Was erwarten Bürgerinnen und Bürger von ihrer Stadt?

Perry, Sarah

doi:10.1007/978-3-658-05849-4_2

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, Dalton (2004: 74-76) finds that citizens' support for incumbents and political institutions strongly depends on their assessment of their pocketbook. Yet, Perry (2014) demonstrates that satisfaction with the performance of local institutions is the most important driver of local attachment -an indicator for diffuse system support (cf. Moving to the local level, Denters (2014) finds that functional and procedural considerations are equally important for explaining satisfaction with local democracy.…”

Section: Output Throughput and Input: The Basis For Citizens' Legitimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moving to the local level, Denters (2014) finds that functional and procedural considerations are equally important for explaining satisfaction with local democracy. Yet, Perry (2014) demonstrates that satisfaction with the performance of local institutions is the most important driver of local attachment -an indicator for diffuse system support (cf. Norris 1999).…”

Section: Output Throughput and Input: The Basis For Citizens' Legitimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Strebel

Kübler

Marcinkowski

2018

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Output Throughput and Input: The Basis For Citizens' Legitimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Output Throughput and Input: The Basis For Citizens' Legitimentioning

confidence: 99%