Public deliberation as a systemic policy instrument: lessons from a complexity perspective

Abstract

Purpose This study examines how representative deliberative processes (RDPs) can operate as systemic policy instruments for addressing complex, place-based societal challenges. By adopting a procedural perspective, the study advances understanding of how deliberation reshapes the internal logic of policymaking, enabling adaptive learning, coordination and institutional transformation. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the authors' involvement in an RDP conducted in Gipuzkoa (Basque Country, Spain), the research applies constructivist grounded theory to inductively identify the procedural mechanisms that characterize RDPs as systemic policy instruments. These emergent categories are interpreted through a complexity lens. Findings RDPs extend beyond participatory consultation to function as co-governance mechanisms, fostering multidimensional policy integration, institutional interdependence, and long-term strategic alignment. Six mechanisms (i.e. emergence, interdependence, co-evolution, self-organization, feedback and path dependence) capture the procedural characteristics through which RDPs acquire systemic instrumentality. Research limitations/implications While findings are context-specific, the study provides a transferable theoretical framework for examining how RDPs, as systemic policy instruments, can be procedurally constituted across different policy contexts and institutional settings. Practical implications The study identifies key procedural enablers for embedding deliberation in policymaking, with an emphasis on the role of innovation ecosystems, high-quality facilitation and engagement, transparency, accountability, sustained political commitment and deliberative integrity and quality. Originality/value By integrating complexity theory and constructivist grounded analysis, the study contributes a novel theoretical articulation of how RDPs achieve systemic instrumentality. It posits deliberation as both a structured and self-organizing process, and outlines the structural conditions necessary to sustain democratic experimentation in complex governance environments.