Legitimacy Beyond Borders: Input vs. Output Legitimacy in EU Consular Protection – The Case of Spain

How do citizens judge the legitimacy of crisis governance, by who provides it (input legitimacy), or by how well it performs (output legitimacy)? This paper examines the trade-off between input and output legitimacy in the context of EU consular protection during large-scale emergencies. Consular protection offers a distinctive case: it represents an external projection of sovereignty and a form of legitimacy exercised beyond national borders. For states, protecting their citizens abroad is not optional but an obligation, embodying the social contract in which citizens grant legitimacy in exchange for security. Within the European Union, however, this responsibility is contested between member states and supranational institutions. Thus, the key question is whether authority should rest with states as the primary sovereign providers, or whether the EU can claim legitimacy if it delivers effective outcomes. To address this question, we field a conjoint experiment in Spain that pits provider identity (member state vs. EU) against performance attributes (speed, fairness, comprehensiveness). The findings show that citizens place greater weight on output legitimacy, how effectively protection is delivered, than on input legitimacy, shedding light on how publics evaluate legitimacy in crisis governance and the conditions under which supranational authority is accepted.