Explaining elite perceptions of legitimacy in global governance
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066121994320 |
| Author | Soetkin Verhaegen,Jonas Tallberg,Jan Aart Scholte |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066121994320
European Journal of
International Relations
2021, Vol. 27(2) 622 –650
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1354066121994320
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
Explaining elite perceptions of
legitimacy in global governance
Soetkin Verhaegen
Maastricht University, The Netherlands
Jan Aart Scholte
Leiden University, The Netherlands
Jonas Tallberg
Stockholm University, Sweden
Abstract
Elites are central in creating, operating, defending and contesting international organisations
(IOs), but little research is available about their attitudes toward these bodies. To
address this gap, this article offers the first systematic and comparative analysis of elite
perceptions of IO legitimacy. Building on a unique multi-country and multi-sector survey
of 860 elites undertaken in 2017–19, we map and explain elite legitimacy beliefs toward
three key IOs in different issue-areas: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC). Integrating public opinion research and international relations
theory, the article advances an explanation of elites’ legitimacy beliefs that emphasises
their satisfaction with the institutional qualities of IOs. We contrast this argument with
three common alternative explanations, which respectively highlight utilitarian calculation,
global orientation and domestic cues. The analyses show that elites’ satisfaction with
institutional qualities of IOs is most consistently related to legitimacy beliefs: when elites
are more satisfied with democracy, effectiveness and fairness in IOs, they also regard
these IOs as more legitimate. These findings suggest that the prevailing debate between
utilitarian calculation, global orientation and domestic cues approaches neglects the
importance of institutional satisfaction as an explanation of attitudes toward IOs.
Keywords
legitimacy, elites, global governance, International Monetary Fund, United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Security Council
Corresponding author:
Soetkin Verhaegen, Maastricht University, Department of Political Science, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht,
The Netherlands.
Email: S.Verhaegen@maastrichtuniversity.nl
994320EJT0010.1177/1354066121994320European Journal of International RelationsVerhaegen et al.
research-article2021
Article
Verhaegen et al. 623
Introduction
Recent history has seen international organisations (IOs) acquire substantially enlarged
authority, on the premise that increased transnational policy challenges require expanded
global regulation (Hooghe et al., 2017; Zürn, 2018). However, whether these expecta-
tions of IOs translate into greater action and impact depends in part on whether these
institutions are perceived to be legitimate (Buchanan and Keohane, 2006). The more that
an IO is considered legitimate – that is, is regarded to have a right to rule and to exercise
it appropriately – the more that IO may be able to obtain resources, attract participation,
take decisions, secure compliance and, ultimately, solve problems (Sommerer and Agné,
2018). Conversely, an IO with lower perceived legitimacy faces greater difficulties to act
and impact – and indeed may struggle to maintain its role in competition with other sites
of governance (Morse and Keohane, 2014; Zelli, 2018).
Given this importance, the question of legitimacy in global governance has attracted
growing research attention over the past decade (Hurd, 2007; Tallberg et al., 2018; Zaum,
2013). Most previous empirical work has addressed citizen perceptions of IO legitimacy
using public opinion data (e.g., Anderson et al., 2019; Bechtel and Scheve, 2013;
Bernauer and Gampfer, 2013; Dellmuth and Tallberg, 2015; Johnson, 2011; Schlipphak,
2015; Voeten, 2013). In contrast, few studies have explored legitimacy beliefs toward
IOs among elites. While some studies have examined elite opinion toward the European
Union (EU) (Best et al., 2012; Hooghe, 2002; Persson et al., 2019), we lack systematic
research on elite opinion towards IOs more generally (though see Binder and Heupel,
2015; Rosenau et al., 2006; Schmidtke, 2019). What levels of legitimacy do elites accord
to IOs and what drives those elite beliefs?
This omission is striking since elites typically have the greatest access and input to
IOs – and indeed conduct the actual global governing. Elites take the decisions in IOs
(Cox and Jacobson, 1973), implement IO policies (Hawkins et al., 2006), lead business
and civil society advocacy vis-à-vis IOs (Dür et al., 2019; Scholte, 2011), contribute
knowledge to IOs through research (Haas, 1992) and shape perceptions of IOs via the
media (Schmidtke, 2019). Whether IOs enjoy high or low stocks of legitimacy among
elites is therefore likely to be consequential for the capacity of these organizations to
govern.
To address this research gap, this article offers the first systematic and comparative
analysis of elite perceptions of IO legitimacy. Building on a unique multi-country and
multi-sector survey of elites undertaken in 2017–19, we map and explain elite legitimacy
beliefs toward key IOs in three issue-areas: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in
economic governance; the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) in environmental governance; and the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC) in security governance. We conceptualise elites as people who hold leading
positions in key organizations in society that strive to be politically influential. The sur-
vey covers 860 elites who work in six different sectors (partisan-political, bureaucratic,
business, civil society, news media, and research) in six countries (Brazil, Germany, the
Philippines, Russia, South Africa and the United States) as well as global arenas (e.g.,
staff of IOs, multinational corporations, global news media and international non-gov-
ernmental organisations [NGOs]). By covering IOs in different issue areas, countries in
To continue reading
Request your trial