Why do citizens choose to participate in top-down created participatory institutions like advisory councils (ACs)? Previous research shows conflicting findings, with a strand of research pointing to the crucial role of policy influence, whereas other results point to a larger role for social relationships or informational benefits. Paradoxically, the case of ACs in Spain shows that participants are quite satisfied even after recognizing that their real influence over policy decisions is low. To understand this puzzle, we depart from the classical hypothesis on the intangible benefits of participation (Olson, 1965) applied to a new research scenario: institutional ACs. To what extent do people engage due to their desire to produce leverage? In absence of this, do relational or informational goods represent a satisfactory compensation?

The paper is based on a mixed-methods approach. First, we use quantitative information based on two surveys developed in 2017 and 2021, to almost 1000 participants in ACs, the most common participatory institution in Spain (as well as in other countries). Second, we use another dataset of ninety in-depth interviews to participants in a smaller sample of 16 case-studies of education and immigration ACs.

The different motivations of several types of participants (civil society, administration, others) for involvement are explored, showing how instrumental, social and civic explanations are combined.