Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies /D1.2 Policy Report

Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies /D1.2 Policy Report WP 1, T 1.3 Authors: Ulrike Liebert (EUI); Ildar Daminov (EUI); Max Povse (EUI) Contributors: Kalypso Nicolaïdis (EUI); Andrea Gaiba (EUI); Noga Arikha (EUI); Camille Dobler (MP) Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 2 Technical references Project Acronym SCALEDEM Project Title Scaling Democratic Innovations Project Coordinator Camille Dobler Missions Publiques camille[email protected] Project Duration December 2024 – May 2028 (42 months) Deliverable No. D1.2 Dissemination level* Public Work Package WP 1 - Knowledge-based Theory of Scaling Task T1.3 - Theory of Scaling Lead beneficiary European University Institute (EUI) Contributing beneficiary Missions Publiques (MP) Due date of deliverable 30 September 2025 Actual submission date 30 September 2025 • Public = fully open (automatically posted online) • Sensitive = limited under the conditions of the Grant Agreement • EU classified = RESTREINT-UE/EU-RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIEL-UE/EU-CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET-UE/EU-SECRET under Decision 2015/444 v Date Beneficiary Author 0.1 25/08/2025 European University Institute Ulrike Liebert, Ildar Daminov, Max Povse 0.2 03/09/2025 Université Catholique de Louvain Min Reuchamps 0.3 25/09/2025 Missions Publiques Camille Dobler, Antoine Vergne 1.0 30/09/2029 European University Institute Ulrike Liebert, Ildar Daminov, Max Povse Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 3 Table of contents Table of contents ......................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 5 1. Bridging the Knowledge-Practice Gap.................................................... 6 1.1 The Challenge: A Grounded Scaling Theory for Changing Practices .................................... 6 1.2 Is One General Theory Enough? Families of Democratic Innovations ................................. 7 1.3 Overview of the Report and Early Findings ....................................................................... 7 2. Empirical Grounds for a Theory of Scaling Democratic Innovations ....... 9 2.1. The Living ScaleDem Knowledge Map .............................................................................. 9 2.2 Data Coding for Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) ................................................ 10 2.3 Designing a Grounded QCA Model .................................................................................. 10 3. First Comparative Findings: Unpacking DI Performance and Scaling Pathways .................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Pathways Toward Transformative Performance ............................................................. 12 3.2 Mapping DI Scaling Potentials and Outcomes ................................................................. 13 3.3 Paths towards Selective Performance ............................................................................. 15 4. Early Lessons from Pathbreakers, Pioneers, and Path-Testers ............. 17 4.1 Pathbreakers for Scaling Out, Deep, High, or In............................................................... 17 4.2 Pioneers for Twinning Communities ............................................................................... 18 4.3 Path-Testers: “Bittersweet Lessons” for Critical Learning ................................................ 19 4.4 Recommendations at a Glance ....................................................................................... 19 5. Conclusions, Next Steps & Key Messages .............................................. 21 5.1 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................... 21 5.2 Summary of Key Messages ............................................................................................. 21 References ................................................................................................. 23 Appendices ................................................................................................ 24 A.1. Six DI Families Compared (Elstub & Escobar’s Framework, 2019) ................................... 24 A.2.1. Knowledge Map of 70 Cases, by DI Family and Scaling Potentials ................................ 26 A.2.2. Operationalising Scaling Dimensions: QCA Measures and Analytical Framework ......... 27 A.3.1. QCA (M10) Terminological Framework ....................................................................... 29 A.3.2. Experimental Cases: Barriers and Pitfalls .................................................................... 30 A.4. Illustrations of Exemplary Combinations of Scaling Potentials ....................................... 31 A.4.1 Scaling Out Pilots ........................................................................................................ 33 A.4.2 Scaling High Pilots ....................................................................................................... 35 Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 4 A.4.3 Scaling Deep Pilots ...................................................................................................... 38 A.4.4 Scaling In Pilots ........................................................................................................... 40 List of Figures Figure 1. Overlapping Scaling Pathways.............................................................................................. 13 Figure 2. Performance Map ................................................................................................................. 14 List of Tables Table 1. Model Performance in Diverse Contexts ................................................................................ 15 Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 5 Executive Summary This Policy Report supports policymakers and practitioners seeking to scale democratic innovations (DIs) to make them lasting and impactful. It addresses two guiding questions: • What foundations are needed for a practical theory of scaling democratic innovations? • How do impediments and enablers to scaling relate to variations in DI performance to succeed? The analysis builds on two earlier milestones of the ScaleDem project: • A living Knowledge Map (currently 100 entries) that classifies cases of democratic innovation by type and scaling potential, and • An Analytical Framework that defines four dimensions of scaling (out, in, deep, and high). Using these resources, we applied a first Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to a sample of 60 cases from the Knowledge Map. The goal was to identify how overall performance varies depending on scaling potentials and the enablers through which innovations scale across the four dimensions mentioned above. The report proceeds in five steps: 1. Framing the challenge: We highlight the knowledge–practice gap in achieving impactful democratic innovations and explain why a grounded, practical theory of scaling is required. 2. Data foundations: We present the CORDIS and other sources on which the dynamic Knowledge Map is built, forming the basis for systematic comparison. 3. Comparative analysis: We share findings from the first QCA, focusing on how variations in scaling conditions affect DI performance across a medium-sized sample of 60 cases. 4. Early lessons: Drawing on the Knowledge Map and QCA, we identify three sets of cases from “pathbreakers”, “pioneers”, and “path-testers” from which different kinds of lessons can be drawn—elements for theorizing conditions and constraints for scaling solutions, experiments, and critical reflections. 5. Conclusions, Next steps, Key Messages: outlines open questions, gaps, and future directions for connecting research and practice. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 6 1. Bridging the Knowledge-Practice Gap "Nothing is as practical as a good theory." – Kurt Lewin 1.1 The Challenge: A Grounded Scaling Theory for Changing Practices Scaling democratic innovations (DIs) is one of today’s key challenges for strengthening democracy’s resilience and responsiveness. From local participatory budgeting to transnational citizens’ assemblies, many promising ideas, experiments, and pilots remain isolated or short-lived practices. Following Glaser & Strauss (1967), "grounded theory" was initially conceived to generate theory from empirical data. Grounded theorizing of scaling DIs should help us understand how such innovations may scale, from one-off experimentations to lasting practices. Indeed, scaling democratic innovations means more than simply making them bigger. It describes the process of how practices move beyond isolated pilots to become more embedded, resilient, and impactful. The ScaleDem analytical framework identifies four scaling dimensions, each pointing to a different way innovations grow and gain meaning: out, high, deep, and in. • Out: spreading to more places and reaching more people • High: gaining political and institutional buy-in • Deep: embedding in mainstream culture and values • In: improving quality and standards By contrast, "practical theorizing" aims at generating theory not FROM but FOR practical action. It is a reflexive practice and co-production between researchers and practitioners. It is also empirically grounded, not just in real-world challenges and experiences, but in concrete, actionable tools for making democracy more inclusive, deliberative, and impactful. To be of practical use, a theory of scaling might seek to identify principles that can be reused and adapted to different local, regional, or national contexts. It might develop readiness checks and learning infrastructures that allow innovations to scale without losing their core values. Such a theory would aim to provide researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with a framework that shows what works where, and why—and that guides action, not just reflection. In Lewin’s spirit, we see democracy as both a subject of analysis and change. To bridge the knowledgeaction gap, this Policy Report considers both complementary: grounded theory provides the evidence that practical theorizing would seek to make actionable in lived contexts. By learning from past experiences, ScaleDem draws lessons for future action. We aim to offer researchers, policymakers, and practitioners a shared foundation for jointly developing a practical theory of scaling that can help democratic practices grow high and deep, in and out. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 7 1.2 Is One General Theory Enough? Families of Democratic Innovations Democratic innovations are solutions to improve how citizens engage with and influence decisionmaking. They aim to make governance more inclusive, legitimate, and responsive—whether through participatory budgeting at the local level, transnational citizens’ assemblies, or digital platforms for civic input. While it is helpful to look for common patterns, one single theory of scaling cannot capture their diversity. Scaling a digital tool differs from scaling a local assembly or reforming an electoral law. The latter requires broad public debates and cultural norm shifts. Institutionalizing citizen assemblies, or lowering the voting age at 16 (scaling ‘high’) does not mean that it automatically gets accepted by the general population (scaling ‘deep’) Similarly, digital tools can technically be replicated from local to national (scaling ‘out’), but scaling them ‘deep’ requires norm changes solutions to overcome trust issues, digital divides etc. Each innovative solution works in a different setting, with different goals, actors, and constraints. That is why any general framework should leave room for specific pathways to reflect the various logics of families of democratic innovations (see Appendix A.1): • Administrative: improving how public administrations and institutions work. • Deliberative: creating structured spaces for inclusive and informed discussion. • Digital & AI-based: using technology to widen participation and navigate complexity. • Direct: giving citizens binding decision-making power, e.g., referenda. • Electoral: reforming how representatives are chosen and held accountable. • Participatory: engaging citizens directly in shaping policies, plans, and budgets. Taken together, these families show the diversity of today’s democratic innovation ecosystem. They highlight why scaling cannot be explained by one general theory but requires family-specific insights that capture how innovations spread, gain legitimacy, and endure. 1.3 Overview of the Report and Early Findings This Policy Report proceeds in five steps: 1. Framing the challenge: We highlight the knowledge–practice gap in achieving scalable democratic innovations and explain why a grounded, practical theory of scaling is required. 2. Data foundations: We present the CORDIS and other sources on which the dynamic Knowledge Map is built, forming the basis for systematic comparison. 3. Comparative analysis: We share findings from the first QCA, focusing on how variations in scaling conditions affect DI performance across a medium-sized sample of 60 cases. 4. Early lessons: Drawing on the Knowledge Map and QCA, we identify three kinds of lessons - from “pathbreakers”, “pioneers” and “path-testers”, with lists of cases and selected illustrations: Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 8 5. Conclusions, next steps, and key messages: summarizing open questions, gaps, and future directions for research and practice. These findings reflect the first ten months of ScaleDem research on how to scale DIs and remain preliminary. Over the course of the project, we will expand the Knowledge Map to around 300 cases and complement QCA with additional methods, including process-tracing, interviews with policymakers and stakeholders, and analysis of media and citizen perspectives. This multimethod approach will provide deeper insights, address potential biases, and strengthen the evidence base. The forthcoming Deliverable D1.3 (due at Month 24) will therefore present a more robust account of the conditions that enable democratic innovations to scale in ways that are not only sustainable but also resilient—and potentially transformative. This Policy Report is an intermediary step to spark discussions and build a consolidated theory of scaling democratic innovations with the community of actors active in the DIs field. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 9 2. Empirical Grounds for a Theory of Scaling Democratic Innovations To understand the scalability potentials and outcomes of democratic innovations, QCA provides an empirically grounded methodology. For ScaleDem, it is grounded in the cases gathered in the ScaleDem Knowledge Map (M1), and analytically structured by the categories set out in the ScaleDem Analytical Framework (D1.1). The QCA method is widely used in business studies, 1 international relations, 2 and political science, among others. It has already been used to assess democratic innovation practices, such as participatory budgeting. 3 This section provides an overview of three connected stepping stones towards a theory of scaling: the ScaleDem Knowledge Map, Data Coding, and the QCA Model Design. 2.1. The Living ScaleDem Knowledge Map We use open-access databases, primarily CORDIS, complemented by Participedia and other data repositories to build a grounded Knowledge Map. At present, our living ScaleDem Knowledge Map provides entries for 70 democratic innovations that we have identified from past and ongoing projects documented by the Cordis database (funded under the Horizon H2020 and HEU, FP7, ERC, MSCA programs), supplemented by other sources. For each case counted as a democratic innovation with relevant scaling potentials, a basic “summary” is drafted, stored in the online Zotero library, and embedded in the Knowledge Map. 4 Each summary includes the flagship DI cases per project 5 for in-depth analysis (as well as project acronym, full title, and duration; information on DI cases and scaling potentials; link to online repository). From the 70 initial cases, we could find enough information to run a proper qualitative comparative analysis on 61 cases. For the sake of simplicity, this report refers to these cases of DI through the project's codename (Acronym). The characteristics of each case can be found in the case summaries of each project in our Knowledge Map. Additionally, the cases were organized according to their scaling potentials and family(ies) of DI (see Appendix A.2.1). 1 Fainshmidt, Stav, Michael A. Witt, Ruth V. Aguilera, and Alain Verbeke. "The contributions of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to international business research." Journal of international business studies 51, no. 4 (2020): 455-466. 2 Bara, Corinne. "Incentives and opportunities: A complexity-oriented explanation of violent ethnic conflict." Journal of Peace Research 51, no. 6 (2014): 696-710. 3 Ryan, Matt. Why citizen participation succeeds or fails: a comparative analysis of participatory budgeting. Policy Press, 2021. 4 The relevant cases that have not yet been included in the present analysis will be analyzed subsequently, when all data is gathered. 5 Except for the project Scalable Democracy, from which we selected two cases. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 16 The QCA results above confirm that there is no one-size-fits-all route to scaling democratic innovations; instead, success comes from different combinations of factors depending on the context. The goal now is to turn to recommendations about what we can learn from the emerging practices we have analyzed so far for future strategies. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 17 4. Early Lessons from Pathbreakers, Pioneers, and Path-Testers This section combines lessons from the Knowledge Map and QCA to propose strategies for designing the future ScaleDem Scaling Grounds (i.e., pilot and twinning actions). Moreover, it provides the first recommendations for project designers, practitioners, and policymakers. They highlight core challenges, successful coping strategies, and “bittersweet lessons” from past experiences. The lessons can be grouped into three clusters: • Lessons from Pathbreakers are about what it takes to innovate: how to push boundaries, try out bold designs, risk-taking, and experimentation, to open new opportunities, even if outcomes remain uncertain. Their lessons are less about stability than how to disrupt, overcome resistance, open new pathways, and generate momentum for follow-up initiatives, spin-offs extending the innovation beyond its origin. • Lessons from Pioneers address what it takes to last—for instance, consolidation, endurance, and transferability rather than novelty, where democratic innovations have already taken root and show staying power, demonstrating how to safeguard, for instance, against political cycles, shifting priorities, or hostile actors. • Lessons from early-stage Path-Testers teach the value of failure—hence projects that have tried something new and stumbled, but left behind valuable learning. Their lessons are neither about consolidation nor breakthroughs but about what not to repeat, what to adapt, how to clarify feasibility checks, re-design pitfalls, and adapt to context sensitivity. The value of failure lies in engaging constructively with these trials and errors that provide critical learning. To illustrate these different lessons, the ScaleDem Knowledge-Map and QCA findings provide project cases with lessons that can contribute directly to developing a grounded theory of scaling for changing democratic practices. 4.1 Pathbreakers for Scaling Out, Deep, High, or In Drawing on qualitative insights from the ScaleDem Knowledge Map and QCA, an extensive range of pilots illustrate what it takes to open up opportunities for new pathways, at the cost of risk-taking and experimentation under constraints of resistances and barriers (see Appendices A.4, A.4.1, A.4.2, A.4.3, and A.4.4 for a detailed list). Here are four examples of such pilots: Pilot 1. DEMOCRAT: Combining Expansion with Embedding Geographic spread works best when paired with either institutional anchoring or cultural change. In DEMOCRAT, replication across diverse contexts succeeded when elite support ensured policy uptake and when a compelling narrative of citizen empowerment reinforced legitimacy. Pilot 2. CIVITAS ReVeAL: Securing Political and Community Buy-In Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 18 Early and sustained engagement of policymakers and local stakeholders increases chances of success. In Vitoria Gasteiz, Spain, CIVITAS ReVeAL’s “urban superblock” design improved citizens’ quality of life, but only because officials actively co-participated in planning and implementation. Pilot 3. REAL DEAL: Maintaining Process Quality High-quality processes safeguard legitimacy. REAL DEAL strengthened its deliberations by coorganizing formats with CSOs, running ex-post workshops, developing protocols, toolkits, and even a feminist moderation course, and building capacities within civil society. These efforts are to scale in sustained credibility and impact. Pilot 4. ORBIS: Leveraging Multilevel Settings Projects that link local, regional, national, and EU levels benefit from visibility and feedback loops. ORBIS demonstrated how iteration across governance levels improved process quality and reinforced positive results. Further in-depth research (e.g., interviews with coordinators and policymakers) into these and more cases is needed to understand these patterns fully. 4.2 Pioneers for Twinning Communities For twinning designers and implementers, several CORDIS and Participedia cases stand out as showcases for endurance and transferability across diverse contexts: • EUARENAS. Multiple iterations of assemblies and forums across Estonia, Poland, Hungary, and Italy addressed the citizen-politics disconnect, making it a model for scaling out in diverse contexts. • Critical ChangeLab. This project exemplifies structured scaling by creating youth-led “labs” in 10 countries with explicit narratives and tested protocols. • Democratic Odyssey. Its travelling citizens’ assemblies’ model and modular framework demonstrate strong potential for scaling out and twinning. Additional promising cases include: • PentaHelix: A multi-stakeholder climate action method now tested in NetZeroCities. • EnlightenME: Urban Lighting Labs co-created with citizens and caregivers. • NEBourhoods: A wide-ranging regeneration model in Munich with strong replication potential. • PHOENIX: Adaptable pilots tailored to Green Deal challenges across governance levels. • DEMOTEC: Participatory budgeting pilots in seven cities, producing frameworks and manuals for replication. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 19 4.3 Path-Testers: “Bittersweet Lessons” for Critical Learning • GenderQuotas – Focused mainly on Albania, the project generated insights into women’s roles in low-quality democracies but lacked replicability in other contexts. Despite a small budget, its results remain a valuable foundation for future DIs. • REBALANCE – Explored future trends in transport and mobility, but excluded citizen participation and lacked policy protocols. This limited the democratic quality of its outputs, weakening otherwise promising policy proposals. • ITHACA – Created a vast archive of migrant and refugee narratives, highlighting their voices in governance. Yet without elite or policymaker support, the results had little policy resonance despite their cultural and social value. • IDEalreSCUE – Produced a sophisticated resilience framework and urban modelling tool for emergencies. However, the absence of policymaker uptake left its strong technical results without practical application. • KT4D – Advanced a tech-enabled vision of democracy through digital tools, but lacked a compelling citizen-oriented narrative. This weakens its capacity to scale deeply into democratic culture, despite ongoing work. • DEMOS-ACT – Offered a systematic analysis of European democratic innovations and built a theoretical framework. Yet by stopping at the analytical level without a citizen-facing narrative, it struggled to generate scaling potential. Regional disparities, governance levels, and policy domains all matter. To address these conditions, ScaleDem wants to engage policymakers and practitioners directly in co-developing “bitter-sweet lessons” from past experiences for a more robust grounded theory of scaling. This will complement the ScaleDem Knowledge Map and QCA with lived experience. 4.4 Recommendations at a Glance Before turning to the conclusion and next steps, this section presents our first recommendations to the DI community of practice. For Policymakers → Support dual-path scaling: fund initiatives combining spread with institutional embedding or cultural change. → Require scaling plans as part of funding and evaluation criteria. → Tailor funding and support to address regional disparities. For Practitioners → Design pilots with built-in scaling strategies (out, high, deep, in). → Use twinning and mentoring to adapt and exchange methods across contexts. → Document lessons and produce toolkits or protocols for replication. For the R&I Community → Prioritize comparative and longitudinal studies of scaling pathways. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 20 → Refine indicators for scaling deep (cultural change) and scaling in (quality). → Facilitate partnerships between practitioners and researchers to co-create knowledge. Design Principles for Future Pilots & Twinnings → Build for integration from the start: Plan how initiatives fit into governance systems. → Adapt for local fit: Twinning is not cloning, so allow local flexibility. → Invest in relationships: Sustained engagement with policymakers and communities builds legitimacy. → Track and learn: Monitor continuously to refine strategies before scaling further. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 21 5. Conclusions, Next Steps & Key Messages In conclusion, we outline open theoretical questions, knowledge gaps, and future directions for connecting research and practice. This report has highlighted how scaling democratic innovations depends on the interaction of enabling and constraining conditions. While some cases demonstrate strong performance outcomes when scaling pathways are aligned with supportive institutional, cultural, and political contexts, others face persistent barriers that limit their reach or sustainability. The key theoretical challenge is to better understand these impediments—such as institutional resistance, limited resources, or fragmented participation—and the enabling factors that allow innovations to embed and endure. Addressing these questions is crucial for designing policies and practices that transform pilot projects into resilient, impactful democratic innovations. Our initial QCA has generated valuable insights into how scaling conditions shape performance, but it also has limitations. QCA identifies configurations across cases but does not capture the deeper processes, narratives, and contextual dynamics that influence outcomes. To close these blind spots, ScaleDem will integrate complementary methods such as process-tracing, interviews with policymakers and practitioners, and analyzing media and citizen perspectives. This multimethod approach will allow us to validate patterns identified through QCA, uncover overlooked causal mechanisms, and provide richer, practice-oriented lessons for scaling democratic innovations. 5.1 Next Steps Looking ahead, ScaleDem will expand the Knowledge Map from the current 100 cases to approximately 300, offering a far more comprehensive foundation for comparative analysis. This enlarged dataset will enhance the robustness of QCA and allow for systematic testing of diverse scaling pathways across different families of democratic innovation. Combined with the multimethod approach, the expanded Knowledge Map will strengthen the evidence base for policymakers and practitioners. It will also lay the groundwork for a more consolidated theory of scaling—one that explains not only how democratic innovations spread, but also how they can become lasting, resilient, and transformative. 5.2 Summary of Key Messages • Scaling requires both enablers and safeguards. Lasting democratic innovations depend on supportive institutional, political, and cultural contexts and strategies to overcome barriers. • QCA is powerful but insufficient to understand the dynamics behind these patterns fully. Qualitative comparative analysis reveals scaling patterns, yet deeper processes and contexts must be understood through complementary methods. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 22 • A multimethod approach strengthens evidence. Combining QCA with process-tracing, based on interviews, focus groups, surveys of policymakers and stakeholders, civil society, and media analysis, will uncover causal mechanisms and close blind spots. • The Knowledge Map is expanding. Growing from 100 to ~300 cases, it will provide a stronger foundation for testing scaling pathways across all families of democratic innovations. • Toward a consolidated theory of scaling. Evidence from these diverse grounds will guide policymakers and practitioners in transforming pilots into resilient, impactful, and potentially transformative democratic innovations. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 23 References Bara, Corinne. "Incentives and opportunities: A complexity-oriented explanation of violent ethnic conflict." Journal of Peace Research 51, no. 6 (2014): 696-710. Bauböck, Rainer, Nicolaidis, Kalypso eds: Should a citizens’ assembly complement the European Parliament? Florence EUI, 2025 Camatarri, Stefano; Dobler, Camille; Vergne, Antoine: ScaleDem Analytical Framework: Four Dimensions for Scaling Democratic Innovations (D1.1), June 2025. https://scaledem.eu/insights/theory-of-scaling/ Elstub, Stephen; Escobar, Oliver: Defining and Typologising Democratic Innovations, in Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance, eds. Stephen Elstub and Oliver Escobar (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2019), 11–31. Fainshmidt, Stav, Michael A. Witt, Ruth V. Aguilera, and Alain Verbeke. "The contributions of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to international business research." Journal of International Business Studies 51, no. 4 (2020): 455-466. Held, David: Models of Democracy (3rd edition, Stanford University Press and Polity Press, 2006) Landemore, Hélène: Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020). Liebert, Ulrike; Povse, Max; Arikha, Noga; Daminov, Ildar; Niestroy, Ingeborg; Padovano, Edoardo: ScaleDem Knowledge Map of Democratic Innovations. Milestone 1. (May 2025). Liebert, Ulrike; Daminov, Ildar; Povse, Max. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies (Annex). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17210658 Mello, Patrick A. "Qualitative comparative analysis." In Routledge Handbook of Foreign Policy Analysis Methods, pp. 385-402. Routledge, 2022. Oana, Ioana-Elena, Carsten Q. Schneider, and Eva Thomann. Qualitative comparative analysis using R: A beginner's guide. Cambridge University Press, 2021. Ryan, Matt. Why citizen participation succeeds or fails: a comparative analysis of participatory budgeting. Policy Press, 2021. Smith, Graham: Beyond the Ballot: 57 Democratic Innovations from Around the World (London: The Power Inquiry, 2005). Wagemann, Claudius. "Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and set theory." In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 2017 Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 24 24 24 Appendices A.1. Six DI Families Compared (Elstub & Escobar’s Framework, 2019) Family *) Core Focus *) Purpose of Innovation Stage of Policy Cycle Institutionalizatio n target Initiators / Sponsorship Inclusiveness / Access Use of Technologica l Tools Administrative Institutional procedures, bureaucratic responsivene ss, and cogovernance mechanisms Transparency, accountability, efficiency, trust in institutions Downstream (implementation, monitoring) High (inside government structures) Top-down (public administrators , elected officials) Selective (civil servants, stakeholders, experts, organized civil society) Limited (feedback, dashboards, e-gov tools) Deliberative Structured discussion, informed reasoning, and collective judgment Legitimacy, mutual understanding, collective reasoning Upstream to midstream (agenda-setting, recommendation ) Medium to low (often ad hoc or consultative) Mixed (governments, CSOs, researchers, foundations) High (usually random selection, inclusivity by design) Medium (deliberation platforms, online forums) Digital- & AIBased Technologyenabled and AI-assisted tools for Inclusion, personalization, resilience against Cross-stage (from agendasetting to monitoring) Variable (pilot projects to institutional platforms) Mixed (civic tech developers, High (wide outreach;) Central (digital platforms, AI Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 25 engagement, verification, and decisionmaking disinformation, assistance public institutions) tools, algorithms) Direct Citizens making binding decisions on laws, policies, or constitutiona l matters Universal Citizen empowerment, legal control over decision-making Midstream (decision-making via referenda, initiatives) High (requires constitutional/leg al frameworks) Mostly topdown (legislatures); sometimes citizen-driven within legal frameworks Very High (open to all eligible voters) Varies, evoting, info portals, campaign tech) Electoral Reforming how representativ es are chosen and held accountable Fairness, inclusivity, representativeness , and electoral integrity Midstream (selection of representatives) High (core democratic institutions) Top-down (electoral commissions, parties, legislators) Very High (all eligible voters) Moderate (electronic voting, auditing systems) Participatory Citizens contributing to decisions, planning, and implementati on through inclusive formats Empowerment, civic learning, and co-creation of public goods Upstream to downstream (planning, budgeting, implementation) Medium (depends on local integration into governance) Often bottomup (CSOs, communities, local governments) Selective (residents, local communities, often underrepresente d groups) Moderate to high (digital mapping, participatory budgeting platforms, hybrid models) Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 32 significant progress and potential for scaling in all four dimensions, as it has developed European-level curricula and policy recommendations (scaling high), it has piloted in all EU regions (scaling out), it aims to instill democratic values and competences in learners (scaling deep), and produced a Responsible Democratic Citizenship (RDC) competence framework and a toolbox for Education for Democracy (EfD) (scaling in). REDIRECT The project explores experimental participatory fora to address the representative disconnect. It has organized diagnostic participatory experiments through online mini publics to explore ways to help reconnect citizens with political decision-making. However, even as it has a strong potential for scaling DEEP by addressing the underlying issues of democratic representation, its success has not yet extended to other scaling dimensions. Given that it did not establish institutional roots to replicate the experimental forums, it has not yet developed a significant guidebook or protocol for other practitioners to do so, and it lacked elite support to do either. It has to be noted that this project is still ongoing, but it demonstrates a common blind spot in democratic innovation. By not developing a roadmap to scale in all dimensions, outstanding results in a given dimension can whither in time. The first three cases show the synergic potential of scaling dimensions for creating successful democratic innovations. In contrast, the REDIRECT case showcases the limitations of constraining them into a single scaling format. We designed the qualitative comparative analysis to identify which scaling potential configurations lead to success. Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 33 33 33 A.4.1 Scaling Out Pilots Family of DI EU Project (Acronym / GA) OUT‑Scope (Contexts & Boundaries) Replicable Modules / Tools / Formats Replication Mechanisms (How) Key Enablers Long‑Term Pathway Notes (evidence hints) Administrativ e CIVITAS ReVeAL — Regulating Vehicle Access for Improved Livability (H2020) City‑to‑city replication across EU; adaptation to differing legal & urban forms; multilingual guidance UVAR Toolkit; regulatory packages; stakeholder engagement templates; monitoring KPIs CIVITAS network mentoring; peer‑learning labs; model by‑laws and procedural roadmaps EU guidance; city networks; demonstrator evidence; political leadership; data dashboards Municipal incorporation into traffic by‑laws; replication via national guidance & CIVITAS family Toolkit & knowledg e bank Administrativ e PentaHelix — Co‑creating SECAPs (H2020) From 8 pilots to 75+ municipalities; regional spread; cross‑language materials Five‑stakeholder task‑force method; SECAP co‑creation templates; training kit Regional hubs; coach‑the‑coaches ; standardized steps and roles; repository of cases EU Covenant of Mayors; climate policy incentives; municipal capacity Routine inclusion of co‑creation in climate/energy planning cycles; multi‑level governance links Project site; replication stats Deliberative EUARENAS (H2020 959420) City pilots → transfer across municipalities (e.g., Gdansk, Reggio Emilia, Võru) City toolbox; mixed participatory/deliberativ e formats; partnership templates with CSOs/cultural hubs Municipal partnerships; peer exchanges; adaptation manuals; public showcases Mayor/chief officer buy‑in; local CSO coalitions; cultural venues as anchors Embedding in municipal procedures; diffusion through city networks Project site & pilots Deliberative PHOENIX — Citizens’ Voices for Greener Europe (HE) Pilots replicated across FR, HU, IT, PL, GR; thematic transfer to Green Deal issues Deliberation protocols; inclusiveness/impact evaluation framework; training materials Partner consortium roll‑outs; evaluation‑led refinement; open methods for reuse EU Green Deal agenda; civil society alliances; evaluation evidence Adoption by municipalities/ministrie s and CSOs for climate policy deliberations Project factsheets Digital Co‑Inform — Misinformation‑Resilien Multi‑country stakeholder pilots; transfer to Browser plug‑in; fact‑checking dashboard; Stakeholder training; open documentation; Open tools; multi‑stakeholde Embedding in newsroom/public‑secto r routines; diffusion via CORDIS reporting Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 34 t Societies (H2020 770302) newsrooms, public agencies, universities co‑creation workshop format local champions in media & administrations r buy‑in; literacy curricula education & CSO partners Digital D‑CENT — Decentralised Citizens’ Engagement Tools (FP7) City‑to‑city & movement‑to‑city transfer (Reykjavík, Barcelona, Madrid, Helsinki, etc.) Open‑source engagement platforms; e‑initiative; participatory drafting; Freecoin Open‑source reuse; municipal adoption; developer & activist communities Open licensing; strong civic tech ecosystems; political windows Institutionalization in city platforms; spread to new cities and movements Project archive Digital WeGovNow (H2020 693514) Pilots in multiple cities (e.g., Turin, London Southwark, Berlin) with cross‑context reuse Neighborhood‑level digital participation suite; co‑reporting; co‑decision features City partnerships; local customization; community onboarding Municipal service integration; user‑centered design; interoperability Sustained municipal platform use; replication through EU city networks Project site Direct NEBourhoods (NEB) Local pilots aligned with New European Bauhaus values across regions/cultures Place‑based co‑design frameworks; micro‑grants; community labs Regional clusters; NEB community; design toolkits; storytelling assets EU NEB brand; cultural institutions; local designers & NGOs Replication via regional/municipal NEB calls and cultural anchors NEB platform Direct REBALANCE (H2020) EU‑wide dialogues on transport & mobility futures; cross‑country forums Futures/visioning workshops; policy dialogues; citizen panels Partner‑hosted events; method playbooks; cross‑national synthesis EU transport policy windows; stakeholder alliances Method reuse in transport planning & strategy Project site Electoral CMCG — Citizens, Media & Conflict Governance (placeholder) Cross‑country exchange on electoral communication & conflict‑sensitive participation Guidelines for conflict‑sensitive engagement; media & election dialogue formats Training of election bodies & media councils; peer learning Election commissions; media regulators; CSO networks Adoption into election communication codes & protocols To be verified with project ID Electoral DEMOTEC (as listed) Transnational replication of technical‑democrati Election‑adjacent civic tech; participation standards; Open repositories; cross‑border Standardized templates; legal Institutional uptake by EMBs/ministries; cross‑country adoption To confirm CORDIS link Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 35 c tools for electoral processes observer/monitoring templates practitioner networks compatibility; donor support Participatory CIMULACT — Citizen Visions (H2020 665948) Pan‑EU (30+ countries) → national & EU R&I programming Visioning workshops; translation to research topics; policy synthesis templates Transnational partner network; EC interfaces; documented methods Commission sponsorship; high‑quality synthesis; national nodes Recurring use in EU work programs; national replication CORDIS & project site Participatory EUARENAS (H2020 959420) City‑to‑city diffusion via pilots and toolboxes Participatory governance models; city toolbox; CSO partnerships Peer exchanges; municipal networks; adaptation manuals Political will; CSO capacity; cultural anchors Embedding in municipal procedures; spread through networks Project site Note. Scaling Out highlights cross ‑ context replication (local → national → transnational), including cultural/linguistic transfer and city ‑ to ‑ city diffusion. A.4.2 Scaling High Pilots Family of DI EU Project (Acronym / GA) High‑Level Embedding Domain Where (Political/Institutional Contexts) How (Devices / Actions for SCA‑HIGH) Long‑Term Mechanism / Pathway Sources Participatory / Foresight / Agenda‑setting CIMULACT — Citizen & Multi‑Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020 (H2020 665948) Institutional / Policy programming European Commission R&I programming (H2020 → Horizon Europe); national R&I stakeholders Citizen‑derived research agendas → synthesis → inputs to EC Work Programs; guidance/templates for incorporating citizen visions Normalization of participatory agenda‑setting in EU research policy cycles (work program design; calls) CORDIS reporting; project website (citizen visions → 23 research topics) Administrative / Urban Governance CIVITAS ReVeAL — Regulating Vehicle Access for Improved Livability (H2020) Legal / Regulatory / Administrative Municipal statutes & traffic by‑laws; UVAR frameworks; national guidance links UVAR **Toolkit & Guidance**; pilot‑tested regulatory packages; model procedures and implementation playbooks for cities Cities incorporate UVARs into binding regulations; scaling via CIVITAS network and EU guidance Project site & Toolkit; CIVITAS knowledge bank Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 36 Deliberative / Education Policy DEMOCRAT — Education for Democracy (HEU) Institutional (Education systems) Ministries of Education; school governance; inspectorates; teacher training institutes **Competence Framework** for Responsible Democratic Citizenship; Living Labs; curricular integration pilots; policy guidance Framework adoption in curricula, assessment, and teacher PD standards Project site; HE call on Education for Democracy Analytical / Constitutional & Institutional Research EU3D — Differentiation, Dominance & Democracy (H2020 822419) Constitutional / Institutional EU Treaties debate; European Parliament & Council debates; national EU coordination Theory & scenarios of legitimate differentiation; policy options & governance models feeding institutional reforms Use in Future of Europe debates; informing institutional design & treaty‑adjacent reforms CORDIS & project site Administrative / Resilience Tech‑Policy IDEal reSCUE — Integrated DEsign & control of Sustainable CommUnities during Emergencies (ERC 637842) Institutional (Emergency governance) Civil protection agencies; municipal emergency plans; infrastructure authorities Decision‑support models & simulations → protocols for emergency planning/response; integration in SOPs Codified procedures & planning standards inside authorities; training uptake in HEIs CORDIS reporting Digital & AI / Deliberative ORBIS — AI‑Augmented Deliberation (HEU) Institutional (participation systems) Public bodies adopting digital deliberation stacks; parliaments/cities Socio‑technical frameworks, governance rules for AI‑supported participation; procurement‑ready modules; standards for transparency Institutional procurement/adoption; inclusion in participation by‑laws & platform governance Project factsheet / consortium pages Rule of Law / Constitutional RECONNECT — Reconciling Europe with its Citizens (H2020) Constitutional / Legal / Institutional EU & national rule‑of‑law frameworks; courts; oversight bodies Indicators & principles; policy briefs; constitutional/legal recommendations for safeguarding democracy & fundamental rights Incorporation into policy monitoring, parliamentary scrutiny and jurisprudential debates Project site & CORDIS Counter‑Disinformation / Participation REDIRECT — (HEU, project in user's ScaleDem portfolio) Institutional / Policy Public communication offices; regulators; civic media partnerships Policy guidance & protocols for counter‑disinformation integrated into institutional comms and consultations Standard operating procedures; inter‑agency coordination; inclusion in codes of practice To be cross‑checked with project page/CORDIS ID Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 37 Digital Participation / Governance SMIDGE — (HEU, project in user's ScaleDem portfolio) Institutional / Administrative Local/regional administrations; participation offices Standards & toolkits for micro‑participation embedded in administrative procedures & platforms By‑law updates and platform governance rules; training for officials To be cross‑checked with project page/CORDIS ID Transnational Participation Scalable Democracy — (initiative / project in user's portfolio) Institutional / Constitutional (prospective) EU & MS participation frameworks; parliamentary interfaces Design patterns for scaling assemblies & sortition interfaces; legal adoption pathways Inclusion in institutional participation charters & inter‑level coordination rules Concept note / design papers AI, Media & Democracy TITAN — (HEU project in user's portfolio) Regulatory / Institutional Media regulators; public broadcasters; platforms’ compliance units Standards for transparency/accountability; audit/playbooks; regulatory testbeds Codes of conduct; procurement criteria; regulatory guidance To be cross‑checked with CORDIS ID Global Democracy Support WYDE — Women & Youth in Democracy (Team Europe / AFD) Political / Institutional capacity Partner‑country institutions; electoral commissions; parliaments Capacity‑building programs; legal/policy support; inclusion mandates Institutional capacity & legal reform packages; inter‑governmental partnerships Program page (Team Europe / AFD) Electoral / Equality Policy Gender Quotas — Policy instrument / EU & MS practice Legal / Constitutional / Party rules Constitutions; electoral laws; party statutes; funding/penalty regimes Statutory candidate quotas; zipper lists; sanctions/incentives; oversight reporting Hard‑law entrenchment; party compliance routines; judicial review Comparative scholarship & EU/MS legislation Local Democratic Infrastructure LIDD — Local Infrastructures for Deliberative Democracy (user portfolio) Institutional / Administrative Municipal charters; council standing orders; dedicated participation offices Statutory citizens’ panels; permanent assemblies; response duties; budget lines By‑law codification; routinised cycles; cross‑city transfer via networks Project docs / municipal statutes (to confirm) Education / Culture & Participation NEW DEMOCRACY (Bertelsmann Stiftung) Institutional / Policy (soft‑law) Government consultation guidelines; civil‑society standards; training systems Toolkits; policy dialogues; model guidelines for participatory processes Adoption into consultation manuals; accreditation/standards for practice Program page Digital & AI / Deliberative MultiPoD — Multilingual & Multicultural Spaces for Political Institutional / Platform governance City & EU‑linked deliberation platforms (e.g., Decidim); public administrations Culture‑aware AI modules; governance & transparency rules for platforms; interoperability standards Procurement & platform policy updates; embedding in official participation portals CORDIS facts; project site; Decidim partner posts Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 38 Deliberation (HEU 101178821) Note. Scaling High captures embedding in political, institutional, legal, or constitutional contexts for long ‑ term change (rules, mandates, procedures, standards). A.4.3 Scaling Deep Pilots Family of DI EU Project (Acronym / GA) Embedding Domain Where (Contexts) How (Devices / Actions) Long‑Term Mechanism / Pathway Notes (Evidence Hints) Deliberative / Participatory CCINDLE – Co‑Creating Inclusive Intersectional Democratic Spaces (HEU 101061256) Emotional, Cultural, Civic, Educational Schools & youth spaces; feminist CSOs & media networks; universities; community events Feminist Democracy Labs; arts/narrative methods (e.g., Theatre of the Oppressed, speculative design); educator/mentor materials; co‑creation with media & NGOs; campaigns Pedagogy & facilitator capacity; diffusion via feminist/civic networks; recurring labs; publicly visible cultural outputs CORDIS results page; project site deliverables (D6.1/D6.2) Digital & AI / Participatory Co‑Inform – Co‑Creating Misinformation‑Resilient Societies (H2020 770302) Civic, Educational Newsrooms; public‑sector comms; citizen workshops; universities Browser plug‑in & dashboards; co‑creation workshops with journalists, policymakers, citizens; literacy/awareness trainings Institutional tool uptake; media & public‑sector routines; digital literacy diffusion CORDIS reporting; IIASA project page Deliberative / Educational / Cultural Critical ChangeLab – Democracy meets arts (HEU 101094217) Emotional, Cultural, Educational Secondary schools; youth centers; arts/cultural partners; universities Critical Change Labs; democratic pedagogy model; arts‑based civic interventions; teacher/mentor Curricular/pedagogical embedding; educator capacity; cultural anchoring via exhibits/performances CORDIS facts/reporting; project site Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 39 resources; public showcases Administrative / Deliberative / Communications ENCODE – Unveiling Emotional Dimensions of Politics (HEU 101132698) Emotional, Civic, Policy Public administrations; CSOs; media/civic communication settings; 8‑country pilots Affective pluralization framework; labs/workshops translating emotional insights to policy narratives; guidance/toolkits; mixed methods (sentiment, biometrics) Emotion‑aware policy & civic comms routines inside institutions/CSOs; spillover to civic/educational training CORDIS facts; ENCODE site Administrative / Resilience (tech‑policy) IDEal reSCUE – Integrated DEsign & control of Sustainable CommUnities during Emergencies (ERC 637842) Civic/Policy, Educational (HEIs) Urban planning & civil protection; university labs/curricula Agent‑based simulations; decision‑support models; scenario tools for emergency/resilience policy Institutional decision routines in emergency governance; academic integration in engineering/urban planning CORDIS reporting Digital & AI / Deliberative MultiPoD – Multilingual & Multicultural Spaces for Political Deliberation (HEU 101178821) Civic, Cultural, Research/Education (HEIs) City pilots (e.g., Athens, Brussels); civic platforms (Decidim); university research labs Culture‑Specific Language Models & Knowledge Graphs; hybrid assemblies; visual analytics; platform adoption & community co‑design Platform‑level embedding; culture‑aware AI modules; city/community partnerships; academic dissemination CORDIS facts; project site; Decidim blog posts Participatory / Civic NEW DEMOCRACY – Program for resilient, participatory democracies (Bertelsmann Stiftung) Civic, Policy, Educational (adult learning) Civil society networks; policymaker dialogues; practitioner trainings Advocacy & toolkits; convenings; integration of participatory forms into consultation & policy cycles Norm diffusion via large networks; routinization of participatory consultation in institutions Project description page Deliberative / Participatory REAL DEAL – Reshaping European Advances Civic, Policy Multi‑country pilots; EU/MS Participation & Deliberation Protocol; Protocol uptake by institutions & CSOs; scaling CORDIS facts/reporting; Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 40 towards green Leadership (H2020 101037071) institutions; large CSO networks validated formats; joint repository; hybrid deliberations incl. youth & gender‑just assemblies through networks; repeated use in consultations/assemblies European Movement project page Note. Sources used for the entries: CCINDLE (results & deliverables); Critical ChangeLab (CORDIS + site); ENCODE (CORDIS + site); Co-Inform (CORDIS reporting + IIASA); IDEal reSCUE (CORDIS); MultiPoD (CORDIS + partner pages); REAL DEAL (CORDIS + European Movement); “New Democracy” program (project page). A.4.4 Scaling In Pilots Family of DI Project (Acronym · duration) Where (contexts) How (devices / actions) Long-term impact / change Digital / Direct D-CENT · 2014– 2016 Cities & movements piloting open platforms Open-source toolbox with privacy-aware auth, collaborative drafting, notifications, and collective decision modules; promotes transparent rules & equal voice online More consistent, auditable procedures for proposals/voting; lower barriers to participate Digital / Participatory WeGovNow · 2016–2019 Municipal pilots (e.g., Trieste, Turin, Southwark) Integrated “toolbox” platform for co-creation; built-in moderation & workflow to structure dialogue among citizens–CSOs–administration Clearer participation pathways; reduced dominance by loud voices via structured tasks Digital/AI / Information integrity Co-Inform · 2018–2021 Co-creation labs with citizens, journalists, policymakers Co-designed mis/disinformation tools; stakeholder cocreation method to surface blind spots; iterative usability tests More inclusive info environments; improved critical engagement norms in deliberation Digital/AI / Media literacy TITAN · 2022– 2025 Schools, workplaces, CSOs AI “Socratic” coaching chatbot to scaffold critical questioning and reduce bias; pedagogy for step-by-step claim assessment Stronger individual deliberation skills; reduced cognitive asymmetries Deliberative / Participatory EUARENAS · 2020–2024 Urban arenas (e.g., Võru, Gdansk, Budapest, Reggio Emilia) Practice-oriented pilots; toolboxes & design rules for inclusive local deliberation; attention to inclusion & governance interfaces More even participation inside city processes; replicable facilitation standards Scaling Democratic Innovations: Emerging Practices for Future Policies 41 Deliberative / Green transition PHOENIX · 2022– 2025 Environmental governance pilots “Enriched Democratic Innovations”: methodology adapting CAs, PB, Débat public for inclusive green-policy deliberation; pilot diagnosis protocols Better fit between format & context; higher deliberative quality for eco-policies Deliberative / Green transition REAL DEAL · 2022–2025 EU-level & multi-country assemblies (youth, gender-just) Tested hybrid deliberation formats + online platform; common quality principles for EGD participation; guidance for institutions More consistent standards for inclusion/fairness across countries; uptake by EU bodies Digital / Deliberative ORBIS · 2023– 2026 Multi-scale pilots (local → EU) Socio-technical framework + AI-enhanced tools; methodology for at-scale deliberation and co-creation; transparency & trust design More robust, transparent online deliberation pipelines; scalable facilitation Participatory / Youth pedagogy Critical ChangeLab · 2023–2026 Schools & non-formal youth spaces “Democratic pedagogy” model (Theatre of the Oppressed, speculative design) to surface marginalized voices; structured reflection loops Deeper inclusion of youth perspectives; skills for equitable dialogue Participatory / Inclusive design INCITE-DEM · 2023–2026 “Democracy Labs” in 6 countries Recruitment guidance for diverse samples; co-creation protocols; methodological guide for facilitating inclusive labs Improved representativeness and equal voice within co-design processes Administrative / Governance research (quality principles) EU3D · 2019– 2023 EU multilevel governance research Legitimacy & dominance lens to diagnose power asymmetries; implications for designing fairer participatory arenas Design criteria to avoid domination in structured dialogues Administrative / Rule of Law & legitimacy (quality principles) RECONNECT · 2018–2022 EU institutions & publics Syntheses and policy guidance on engaging citizens & aligning with RoL; communication/manual for policymakers Clearer quality benchmarks for inclusive engagement within EU processes Cultural/Participatory (narratives) ITHACA · 2021– 2025 Migration & heritage institutions Methods for collecting/preserving migrant narratives; participatory archiving to recognize knowledge holders More respectful, inclusive framing → better conditions for equitable deliberation Place-based participatory (NEB) NEBourhoods · 2022–2025 Munich-Neuperlach lighthouse (NEB) Co-design with residents; inclusion & beauty/sustainability criteria; iterative community sessions Durable local norms for inclusive co-creation; clearer participation routines Digital / Assessment standards PERYCLES (related) · 2025– 2028 Digital democracy platforms Methods to assess platform quality; open-source reference implementations; best-practice library Shared standards for fairness & accessibility in e-participation Knowledge mapping / Scaling framework SCALEDEM · 2025–2028 Cross-project Scaling Compass + feedback & capacity-building mechanisms to keep process quality when replicating Codified “scaling-IN” checks during uptake and twinning