Which Modes of Global Governance Do Citizens Prefer: The Liberal, Republican, Deliberative, or the Private Model?
In recent years, democratic theorists have made important proposals for the design of legitimate global governance. Advocates of liberal, republican, deliberative, and private governance support divergent normative standards and procedures. However, the extent to which these procedural alternatives resonate with citizens and, thus, have the potential to enhance citizen support for global governance remains empirically uncertain. Using data from a stated preference conjoint experiment embedded in representative surveys in four European democracies, we examine which procedural standards citizens prefer in global politics. We find that respondents hardly differentiate between liberal, republican, and deliberative alternatives but, compared to these three choices, clearly reject private governance. We conclude that many of the institutional reforms considered in contemporary debates about the democratic legitimacy of global governance might not affect citizens’ preferences as long as authority remains in the hands of public actors.