The ability for people to take up the opportunity to participate is shaped by multiple factors that enable or constrain participation. We already know this pretty well from established research demonstrating that levels of participation are determined by socioeconomic status and the resources it is linked to. This is why, over the years, there have been increasing efforts to augment participatory and deliberative processes to be more inclusive and more accessible to groups and voices who are structurally marginalised in our societies.  

Further, evidence about the substantive impact of many democratic innovations is somewhat mixed. When we look at what actually changes in policy, or in society at large, we see an overall modest and unclear picture. We say this with the caveat that such research is still very much emergent.  

These points were reflected in our recent interviews with fifty key informants working in participation in ten European countries. When we asked people, "which groups in (your) society benefit from citizen participation?", the answer was often that participation should and could benefit everyone, but in reality, it is often the institutions and organisations implementing participation, or already engaged citizens, who benefit the most. 

Whilst there is active concern and years of innovation in research and practice to understand what constitutes inclusion and impact and how to optimise both, this has often focused on processes, individuals and institutions, rather than on structural factors. We argue that these open questions draw our attention to the political economy of participation. We need to consider how organised participatory processes interact with broader socioeconomic conditions to support or constrain people's democratic agency – beyond any given process.  

The Democratic Capabilities Framework offers an analytical lens through which to map and understand these connections. Developed through our work in INSPIRE, the Framework is rooted in empirical research, existing literature, and follows principles of grounded theory to foreground the experiences of intersectionally marginalised groups in Europe. It is not a universal template, but a starting point to be adapted and further developed. It comprises four key components that are designed to support researchers, practitioners and policymakers in identifying connections between process level and structural level conditions and enablers that support meaningful and inclusive participation. 

Democratic Capabilities are the real freedoms and opportunities that support meaningful participation in democratic life. They are not merely formal opportunities, and they are not skills or abilities, but rather 'opportunities made feasible.' Democratic capabilities are not predetermined; they are grounded and contextual. Capabilities are about enhancing democratic agency, and they are specific freedoms and opportunities that people have reason to value. Our report outlines eleven democratic capabilities that were important in the context of INSPIRE. They include collective care, navigating power and consequential participation.  

Intersecting conditions are the resources and factors that shape our ability to participate. They include our personal circumstances, education, our work conditions, care responsibilities, norms, our experiences of democracy and the cultural, social, political and economic context we live in. All these are in turn shaped by systems of oppression and discrimination: race, age, gender, socioeconomic status, and their intersections.  

Downstream enablers are the measures taken at the process level to build more inclusive participation. They include issues to do with access such as recruitment methods and outreach, and with process such as choice of space, facilitation, support made available, and suitable methods. Downstream enablers can support the development of democratic capabilities, which may in turn impact intersecting conditions. 

Upstream enablers draw our attention to the policy or structural level changes that are needed to support participation, beyond any one process. They target intersecting conditions themselves, rather than the participatory process. Mandating participation leave, for example, changes how time for participation can be organised and spent.  

The Democratic Capabilities Framework highlights that participation depends not only on process design, but on the real freedoms and opportunities that enable agency and capacity for change. This means focusing not only on how to improve our methods and processes, but also on strengthening the background systems that also shape people's agency and provide the conditions and support for flourishing democratic life.