Between legitimacy and favorability – comparing perspectives of democratic stakeholders in local participatory arrangements

Purpose With the rise of participatory governance, questions emerge about the perceived legitimacy of public decision-making. Existing research often focuses on only one of its faces, a single actor perspective or a specific form of citizen involvement. Moreover, the relationship between specific legitimacy concerns and the general evaluation of decision-making remains insufficiently explored. This study tackles these gaps by examining perceptions of legitimacy and favorability among various democratic stakeholders in two participatory arrangements at the local government level in Flanders (Belgium): a digital referendum and a collaborative governance initiative. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on input, throughput and output legitimacy and their contribution to the favorability assessment of the arrangements, the study adopts a predominantly qualitative approach. Findings Findings reveal input legitimacy, characterized by inclusiveness, as most positively assessed in both cases (provided concerns on reaching marginalized groups). Throughput legitimacy received mixed appraisals. The referendum was noted for procedural clarity but criticized for limited deliberation. The collaborative governance initiative fostered dialogue but faced an intricate process. Output legitimacy appeared the most contentious: the referendum achieved actionable decisions but raised efficiency concerns; the collaborative governance initiative struggled with tangible outcomes. Research limitations/implications Our study demonstrates the value of addressing the three faces of legitimacy together and offering an integrated view for multiple stakeholders. It also shows how design configurations can shape assessments. Altogether, the research finds that favorability depended on legitimacy perceptions, but also on topic saliency and the tension between participation and realization. This helps to clarify the nuanced relationship between two central concepts in evaluating public decision-making. Originality/value The paper considers the three dimensions of legitimacy (input, throughput and output) together, rather than separately, building on a validated multifaceted operationalization. Second, it adopts a qualitative, multi-stakeholder perspective. Whereas most studies focus on citizens alone, this study compares perceptions across citizens, political actors and administrators. Third, it examines two different participatory arrangements (a referendum and a case of collaborative governance) in their real-life local context, enabling comparison across distinct institutional designs. Fourth, it links legitimacy perceptions to broader favorability towards decision-making arrangements. Unlike prior work treating favorability as a simple proxy for legitimacy, this study explores how and why these two concepts overlap or diverge, leaving space for additional explanatory factors.