Approaching the legitimacy of self-appointed representatives: from responsiveness to reflexivity

Abstract

The paper offers an extensive theoretical discussion of and a contribution to the highly relevant, controversial, and normatively charged debate on the legitimacy of interest groups as non-elected, self-appointed representatives. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, the paper juxtaposes two diverging approaches on legitimacy of interest groups, namely responsiveness as a means to achieve a congruence of interests and reflexivity as the structural facilitation of evaluative judgements conducted by the constituency. Second, the paper proposes a framework on institutional instruments generating reflexivity suitable for empirical research. To corroborate this concept-specification of reflexivity, this paper debates several empirical studies on and theoretical approaches to institutional mobilisation mechanisms enabling a structural facilitation of contestation. Eventually, three distinct attributes of the concept of interest group reflexivity are established. An interest group’s forums for exchange and education, its decision-making system and its grassroots involvement ought to ensure internal structural reflexivity towards its constituency. When combined, they can mitigate the potential for undemocratic representation due to a lack of or skewed mobilisation and empowerment.

An Interpretive Case Study of Chinese New Zealanders’ Participation in Non-elected Representation

“…However, scholars often challenge the grounds on which non-elected representatives make representatives (Frith 2020;Heinisch & Werner 2019;Nuske 2022). Saward offers some suggestions on this aspect.…”

The Representative Potential of Interest Groups: Internal Voice in Post-Communist and Western European Countries

“…This research concerns organisations that claim to be representative of their (potential) members, as reflected in some organisational characteristics and procedures (Jordan et al, 2004;Warren, 2001). We also include organisations that derive their legitimacy largely from the cause they represent (e.g., Montanaro, 2017;Nuske, 2022), which are sometimes labelled "solidarity organisations" or "cause groups" (Halpin, 2006), even though the internal voice provided may have a somewhat different function in these organisations: As observed by Berkhout, Hanegraaff, and Maloney (2021), these types of internal voice are not fundamentally incomparable in empirical terms. We exclude a plethora of organisations (such as firms and semi-public agencies) that are active in the policy process and act as pressure participants (Jordan et al, 2004) but have internal processes that are not directly comparable with the membership voice practices within associations.…”