Democracies are typically considered more legitimate than other types of regimes because they allow the citizens to participate in the policy decision-making process. Others argue that the policy output matters most, and citizen influence plays a lesser role. This study presents two survey experiments on the micro foundations of these two sources of political legitimacy, thus contributing to an emerging literature that experimentally investigates the effects of democratic procedures in small-scale settings. Respondents who saw the decision going in their favour found the decision much more acceptable than the respondents who preferred another outcome. Conversely, decision-making influence generally did not serve as a legitimising factor among the respondents. This result supports the argument that citizens prefer a stealth democracy where they are minimally involved in democratic decision-making processes.
AndersonCJBlaisABowlerS. (2005) Losers’ Consent: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy: Elections and Democratic Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BabadE (1997) Wishful Thinking among Voters: Motivational and Cognitive Influences. International Journal of Public Opinion Research9 (2): 105–125.
3.
BengtssonÅChristensenH (2014) Ideals and Actions: Do Citizens’ Patterns of Political Participation Correspond to Their Conceptions of Democracy?Government and Opposition51: 1–27.
4.
DahlR (1989) Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
DahlbergSLindeJHolmbergS (2015) Democratic Discontent in Old and New Democracies: Assessing the Importance of Democratic Input and Governmental Output. Political Studies63: 18–37.
6.
DahlbergSLindeJ (2016) Losing Happily? The Mitigating Effect of Democracy and Quality of Govern-ment on the Winner-Loser Gap in Political Support. International Journal of Public Administration39 (9): 652–664.
7.
EastonD (1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
8.
ElsterJ (1998) Deliberative Democracy, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ErikssonK (2007) Spelar adressen någon roll? En studie av områdeseffekter på medborgares politiska deltagande. Umeå: Umeå University.
10.
EsaiassonP (2010) Will Citizens Take No for an Answer? What Government Officials can do to Enhance Decision Acceptance. European Political Science Review2 (3): 351–371.
11.
EsaiassonPGilljamMPerssonM (2012) Which Decision-Making Arrangements Generate the Strongest Legitimacy Beliefs? Evidence from a Randomised Field Experiment. European Journal of Political Research51 (6): 785–808.
12.
EsaiassonPGilljamMPerssonM (2016) Responsiveness beyond Policy Satisfaction Does It Matter to Citizens?Comparative Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 27January. DOI: 10.1177/0010414015626445.
13.
EstlundDM (2009) Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
GrimesM (2005) Democracy’s Infrastructure. Göteborg: Department of Political Science, Göteborg University.
15.
HabermasJRehgW (1996) Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16.
HainmuellerJYamamotoTHangartnerD (2014) Do Survey Experiments Capture Real-World Behavior?External Validation of Conjoint and Vignette Analyses with a Natural Experiment. Working Paper. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/teppei/www/research/conjointswiss.pdf
17.
HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (2001) Process Preferences and American Politics: What People Want Government to Be. American Political Science Review95 (1): 145–154.
18.
HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
JohnsonC (2015) Local Civic Participation and Democratic Legitimacy: Evidence from England and Wales. Political Studies63: 765–792.
23.
KarpowitzCFMendelbergT (2011) An Experimental Approach to Citizen Deliberation. In: DruckmanJNGreenDPKuklinskiJH. (eds) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 258–272.
24.
LijphartA (1997) Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma – Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1996. American Political Science Review91: 1–14.
25.
LindEATylerTR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.
26.
MorrellME (1999) Citizen’s Evaluations of Participatory Democratic Procedures: Normative Theory Meets Empirical Science. Political Research Quarterly52 (2): 293–322.
27.
MullerEN (1979) Aggressive Political Participation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
NadeauRBlaisA (1993) Accepting the Election Outcome: The Effect of Participation on Losers’ Consent. British Journal of Political Science23 (4): 553–563.
29.
NebloMAEsterlingKMKennedyRB. (2010) Who Wants To Deliberate—And Why?American Political Science Review104 (3): 566–583.
30.
ParkinsonJ (2006) Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
PatemanC (1970) Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change. British Journal of Political Science1: 291–305.
32.
PatemanC (1975) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
PerssonMEsaiassonPGilljamM (2013) The Effects of Direct Voting and Deliberation on Legitimacy Beliefs: An Experimental Study of Small Group Decision-Making. European Political Science Review5 (3): 381–399.
34.
RosenstoneSJHansenJM (2002) Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America (Longman Classics Edition). Harlow: Longman Publishing Group.
35.
RothsteinB (2009) Creating Political Legitimacy Electoral Democracy versus Quality of Government. American Behavioral Scientist53 (3): 311–330.
36.
RothsteinB (2012) Good Government: The Relevance of Political Science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
37.
ScharpfFW (1970) Demokratietheorie zwischen Utopie und Anpassung, vol. 25. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag.
38.
ScharpfFW (1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39.
SchmidtVA (2013) Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’. Political Studies61 (1): 2–22.
40.
ShadishWRCookTDCampbellDT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
41.
SkitkaLJWinquistJHutchinsonS (2003) Are Outcome Fairness and Outcome Favorability Distinguishable Psychological Constructs? A Meta-Analytic Review. Social Justice Research16 (4): 309–341.
42.
SmithG (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
StrømsnesK (2001) Demokrati i bevegelse. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Bergen, Bergen.
45.
ThibautJWWalkerL (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ and New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
ThompsonDF (2008) Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science11: 497–520.
47.
TogebyL (2003) Fra fremmedarbejdere til etniske minoriteter. Åarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
48.
TylerTR (2000) Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology35 (2): 117–125.
49.
TylerTR (2001) A Psychological Perspective on the Legitimacy of Institutions and Authorities. In: JostJTMajorB (eds) The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 416.
50.
TylerTR (2006) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
TylerTRFaganJ (2008) Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law6: 231–275.
52.
TylerTRLindEA (1992) A Relational Model of Authority in Groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology25: 115–191.
53.
UphoffN (1989) Distinguishing Power, Authority & Legitimacy: Taking Max Weber at His Word by Using Resources-Exchange Analysis. Polity22 (2): 295–322.
54.
Van der ToornJTylerTRJostJT (2011) More than Fair: Outcome Dependence, System Justification, and the Perceived Legitimacy of Authority Figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology47 (1): 127–138.
55.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyHE (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
Von BertalanffyL (1956) General System Theory. General Systems1 (1): 11–17.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
