Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6bnxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-11T09:40:59.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of input and output legitimacy in democratic governance: Evidence from a population‐based survey experiment in four West European countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Michael Andrea Strebel ,
Daniel Kübler  and
Frank Marcinkowski
Michael Andrea Strebel*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Daniel Kübler
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Frank Marcinkowski
Affiliation:
Social Sciences Institute, Heinrich Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany
*
Address for correspondence: Michael Andrea Strebel, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: michael.strebel@uzh.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study of subjective democratic legitimacy from a citizens’ perspective has become an important strand of research in political science. Echoing the well‐known distinction between ‘input‐oriented’ and ‘output‐oriented’ legitimacy, the scientific debate on this topic has coined two opposed views. Some scholars find that citizens have a strong and intrinsic preference for meaningful participation in collective decision making. But others argue, to the contrary, that citizens prefer ‘stealth democracy’ because they care mainly about the substance of decisions, but much less about the procedures leading to them. In this article, citizens’ preferences regarding democratic governance are explored, focusing on their evaluations of a public policy according to criteria related to various legitimacy dimensions, as well as on the (tense) relationship among them. Data from a population‐based conjoint experiment conducted in eight metropolitan areas in France, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom is used. By analysing 5,000 respondents’ preferences for different governance arrangements, which were randomly varied with respect to their input, throughput and output quality as well as their scope of authority, light is shed on the relative importance of different aspects of democratic governance. It is found, first, that output evaluations are the most important driver for citizens’ choice of a governance arrangement; second, consistent positive effects of criteria of input and throughput legitimacy that operate largely independent of output evaluations can be discerned; and third, democratic input, but not democratic throughput, is considered somewhat more important when a governance body holds a high level of formal authority. These findings run counter to a central tenet of the ‘stealth democracy’ argument. While they indeed suggest that political actors and institutions can gain legitimacy primarily through the provision of ‘good output’, citizens’ demand for input and throughput do not seem to be conditioned by the quality of output as advocates of stealth democratic theory suggest. Democratic input and throughput remain important secondary features of democratic governance.

Keywords

democratic legitimacydemocratic governancestealth democracypublic opinionconjoint analysis

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 488 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 European Consortium for Political Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arneson, R.J. (2003). Debate: Defending the purely instrumental account of democratic legitimacy. Journal of Political Philosophy 11(1): 122–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnesen, S. (2017). Legitimacy from decision‐making influence and outcome favourability: Results from general population survey experiments. Political Studies 65(1s): 146–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, A. & Mattila, M. (2009). Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct demcoracy and ʻstealthʼ democracy in Finland. West European Politics 32(5): 1031–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, T., Koubi, V. & Mohrenberg, S. (2016). How relevant are input and output legitimacy in international environmental governance? NCCR Working Paper 94. Available online at: http://www.nccr-democracy.uzh.ch/publications/workingpaper/pdf/wp_94.pdfGoogle Scholar
Brenner, N. (2003). Metropolitan institutional reform and the rescaling of state space in contemporary Western Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 10(4): 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühlmann, M. & Kriesi, H. (2013). Models for democracy. In Kriesi, H. et al. (eds), Democracy in the age of globalization and mediatization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Caramani, D. (2017). Will vs reason: The populist and technocratic forms of representation and their critique to party government. American Political Science Review 111(1): 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chu, Y.H. et al. (2008). Public opinion and democratic legitimacy. Journal of Democracy 19(2): 74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1998). On democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R.A. (1999). Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic's view. In Shapiro, I. & Hacker‐Cordón, C. (eds), Democracy's edges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deas, I. (2014). The search for territorial fixes in subnational governance: City‐regions and the disputed emergence of post‐political consensus in Manchester, England. Urban Studies 51(11): 2285–2314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denters, B. (2014). Beyond ‘what do I get?’ Functional and procedural sources of Dutch citizens’ satisfaction with local democracy. Urban Research and Practice 7(2): 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M. & Persson, M. (2012). Which decision‐making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomised field experiment. European Journal of Political Research 51(6): 785–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Persson, M. & Lindholm, T. (2016a). Reconsidering the role of procedures for decision acceptance. British Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000508.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M. & Persson, M. (2016b). Responsiveness beyond policy satisfaction: Does it matter to citizens? Comparative Political Studies 50(6): 739–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurostat (2013). Territorial typologies for European cities and metropolitan regions. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Territorial_typologies_for_European_cities_and_metropolitan_regionsGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, D. (2011). Explaining support for European integration: An attitudinal model. In Fuchs, D. & Klingemann, H.D. (eds), Cultural diversity, European identity and the legitimacy of the EU. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, M. & Palmer, H.D. (1995). Understanding variation in public support for European integration. European Journal of Political Research 27(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, A. & Marx, P. (2017). Multi‐dimensional preferences for labour market reforms: A conjoint experiment. Journal of European Public Policy 24(7): 1027–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, E.R. & Gibson, C.C. (2009). Balancing regionalism and localism: How institutions and incentives shape American transportation policy. American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 633–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilley, B. (2006). The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries. European Journal of Political Research 45(3): 499–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilley, B. (2009). The right to rule: How states win and lose legitimacy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gustavsen, A., Røiseland, A. & Pierre, J. (2014). Procedure or performance? Assessing citizen's attitudes toward legitimacy in Swedish and Norwegian local government. Urban Research and Practice 7(2): 200–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Yamamoto, T. & Hopkins, D.J. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D. & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint analysis against real‐world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(8): 2395–2400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haus, M. (2014). Mirror of the state or independent image? Conceptual perspectives on the question of a legitimacy shift to the output dimension in local democracy. Urban Research and Practice 7(2): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinelt, H., & Kübler, D. (2005). Metropolitan governance: Capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Héritier, A. (2003). Composite democracy in Europe: The role of transparency and access to information. Journal of European Public Policy 10(5): 814–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, J.R. & Theiss‐Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann‐Martinot, V. & Sellers, J. (eds) (2005). Metropolitanization and political change. Opladen: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi‐level governance. American Political Science Review 97(2): 233–243.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2005). Calculation, community and cues. European Union Politics 6(4): 419–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2008). A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2015). Delegation and pooling in international organizations. Review of International Organizations 10(3): 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L. et al. (2016). Measuring regional authority: A postfunctionalist theory of governance, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulst, R. & VanMontfort, A. (2007). Inter‐municipal cooperation in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersting, N. & Vetter, A. (2003). Reforming local government in Europe: Closing the gap between democracy and efficiency. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kübler, D. & Pagano, M.A. (2012). Urban politics as multilevel analysis. In Mossberger, K., John, P. & Clarke, S.E. (eds), The Oxford handbook of urban politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladner, A., Baldersheim, H. & Keuffer, N. (2015). Self‐rule index for local authorities, (Release 1.0). Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/studies/2015/self-rule-index-for-local-authorities-release-1-0Google Scholar
Lefèvre, C. (1998). Metropolitan government and governance in Western countries: A critical review. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22(1): 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, W.E., Lowery, D. & Hoogland DeHoog, R. (1992) The politics of dissatisfaction: Citizens, services and urban institutions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Mulgan, R. (2014). Accountability deficits. In Bovens, M., Schillemans, T. & Goodin, R.E. (eds), The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neblo, M.A. et al. (2010). Who wants to deliberate – and why? American Political Science Review 104(3): 566–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, J.E. (2012). Local elections and the politics of small‐scale democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, Y. & Warin, P. (2007). Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? European Journal of Political Research 46(4): 445–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, S. (2014). Was erwarten Bürgerinnen und Bürger von ihrer Stadt? In Deth, J.W. Van (ed.), Demokratie in der Grossstadt. Ergebnisse des ersten Mannheimer Demokratie Audit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
Pierre, J. (2011). Cost‐efficiency and public interest in inter‐local partnerships. Urban Research and Practice 4(1): 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, B. (2009). Creating political legitimacy: Electoral democracy versus quality of government. American Behavioral Scientist 53(3): 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies 61(1): 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swianiewicz, P. & Lackowska, M. (2008). Cosmopolitans of small fatherlands. Miscellanea Geographica 13: 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (1994). Governing amid diversity: The effect of fair decisionmaking procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law and Society Review 28(4): 809–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology 35(2): 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. Available online at: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Google Scholar
Warren, M.E. (2014). Accountability and democracy. In Bovens, M., Schillemans, T. & Goodin, R.E. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zürn, M., Ecker‐Ehrhardt, M. & Binder, M. (2012). International authority and its politicization. International Theory 4(1): 69–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Strebel et al. supplementary material

Strebel et al. supplementary material
Download Strebel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.5 MB