Citizen preferences for decisional power levels and participatory instruments in local government

Western democracies increasingly struggle with public dissatisfaction toward political institutions. In response, local governments have begun implementing participatory reforms. This study examines how citizens perceive such initiatives, based on a large and representative sample of Flemish citizens (N = 2,205). Participation was studied through two complementary lenses: (1) hypothetical decision-making scenarios that varied in the level of decisional power granted to citizens (traditional representative, consultative, co-decisive, and decisive), and (2) concrete participatory instruments commonly used at the local level (e.g. citizen panels, referenda) which also differ in procedural features. Findings reveal that citizens desire more involvement than elections alone provide, yet they are not eager to assume full control over policy decisions. Co-decision between citizens and government was perceived as most legitimate, outperforming both consultative models and scenarios where citizens had the final say. Among participatory instruments, citizen consultations were most preferred, and aggregative formats (consultations, referenda) were slightly favoured over deliberative ones (citizen panels, advisory councils). Individual differences in political orientation and political cynicism modestly influenced preferences, particularly at the extremes of decisional power and in the aggregation - deliberation divide. Together, our data reveal important nuances into citizens' preferred decisional power levels and participation types, offering valuable insights for scholars and policymakers.