Inequality and legitimacy in global governance: an empirical study
| Author | Hortense Jongen,Jan Aart Scholte |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221098218 |
| Published date | 01 September 2022 |
| Date | 01 September 2022 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221098218
European Journal of
International Relations
2022, Vol. 28(3) 667 –695
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13540661221098218
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
Inequality and legitimacy
in global governance: an
empirical study
Hortense Jongen
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Jan Aart Scholte
Leiden University, The Netherlands
Centre for Global Cooperation Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Abstract
This article undertakes an empirical investigation of the relationship between structural
inequalities and legitimacy beliefs in global governance. Normative theory often
emphasises inequality as a major source of injustice in global politics, but we lack
empirical research that examines the implications of inequality for legitimacy in concrete
situations of global governance. This paper draws on large mixed-method survey evidence
regarding inequality perceptions and legitimacy beliefs at the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a key site of global Internet governance that
has given particular priority to issues of diversity and inclusion. Our analysis arrives at
four main findings. First, participants in ICANN do perceive substantial structural power
asymmetries and often find them to be problematic. Second, persons on the perceived
subordinate side of these power stratifications tend to observe larger inequalities and to
find them more problematic than persons on the perceived dominant side. However, third,
these perceptions and concerns about inequality almost never associate with legitimacy
beliefs towards ICANN, even among people in structurally subordinated positions and
among people who express the greatest worries regarding power inequalities. Fourth, in
forming legitimacy perceptions, participants at ICANN generally prioritise other aspects
of institutional purpose, procedure and performance, unconnected with inequality. This
lack of a relationship between perceptions of inequality and legitimacy beliefs suggests
that, however sympathetic policy elites at ICANN might be towards greater equality in
principle, they are unlikely to give it precedence in practice.
Corresponding author:
Hortense Jongen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: h.j.e.m.jongen@vu.nl
1098218EJT0010.1177/13540661221098218European Journal of International RelationsJongen and Scholte
research-article2022
Article
668 European Journal of International Relations 28(3)
Keywords
Global governance, hierarchy, inequality, Internet, legitimacy, multistakeholder
Introduction
Many critics of the existing world order decry that global inequalities generate major
injustice (Caney, 2015; Milanovic, 2016; Therborn, 2013). Various theories of world
politics highlight and censure such structurally embedded discriminations, inter alia in
respect of countries, cultures, classes, genders, races, sexualities and so on (Anievas
et al., 2015; Lake, 2009; Peterson, 2014; Runyan, 2019; Sklair, 2001; Zarakol, 2017).
More specifically, many detractors of established global governance arrangements
have argued that these world-scale rules and regulatory institutions are illegitimate for
incorporating and perpetuating unfair power asymmetries (Pogge, 2002; Scholte et al.,
2016).
This contestation has a long history. Already in 1919, the Paris Peace Conference saw
a (rejected) Racial Equality Proposal for the emergent League of Nations (Lauren, 1978).
Subsequent resistance to inequality in global governance has included decolonisation
struggles of the mid-20th century, calls for a New International Economic Order during
the 1970s, World Conferences on Women between 1975 and 1995, alter-globalisation
activism around the turn of the millennium, Occupy! protests in 2011–2012, and present-
day movements for climate justice (Della Porta and Tarrow, 2005; Murphy, 1984; Smith
et al., 2015). Such campaigns have certainly borne some results, including the wide-
spread removal of direct colonial administration and the development of a substantial
global human rights regime. Recent decades have also seen global governance institu-
tions ‘open up’ to wider participation, especially from civil society organisations
(Hanegraaff et al., 2011; Scholte, 2011; Steffek et al., 2008; Tallberg et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, overall, power in today’s global governance remains skewed towards cer-
tain geopolitical sites, social groups and cultural life-worlds.
How do structural inequalities in global governance persist in spite of long and insist-
ent normative opposition? Perhaps we should turn from theorists and activists to the
people who conduct the actual global governing. How, empirically, do these ruling elites
connect matters of structural hierarchy with legitimacy beliefs?
This question could have various answers. Perhaps, in contrast to critical observers,
most insiders do not perceive inequalities in global governance and so do not bring this
issue into their legitimacy beliefs. Or perhaps people at the heart of global governance do
perceive structural inequalities in their midst, but do not find these hierarchies problem-
atic, such that their legitimacy beliefs remain unaffected. Or perhaps these circles do
perceive embedded stratifications in global governance, and find them problematic, but
give priority in forming their legitimacy beliefs to other considerations. Or perhaps per-
ceptions of unjust inequalities in global governance do undermine legitimacy beliefs
among global governors, but little change follows. Which of these dynamics is actually
in play?
Little scholarship is available to assess this issue. Although much normative theory
has elaborated principled arguments about inequality, injustice and illegitimacy in world
To continue reading
Request your trial