Legitimacy In Global Governance Research Articles

Transparency in Transnational Sustainability Governance: A Multivariate Analysis of Regulatory Standard-Setting Programs

Beginning in the early 1990s, non-state actors have taken over a wide range of governance functions that used to be the prerogative of states and international organizations. In the field of International Relations and related disciplines, this has intensified debates about a lack of accountability and legitimacy in global governance. Reviewing this debate and the role transparency can play in mitigating the problem, this article uses a new data set to analyze the issue empirically. Examining a sample of 143 regulatory standard-setting (RSS) programs in the field of transnational sustainability governance, we show that “deep transparency” – i.e. the disclosure of salient information – remains a problem in this domain. However, there are also RSS programs that are highly transparent in their practices. Using a multivariate analysis, we investigate the internal and external determinants of these inter-program variations. We find a systematic relationship between inclusiveness and transparency – although no evidence for the conventional wisdom that single-actor business programs are per se less credible. Turning to the external determinants of transparency two findings stand out: First, instead of a “ratcheting-up effect”, we observe a race-to-the-bottom dynamic between competing RSS programs. Second, our results confirm arguments about the positive influence of meta-governance on transparency.

Norm Contestation and Global Governance: Taking Actor Configurations and Practical Reasoning Seriously

Norm Contestation and Global Governance: Taking Actor Configurations and Practical Reasoning Seriously

“Inter-National” Habermas: Contestation and Understanding under Conditions of Diversity

“Inter-National” Habermas: Contestation and Understanding under Conditions of Diversity

Accountability’s Effect: Reaction Speed and Legitimacy in Global Governance

This article examines whether and how accountability in international organizations (IOs) influences their speed of reaction to economic and humanitarian crises. Reaction speed is one among several factors in the capacity of IOs to handle crisis-like problems and, therefore, also a factor in their capacity to create legitimacy for themselves. Original theoretical arguments and statistical survival analyses of the time it takes for IOs to react to crises confirm that accountability in IOs indeed affects reaction speed. However, the effect varies depending on the use of alternative accountability mechanisms. Transparency speeds up reactions while stakeholder participation slows them down. More generally, this article identifies synergies, trade-offs, and nonlinear relationships between reaction speed and different accountability mechanisms that should be reflected in debates on legitimacy in global governance as well as in the institutional design of legitimate IOs.

Citizen Participation in the UN Sustainable Development Goals Consultation Process: Toward Global Democratic Governance?

In September 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda, a transformative plan of action for people, planet, and prosperity containing seventeen Sustainable Development Goals. To inform and animate the negotiations, the UN launched an ambitious series of consultations, involving inter alia governments, civil society, business, knowledge-based institutions, and citizens. This article contributes to the debate on democracy and global governance, drawing on democratic theory and the lessons of the elite donor-driven process that led to the Millennium Development Goals. It argues that, in the age of globalization, citizen participation is vital for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. It then assesses the nature and extent of such participation in three UN 2030 Agenda consultation channels: the High-Level Panel, the national consultations, and the MY World citizen survey. The latter, in particular, exceeded the expectations of stakeholder democracy and ventured into a more direct parti...

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Legitimacy in Global Health Governance

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation brings to light the legitimacy problem with global philanthropy. The legitimacy problem here is twofold: first, with regard to the criteria used to assess the presence or absence of legitimacy in global governance; and, second, how analysis of legitimacy does not fully account for how we understand the legitimate basis of rule drawn from private wealth. This article begins to address this lacuna by analyzing the legitimacy of an actor that wields considerable authority in the field of global health politics and has growing prominence in contemporary global governance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Introduction: Who recognizes the emperor’s clothes anymore?

This Introduction to the Symposium on Constituent Power reflects on the changes subsequent to the transfer of fundamental constitutional norms from domestic to global contexts. This transfer raises the issue of legitimate global order. Is it possible to address this issue of legitimacy of global governance by shifting the conceptual focus from debates about global constitutionalization towards the involved multiple actorship as a potential constituent power? Is asking a question about the pouvoir constituant helpful in analyzing global constitutionalism as a remedy for the shortcomings of global governance? All contributions to this symposium elaborate on the insight that the concept of constituent power offers a crucial conceptual tool for mapping “unbound” constitutional quality. The developing process of global constitutionalization appears to go hand in hand with a contestation of the very norms promoted by global constitutionalism. This observation raises some general issues about the ultimate effectiveness of global constitutionalization which this symposium attempts to cope with.

Harmonising Global Constitutionalism

Abstract:The explosion in the literature on global constitutionalism in recent times has come at the cost of ever more, and more diverse, definitions of the concept of constitutionalism. The state of the current debate can therefore be characterised, conceptually speaking, as a ‘constitutional cacophony’. This cacophony is the inevitable result of the ‘problems of translation’ in importing the state-based concept of constitutionalism to the global level. This article attempts to counter suprastate constitutional scepticism borne of these problems of translation and resulting cacophony by revisiting the concept of constitutionalism itself through the lens of legitimacy. Arguing that legitimacy provides both a key element of the concept of constitutionalism as well as a common denominator for the application of constitutionalism both at the state and suprastate levels, it develops a conception of ‘constitutionalism as legitimacy’ as a way of vindicating the role of constitutionalism in the context of global governance. It presents constitutionalism as a discursive ‘mixed’ form of legitimacy entailing both factual and normative components involving a blend of liberalism and republicanism. These theories are then reworked into a framework of reasons for the legitimacy of an authority centring around its origins, its aims and its methods. Tracing the relationship between constitutionalism and legitimacy in this way brings harmony to the global constitutional cacophony and allows for a plausible ‘translation’ of the concept of constitutionalism between the state and suprastate levels allowing for an effective ‘mapping’ and ‘shaping’ of legitimacy in global governance which is illustrated by reference to the legitimacy crisis surrounding the United Nations Security Council’s ‘war on terror’.

Elite Communication and Popular Legitimacy in Global Governance

While popular legitimacy is central to international cooperation, existing research offers few insights into the process by which citizens come to perceive of international organizations (IOs) as legitimate or not. This paper offers the first systematic and comparative analysis of the role of elite communication in shaping the popular legitimacy of IOs. We build on framing theory to develop an argument about why citizens should be susceptible to elite communication about IOs, and when those effects should be particularly strong. We empirically evaluate the impact of elite communication through a survey experiment conducted among almost 10,000 residents of three countries in relation to five IOs. Four principal conclusions stand out. First, elite communication affects citizens’ perceptions of IO legitimacy, irrespective of whether it invokes the procedures or the performances of IOs as grounds for criticism or endorsement. Second, communication by relatively more credible elites has stronger effects on the popular legitimacy of IOs. Third, negative messages are more effective than positive messages in shaping citizens’ legitimacy perceptions. Fourth, elite communication is more effective when it targets IOs that citizens are relatively less familiar with.

Does stakeholder involvement foster democratic legitimacy in international organizations? An empirical assessment of a normative theory

The involvement of non-state organizations in global governance is widely seen as an important step toward global democracy. Proponents of “stakeholder democracy” argue that stakeholder organizations, such as civil society groups and other non-state actors, may represent people significantly affected by global decisions better than elected governments. In this article we identify a particularly promising sociological variant of this argument, test it against new evidence from a large-scale survey among stakeholder organizations with varying levels of involvement in international organizations (IOs), and find that the suggested stakeholder mechanism for producing democratic legitimacy in global governance does not work. Stakeholder involvement is unproductive for democratic legitimacy in IOs as perceived by stakeholders themselves. We suggest alternative explanations of this finding and argue that empirical analysis is useful for adjudicating normative arguments on the viability of stakeholder democracy in global governance.

The social legitimacy of international organisations: Interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations

AbstractSocial legitimacy is central to the effectiveness of international organisations (IOs). Yet, so far, we have little systematic knowledge about what drives citizens to support or oppose IOs. In this article, we isolate and assess three alternative explanations of social legitimacy in global governance, privileging interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation. We test these theories in a multilevel analysis of citizen confidence in the United Nations (UN) using World Values Survey and European Values Study data, supplemented by contextual measures. The results grant support to the arguments that institutional performance and confidence extrapolation shape popular confidence in the UN, while offering little support for the explanation of interest representation. These findings challenge the predominant understanding that more democratic procedures lead to greater social legitimacy for IOs. Instead, the UN case suggests that the social legitimacy of IOs is based primarily on the organisations' capacity to deliver, as well as on citizens' general confidence in political institutions, which IOs may have little to do with and can do little to change.

Doomed aspiration of pure instrumentality: Global Administrative Law and accountability

AbstractThe article attempts to illuminate how the concept of accountability is diversely shaped and signified in the theoretical legal discourse. It engages in a threefold mapping review: (i) it portrays, according to the basic divide between the angles ‘within the state’ and ‘beyond the state’, the geographical and functional contexts in which real-world political accountability mechanisms exist and interact; (ii) it interprets an influential legitimating discourse that is being used as a benchmark to appraise institutions and political processes beyond the state – the Global Administrative Law project (GAL); (iii) it highlights how this sort of accountability discourse is tied with demands for legitimacy in global governance that cannot be detached from the old political ideals. Largely oriented towards due process, I argue that the GAL project, in order to maintain a normative appeal, should not ignore larger political ideals, however controversial they might be. Otherwise, it remains a manipulable and hence unreliable cause to be endorsed.

Networks and Partnerships of Global Governance

Recently, literature on the problem of legitimacy in/of global governance (GG) institutions, networks and/or partnerships has considerably increased. However, as we argue in this article, the problem of legitimacy, in what James Rosenau called post-international relations, has remained inadequately problematized. We suggest that GG lacks two specific types of legitimacy: legitimacy of GG as a theory and legitimacy of GG as a practice. One further – still critical – shortcoming within the current theoretical framework is that of undervaluing normativity as a larger context within which the debate on legitimacy(ies) is still being fueled. The article is divided into three sections. The first section briefly offers a conceptual introduction to the article’s terminology. Next, the second section attempts to bring the suggested multiplicity of GG’s legitimacies into analysis. Finally, the third section draws conclusions about the significant value of bringing normativity back to GG studies and how it matters to the question of legitimacy.

Networks and Partnerships of Global Governance: Three Missing Legitimacies

Recently, literature on the problem of legitimacy in/of global governance institutions, networks and/or partnerships has considerably increased. However, as this paper argues, the problem of legitimacy, in what James N. Rosenau called post-international relations, has remained inadequately problematized. The paper suggests that global governance lacks three specific types of legitimacy: legitimacy of global governance as a theory, legitimacy of global governance as a practice and legitimacy of global governance even as a conception in the daily language of international politics scholars and practitioners as well. One further – still critical – shortcoming within the current theoretical framework is that of undervaluing normativity as a larger context within which the debate on legitimacy(ies) is still being fueled. The paper is divided into three sections. The first section briefly offers a conceptual introduction to the paper’s terminology – global governance; networks and partnerships; and legitimacy. Next, the second one attempts to bring the suggested multiplicity of global governance’s legitimacies into analysis. Finally, the third section draws conclusions about the significant value of bringing normativity back to global governance studies and how it matters to the question of legitimacy.

The Financial Crisis, Contested Legitimacy, and the Genesis of Intra-BRICS Cooperation

The rise of the BRIC grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China) is one of the most commented on phenomena in international politics of the past years. Yet little is known about how and why institutionalized cooperation between the BRIC countries began. This article makes two arguments. First, an unprecedented combination in 2008—a profound financial crisis among developed countries, paired with relative economic stability among emerging powers—caused a legitimacy crisis of the international financial order, which led to equally unprecedented cooperation between emerging powers in the context of the BRIC grouping. The BRIC countries were able to use their temporarily increased bargaining power to become agenda setters at the time—culminating in the International Monetary Fund quota reforms agreed on in 2010. This shows that even short periods of reduced legitimacy in global governance can quickly lead to the rise of alternative institutions—such as, in the case of the crisis that began in 2008, the BRIC platf...

Private experiments in global governance: primary commodity roundtables and the politics of deliberation

Emerging scholarship on global governance offers ever-more detailed analyses of private regulatory regimes. These regimes aim to regulate some area of social activity without a mandate from, or participation of, states or international organizations. While there are numerous empirical studies of these regimes, the normative theoretical literature has arguably struggled to keep pace with such developments. This is unfortunate, as the proliferation of private regulatory regimes raises important issues about legitimacy in global governance. The aim of this paper is to address some of these issues by elaborating a theoretical framework that can orientate normative investigation of these schemes. It does this through turning to the idea of experimentalist governance. It is argued that experimentalism can provide an important and provocative set of insights about the processes and logics of emerging governance schemes. The critical purchase of this theory is illustrated through an application to the case of primary commodities roundtables, part of ongoing attempts by non-governmental organizations, producers, and buyers to set sustainability criteria for commodity production across a range of sectors. The idea of experimentalist governance, we argue, can lend much needed theoretical structure to debates about the normative legitimacy of private regulatory regimes.

Legitimacy, Global Governance and Human Rights Institutions: Inverting the Puzzle

In this chapter, I draw on recent scholarship on the alleged legitimacy deficits in global governance institutions, seeking to engage the notions of legitimacy this literature suggests with the intriguing case of international human rights institutions. First, I reconstruct how this literature views the problem of legitimacy in global governance, a view that relies on a particular notion of international institutions which both explains and justifies global governance institutions in terms of the collective goods they help states obtain. The puzzle of legitimacy, on this view, lies in offering citizens valid reasons to obey, support or abstain from interfering with global governance institutions – reasons that include certain procedural, epistemic and substantive elements, which together comprise a complex, hybrid standard of legitimacy. Second, I explore to what extent this view of legitimacy problems in global governance institutions can be applied for analyzing corresponding legitimacy problems in international human rights institutions. Drawing on recent liberal international scholarship, I discuss the ways in which international human rights institutions constitute a different kind of political entity than typical global governance institutions. Uniquely, international human rights institutions do not help states obtain any joint benefits, but regulate the internal relation between a government and individuals under its jurisdiction, and, to the extent that they are effective, chiefly rely on domestic mechanisms of enforcement. This crucial difference between the two kinds of international institutions, in turn, changes the legitimacy puzzle involved. In the human rights area, the problem of legitimacy rarely entails offering citizens reasons why they should accept to bear the costs of international cooperation in light of the benefits it provides for states. Rather, the issue is why governments should accept their obligations under international human rights law, in light of the benefits human rights treaties provide for citizens. In the third section, I draw out the implications of this analysis for finding such reasons. While the complex, hybrid standards of legitimacy suggested for global governance institutions seem difficult to transpose to international human rights institutions, the discarded notion of state consent provides an essential component of legitimacy for the human rights area. Finally, I discuss whether the notion of international institutions discussed in the chapter may have implications beyond the human rights area.

Introduction to Special Issue: Toward Greater Interdisciplinarity in Research on the Legitimacy of Global Governance

Abstract: The legitimacy of global governance arrangements remains a major focus of scholarly interest across the social sciences. To maximize the potential insights of such research, a closer cooperation of scholars across the relevant disciplines and the creation of a genuinely interdisciplinary research program promises significant rewards. The normative blueprints for more democratically legitimate forms of global governance developed by political theorists in particular would benefit, I argue, from a closer linkage with political science, with the latter providing critical insights into the causal factors and mechanisms that determine outcomes in international politics, insights that are indispensable for studying and assessing the feasibility of implementing abstractly attractive normative designs. The contributions in this Special Issue begin to cross the “normative‐positive divide” each in its own way and collectively point the way toward more integrated future research.

Opening the Doors to the WTO Dispute Settlement: State Preferences on NGO Access as Amici

Abstract: Greater access and inclusion of civil society is a possible means of increasing participation in international governing processes and thus enhancing the democratic legitimacy of global governance. Yet, opening the doors of an international organization to civil society is often controversial. At the core of such controversies are costs and benefits that may arise from the inclusion of civil society. The aim of this article is to explore the opening of international organizations’ doors to civil society actors, emphasizing state’s preferences. To explore state preferences on civil society’s access, this article looks at the WTO dispute settlement process and amici submissions, and asks: what factors shape states’ preferences to allow civil society actors access? Drawing from a unique dataset on state preferences on amici submissions to the WTO’s dispute settlement process, I argue that state preferences are shaped by the capacity to manage costs of civil society access.

Legitimacy in Global Governance: International, Transnational and Private Institutions Compared

Abstract: How to generate legitimate forms of governance beyond the nation state is often considered a central question in contemporary world politics (Moravcsik 2004: 336). To proceed in theory‐building, scholars need to systematically assign the theory‐driven assumptions on legitimate forms of governance beyond the nation‐state with the various, already observable, forms of global governance. This article aims to conduct a comparative appraisal of the legitimatory quality of different patterns of governance by applying a framework of indicators for their assessment. The indicators are selected from the scholarly debate within International Relations on the legitimacy of global governance arrangements and structured by a multi‐dimensional concept of legitimacy (input‐, throughput‐ and output‐dimension). This framework is then applied to international, transnational and private forms of global governance in three policy fields in order to show how each of them try to produce and maintain legitimacy, which strategies they apply and in how they interact with their stakeholders.