develop the theoretical ideals and practices of democracy. In contrast, Smith, in his seminal book of 2009, labels DIs as ‘institutions that have been specifically designed to increase and deepen citizen participation in the political decision-making process’ (Smith Reference Smith2009: 1). This narrower approach focuses on innovations, distinct institutionalised processes, as opposed to innovation as an ongoing practice of renewal (Elstub and Escobar Reference Elstub, Escobar, Elstub and Escobar2019: 12; see also Newton Reference Newton, Geissel and Newton2012: 5). The narrower focus has arguably come to dominate the scholarly discussion around innovation in democracy in recent years. It is also the approach we adopt in this article, while keeping in mind that our undertaking is part of a broader quest of democratic innovation.
Democracy in its simplest form means governance by the people. The modern-day democracy is by definition representative, based on selecting a small pool of decision-makers through regular, competitive, and free elections (Manin Reference Manin1997). The novelty of DIs stems not from their newness per se, but from their conscious departure of the prevailing, electoral-representative decision-making system, with an aim to reformulate the value of public participation in contemporary democracy by means of inclusion and considered judgment. The attempt of reform can also cause friction in the decision-making system, when representative and direct or sortition-based decision-making legitimacies collide (Buge and Vandamme Reference Buge and Vandamme2022). It is important to note, however, DIs are not contradictory to representative politics per se but can also complement representative processes, especially when they are consultative instruments (Kuyper and Wolkenstein Reference Kuyper and Wolkenstein2019).
DIs’ common and ineliminable features include direct participation by lay citizens (as opposed to elected representatives, interest groups, or experts) and participation on an issue basis (as opposed to party programmes or civil society organisation agendas) (Elstub and Escobar Reference Elstub, Escobar, Elstub and Escobar2019; Jacquet, Ryan, and van der Does Reference Jacquet, Ryan, van der Does, Jacquet, Ryan and van der Does2023). The nuances of the concept are nicely captured in the widely cited formulation of Elstub and Escobar (Reference Elstub, Escobar, Elstub and Escobar2019: 11), who define DIs as ‘processes or institutions, that are new to a policy issue, policy role, or level of governance, and developed to reimagine and deepen the role of citizens in governance processes by increasing opportunities for participation, deliberation and influence’.
While the conceptualisation of DIs has become somewhat established, knowledge is only developing concerning the ways DIs diffuse in different political contexts (Falanga, this volume). In his review, Pradeau (Reference Pradeau and Porto de Oliveira2021) identifies several structural characteristics that have been linked to DIs’ adoption, including institutional legacies, political will and ideology, administrative and financial resources, population size, presence of alternative participatory instruments, and learning from neighbours. However, these structural factors’ significance is not uniform across cases (ibid.: 374). For instance, party ideology has partly explained the adoption of PB, but not that of DMPs (Ramis-Moyano, Smith, Ganuza et al. Reference Ramis-Moyano, Smith, Ganuza and Pogrebinschi2025). In addition to structures, scholars have noted the importance of policy entrepreneurs, ie actors who contribute to the spread of DIs by promoting new participatory methods (Pradeau Reference Pradeau and Porto de Oliveira2021; Ramis-Moyano, Smith, Ganuza et al. Reference Ramis-Moyano, Smith, Ganuza and Pogrebinschi2025: 11).
Often innovations start as low-risk, small-scale, ad hoc experiments in a local context. If local trials with innovations prove successful, they may spread across countries and levels of government (Newton Reference Newton, Geissel and Newton2012: 5). This requires development through feedback from early adopters and fitting abstracted models of DIs to the local context (Pradeau Reference Pradeau and Porto de Oliveira2021). Alternatively, an ambitious and even radical democratic innovation may be introduced at higher levels of government, but in these cases, it is usually preceded by a long history of democracy development and reform (Macq and Jacquet Reference Macq and Jacquet2023). Thus, to understand how DIs come about, we need to trace experiments and democratic reforms, as well as their structural and actor-related enablers.
To provide a comprehensive outlook of DIs’ diffusion in Finland, we outline the context and historical trajectories of three distinct families of innovations: CIs and referendums, PB, and DMPs. These three groups are a prime target of inspection since they are unambiguously identified as DIs in the works that typologise DIs (Smith Reference Smith2009; Elstub and Escobar Reference Elstub, Escobar, Elstub and Escobar2019; Veri Reference Veri2023). These examples vary in their emphasis on deliberation and participation (Veri Reference Veri2023): DMPs are most deliberative, referendums and CIs most inclusive, and PB lies in between. All three have proliferated in Finland over the last 15 years.
Methods and milestones of DIs in Finland
Finnish parliamentary democracy is characterised by proportional representation and broad multiparty government coalitions. The country has a long tradition of consensus politics and corporatism, especially cooperation between the government and the major labour market organisations but also interest groups’ involvement in policy-making more broadly (Alasuutari and Rantala Reference Alasuutari and Rantala2025; Vesa, Kantola, and Skorkjaer Binderkrantz Reference Vesa, Kantola and Skorkjaer Binderkrantz2018). While consensus politics has yielded many beneficial results, it has strengthened the public perception that the country’s political direction remains relatively unchanged even if the balance of power in the parliament and the party composition of the government change (Ministry of Justice 2014). There is a committee culture in the Finnish parliament, but the work of the standing committees is relatively closed. They hear the views of experts, but there is no access to the views of the public, and their deliberations are not open to the public. Despite the Scandinavian reputation for openness and transparency in government, the Scandinavian parliaments are relatively closed and lack institutionalised links with civil society through the committee system (Arter Reference Arter2004). Finland has also been diagnosed with a ‘paradox of political trust’: Despite institutional and interpersonal trust and satisfaction with democracy being high, political efficacy, on average, is fairly low (OECD 2021a).
While Finland repeatedly scores high in global democracy indices (Andersson Reference Andersson2016), worries over declining voter turnouts and unequal participation opportunities have fuelled discussions on the need to develop democratic practices (Kestilä-Kekkonen, Rapeli, and Söderlund Reference Kestilä-Kekkonen, Rapeli and Söderlund2024). In recent years, the tradition of consensus politics has also weakened, and the political climate has become increasingly confrontational, with ideological divides between the left–green block and right-wing conservatives (Kestilä-Kekkonen, Rapeli, and Söderlund Reference Kestilä-Kekkonen, Rapeli and Söderlund2024). Thus, there seems to be room for innovative democratic practices even in a democracy as stable as Finland (Andersson Reference Andersson2016; Värttö and Rapeli Reference Värttö and Rapeli2019). While DIs are often seen as mechanisms to strengthen participation and inclusiveness, they cannot replace the practices of voting and representation in democratic systems (Beauvais and Warren Reference Beauvais and Warren2019). The integration of DIs into representative democracies is not straightforward. Electoral accountability, government–opposition divide, and party discipline are features of representative systems that might limit the integration of DIs and cause tensions (see Setälä Reference Setälä2017). In the Finnish context, where representative institutions enjoy high levels of trust, the role of DIs lies in enhancing inclusiveness and complementing shortcomings in the representative system, not replacing structures.
Over the years, various policy programmes, new legislation, and experiments have aimed at increasing citizen participation. To follow the most recent dissemination of DIs, we start from the 1980s. We pinpoint five legislative milestones, which encapsulate the broader societal trends and political and administrative efforts that accompanied the adoption of DIs in modern-day Finland. The milestones also reflect trends in public administration, particularly New Public Management, collaborative governance, and participatory planning.
-
(1) Referendums and local direct democratic instruments (1987 – 1990). The potential of broadening citizens’ direct democratic rights was debated in the 1980s, and consultative referendum was introduced in legislation in 1987 on the basis of the recommendation of a parliamentary committee. Although Finnish municipalities had experience with councils for people with disabilities and municipal initiatives, it was not until 1990 that local direct democratic instruments, ie the consultative municipal referendum and the referendum motion, were written into the law (Sutela Reference Sutela2001). This constitutes the first milestone.
-
(2) Local participatory instruments (1995). The second milestone builds on the full reform of the Local Government Act in 1995 that emphasised residents’ right to participate and aimed to promote channels for direct participation alongside electoral participation. The law included a list of tools to promote the opportunities for residents’ participation and influence, such as public hearings and selection of service users in municipal decision-making bodies. The participation channels were purposefully written as recommendations since, as the government preamble stated, ‘it is hard to induce genuine participation through mandatory legislation (Hallituksen esitykset [HE; government proposals] 192/1994: 33).
-
(3) Constitutional reform and Land Use Act (2000). The 1990s saw a shift in democratic culture, with the focus turning towards the benefits of engaging citizens as a way of enhancing equality and strengthening democracy. Two legislative reforms in 2000 demonstrate this shift and constitute the third milestone. The constitution of 2000 codified broad participation rights in the state order (HE 1/1998), highlighting Finnish democracy as more than just representative democracy. Similarly, the new Land Use and Building Act (132/1999) reinforced these principles by emphasising collaborative planning, thus challenging the primacy of technocratic expertise in favour of citizen influence (eg Puustinen Reference Puustinen2006).
-
(4) National agenda initiative and digital democracy services (2012). The beginning of the 2010s saw major developments for DIs in digitalisation and institutionalisation, which we identify as the fourth milestone. The Citizens’ Initiative Act (Ch. 3.1) came into force on 1 March 2012, and later in the same year, the official participation platform, www.demokratia.fi, was launched. Covering several digital participation channels for citizens, most notably a portal for national- and local-level CI, the platform greatly improved the accessibility of direct democratic tools for citizens.
-
(5) Deliberative democracy and PB in the Local Government Act (2015). Interest in novel participation methods grew further in the early 2010s, demonstrated by the government’s endorsement of open government and new opportunities for citizens’ engagement (Ministry of Justice 2014). This trend accompanied the fifth milestone: the reform of the Local Government Act in 2015 (410/2015). That year, citizens’ juries and the possibility of participating in the planning of the municipal economy were included in the Act’s recommended participation channels. While only mentioned in the law’s background materials, the latter entry encouraged the use of PB (HE 2014). Furthermore, the law reform made disability councils and youth councils statutory (Henriksson and Huttunen 268/Reference Henriksson and Huttunen2022) and reformed the institutional details of the 1990s referendum motion.
The five legislative milestones, summarised in Figure 1, show how different forms of DIs became formally acknowledged in the Finnish democratic system. We also add a tentative sixth milestone, constituted by the Wellbeing Services County Act (611/2021). The establishment of the wellbeing services counties in 2023 was one of the largest administrative reforms in Finland, creating a new level of democratic governance between municipalities and the state. The County Act mirrors the Local Government Act in terms of citizen participation, openness, and coproduction. The inclusion of the Local Government Act’s participation clauses in the new law highlights how DIs’ use in decision-making has become a norm. Next, we turn our attention to how these innovative methods were adopted in the day-to-day practices of the democratic system, focusing on their drivers, territorial and administrative reach, institutionalisation, and impacts.
Figure 1. Milestones of democratic innovations in Finland.
Referendums and CI
The Finnish legislation includes provisions for advisory referendums and CIs at three levels of government.Footnote 1 Although debated already in the 1920s, the first national referendum was not organised until 1931, when – following the example of other Nordic countries – Finns voted for ending prohibition of alcohol. By the 1980s, political parties supported greater participation (the first milestone), leading to the 1994 EU membership referendum. The Finnish national referendum resembles other Nordic counterparts, eg in its nonbinding nature and relatively sparing use, but its policy impacts seem to be slightly weaker. For example, legislation in Sweden also allows for a binding referendum on constitutional matters, and national referendums have been used more often in Sweden (six) and in Norway (seven) compared with Finland (two) (Mutanen Reference Mutanen2004).
Following the examples from other Nordic countries, local referendums and referendum motions were introduced in 1990 (the first milestone).Footnote 2 Since then, 63 local referendums have been held in Finland, most of them (89%) on municipal mergers (Backström, Karv, and Strandberg Reference Backström, Karv and Strandberg2022). Local referendums’ impact has been significant because local councils have followed the results of municipal merger referendums in 79% of the cases (ibid.). However, referendums by councillors have been more influential than those initiated by citizens (Jäske Reference Jäske2017).
The Finnish local referendum motion falls between so-called full-scale initiatives that automatically lead to a popular vote and agenda initiatives that raise parliamentary debate (Schiller and Setälä Reference Schiller, Setälä, Setälä and Schiller2012) because in practice it is an initiative for the local council to start discussing the possibility of a referendum. The council can still decide not to organise a referendum even if the qualified number of signatures – 4% of residents aged 15 years or older – has been collected. There have been altogether 129 referendum motions handed over to municipal councils in different parts of the country. While many of them have concerned municipal mergers, also questions such as traffic, education, and other public services have mobilised municipality dwellers.
The introduction of digital participation channels (fourth milestone) allowed collecting signatures for referendum motions online, which has increased the use of this instrument from approximately 2.8 motions per year until 2012 to 7 per year after 2013. The policy impact of referendum motions, however, is fairly low. Up until the year 2012, local councils have followed the motion and organised a referendum only in 14% of the cases (Jäske Reference Jäske2017), and in the digital era, none of the referendum motions have led to referendums. It thus seems that this already weak instrument of local direct democracy has become a mere dead letter.
In the early 2000s, national agenda initiatives emerged as a politically favourable alternative to binding referendums, influenced by forthcoming European Citizens’ Initiative legislation (Nurminen Reference Nurminen2017). The Citizens’ Initiative Act (12/2012, fourth milestone) allows 50,000 eligible voters to propose legislation to parliament. Initiatives can be bills or proposals to start drafting legislation, with signatures gathered within six months and submission within a year. From a comparative perspective, the signature collection phase in the Finnish agenda initiative is rather unique because the national government provides a free and neutral platformFootnote 3 for signing initiatives. The website www.kansalaisaloite.fi can be used to launch initiatives, sign ongoing initiatives, and follow the number of signatures in real time.
CIs have become hugely popular in Finland. In May 2024, there had been more than 1,600 CIs launched for signature collection. CIs have covered a wide variety of topics ranging from conservative to liberal causes and from public services to taxation (Christensen, Jäske, Setälä et al. Reference Christensen, Jäske, Setälä and Laitinen2017). In fact, 82 initiatives have been handed on to the parliament, making approximately 6.1 initiatives per year. Especially younger generations and those who live in urban areas are active in signing initiatives (Christensen, Jäske, Setälä et al. Reference Christensen, Jäske, Setälä and Laitinen2017; Jäske and Setälä Reference Jäske, Setälä, Elstub and Escobar2019). CIs have also alleviated inequalities in participation by activating the citizens with lower education levels more than elections (Huttunen and Christensen Reference Huttunen and Christensen2020).
The policy impact of Finnish CIs has been modest, in the same vein as the influence of nonbinding initiatives in other European countries (Schiller and Setälä Reference Schiller, Setälä, Setälä and Schiller2012). Out of the 82 submitted initiatives, only 8 have been accepted as a whole or partly by the parliament (Saar, Pekonen, Olesk et al. Reference Saar, Pekonen, Olesk and Hiilamo2024). However, public opinion towards the initiative institution and lively public debate on CIs suggest that the Finnish CI has been a triumph. Soon after the introduction of CIs, over 80% of Finns said it had improved the functioning of Finnish democracy (Christensen, Jäske, Setälä et al. Reference Christensen, Jäske, Setälä and Laitinen2017). During the past 10 years, civil society actors have organised hundreds of initiative campaigns, and initiatives – even the ones that the parliament has not approved – have been covered often in mainstream media. Despite the modest direct impacts on legislation, 70% of Finns perceive it to have improved democracy (Jäske and Setälä Reference Jäske, Setälä, Elstub and Escobar2019). Furthermore, the initiators of CIs are also heard in open committee hearings in the parliament, which has made the parliamentary work more transparent to the public.
Some recent developments bring up concerns and hopes for the future of direct democratic instruments in Finland. In 2024, there was, for example, some political debate on whether the signature threshold for CIs should be raised to reduce the number of CIs that parliament must handle. Furthermore, in 2025 government parties have politicised the parliamentary process of handling initiatives by deliberately delaying the implementation of an initiative already accepted by the parliament. However, local referendums and CIs have been accompanied with DMPs in some recent pilots, potentially paving the way to other hybrid DIs combining voting and deliberation (Witting, Wagenaar, and Hendriks Reference Witting, Wagenaar and Hendriks2025).
PB
PB refers to nonelected citizens’ participation in decisions concerning the use of public funds. The innovation was conceived in Brazil in 1989 with the aim of developing bottom-up decision-making procedures, promoting social justice, and reducing clientelism in policy-making. In Europe, PB was adopted more as an isolated policy device, and it spread rapidly, but the applications varied substantially in terms of, for example, citizen control, deliberativeness, and the scope of participants (Ganuza and Baiocchi Reference Ganuza and Baiocchi2012; Sintomer, Herzberg, and Röcke Reference Sintomer, Herzberg and Röcke2008).
In Finland, PB had been implemented as early as 1999 in the Education and Youth Services Department of Helsinki following the example of Norwegian Porsgrunn municipality (Saloranta Reference Saloranta2020). The wider spread of PB, however, only started in the 2010s. Prompted by a recommendation of a city council working group and the outputs of New Democracy Forum of Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra (hereinafter Sitra), PB was trialled in the planning of the new central library of Helsinki in 2012. According to one forum participant, inspiration to try PB originated from a visit to the UK (ibid.: 59 – 60). The library pilot is widely named as the first occasion where PB was used in Finland (Hurme Reference Hurme2017; Salminen, Häikiö, and Lehtonen Reference Salminen, Häikiö and Lehtonen2016; Saloranta Reference Saloranta2020). While earlier examples exist (Ahonen and Rask Reference Ahonen and Rask2019), the pilot was arguably the first one inspired by the international surge of PB.
Simultaneously, Helsinki initiated PB processes on other issues, and experiments started emerging elsewhere as well. The cities of Espoo and Tampere tried PB in urban planning projects, and Espoo adopted PB in its youth services in 2015 (Salminen, Häikiö, and Lehtonen Reference Salminen, Häikiö and Lehtonen2016; Hurme Reference Hurme2017). From early on, PB was supported by local politicians and administrators. The cities’ outspoken intention to develop local democracy and interaction with residents offered favourable conditions to experiment with PB (Hurme Reference Hurme2017; Saloranta Reference Saloranta2020; Lehtonen and Tuurnas Reference Lehtonen and Tuurnas2021). The pilot cases provided a testing ground for fitting global ideas of PB with the local conditions and realising ideals of collaborative planning (Häikiö, Lehtonen, and Salminen Reference Häikiö, Lehtonen and Salminen2016; Lehtonen and Tuurnas Reference Lehtonen and Tuurnas2021; Lehtonen Reference Lehtonen2022).
A proliferation of PB started in the latter half of the 2010s, along with the adoption of the new Local Government Act in 2015 (the fifth milestone). Following the example of Helsinki, more municipalities started implementing PB on a permanent basis. In June 2024, on the basis of data collected from municipalities’ websites, PB was implemented in 135 municipalities (out of 309 in total), and a further 35 reported plans to start using PB. Considering that the innovation was hardly familiar in Finland in 2012 (Pihlaja and Sandberg Reference Pihlaja and Sandberg2012), the increase is substantial. The fast spread has been likely facilitated by many enabling factors, such as PB’s applicability to various contexts and the zeitgeist of collaborative planning. Furthermore, the innovation provided residents with concrete and clearly identifiable results. The enthusiastic adoption of PB by so many municipalities also suggests it became ‘the fashionable thing to do’ in the eyes of local politicians.
The voluntary nature of PB has left municipalities the freedom to design the process as they see fit. While the funding schemes vary (Ahonen and Rask Reference Ahonen and Rask2019), in most municipalities a certain sum of the budget is reserved for resident-initiated projects, and popular vote is used to decide which projects receive funding. Sums allocated for PB range from a few thousand euros up to €8.8m, mostly falling below €50,000. Typical PB-funded projects concern improvements for recreational facilities, greening the city, or activities for children and the youth. Common to all applications of PB in Finland is the use of digital platforms to enable mass participation. The need to organise voting for the first city-wide PB in Helsinki brought the Decidim platform to Finland, and since then many other cities have adopted the same digital tool for their PB processes. It is likely that the development of PB in Finland will be linked with development of other democracy technologies.
In the voting phase, residents exercise true power over the use of budget funds (Hurme Reference Hurme2017), but in the broader context, citizen control is still very limited. PB projects usually need to fit a pre-given frame set by the municipality – eg be linked to a specific theme or have a minimum or maximum cost. In some cases, the local government chooses the projects that proceed to final vote and can reject some projects outright. Moreover, the sums allocated for PB cover only a fraction of municipalities’ total expenditure, while the major decisions concerning investments, taxes, and expenditure are left in the hands of elected representatives. Often, the processes also lack deliberation.
The mainstream interpretation of PB in Finland seems quite far removed from Porto Alegre’s popular neighbourhood assemblies, which aimed at administrative reform and citizen control over the whole budgetary process (Sintomer, Herzberg, and Röcke Reference Sintomer, Herzberg and Röcke2008; Ganuza and Baiocchi Reference Ganuza and Baiocchi2012). In Finland, PB has instead been driven by local governments’ interest in developing participatory practices (cf. Lehtonen Reference Lehtonen2022), and it allows residents to affect their living environments in rather marginal ways (see Table 1). Still, the method has offered a truly novel way for citizens’ involvement in and some power over public resource allocation. As a by-product, PB has increased transparency, provided opportunities for learning, and facilitated mutual trust between citizens and local officials (Häikiö, Lehtonen, and Salminen Reference Häikiö, Lehtonen and Salminen2016; Hurme Reference Hurme2017).
While PB has established itself at the local level, the practices are still developing. Recently, Sitra launched experiments where DMPs formulate recommendations for budgetary planning (Saloranta Reference Saloranta2025). Since the welfare services county reform (sixth milestone), experimentation has also commenced at the regional level. It is yet to be seen whether PB becomes a permanent practice in the new counties and whether the models already adopted by municipalities stand the test of time.
Table 1. The nature and scope of three types of democratic innovations in Finland
DMPs, deliberative mini-publics; PB, participatory budgeting.
DMPs
DMP refer to various citizen forums, such as citizens’ juries, citizens’ assemblies, deliberative polling and Citizens’ Initiative Reviews. While formats might vary, they share common features: random selection of participants to get a cross-section of the population, balanced information, crossexamination of experts, facilitated discussion, and ultimately recommendations for policy-making (Smith Reference Smith, Geissel and Newton2012: 90). In an international context, Finland is still in the early stages of adopting DMPs; for example, the POLITICIZE project data show only three cases from Finland out of 159 in Europe since 2000, while the Participedia database lists only 13. Although some cases are missing, this provides insight into Finland’s limited use of such forums.
Based on contemporary testimonies, the first DMP using random sampling was organised in 2006 by university researchers from Åbo Akademi University and the University of Turku. The project’s inspiration originated from one of the researcher’s acquaintances with sortition and deliberative processes during her PhD studies at the London School of Economics in the 1990s. The experiment had no direct policy linkage, but the effort was a significant step in applying deliberative democratic practices in Finland (Setälä, Grönlund, and Herne Reference Setälä, Grönlund and Herne2010). At the time, reports on Finnish democracy emphasised the need for increased and more equitable citizen participation (the third milestone). This prompted researchers to conduct several experiments in citizen deliberation, both face to face and online (Grönlund, Reference Grönlund, Reuchamps and Suiter2016; Grönlund, Herne, Strandberg et al. Reference Grönlund, Herne, Strandberg and Söderlund2023).
Introduced by researchers in public administration, the citizens’ jury method (often based on open participation) became increasingly used in the 2010s, with at least 20 citizens’ juries addressing local issues such as wind power, urban development, and youth services. Furthermore, professional facilitators and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) have been active in initiating deliberative processes at the local level since the 2010s. The policy issues covered by DMPs in Finland seem to follow the same patterns as in other parts of Europe, covering environmental, health, and planning issues (Curato, Farrell, Geissel et al. Reference Curato, Farrell, Geissel, Grönlund, Mockler, Pilet, Renwick, Rose, Setälä and Suiter2021: 30).
Although many DMPs have been organised for research purposes, several pilots have influenced policy-making at the national and subnational levels. A deliberative jury following the methodology of the Citizens’ Initiative Review addressed a municipal merger in 2019 (Christensen et al. Reference Christensen, Leino, Setälä and Strandberg2022), and in 2020, the City of Turku piloted a deliberative poll type of citizens’ panel addressing transportation in the city centre (Grönlund, Herne, Jäske et al. Reference Grönlund, Herne, Jäske, Liimatainen, Rapeli, Värttö, Schauman, Siren and Weckman2020). Several local and regional DMPs have also discussed climate issues. Besides universities, Sitra has initiated experiments and trained government officials to further the adoption of deliberative methods in decision-making processes (Sitra 2024). It is fair to say that researchers have been key ambassadors for the early adoption of DMPs in Finland.
Although policy impact has been rare (see Table 1), several ministries have commissioned DMPs (the fifth milestone). Already in 2013, the Ministry of Justice commissioned a DMP on the development of Finnish democracy. In the 2020s, the Ministry of the Environment commissioned DMPs on climate and biodiversity policies, and a DMP on the freedom of speech was sponsored by the Ministries of Finance and Justice. In 2023, the Finnish Parliament, together with researchers and Sitra, held the first national-level deliberative poll in Finland, The Citizens’ Parliament, which connected to CIs on drug use and fuel taxation (Grönlund, Herne, Huttunen et al. Reference Grönlund, Herne, Huttunen, Ikäheimo, Jäske and Lindell2024). It was innovative, as it combined two types of DIs, a DMP and CIs, and the recommendations were handed over to decision-makers. This and the trials combining PBs and DMPs (see the “PB” section) suggest that hybridisation, where different DIs are combined to leverage their strengths, is an emerging trend in Finland.
Avenues for the wider use of DMPs are in many ways open. The Local Government Act already acknowledges them as a method for citizen engagement, and many wellbeing services counties include them in their participation strategies. Furthermore, Finland’s high-quality population registries are accessible and facilitate DMP organisation, and successful experiences of virtual DMPs enable lowering the costs of running them in the future. Some signals suggest that deliberative democracy in Finland is turning in a more government-driven direction. Practical experience with DMPs is spreading from academia to local and regional authorities. The National Democracy Programme 2025 – 2027 highlights the importance of strengthening a culture of good discussion and exchange of opinions in Finnish society and mentions DMPs as means to involve citizens in decision-making between elections (Ministry of Justice 2025: 22).
At the same time, public awareness of DMPs remains low: In a survey from 2022, 45% of respondents in Finland stated that they had never heard about DMPs (Goldberg, Lindell, and Bächtiger Reference Goldberg, Lindell and Bächtiger2025). Moreover, the popularisation of DMPs at the local and regional level seems to have been accompanied by somewhat relaxed standards in the organisation of mini-publics. For instance, municipalities and welfare regions already exhibit examples of citizen panels that meet for only 10 hours in total, or are set up without random sampling, but are still justified by deliberative democratic principles.
The future development of DMPs in Finland shows potential for institutionalisation. Since 2025, the city of Turku and the city of Jyväskylä are piloting apermanent DMPs, while the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, in collaboration with the Ministry of the Environment, commissioned another – reflecting a growing commitment to participatory governance. Experimentation with DMPs continues at the local, regional, and national levels, with researchers actively promoting and testing new deliberative models. The establishment of permanent DMPs at the local level is increasingly being considered, creating opportunities to include diverse voices in decision-making and public policy discussions.
Conclusions
In this article, we have outlined the historical trajectories of three sets of DIs, which allow us to assess the structural and actor-related factors behind their diffusion. In particular, the following characteristics have been linked to DIs’ adoption (Pradeau Reference Pradeau and Porto de Oliveira2021): institutional legacies, political will and ideology, administrative and financial resources, population size, presence of alternative participatory instruments, learning from neighbours, and the role of entrepreneurs.
According to our observations, institutional and political factors may explain why the diffusion of DIs in Finland has been somewhat slow in an international comparison. The traditions of corporatism and consensus politics have included institutionalised structures for stakeholder and NGO engagement, possibly accounting for the low demand for novel participatory methods. The closed work of the committees in Finland has also undermined transparency and citizens’ influence (Arter Reference Arter2004). Surveys with Finnish civil servants reveal that their willingness to implement DIs is dependent on their trust in citizens’ participatory capacities as well as the value they see in the procedural legitimacy of collaborative governance (Hillo, Vento, and Sjöblom Reference Hillo, Vento and Sjöblom2024; Vento Reference Vento2024). The latter finding reinforces the view that ideas of collaborative governance facilitated the gradual popularisation of DIs, even when political elites tended to be somewhat sceptical towards new participatory methods (Koskimaa and Rapeli Reference Koskimaa and Rapeli2020).
Geographical proximity has been an important factor at the national level, as legislation has been inspired by Nordic neighbours, and new methods have been sourced from the UK. Learning has happened at the local level, too, as neighbouring municipalities have influenced each other on how to engage citizens (Jäske Reference Jäske2017). The small population size of the municipalities has been positively associated with the adoption of direct democratic instruments (ibid.), but in the case of PB, the resourceful big cities, especially Helsinki, have been the frontrunners. In the adoption of PB and DMPs, the role of entrepreneurs has also been significant. Researchers have experimented with DMPs and promoted new participatory methods. They have gained their legitimacy from their academic position (see Pradeau Reference Pradeau and Porto de Oliveira2021). As for PB, Sitra has been a key driver of experiments at the local and regional levels.
On the basis of our overview, we can identify some patterns and emerging trends concerning the adoption of DIs and their future development. PB has become a standard practice in many jurisdictions, and CIs have become popular and valued at the national level. At the same time, instruments of deliberative democracy have matured from the experimentation phase to ‘emerging adulthood’, where public administration and politicians at different levels of government are not completely new to these methods.
Digitalisation has crosscut all three types of DIs and lowered the barriers to their wider use for public administration and lay citizens. The level of institutionalisation of DIs varies in Finland, and our analysis has shown that, while legislation is an effective tool for institutionalisation, it is not a necessary condition. PBs and DMPs have scattered across the country without formal regulations, while some institutions such as the local referendum are becoming more of a dead letter. A different signal of institutionalisation is also the increased collaboration between government and civil society actors in organising DIs, eg DMPs convened by ministries and researchers together. These developments could pave the way for a greater impact and a stronger connection to politics. However, mandatory DMPs that would be required for certain issues by law are, in our view, unlikely to be enacted in the near future.
The current orientation towards DIs can be seen as a more pragmatic one, compared with the beginning of the time period we have investigated. It remains to be seen whether our preliminary observations of relaxing the methodological standards of DMPs and PB will lead to the dilution of these instruments with traditional ways of public consultation. Some recent examples of innovative combinations of DIs suggest that an alternative or a parallel future pathway can be the hybridisation of different DIs. Finally, debates on raising the barriers to participation in institutionalised DIs as well as findings concerning politicians’ sceptical views on citizen participation suggest that a third pathway, that of erosion of DIs and reforms, is not entirely impossible either.
Navigating these trends and challenges requires careful attention to the core democratic principles driving DIs. More work could be done, for instance, to ease the wider adoption of deliberative methods in Finland. Legislation covering topics that have long-term impacts, such as climate policy, could necessitate the organisation of citizens’ assemblies in certain decisions. Without legislated status, however, the organisation of national-level DMPs depends on each government’s political will.
The last observation highlights the limits of DIs’ impact, as, despite the proliferation of DIs, the basis of democratic decision-making in Finland still rests firmly on representative institutions and elections. This underpins our argument that a comprehensive view of DIs’ development is needed to understand their implications for democracy in a given context. Moreover, the underlying promise of DIs to grant more power to citizens collides with the views of policymakers, who see increased citizen control as a risk for the current, professionalised mode of governance (Koskimaa, Rapeli, and Himmelroos Reference Koskimaa, Rapeli and Himmelroos2023). So, even though our overview shows that the three sets of DIs have improved inclusion, citizen voice, and transparency (cf. Fung Reference Fung2003), their popularisation is not without friction with the existing, electoral-representative system.
Our article has provided a first comprehensive outlook regarding the diffusion of DIs in the Finnish legal–political system. Although Finnish DIs have been children of their time, influenced by the country’s political history as well as Nordic and EU policies, these new instruments would have not been adopted without perseverance and evidence-based long-term planning in the government, academia, and NGOs. Still, a lot remains to be studied. Our findings feed into future research on deliberative systems (Mansbridge, Bohman, Chambers et al. Reference Mansbridge, Bohman, Chambers, Christiano, Fung, Parkinson, Thompson, Warren, Parkinson and Mansbridge2012) that could investigate, for instance, how the novel participation methods interact with existing features of the system, such as multiparty competition and corporatist legacy. The ‘bottom-up’ spaces of citizen participation, excluded from this analysis, would also merit a review. Meanwhile, we remain confident that innovating Finnish democracy will continue on many fronts.
Data availability statement
There are no datasets associated with this article.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Saga Majalahti for assistance in data collection of PB cases.
Funding statement
This research was funded by the Research Council of Finland (decision number 350361), the Research Council of Finland (decision number 341373), the Strategic Research Council within the Research Council of Finland (decision number 365618), and the Strategic Research Council within the Research Council of Finland (decision number 358426/358428).
Competing interests
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no competing interest.
Open access
