On Legitimacy Crises and the Resources of Global Governance Institutions: A Surprisingly Weak Relationship?
| Author | Thomas Sommerer,Hans Agné,Bart Joachim Bes |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12685 |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
On Legitimacy Crises and the Resources of
Global Governance Institutions: A Surprisingly
Weak Relationship?
Bart Joachim Bes
Lund University
Thomas Sommerer and Hans Agn
e
Stockholm University
Abstract
While scholars commonly assume that Global Governance Institutions (GGIs) need legitimacy to perform effectively, there are
few systematic empirical studies assessing the consequences of legitimacy (or the lack thereof) for the functioning of GGIs.
Inspired by the new institutionalism in organization theory, which predicts that more legitimate organizations will get more
resources than illegitimate ones, we look into how legitimacy affects the resourcing of GGIs. We assess how crises of legiti-
macy affect the staff and financial resources of 21 GGIs from 1985 to 2015. Multivariate statistical analysis suggests that the
effects of legitimacy crises on GGI resourcefulness are interesting but surprisingly weak, often GGI specific, and dependent on
time and the source of the challenge. Specifically, we find that elite criticisms of GGIs lead to deep resource cuts in the short
and medium term, while the effect of mass protests takes longer. The paper concludes by setting an agenda for further theo-
rizing and empirical testing of the consequences of legitimacy in global governance.
Policy Implications
•As most GGIs experience a legitimacy crisis now and then, policy-makers should pay attention to early signs of critique
and protests in the global political context.
•Some legitimacy crises are more problematic from a resource perspective than others. Policy-makers are advised to main-
tain open dialogues with both elites and grassroots.
•Policy-makers should be aware that resource cuts may last for a number of years –especially when they take place as a
consequence of elite criticism.
•If policy-makers want to expand the resources of their GGI, we advise them to consider whether its unique features attract
or repel resources.
Global Governance Institutions (GGIs) need financial and
human resources to effectively reach their policy goals
(Goetz and Patz, 2017). In global security, for instance, the
personnel of a GGI determines its ability to restore peace
(Lundgren, 2016), while in the area of global health, GGIs
must afford costly medicines to combat diseases (Brown
et al., 2006). Still, not all GGIs get the resources they need.
Why are some GGIs resourceful, like the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO; Deere, 2018), while others, like
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Orga-
nization (UNESCO; H€
ufner, 2017), continuously face financial
crises?
We address this question at a moment in time when pub-
lic and political opposition to global governance arrange-
ments appears to be growing (e.g. Bernstein, 2004; De
Wilde, 2011; Z€
urn, 2018). Several GGIs have reportedly even
experienced a crisis of their legitimacy (e.g. Elsig, 2007;
Seabrooke, 2007; Van Apeldoorn, 2009). A legitimacy crisis
may reduce the ability of a GGI to make a difference. The
most dramatic example hereof is the decision of the United
Kingdom to exit the European Union (EU) (Tallberg and
Z€
urn, 2019, p. 2). While there are multiple ways in which a
legitimacy crisis may reduce the effectiveness of GGIs (Som-
merer and Agn
e, 2018), we focus on one particular factor
that is important for GGIs to be effective: their resources.
We therefore introduce and test the relevance of ‘legitimacy
crises’to explain the resourcefulness of GGIs.
To specify the expected consequences of legitimacy crises
for the resourcefulness of GGIs, we draw upon the new insti-
tutionalism in organizational theory. This approach empha-
sizes the interactions between organizations and their
environment for explaining the performance, success and
survival of organizations (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer
and Rowan, 1977; Meyer and Scott, 1983; Zucker, 1988).
Global Policy (2019) 10:3 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12685 ©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue 3 . September 2019 313
Research Article
To continue reading
Request your trial