Democratic innovations have gained popularity in Finland, especially during the last 15 years, at the national and subnational level. However, research on Finnish democratic innovations is still fragmented, focusing on isolated methods, case studies, and experiments. Our article aims to provide a first comprehensive outlook of the diffusion of democratic innovations in Finland. From the 1980s onwards, we identify five legislative milestones that illustrate the gradual institutionalisation of various innovations. Furthermore, we trace the historical roots of three sets of innovations – direct democratic instruments, participatory budgeting, and deliberative mini-publics – and describe their scope and patterns of dissemination. Our inspection shows that democratic innovations have created truly novel channels for citizen influence, but their impact varies greatly. While policymakers still have doubts of citizens’ competences, our analysis suggests a growing role for democratic innovations in Finnish politics, supported by their institutionalisation as well as pragmatic adaptation.

In the last decades deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) have gained significant attention as tools to reform and complement representative democracies, with many governments adopting them. Political representatives, though cautious about power dynamics, seem moderately supportive of extending these procedures. However, little is known about how this predisposition is affected by the institutional design of these procedures and how this might affect their adoption. This paper addresses this gap by presenting results from a conjoint experiment in France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Poland. The study, involving 716 representatives, examines how different attributes of deliberative procedures influence decisions to fund their adoption at the local and European levels. Findings show that the binding nature of DMPs is less important than composition characteristics, such as involving representatives in deliberations with citizens and organized civil society. Differences in preferences between local and European levels suggest awareness of challenges in scaling up DMPs.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs)—private governance mechanisms involving firms, civil society organizations, and other actors deliberating to set rules, such as standards or codes of conduct, with which firms comply voluntarily—have become important tools for governing global business activities and the social and environmental consequences of these activities. Yet, this growth is paralleled with concerns about MSIs’ deliberative capacity, including the limited inclusion of some marginalized stakeholders, bias toward corporate interests, and, ultimately, ineffectiveness in their role as regulators. In this article, we conceptualize MSIs as deliberative systems to open the black box of the different elements that make up the MSI polity and better understand how their deliberative capacity hinges on problems in different elements. On the basis of this conceptualization, we examine how deliberative mini-publics—forums in which a randomly selected group of individuals from a particular population engage in learning and facilitated deliberations about a topic—can improve the deliberative capacity of MSIs.