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.

Social services to claim legitimacy: comparing autocracies’ performance

What autocracies say (and what citizens hear): proposing four mechanisms of autocratic legitimation

The Legitimation of Repression in Autocracies

The Puzzle of Authoritarian Legitimacy

The three pillars of stability: legitimation, repression, and co-optation in autocratic regimes

Legitimacy and post-conflict state-building: the undervalued role of performance legitimacy

Legitimacy and Societal Consent under Putin’s Leadership: State Capacity and National Identity

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

Generating Regime Support in Contemporary China

Democratization, Legitimacy and Political Change in Central Asia

Democracy and Redistribution: The Role of Regime Revisited

Authoritarian elections, state capacity, and performance legitimacy: Phases of regime consolidation and decline in Suharto’s Indonesia

Public Goods And Regime Support In Urban China

Party Origins, Party Infrastructural Strength, and Governance Outcomes

Electoral Authoritarianism and Human Development

Autocracy in the digital universe: prospects and threats of political legitimation

Elite Communication and the Popular Legitimacy of International Organizations

Building legitimacy? The role of Chinese contract workers in foreign regimes' political strategies

The Regime's New Approach to Its Representative Claim in the Digital Era: A Case Study of the "visit Once" Reform in China

The principal components of electoral regimes -- Separating autocracies from pseudo-democracies

State-society relations and the sources of support for the Putin regime: bridging political culture and social contract theory