Shifting the power balance? Examining citizen preferences for participatory decision-making in local governments

Western democracies struggle with high levels of distrust and cynicism towards political institutions. In countering this phenomenon, various local governments have been experimenting with citizen participation. In a large and representative sample of Belgian-Flemish citizens (N=2,205), we investigate whether the impact level and type of participation affects people’s perception of these initiatives. Impact level was operationalized through four different decision-making scenarios regarding an emblematic local policy case: repurposing an abandoned school building. Types of participation were operationalized through concrete participatory instruments (e.g., citizen panels, referendums), which varied both in how the input is solicited (aggregation or deliberation) and the extent of citizen influence (advisory or binding). Results show that participants perceived participatory scenarios as more legitimate than traditional representation, with the most outspoken preference for co-decision between government and citizens. As for concrete instruments, citizen consultations are most widely favored, and aggregation (consultations or referenda) is slightly preferred over deliberation (citizen panels). Individual differences showed modest effects on preferences, primarily affecting attitudes towards the participatory extremes (i.e., no input or full autonomy), and the relative preference of aggregative (referenda) versus deliberative (citizen panels) instruments. Altogether, this study provides useful guidelines for policy-makers who aim to cultivate legitimate participatory practices.