This paper traces and assesses the trajectories of democratic innovations (DIs) in Germany across levels of governance and over time since 1990, providing novel and original data. We focus on three types of DIs that have been applied in Germany: direct democratic instruments, participatory budgeting, and deliberative mini-publics (DMPs). DIs proliferated differently across the different levels of governance (local, state, and federal), with shifting peaks in popularity and differing evolutions in process design and regulations. Going beyond description, this paper discusses the trajectories of DIs by applying a theoretical framework based, firstly, on Elstub and Escobar’s concept of DIs as providing opportunities for citizens (in participation, deliberation, and influence) and, secondly, on Warren’s system-oriented approach on democratic functions (these being empowered inclusion, collective will-formation, and collective decision-making). This framework provides a useful tool for analysing how the trajectories of DIs in Germany have affected citizens’ opportunities. Combined, these trajectories show a movement towards opportunities for inclusive participation, deliberation, and will-formation of a few citizens in DMPs, rather than opportunities for empowered participation or influence on political agendas and decisions.

Depending on what levels of government and actors in a political system one focuses upon, democratic innovations might seem thriving or waning. This emerges clearly when looking at the main trajectories of democratic innovation in Italy. Compared to other liberal democracies, at the national level, Italy is a laggard; yet, a more dynamic landscape of democratic innovations exists at the local level. Some regions have drafted pioneering legislation institutionalising participatory and deliberative practices and numerous councils have adopted participatory innovations, early and consistently over time. Going beyond institutions, social movements have also been very influential with activists developing their own democratic innovation repertoires, which was especially clear in the movement for the commons. Positive and negative trajectories of democratic innovation may coexist across different actors (e.g., governments and civil society.) and levels of government in Italy. However, when these actors enter in contact with each other, state institutions might use democratic innovations against democratic engagement. We reflect on the implications of this situation for future trajectories of democratic innovation in Italy.

How can democratic systems connect deliberation to mass participation? Recent debates on deliberative democracy have sharpened this question by highlighting the tension between the deliberative quality often associated with small-scale forums and the democratic imperative of broad citizen inclusion. This article addresses that challenge by examining democratic innovations in Latin America that enable participation at large scale without relinquishing core deliberative properties. Drawing on the LATINNO dataset and focusing on two recurrent types of democratic innovations – multilevel policymaking and participatory planning – the article develops an analytical framework centered on three design features: open participation, sequential deliberation, and institutionalized collaboration. I argue that, when combined, these features allow large numbers of citizens and civil society organizations to enter deliberative processes while sustaining core deliberative properties such as iterative justification and preference refinement, and strengthening the prospects that policymaking institutions will take up the resulting outputs. The comparison shows that multilevel policymaking and participatory planning constitute two distinct routes to large-scale deliberation: the former relies more strongly on cumulative sequencing across territorial or deliberative stages, while the latter operates through the integration of heterogeneous inputs across multiple spaces and modalities. By bringing Latin American democratic innovations into dialogue with contemporary deliberative theory, the article expands the range of institutional designs through which deliberation can be connected to the mass public.

The Carnation Revolution in Portugal marked the transition from a dictatorial regime to democracy in the mid-1970s. As military and social forces took centre stage in the ‘Revolutionary Ongoing Process’, the establishment of a Western liberal democracy was accompanied by the country’s participation in a new international context. In parallel, growing citizen disaffection towards political institutions has become apparent, with attempts to expand democracy through multiple practices over the past two decades. Recognising the need to systematise knowledge on democratic innovations through a genetic approach, this paper critically discusses exemplary practices associated with emerging patterns of participation across three main historical stages. The main argument of this paper is that a situated understanding of democratic innovations allows us to view them as ‘children of their time’ that have contributed differently to the inclusionary character of Portuguese democracy, while demonstrating the capacity to incorporate lessons from the past.

The expansion of democratic innovations has always been analysed from the point of view of the quality of the instruments, as well as their internal functioning. In this paper, using as an example the expansion of democratic innovations in Spain, we propose to understand this process from the sociological concept of ‘field’. Thus, we will be able to analyse the changes that have taken place in this new field of institutional participation. The results give us relevant information about the existing conflicts, as well as necessary keys to understand the crisis of some instruments or the arrival of new ones.

The global rise of deliberative democratic innovations, particularly minipublics such as citizens’ assemblies and deliberative polls, has been marked by uneven adoption across advanced democracies. While some countries have integrated these mechanisms into their democratic frameworks, others remain hesitant, raising questions about the institutional conditions that facilitate or hinder their adoption. This study employs qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to examine how configurations of three key institutional dimensions – consensus democracy, federalism, and direct democracy – shape the adoption of minipublics. Our findings reveal that minipublics are more likely to be adopted in majoritarian systems with strong federalism and limited direct democracy, where they address participatory gaps. Conversely, systems combining high consensus democracy and extensive direct democratic mechanisms, such as Switzerland, often exhibit lower adoption rates, as existing power-sharing structures fulfil similar deliberative functions.

This article compares the historical trajectories of democratic innovations across space and time in the UK by analysing the development and impact of collaborative governance, participatory budgeting, referendums, and mini-publics. This is an interesting country for longer-term analysis. First, the UK has been considered an inhospitable environment for democratic innovation. Second, it has experienced asymmetrical decentralisation of legislative and executive powers from national to subnational institutions. Third, these changes have taken place during a period of democratic backsliding. We analyse how these dynamics are interrelated by charting the trajectory of four types of democratic innovations in four different countries of the UK (space) from the 1970s to the present (time). We find that, after years of limited democratic innovation there has been rapid, although geographically asymmetrical, development in recent decades. We argue that the importance of these differences should not be overstated in relation to democratic deepening. We conclude that, to advance democratic innovations in the UK, a constitutional convention is required.

Conclusions of the Special Issue ‘Trajectories of Democratic Innovations’.