Legitimacy is widely theorized as shaping the dynamics of contentious politics, fostering support and stability for those involved while imposing behavioral constraints. Yet, empirical research reveals wide variation in how these effects are realized in practice. We contend that divergences in legitimacy’s effects are tied in fundamental ways to the relationship between actors engaged in contentious politics and their audience(s). We develop a framework that highlights three conditions shaping the effects of legitimacy—legitimacy type, network balance, and structural dependence—and use a comparative analysis of dyadic relationships of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and Jemaah Islamiyah to illustrate how convergence and divergence in legitimacy’s effects are systematically structured by these conditions. Doing so advances scholarship on legitimacy in contentious politics by providing a basis for systematically comparing the effects of legitimacy across cases, situations, and historical contexts.

No abstract

Research on health policy networks can be divided into two categories: policy implementation networks that arrange for the supply and delivery of health services through networks of organizations, and policy formation networks that both create the demand for and develop health policy. This chapter examines research from the two categories, with a special focus on how networks can contribute to a greater understanding of the benefits of and challenges facing the health policy domain. Four challenges that arise in both types of health policy networks—coordination, accountability, assessment, and uneven distributions of power—are then discussed, along with solutions that both policy formation and policy implementation scholars have proposed to address them. Areas in which scholars from the two streams can learn from one another’s findings are highlighted. Finally, future directions for research health policy networks are suggested.

This article focuses on strategic political incivility intended to shut down or disrupt local arenas for public discourse. Professional facilitators who design and manage public discourse and democratic deliberation are the subject of this survey research. Survey questions elicited specific incidences of strategic political incivility and facilitators’ responses to these events. The results from this exploratory study suggest that strategic political incivility at the local level may not be as unmanageable a problem for professional facilitators as media reports purport. Recommendations for improving practice emerge from this study, along with promising avenues for future research on uncivil discourse.