The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cherry‐picking participation: Explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes
Abstract
What happens to the proposals generated by participatory processes? One of the key aspects of participatory processes that has been the subject of rare systematic analysis and comparison is the fate of their outputs: their policy proposals. Which specific factors explain whether these proposals are accepted, rejected or transformed by public authorities? In this article contextual and proposal‐related factors are identified that are likely to affect the prospect of proposals being implemented. The explanatory power of these factors are tested through multilevel analysis on a diverse set of 571 policy proposals. The findings offer evidence that both contextual and proposal‐related variables are important. The design of participatory processes affects the degree of implementation, with participatory budgeting and higher quality processes being particularly effective. Most significant for explaining outcomes are proposal‐level, economic and political factors: a proposal's cost, the extent to which it challenges existing policy and the degree of support it has within the municipality all strongly affect the chance of implementation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005) · Methodology · doi:10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86 · Cited by 3,582
Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2004) · Statistica Neerlandica · doi:10.1046/j.0039-0402.2003.00252.x · Cited by 837
Direct Public Engagement in Local Government
Nabatchi, T., & Amsler, L. B. (2014) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074013519702 · Cited by 274
Cited by
Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis
Willis, R., Curato, N., & Smith, G. (2022) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.759 · Cited by 253
Self-citationIntroduction: Embedding participatory governance
Bussu, S., Bua, A., Dean, R., & Smith, G. (2022) · Critical Policy Studies · doi:10.1080/19460171.2022.2053179 · Cited by 144
Self-citationVrydagh, J. (2022) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11077-022-09450-w · Cited by 51
Empowerment and disempowerment in climate assemblies: The French citizens' convention on climate
Galván Labrador, A., & Zografos, C. (2024) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.2093 · Cited by 30
Ramos, F., Tavares, A. F., & da Cruz, N. F. (2026) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108738 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Font, J., Smith, G., Galais, C., & Alarcon, P.
- Venue
- European Journal of Political Research
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 615-636
- ISSN
- 0304-4130 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-6765
- OpenAlex
- W2745379071
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 61.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cherry‐picking participation: Explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1475-6765.12248
- The paper
- Font, J., Smith, G., Galais, C., & Alarcon, P. (2018). Cherry‐picking participation: Explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes. European Journal of Political Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12248
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.