Problems and Purpose

Planning cells are a method for deliberation developed by Prof. Dr. Peter C. Dienel^[1], and is designed to be a sort of "micro-parliament" in order to improve citizen’s representation, especially vis-à-vis their government representatives. Detlef Garbe notes that planning cells aim to “improve the efficiency of decision-making in the planning process, and to offer new possibilities of political participation by the citizen”.^[2] To do so, in a planning cell, twenty five people from various backgrounds work together to develop a set of solutions to a problem delegated to the participants by a commissioning body. These solutions are then assessed and final recommendations are presented to the commissioning body as a "Citizen's Report."^[3]

Origins and Development

The planning cell as a method for deliberation was created by German Prof. Dr. Peter C. Dienel in 1972.^[4] Professor Dienel developed the planning cell in response to problems he noticed with the relationship between government officials and ordinary citizens. Noticing an increasing trend in which citizens did not feel their elected representatives shared the same interests and values as their own, Dienel sought to create a program whereby people could begin to represent themselves. In the past, Dienel noted that public officials had sought to improve relations with citizens by increasing the efficiency of government entities and providing quicker response times when people expressed dissatisfaction with the government. These solutions for Dienel, however, were unsatisfactory and the German professor introduced the method of planning cells to increase the independence of citizens and give them a tool for self-representation.^[5] Since the inception of the planning cell in the German town of Schwelm, planning cells have been used over 170 times at more than 40 locations.^[6]

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Duties for organizers include creating the schedule, finding a location to host the cell, identifying experts and interest group representatives who are well-informed on the problem addressed in the cell, and finding citizens to actually participate in the planning cell. The twenty-five participants in the planning cell must be randomly selected^[7] and composed of people directly affected by the policy issue and those indirectly affected. Also, participants in a planning cell must be paid for their time, including compensation for participation as well as reimbursement of lost wages.^[8] This ensures that members of a planning cell take their job seriously and focus on the cell's objective while also being inclusive of those for whom financial burdens can be a barrier to participation.

How it Works: Process, Interaction, and Decision-Making

In order to successfully implement a planning cell, there are several steps that must be taken.

After organizers have selected 25 participants, they are organized into a planning cell. A commissioning body (usually a city or county) then delegates a problem to the cell that needs to be addressed. These issues are related to things like government funding, civic programs, and political institutions. Next, in order to tackle the problem given to the planning cell, participants work through three distinct phases.

In Phase I, citizens' become informed about the issue through a series of lectures, videos, and written pamphlets.^[9] During this phase, experts and interest group representatives also have a chance to address the planning cell so that the participants may gain an understanding of the perspectives of all interested parties. Once all of this information is received by the cell members, they may ask questions and seek clarification before entering into Phase II.

In Phase II, participants process information received in Phase I through group discussions.^[10] The 25-person cell is divided into five smaller groups of five people each, and each group is responsible for prioritizing values and identifying criteria to help analyze the problem.^[11] During this phase, members are expected to develop a number of recommendations and then choose one to share with the larger group. In order to choose this recommendation, group members rate each decision based on the values they determine to be most important and then vote on their preferred choice.

In Phase III, the recommendations developed and voted on by each small group are then presented to the larger 25-person assembly. After all of the participating citizens are made aware of the various solutions, the options are evaluated by the entire group. This evaluation can take many forms. Often, members of the cell will grade or assign points to policy options or vote on various alternatives. Moderators then record these evaluations to develop a final report.

The final report, created by the moderators of the planning cell, summarizes the results of the cell, provides a description of the procedures followed, and identifies the problem addressed.^[12] The initial draft of this report is given to all members of the planning cell first so that they may review and make changes if necessary. After edits are made by participants, the final report is then published and presented to the commissioning body.^[13]

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Dienel argues that planning cells have “proved an effective aid to resolving hardened conflicts and producing consensual outcomes” while the recommendations resulting from the consultations have also influenced decision-makers.^[14] The influence and outcomes of the planning cell methodology can be seen in its application in three countries.

Germany

In August 1982, the German Ministry of Research and Technology utilized planning cells to identify the interests of German citizens in regards to four different energy policy options.^[15] The three year study, utilizing 24 separate planning cells in seven communities throughout West Germany, sought to identify the public's preferences for each energy program and the underlying motivations behind those preferences.^[16] At the end of the study, researchers found that the planning cells favored the policy option that focused on energy conservation and the efficient use of energy.

In 1992, the Federal Ministry of Postal Service and Telecommunication commissioned a series of 22 planning cells to discuss and form recommendations regarding the "future telephone."^[17] All together, 85,000 statements were issued. The final citizen report was given to the ministry and included 66 recommendations that dealt specifically with data protection in telecommunications; several of these proposals were adopted by the German government.^[18]

Spain

The Basque Region of Spain has experienced intense ethnic conflict and policy stagnation, but with the help of planning cells, was able to successfully resolve a long standing dispute over the construction of a gymnasium in the early 1990's.^[19]

In 1997, the Regional Department of Transportation commissioned 14 planning cells to deliberate the creation of a major highway through the Basque Region. The cells helped evaluate existing plans for the highway, consider alternative routes, and identify the social and political effects of each option.

United States

In 1988, the Department of Environmental Protection of New Jersey utilized planning cells to create recommendations for regulating sewage sludge at a Rutgers University research farm. The planning cell used in this case rejected the farm's preference for using the land for sludge application.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

According to Professor Dienel, planning cells are beneficial for individuals participating in the cell, for policy creation, and for society as a whole.^[20]

Individual participants benefit from planning cells because they are empowered in the deliberative process. Planning cells rely on citizens to make decisions and design original solutions to problems. This task requires a large responsibility and can lead many participants to develop stronger social identities as they evaluate and support their opinions.

Policy creation is also uniquely aided by planning cells. Because a large part of the process of planning cells involves informing participants about all sides of an issue, citizens are highly competent and knowledgeable when it comes to shaping policies and they can better foresee the consequences of different legislative options. Also, the random selection of members in a planning cell means that everyone has the opportunity to partake.^[21] This results in cells that for the most part mirror the general population and therefore decisions made by the planning cell will most likely be accepted by the people as a whole. Finally, planning cells benefit policy creation because the results of a cell are completely open. Rather than having pre-defined solutions that participants vote on, cells are responsible for creating their own unique policy recommendations. This leaves room for creativity and ingenuity when presenting solutions.

Society benefits from planning cells because the deliberative method restores trust in democratic institutions. People often complain of a disconnect between government and the general population, and planning cells help to close this gap by giving participants the chance to have power in the decision making process. Also, society may be more willing to accept a policy decision if they know it was created by a group of randomly selected and non-privileged citizens.

Given these advantages, however, there are also limitations to planning cells as a deliberative method. For one, cells are not adept at resolving issues between different regions or social groups. A group of randomly selected citizens are not skilled in the intricacies of handling intense ethnic or regional conflict. Another issue is accountability. Because planning cell participants are only responsible for designing the decision and not implementing it, the policy options they create may not be financially or physically viable. Also, planning cells are time and resource intensive. Though a typical planning cell lasts 4 to 7 days, they require months of preparation and a great deal of time after the cell adjourns to draft and disseminate a citizen's report. Because of this large time window and the emphasis planning cells put on educating participants, the process can end up costing the organizing body a great deal of money.^[22]

See Also

Citizens’ Jury

Deliberation

References

^[1] The Community Foundation: Northern Ireland. (2019). Planning Cells. http://civicinnovationni.org/tools-directory/Planning-Cells

^[2] Garbe, D. (1986). Planning Cell and Citizen Report: a report on German experiences with new participation instruments. European Journal of Political Research 14(1-2). p. 223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1986.tb00831.x

^[3] The Community Foundation: Northern Ireland. (2019). Planning Cells. http://civicinnovationni.org/tools-directory/Planning-Cells

^[4] CDPN. (2008). What is “Planungszelle (Planning Cell)”? http://www.cdpn.jp/modules/pico/index.php?content_id=48

Dienel, P. (1999). Planning Cells: The German Experience. In U. Khan, Participation Beyond the Ballot Box: European Case Studies in State-Citizen Political Dialogue. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203982204

^[5] Garbe, D. (1986). Planning Cell and Citizen Report: a report on German experiences with new participation instruments. European Journal of Political Research 14(1-2). 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1986.tb00831.x

^[6] Dienel, P. (1999). Planning Cells: The German Experience. In U. Khan, Participation Beyond the Ballot Box: European Case Studies in State-Citizen Political Dialogue. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203982204

^[7] The Community Foundation: Northern Ireland. (2019). Planning Cells. http://civicinnovationni.org/tools-directory/Planning-Cells

^[8] CDPN. (2008). What is “Planungszelle (Planning Cell)”? http://www.cdpn.jp/modules/pico/index.php?content_id=48

^[9] Garbe, D. (1986). Planning Cell and Citizen Report: a report on German experiences with new participation instruments. European Journal of Political Research 14(1-2). p. 226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1986.tb00831.

^[10] Garbe, D. (1986). Planning Cell and Citizen Report: a report on German experiences with new participation instruments. p. 226

^[11] CDPN. (2008). What is “Planungszelle (Planning Cell)”? http://www.cdpn.jp/modules/pico/index.php?content_id=48

^[12] Garbe, D. (1986). Planning Cell and Citizen Report: a report on German experiences with new participation instruments. p. 227

^[13] Escobar, O. & Elstub, S. (2007). Forms of Mini-Publics: An introduction to deliberative innovations in democratic practice. New Democracy. https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/2017/05/08/forms-of-mini-publics/

^[14] Dienel, P. (1999). Planning Cells: The German Experience. In U. Khan, Participation Beyond the Ballot Box: European Case Studies in State-Citizen Political Dialogue. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203982204

^[15] Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P. (2013). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 131

^[16] Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P. (2013). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, 131-32

^[17] Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P. (2013), 131

^[18] Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P. (2013), 131

^[19] Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P. (2013).

^[20] Garbe, D. (1986). Planning Cell and Citizen Report: a report on German experiences with new participation instruments. European Journal of Political Research 14(1-2). 221-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1986.tb00831.x

^[21] Garbe, D. (1986). Planning Cell and Citizen Report: a report on German experiences with new participation instruments.

^[22] CDPN. (2008). What is “Planungszelle (Planning Cell)”? http://www.cdpn.jp/modules/pico/index.php?content_id=48

Gastil, John. Political Communication and Deliberation. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2008. Print. [Note: Provides a good overview of the qualifications for deliberation in multiple scenarios and criteria for evaluating the deliberative quality of various methods of deliberation.]

Gastil, John, and Peter Levine. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-first Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Print.

Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler, and Peter M. Wiedemann. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1995. Print.

Heesterbeek, Sara, Carolyn J. Lukensmeyer, and Nikki Slocum. "Planning Cell." Participatory Methods Toolkit. By Janice Elliott. King Baudouin Foundation, 2005. 142-53. Planning Cell. Citizen Participation in Science and Technology. Web. 1 June 2010. http://www.cipast.org/

Dienel, Peter C. (1999). Planning Cells and Citizens' Juries - Foundations of Political Engineering of the Future. Web. 02 June 2010.

External Links

The Community Foundation: Planning Cells

Wikipedia: Planungszelle [German]

Notes