Image: Andrei Miranchuk / Unsplash.com

Strengthening youth participation at the local and regional levels

The Nordic countries are often ranked among the strongest democracies in the world, with high levels of trust and civic engagement, and well-functioning representative institutions (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2025; Freedom House, 2026). This is also reflected in the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) dataset, one of the most comprehensive and widely used measures of democracy. While the Nordic countries perform very strongly across electoral, liberal, egalitarian and deliberative dimensions, their scores on the participatory component are consistently lower, which indicates that direct citizen influence in decision-making is comparatively limited (Coppedge et al., 2025; Nord et al., 2026).

This gap can partly be explained by the way in which the Nordic system is organised. Power is decentralised to strong municipalities and regions, each of which manages extensive responsibilities within complex institutional frameworks. While these structures support stability and predictability, they can also make it difficult to embed comprehensive participatory approaches (Castell, 2016; Haveri, 2015; Sinervo et al., 2025).

Embedding participatory processes in local and regional governance is inherently challenging and requires not only sustained political support, but also appropriate organisational structures, cultures and resources within public administration (Fung, 2015; Kurkela et al., 2023). In practice, this means that municipalities and regions must actively organise and sustain participation as part of everyday governance. Building on this, Fung (2015) identifies the following key challenges that governments face in trying to achieve an impactful design space for participation.

1. Lack of leadership

Impactful participation depends on whether it is embedded within municipal and regional governance, rather than driven by individual initiative. If the leadership is weak, participation tends to rely on motivated staff or politicians, and remains project-based, which leaves it vulnerable to political shifts, staff turnover and changing priorities (Fung, 2015).

Interviews with DUF, Nuva ry, and LNU illustrate how this challenge manifests in the Nordic countries. In Denmark, the absence of national requirements for youth councils means that participation depends heavily on the priorities of local leadership. DUF notes that municipalities vary widely in how actively they reach out to youth organisations, and that engagement is frequently contingent on the interests of individual officials, rather than embedded institutional practice. In Finland, youth councils are legally mandated, but Nuva ry observes that their influence varies depending on the extent to which the municipalities support them and integrate them into decision-making. Rural municipalities in particular often lack the resources and staff capacity to sustain impactful participation. Similarly, in Norway, LNU highlights that while the 2019 reform made youth councils mandatory, formal requirements alone have not reduced the significant variation in practice across municipalities. In addition, research from Norway shows that although youth council coordinators play a crucial role in facilitating participation, they often lack the time, resources, or institutional support to fulfil this role effectively. (Rambøll, 2024).

Addressing this leadership challenge within local and regional governance may involve establishing clear roles and responsibilities for youth participation, ensuring coordination across departments and governance levels, and securing visible support from local politicians and senior officials. It may also entail allocating sufficient resources, in terms of staff, funding and skills, as well as fostering collaboration with regional or inter-municipal actors, so that participation is sustained over time and linked to broader municipal and regional strategies and decision-making processes.

2. Lack of consensus and joint understanding

This challenge concerns how participation is understood within municipalities and regions. Where there is no shared understanding of its purpose, participation is often used instrumentally, primarily to consult, rather than to influence decisions (Fung, 2006). This reflects differing expectations among public officials, politicians and participants about whether participation should inform, co-develop or shape outcomes.

Interviews with DUF, Nuva ry, and LNU suggest that where such a shared understanding is lacking, practices become inconsistent and more difficult for young people to navigate. In Denmark, DUF highlights a tendency for municipalities to bypass formal youth councils and instead seek input from “real” young people, on an ad hoc basis. While often well intentioned, this approach can undermine established and legitimate structures that have built up a level of experience. Across contexts, practical barriers such as administrative procedures and complex, age-inappropriate language also create challenges, particularly in smaller and rural municipalities. In Finland, Nuva ry reports that roughly 20–25% of young people find administrative language difficult to understand. In Denmark, DUF points to bureaucracy and a high volume of regulations as barriers that can undermine the voluntary spirit driving youth engagement, and notes that cooperation with municipalities is often complicated by differences in institutional pace and culture.

Addressing this challenge may involve fostering an organisational culture in which municipal and regional staff act as facilitators and partners rather than just administrators. It also requires building regular, trust-based cooperation with youth organisations, and recognising young people as competent, knowledgeable actors. In addition, it may require prioritising time for relationship-building, ensuring teams have diverse skills and experience, and developing shared norms around participation across the organisation.

3. Limited scope

A third significant challenge concerns the “influence” dimension of the Democracy Cube. As outlined above, this ranges from forms of participation that generate individual or communicative effects, to forms in which participants exercise direct authority over decisions (Fung, 2006). In practice, many participatory processes operate with limited authority alongside formal governance structures, which make their impact indirect or incremental (Fung, 2015). While this does not necessarily indicate failure, a long-standing tendency toward consultative and low-authority forms of participation can contribute to scepticism and further disengagement or even distrust among participants, particularly in situations where previous engagement has not led to visible change.

Nuva ry identifies a recurring pattern of tokenism in Finland. In other words, while decision-makers regularly consult youth to fulfil formal requirements, they do not systematically integrate the feedback into policy processes, which leaves young people uncertain as to whether their input has made any difference. Similarly, in Norway, LNU notes that youth are sometimes included for reasons of optics, rather than genuine co-influence. Furthermore, research from Norway finds that youth councils often deal only with matters proposed by the council itself, the administration, the youth council coordinator, school pupil councils or peer conversations, rather than broader outreach methods. There also appear to be limited opportunities to influence the budget process, as youth councils are often invited to provide input shortly before the budget is adopted (Rambøll, 2024)

Addressing this challenge may involve clarifying the role of participation in relation to decision-making, aligning participatory processes with formal governance structures, allocating sufficient time and resources, and ensuring that participants can see how their input is considered and used.