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.

Whither the withering democratic deficit? The impact of the Lisbon Treaty on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

EU democracy and the Treaty of Lisbon

The European Union and Crisis Management: Will the Lisbon Treaty Make the EU More Effective?

Understanding and Assessing the Maastricht Treaty

EU Responses to the Democratic Deficit and the Rule of Law Crisis: Is It Time for a (New) European Exceptionalism?

Building strong executives and weak institutions: How European integration contributes to democratic backsliding

The Arc of Institutional Reform in Post-Maastricht Treaty Change

The essence of democratic backsliding in the European Union: deliberation and rule of law

EU police and judicial cooperation before the Treaty of Lisbon: strengthening of the weakest link?

Introduction to the special issue: Justice and solidarity in Europe

Institutional balance and Community method in the implementation of EU legislation following the Lisbon Treaty

Europe's Economic Constitution in Crisis and the Emergence of a New Constitutional Constellation

The legitimation of the European Union in the news media: three treaty reform debates

Euroscepticism and the Future of European Integration

Artificial Intelligence for EU Decision-Making. Effects on Citizens Perceptions of Input, Throughput and Output Legitimacy

Embedded Neoliberalism and the Legitimacy of the Post-Lisbon European Union Investment Policy

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

Enhancing EU Democracy, Constituting the European Union

The common sense of European integration

The Euro’s Taxing Path to Political Legitimacy