Re-imagining the global order: Citizens' preferences for future supranationalism

The future of supranational democracy is increasingly uncertain, as supranational democratic institutions are frequently sidelined in high-level politics, but also subject to innovative reform (for instance, through increased citizen participation). To better understand and anticipate the shape of future supranational democracy, citizens’ views are central. This paper advances insights on citizens’ preferences for supranational democracy by connecting empirical operationalizations with broad theoretical visions. Original data collected in Germany, Poland, Nigeria, India and Brazil assesses which theoretical models of supranational governance respondents would prefer (including federal, cosmopolitan, polycentric and intergovernmental approaches). It matches these model preferences with level of supranationalism (by experimentally comparing regional and world governance), with procedural preferences using a conjoint experiment. Data already analyzed from Germany and Poland shows that respondents in both countries envision supranational governance to be dispersed across levels of government and a variety of actors (such as citizens or experts). Though Polish respondents more strongly endorse intergovernmentalism, concrete process-preferences are strikingly similar between both countries. They value effective decision-making and fair cost-sharing, but prioritize participation and responsiveness of governance. I expect that these results could translate to Global South countries (data which will be collected in the beginning of 2026). Additionally, German and Polish respondents are divided between status-quo supranationalism (which involves nation states and emphasizes European solutions over world governance) on the one hand, and more radical alternatives (such as polycentric solutions or a World Parliament) on the other – with the latter preferred by disadvantaged citizens. Here, the paper will explore whether Global South and Global North countries differ in their preferences for regional versus global governance.