Participatory governance is a concept that is receiving increasing prominence. However, more empirical research is needed to clarify whether participatory governance is beneficial or detrimental to democracy. The local level is a dynamic field for participatory experiments and, therefore, particularly rewarding for researchers interested in scrutinizing the impacts of participatory governance empirically. In this article, Local Agenda 21 serves as an example to discuss both hypotheses. The study, conducted predominantly in Germany, shows that neither the supporters nor the sceptics of participatory governance are completely right. The findings about Local Agenda 21 demonstrate that this form of participatory governance can improve civic skills and social capital, but has little impact on input-legitimacy and is barely effective, i.e. reaches the goal of enforcing sustainable development only to a limited degree.

Representation is a process of making, accepting, or rejecting representative claims (Disch, 2015; Saward, 2014). This groundbreaking insight challenged the standard assumption that representative democracy can be reduced to elections and activities of elected representatives (Pitkin, 1967). It broadened the scope of representative democracy to encompass representation activities beyond those authorized by elections, transformed our thinking and provided a new perspective, putting claims and their reception into the center. This paradigm shift erased the distinction between elected and non-elected representatives and disclosed the potential of non-elected actors’ claims to represent (Andeweg, 2003; Kuyper, 2016; Rosanvallon &amp; Goldhammer, 2008; Saward, 2006, 2009; Van Biezen &amp; Saward, 2008). In spite of this lively debate, we identify an important gap in the literature: while this paradigmatic shift inspired many authors, conceptual <em>frameworks that can be applied for systematic empirical analysis of real-life cases</em> are missing. In this article, we fill this gap and propose frameworks for assessing and validating a variety of real-life claims. Our study provides empirical substance to the ongoing theoretical debates, helping to translate the mainly theoretical ‘claim approach’ into empirical research tools. It helps to transform the conventional wisdom about what representation can (not) be and shines a new light on the potential future of (claims on) representation.

The models of direct and deliberative democracy are broadly considered the major alternatives to representative democracy. So far, the two models have been merged under the broad umbrella of participatory democracy and thus little is known about why citizens support direct democracy and/or deliberation. They are distinct procedures, driven by different logics and outcomes and this makes it likely that the preference for them rest on different premises. This article fills this gap in the literature and distinguishes between the models proposing two central arguments. First, we expect that several general determinants have a positive impact on the support for both direct democracy and deliberation because they are different from representative democracy. Second, we test the effect of specific determinants that drive people towards supporting more one of the two alternative models of democracy. We use individual level data from an original survey conducted in December 2018 on a representative sample of 1094 respondents in the UK. The results indicate that the supporters of direct democracy differ from those of deliberative democracy in several ways.

An extensive body of literature discusses the disaffection of citizens with representative democracy and highlights increasing citizens' preferences for political decision-makers beyond elected politicians. But so far, little research has been conducted to analyse the relations between citizens' respective preferences and their political behaviour. To address this void in the literature, our article investigates the extent to which citizens' preferences for certain political decisionmakers (politicians, citizens or expert) have an impact on their retrospective and prospective political participation. Our analysis draws on data from a survey conducted in autumn of 2014 on a probability representative sample in Germany. Results indicate that respondents favouring politicians as decision-makers focus mainly on voting. Those who favour citizens as decisionmakers are more willing to get involved in participatory procedures, while those inclined towards expert decision-making show mixed participation. Keywordsdemocracy, citizens' preferences, political decision-makers, political participation, Germany Accepted: 22 July 2016 Political scientists have examined the relations between political attitudes and actions for several decades (Almond and Verba, 1965;Bolzendahl and Coffé, 2013;Kinder and Sears, 1985), arguing that the two go in hand (Quintelier and Van Deth, 2014: 153). At the same time, citizens' disaffection with institutions and actors of representative democracy (Bengtsson, 2012;Dalton and Wattenberg, 2000;Font and Alarcón, 2011;Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, 2001;Norris, 2011) is leading to an increasing endorsement of political decision-makers beyond elected representatives. Some authors expect that these 'changing norms' might reinforce certain types of political action (Dalton, 2008: 78). But despite a rich debate in these fields, the question of how preferences for various political decisionmakers (politicians, citizens and experts) are linked with certain modes of political participation has just recently emerged. 25Social sciences have studied factors influencing citizens' political participation intensively. However, little is known whether and how their preferences, considering political decision-makers, are linked to their political involvement. Recently, more and more scholars are examining citizens' concepts of democracy as well as their preferences for certain political decision-making procedures or decision-makers. Yet these scholars were less interested in the effects of these preferences on citizens participation (Bengtsson and Christensen, 2014;Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, 2001). Our article aims to shed light on this connection and investigates how citizens' notions about who should make political decisions correlate with their involvement in different forms of retrospective and prospective participation. With this approach, the article bridges current debates on citizens' conceptions of democracy (Canache, 2012;Shin, 2015) with the established body of research on political participation....

Abstract.  The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe proclaimed the year 2005 the ‘European Year of Democratic Citizenship through Education’, but the question is: What does the democracy‐promoting citizen look like? This article focuses on the question of whether satisfied and supportive citizens or critical citizens have attitudes that promote democracy. The discussion of this question is based on empirical results from a survey of German citizens (N = 2,000), applying bivariate and multivariate methods. Political criticism is measured by indicators of dissatisfaction, attentiveness and system preference; five types of citizens are constructed: satisfied‐attentive, satisfied‐inattentive, dissatisfied‐attentive, dissatisfied‐inattentive citizens with a preference for a democratic system, and one type preferring nondemocratic systems. The article examines which of these types are more consistent with the ‘ideal citizen’– defined as a citizen who participates, is well‐informed, identifies with democracy and politics, has good internal efficacy and is willing to defend democracy. The data show that attentive citizens are more likely to promote democracy than inattentive ones. Attentive citizens are politically more knowledgeable, identify more strongly with the democratic system, feel more politically competent and are more willing to defend democracy. Political satisfaction or dissatisfaction has less of an influence on these dispositions.