Abstract
Global governance is frequently criticised because of major legitimacy deficits, including lack of public accountability and democratic control. Within this context, questions about the legitimacy of non-state governance actors, such as non-governmental organizations, transnational corporations and private security companies, are neither an exception nor a surprise. Many actors have, therefore, turned to the measurement of performance, defined as publicly beneficial outcomes, in order to gain legitimacy. However, the rise of performance assessments as legitimizing practice is not without problems. Taking global security and health interventions as examples, this article contends that the immaterial, socially constructed and inherently contested nature of such public goods presents major obstacles for the assessment of performance in terms of observable, measurable and attributable outcomes. Performance is therefore frequently replaced by performativity, i.e. a focus on the repetitive enactment of specific forms of behaviour and capabilities, which are simply equated with the intended results. The implications for how global public goods are conceptualized and, ultimately, implemented are profound.
Highlights
Critiques of a legitimacy deficit in global governance have increased in recent years
Governments and non-state actors engaged in global governance have been accused of insufficient public accountability and control (e.g. Review of International Political Economy, 2011)
Governments and international organizations have employed performancebased contracting and performance measurements to legitimize the delegation of service functions to non-state actors vis-à-vis the Afghan government and population, their own constituencies and donors, or national and international public opinion. They have argued that performance standards help to demonstrate effectiveness, ensure public accountability and generate legitimacy (Sondorp, Palmer, Strong, & Wali, 2009, p. 141)
Summary
Critiques of a legitimacy deficit in global governance have increased in recent years. In both fields, governments and international organizations have employed performancebased contracting and performance measurements to legitimize the delegation of (public) service functions to non-state actors vis-à-vis the Afghan government and population, their own constituencies and donors, or national and international public opinion. Governments and international organizations have employed performancebased contracting and performance measurements to legitimize the delegation of (public) service functions to non-state actors vis-à-vis the Afghan government and population, their own constituencies and donors, or national and international public opinion They have argued that performance standards help to demonstrate effectiveness, ensure public accountability and generate legitimacy This article aims to show that, despite vast differences between security and health governance, we can observe a shift from performance outcomes to performative acts in both fields—with comparable detrimental consequences for how these public goods are conceptualized and implemented
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
