Contesting Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions: The Case of the World Health Organization During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Yang, Hai

doi:10.1093/isr/viab047

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…175 It is line with previous observation from Yang et al. 176 This first example shows that in situ XPS coupled with other techniques such as impedance spectroscopy is powerful to determine the stability of an interphase. Wenzel et al studied also Li 10 GeP 2 S 12 (LGPS).…”

Section: In Situ Measurementssupporting

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Advances in studying interfacial reactions in rechargeable batteries by photoelectron spectroscopy

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: In Situ Measurementssupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The amount of Ti 4+ stabilised because it was limited to a certain amount of A-sites in the stable perovskite structure. 176 Auvergniot et al also studied a solid electrolyte with ex situ XPS. They studied the argyrodite Li 6 PS 5 Cl electrolyte interphase in different cells.…”

Section: Ex Situ Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in studying interfacial reactions in rechargeable batteries by photoelectron spectroscopy

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior work has looked at legitimacy of agenda setting and prioritising specific issues in global health, for example, non-communicable diseases [27]. Prior work has also looked at legitimacy of specific organisations working in global health, for example the World Health Organisation [28, 29], or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [30], and has looked at the power relations involved [3]. In this study we examine the legitimacy of an implementation-focused network (QCN).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influences on policy-formulation, decision-making, organisation and management for maternal, newborn and child health in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda: the roles and legitimacy of a multi-country network

Akter¹,

Shawar

Tesfa

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Network for Improving Quality of Care for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (QCN) is intended to facilitate learning, action, leadership and accountability for improving quality of care in member countries. This requires legitimacy—a network’s right to exert power within national contexts. This is reflected, for example, in a government’s buy-in and perceived ownership of the work of the network. During 2019– 2022 we conducted iterative rounds of stakeholder interviews, observations of meetings, document review, and hospital observations in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, Uganda and at the global level. We developed a framework drawing on three frameworks: Tallberg and Zurn which conceptualizes legitimacy of international organisations dependent on their features, the legitimation process and beliefs of audiences; Nasiritousi and Faber, which looks at legitimacy in terms of problem, purpose, procedure, and performance of institutions; Sanderink and Nasiritousi, to characterize networks in terms of political, normative and cognitive interactions. We used thematic analysis to characterize, compare and contrast institutional interactions in a cross-case synthesis to determine salient features. Political and normative interactions were favourable within and between countries and at global level since collective decisions, collaborative efforts, and commitment to QCN goals were observed at all levels. Sharing resources and common principles were not common between network countries, indicating limits of the network. Cognitive interactions—those related to information sharing and transfer of ideas— were more challenging, with the bi-directional transfer, synthesis and harmonization of concepts and methods, being largely absent among and within countries. These may be required for increasing government ownership of QCN work, the embeddedness of the network, and its legitimacy. While we find evidence supporting the legitimacy of QCN from the perspective of country governments, further work and time are required for governments to own and embed the work of QCN in routine care.

show abstract

“…The second part of the chapter focuses on the present day. Currently, both the WTO and the WHO are back in the limelight, particularly because of repeated threats by the United States (US) to leave the organizations under the President Trump administration, but also because of one of the largest health challenges in recent times, the COVID-19 pandemic, which puts the legitimacy of global governance arrangements to the test (Narlikar 2021;Yang 2021). The WHO is obviously at the center of attention in this respect, but the WTO has also attracted interest because of the pandemic's effects on trade, including on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreements (TRIPS) and access to vaccines.…”

Section: Kristina Jo ¨Nsson and Catia Gregorattimentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This book explores processes of legitimation and delegitimation of global governance institutions (GGIs). How, why, and with what impact on audiences, are GGIs legitimated and delegitimated? The book develops a comprehensive theoretical framework for studying processes of (de)legitimation in global governance and provides broad comparative analyses to uncover patterns of (de)legitimation processes. It covers a diverse set of global and regional governmental and nongovernmental institutions in different policy fields. Variation across these GGIs is explained with reference to institutional setup, policy field characteristics, and broader social structures, as well as to the qualities of agents of (de)legitimation. The approach builds on a mixed-methods research design that uses both quantitative and qualitative new empirical data. Three main interlinked elements of processes of legitimation and delegitimation are at the center of the analysis: the varied practices employed by different state and non-state agents that may boost or challenge the legitimacy of global governance institutions; the normative justifications that these agents draw on when engaging in legitimation and delegitimation practices; and the different audiences that may be impacted by legitimation and delegitimation. This results in a dynamic interplay between legitimation and delegitimation in contestation over the legitimacy of GGIs.

show abstract

Contesting Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions: The Case of the World Health Organization During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Cited by 16 publications

References 78 publications

Advances in studying interfacial reactions in rechargeable batteries by photoelectron spectroscopy

Advances in studying interfacial reactions in rechargeable batteries by photoelectron spectroscopy

Influences on policy-formulation, decision-making, organisation and management for maternal, newborn and child health in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi and Uganda: the roles and legitimacy of a multi-country network

Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About