Operationalising Affectedness in the Study of Stakeholder Participation

Stakeholder participation is one of the central mechanisms through which contemporary regulatory governance seeks to enhance objectives such as effectiveness, legitimacy, and trust. Yet despite their prominence, we know surprisingly little about whether the stakeholder types who participate in these processes correspond to those most likely to be affected by the resulting policies. This question is crucial for understanding how participatory mechanisms shape the regulatory outcomes on inclusiveness, representativeness, and perceived fairness. Existing quantitative research on stakeholder engagement has tended to focus on interest group theoretical studies and thus emphasising the organisational characteristics of the interest group—such as resources, organisational type, or lobbying capacity—while paying less attention to the policy goals and context in which engagement occurs. As a result, the expected affectedness of various stakeholder types has rarely been incorporated into analyses of participation patterns. This choice creates a conceptual and methodological gap: without a clear baseline of who should be engaged, it becomes difficult to assess participation bias, evaluate whether stakeholder participation appears balanced, and ultimately determine whether participatory mechanisms function as intended. Qualitative case studies may address this issue more easily by linking participation to policy substance, but large N studies have lacked tools to do so systematically. This paper addresses this gap by foregrounding affectedness as a central rationale for stakeholder involvement and by proposing a method to operationalise it in quantitative research. I integrate insights from interest group theory—which offers robust tools for mapping and explaining variation in stakeholder engagement—with governance theories that emphasise the normative and functional importance of involving those who are expected to be affected or who hold relevant expertise. This approach highlights that affectedness is not only a normative principle embedded in stakeholder engagement guidelines but also a practical logic guiding both policymakers’ inclusion strategies and stakeholders’ decisions about when to participate. Methodologically, I propose using regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) as a means to identify expected affectedness across stakeholder types. By coding RIAs according to the anticipated impacts on different stakeholder groups, I construct a baseline of expected involvement for each policy issue. I then compare this baseline with observed engagement patterns in two widely used participatory approaches —preparatory bodies and open public consultations—at the national level. This approach allows for a systematic assessment of whether participation reflects expected affectedness, and whether different participation mechanisms produce more balanced or diverse engagement. The empirical analysis illustrates how incorporating affectedness clarifies the representativeness of stakeholder participation and sheds light on the conditions under which participation bias may emerge. It also enables comparisons across participatory mechanisms, contributing to broader debates on how different participatory approaches shape outcomes such as inclusiveness and legitimacy. By offering both a theoretical argument for the importance of affectedness and a practical method for operationalising it, the paper advances the study of stakeholder engagement and provides a foundation for more nuanced evaluations of participatory governance in regulatory policymaking. [Contribution to Panel 7]