Participatory and deliberative processes in the UK related to income insecurity: a scoping review.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Subject Terms:
      INCOME; GOVERNMENT policy; POVERTY; LOCAL government
    • Abstract:
      Background: Democratising decision making related to socioeconomic policy is an area of growing interest in health inequalities research; however, there is a recognised gap between the democratic theory and practical application at a macro socioeconomic level. This gap is notable in the current UK policy context defined by over a decade of austerity, rising income insecurity, and an increase in health inequalities. Underpinned by theories related to participatory, deliberative, and economic democracy, particularly those concerned with democratic innovations, this scoping Review investigates how, when, and where participatory and deliberative processes have been used to influence socioeconomic policy over the past 15 years in the UK and how this influence might inform any so-called democratic rejuvenation moving forward.Methods: This Review, presenting the interim findings, is structured in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews and applies the PRIMSA-Scoping Review checklist. Key search terms included "public policy", "economic policy", "income insecurity", "poverty", "public participation" "decision-making", and "democratic innovation". Searches were conducted in EconLit, SOC Index, Sociological Abstracts, and MedLine, as well as grey literature sources, including BASE database, government, third sector, and thinktank websites for articles related to participatory and deliberative processes (informed by theories of associative and direct democracy as well as Fung's Democracy Cube of public participation) in socioeconomic policy making in the UK, in English, from January, 2007, until June, 2022. A combined framework of democratic goods and typology of interventions to tackle health inequalities were applied for analysis.Findings: 14 articles were included in the final review (three peer-reviewed and 11 grey literature) with a concentration of results in Scotland (six articles) and in local government (five articles). Interim findings suggest a multiplicity of activities exist under the banner of participatory and deliberative processes; however, there are few, if any, examples that influence typically closed macro socioeconomic policy making and instead disperse participatory decision-making across less empowered spaces.Interpretation: Ambitions for a democratic rejuvenation to tackle the upstream socioeconomic drivers of health inequalities require critical reflection on the locus of decision-making power, as well as the fractured and challenging nature of participatory policy making.Funding: This study is part of a PhD studentship with the Medical Research Council and Chief Scientist Office, Social and Public Health Sciences Research Unit at the University of Glasgow. The studentship is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/3) and Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (SPHSU18). KS is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/11 and MC_UU_00022/3) and Strategic Award (MC_PC_13027) and Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (SPHSU18). GF is funded through the UK Medical Research Council (MC_ UU_00022/2) and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (SPHSU17). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]